thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecipient in separation, but also the interplay of the two agents’ characteristics to explain knowledge transfer. 5.1.3. Influences at multiple levels One of the core techniques applied in the present dissertation is multilevel analysis, enabling the simultaneous consideration of independent variables at different organizational levels. The results of the different papers emphasize that such an approach is important; they clearly showed that knowledge transfer was significantly influenced not only by dyadic or individual level variables, but also by team or context factors. For example, in all three papers, team level predictors like job autonomy (paper one), age diversity (paper two), and intragroup trust (paper three) had a significant effect on knowledge transfer. In paper two, it was even predictors at three rather than just two levels that have been shown to exert an influence. These results markedly strengthen the arguments presented in paper one: individual knowledge transfer occurs in a multifaceted context by which it is influenced in many ways, and, accordingly, this context has to be taken into account when knowledge transfer is investigated. In a similar vein, Foss, Husted, and Michailova (2010) put forth that for reliable explanations of organizational level knowledge transfer, micro, i.e., individual level, constructs have to be taken into account. Taken together, this is a strong call for multilevel analysis in any type of future knowledge transfer research – no matter if the unit of analysis is at the dyadic, the individual, or a higher level. 5.2. Limitations Just as the single papers have certain limitations, so does the dissertation as a whole. Some of these limitations have already been mentioned in the respective chapters, others arise upon the inspection of the interplay of the three articles and with respect to the overall research 178
questions. The limitations that will be presented in the following will then be built upon to judge if the objectives of the dissertation have been reached (5.3.) and to evaluate the contributions to the research field (5.5.). 5.2.1. Study design First, one of the overarching limitations of this dissertation concerns the study design: the two datasets that form the basis of the present work were both collected via questionnaires (the first one paper-pencil, the second one online) and with a cross-sectional design. Thus, the common limitations of survey studies apply here as well: although conclusions can be drawn concerning relationships between knowledge transfer and other variables, the direction of effects can only be hypothesized about. Furthermore, with the exception of paper two, where the dependent variable was an average across ratings from two different sources, the results might also be subject to single-source bias. Of course, precautions recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) were taken, for example the utmost protection of respondents’ anonymity, clarification of key concepts, and the use of different scale endpoints and formats for predictor and outcome measures. Still, the possibility of such biases cannot be completely dispelled. 5.2.2. Operationalization of knowledge transfer Second, another limitation that applies to the entire dissertation concerns the operationalization of the key variable, that is, knowledge transfer and the respective knowledge transfer behaviors. The operationalization of these behaviors was realized via subjective ratings of frequency of knowledge transfer. As I will now discuss, capturing knowledge transfer is challenging irrespective of the study design, but it is even more so in survey studies compared to lab or certain field studies. 179
Page 1 and 2:
Knowledge Transfer in Teams and Its
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Contents Acknowle
Page 5 and 6:
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements T
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgements Last but not least
Page 9 and 10:
General Introduction and of older w
Page 11 and 12:
General Introduction in the smooth
Page 13 and 14:
Outline Outline The core of the pre
Page 15 and 16:
Outline on knowledge sharing, as we
Page 17 and 18:
Knowledge, Knowledge Management, an
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128: Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 133 and 134: Preventing Knowledge Loss When Empl
Page 175 and 176: the demographic change. Accordingly
Page 177: analysis was dyadic knowledge trans
Page 181 and 182: would be very different than for a
Page 183 and 184: “there are situations where knowl
Page 185 and 186: employing the distinctions recommen
Page 187 and 188: valuable addition to the existing l
Page 189 and 190: covers a very specific area of know
Page 191 and 192: the importance of including lower l
Page 193 and 194: Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailo
Page 195: Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A
show all

thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?