thesis_Daniela Noethen_print final - Jacobs University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams knowledge sharing significantly differs from its influence on knowledge seeking at the individual (χ 2 = 16.53, p = 0.00) as well as at the team level (χ 2 = 9.15, p = 0.00). Results for Hypotheses 2a to 2c are again shown in Model 2, Table 2, and the results of the respective contrast analyses again in Table 3. These hypotheses posited positive effects of individual intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing, of individual extrinsic motivation on knowledge seeking, and of team mean intrinsic motivation on both knowledge transfer behaviors. Hypothesis 2a is supported by the results, as individual intrinsic motivation was positively related to knowledge sharing (γ = 0.37, p = 0.00). Unexpectedly, there was also a positive effect on knowledge seeking (γ = 0.19, p = 0.04). Furthermore, contrast analysis revealed that the coefficients for the effects of intrinsic motivation on sharing and on seeking did not differ (χ 2 = 2.63, p = 0.10), suggesting that intrinsic motivation influences both behaviors in a similar way. Hypothesis 2b received full support as extrinsic motivation showed a positive relationship with knowledge seeking. Furthermore, contrast analysis demonstrated that the coefficient for the relationship with knowledge seeking differed significantly from the one for the relationship with knowledge sharing (χ 2 = 10.86, p = 0.00). Hypothesis 2c, which predicted a positive effect of team mean intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing and on knowledge seeking, did not receive support from the results. Although there was a positive effect on knowledge seeking (γ = 0.58, p = 0.03), there was only a marginally significant positive relationship with knowledge sharing (γ = 0.41, p = 0.09), and contrast analyses revealed that these were not true contextual effects; for both transfer behaviors, the coefficients for the relationship with individual intrinsic motivation did not differ significantly from the coefficients for the relationship with team mean intrinsic motivation (sharing: χ 2 = 0.03, p > 0.5; seeking: χ 2 = 2.04, p = 0.15). According to Hypothesis 3a, a positive effect of job autonomy on knowledge sharing was expected, which was supported by the results (see Table 2; γ = 0.32, p = 0.00). Finally, 64
Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing and Seeking in Teams Hypothesis 3b, which stated that team mean job autonomy positively influences knowledge seeking, was also supported by the results (γ = 0.48, p = 0.01). Furthermore, the contrast analyses underline the differential influence of job autonomy: as would be expected from the hypotheses, the coefficients for the relationship with sharing significantly differed from the coefficient for the relationship with seeking, and this at the individual level (χ 2 = 14.36, p = 0.00) and at the team level (χ 2 = 9.10, p = 0.00). Similarly, the contrasts testing if coefficients for the relationship between the respective transfer behavior and job autonomy at the individual level differed from the coefficients for the same relationship at the team level yielded significant differences for both sharing (χ 2 = 7.83, p = 0.01) and seeking (χ 2 = 6.41, p = 0.01). Table 3 Chi-Square Tests for Contrasts between Coefficients from Model 2 of the Hierarchical Linear Models Individual vs. Team Level Sharing vs. Seeking χ 2 χ 2 Sharing Individual Level Age 0.01 Age 16.53*** Intrinsic Motivation 0.03 Intrinsic Motivation 2.63 Job Autonomy 7.83** Extrinsic Motivation 10.86** Job Autonomy 14.36*** Seeking Team Level Age 2.09 Age 9.15** Intrinsic Motivation 2.04 Intrinsic Motivation 0.32 Job Autonomy 6.41* Job Autonomy 9.10** † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. 65
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 63: Multilevel Investigation of Anteced
Page 89 and 90: Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
Page 115 and 116:
Intergenerational Knowledge Transfe
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?