thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams a <strong>final</strong> sample of 67 teams and N=571 individuals. The sample is composed of 15% blue and 85% white collar workers with a mean age of 39.87 years (SD=8.21) and a mean experience in their present job of 9.15 years (SD=7.89). Teams were permanent work teams with a mean size of 8.52 members (SD=3.72). Appointments were scheduled with single work teams at the respective companies, and research assistants administered the paper-pencil questionnaires. Participation was voluntary. 2.4.2. Measures As the study was conducted in German, scales stemming from the English-speaking literature were translated into German, then independently back-translated into English and compared to the original version. Where there were inconsistencies, they were resolved by the translators (a procedure recommended by Brislin, 1980). Items for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, job autonomy, knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking, and climate supporting innovativeness can be found in the appendix. Independent variables. Age was collected via birth date. For mean team age, individual age was aggregated to the team level, showing an intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(1) of 0.15, implying that there is enough between-group variance to have a meaningful influence at the team level. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation were each measured with a three-item scale based on Cabrera and colleagues (2005), who derived their scale from Maurer and Tarulli (1994). These different authors used the scale to predict knowledge sharing and other behaviors in the work context, respectively. We chose this scale as it captures the two types of motivations in our focus in a very parsimonious way. Items measured the perceived intrinsic and extrinsic outcome or benefit of knowledge transfer (e.g., “I find it rewarding when others use my ideas and experiences.”). They were rated on a four-point Likert scale from “strongly 56
Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams disagree” to “strongly agree”. In the process of translating and adapting the scales to the context of the present study, one of the items for intrinsic motivation had to be dropped. Cronbach’s alpha for intrinsic motivation from the two remaining items was 0.66 and for extrinsic motivation, based on three items, 0.67. For team mean intrinsic motivation, individual ratings were aggregated to the team level (ICC(1) = 0.08). Job autonomy was measured with four items developed by Thomson and Prottas (2005). This scale was chosen with respect to our sample of employees. The items from this scale describe a reasonable degree of autonomy, for example, “I decide when I take breaks.” Items were rated on a four-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.69. For team mean job autonomy, individual ratings were aggregated to the team level (ICC(1) = 0.22). Dependent variables. In accordance with previous measurements of knowledge transfer as a frequency (Cummings, 2004; Kankanhalli et al., 2005), we measured knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking with two items each, asking participants how often they had recently shared or sought a) factual knowledge and b) experience with / from their colleagues within the team. Ratings were given on a six-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “very often”. Cronbach’s alpha for both knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking was 0.86. ICC(1), as a measure of non-independence (Bliese, 2000), amounted to 0.04 for knowledge sharing and 0.10 for knowledge seeking, showing that the dependent variables were influenced to a certain degree by group membership, were therefore non-independent and needed to be analyzed by means of a multilevel approach. Control variables. To rule out alternative explanations, we included several control variables in our analyses. Effects of independent variables were controlled for a company dummy, blue collar versus white collar work, part-time versus full-time employment, years of job experience in the current position, and a climate supporting innovativeness. The latter was 57
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 55: Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 89 and 90: Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 107 and 108:
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
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?