thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams Figure 2. Simplified relationships between age and knowledge sharing, and age and knowledge seeking at the individual and team level. For knowledge sharing and age, a perfect positive relationship at the individual level and a perfect negative relationship at the team level are depicted. For knowledge seeking and age, a perfect negative relationship at the individual and a perfect positive relationship at the team level are depicted. As this distinction between individual and team level effects is still unusual and a little counterintuitive, especially when effects with different directions are assumed, the proposed effects of age on sharing and seeking are depicted in a simplified manner in Figure 2a and 2b, respectively. Similar representations for separate individual level and team level effects can, for example, be found in Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) or Enders and Tofighi (2007). These different hypotheses for the influence of age on sharing and seeking might seem contradictory, but it should be kept in mind that sharing and seeking within teams are related, but that not every instance of sharing has been preceded by knowledge seeking (and not necessarily every seeking request will lead to knowledge sharing). Thus, it is possible that in an on average older team, more knowledge than in other teams is sought, but less is shared. Motivation. According to Maurer and Tarulli (1994), perceived intrinsic outcomes consist of incentives such as more interesting and stimulating work content, whereas extrinsic outcomes 52
Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams consist of more tangible incentives such as better pay or promotion. Osterloh and Frey (2000) argued that depending on the organizational form and type of knowledge to be transferred, either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation can better enable knowledge transfer. We furthermore argue that, depending on the knowledge transfer behavior under study, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation play different roles. If we consider the knowledge source, the trigger for knowledge sharing is either a colleague who approaches the source with a certain problem or question or an encountered piece of knowledge that the source deems helpful for a colleague. The source, for whom the transfer is costly, now has the choice to share knowledge or to keep it. Studies have shown that intrinsic motivation, e.g., enjoying to help others (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2000), has a good chance of tipping the scale towards sharing. On the other hand, results for extrinsic benefits are – as we have reported earlier – very inconclusive. Therefore, the only effect of motivation on individual-level sharing we predict is the following: HYPOTHESIS 2a: Intrinsic motivation is positively related to knowledge sharing at the individual level. Conversely, for the knowledge seeker, the situational trigger is very different. In most cases, the seeker will act out of a necessity, and the decision to seek knowledge from a colleague will depend more on the probability of successfully acquiring helpful knowledge and on the value of this knowledge with respect to solving a problem, than it will depend on intrinsic benefits. For example, Wasko and Faraj (2000) asked users why they were part of a newsgroup, and 21.5% answered that they participated to generate tangible results. Therefore, we predict: HYPOTHESIS 2b: Extrinsic motivation is positively related to knowledge seeking at the individual level. 53
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 39 and 40: Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 51: Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 89 and 90: Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 103 and 104:
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
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:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Preventing Knowledge Loss When Empl
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
the demographic change. Accordingly
Page 177 and 178:
analysis was dyadic knowledge trans
Page 179 and 180:
questions. The limitations that wil
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?