Skip to main content
Download PDF

Knowledge Exchange in Intra-Organizational Innovation Communities: The Role of Cognitive and Affective States

Business Research volume 5, pages 43–58 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Many aspects in the area of designing platforms for intra-organizational innovation communities are not well understood. In this article, we examine the impact of technologically induced psychological factors on knowledge exchange in such communities. Using two experimental pretest-posttest experiments, we find that the implementation of (i) technologically induced self-efficacy (expressed by a ‘hurray’ message) and (ii) technologically induced positive affect (expressed by playing some 30 seconds of rock-’n’-roll music) in the design of the platform results in an influential increase of knowledge exchange. Importantly, the studies suggest that the integration of technologically induced self-efficacy leads to a higher extent of knowledge exchange than technologically induced positive affect. The implications of these results for future research and practice as well as for the design of a platform for such communities are discussed.

References

  • Amabile, Teresa M., Sigal G. Barsade, Jennifer S. Mueller, and Barry M. Staw (2005): Affect and Creativity at Work, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3): 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, Ash and Joanne Roberts (2008): Knowing in Action: Beyond Communities of Practice, Research Policy, 37 (2): 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardichvili, Alexander, Vaughn Page, and Tim Wentling (2003): Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual KnowledgeSharing Communities of Practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (1): 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, Linda, Paul Ingram, John M. Levine, and Richard L. Moreland (2000): Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning From the Experience of Others, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avolio, Bruce J., Francis J. Yammarino, and Bernard M. Bass (1991): Identifying Common Methods Variance With Data Collected From a Single Source: An Unresolved Sticky Issue, Journal of Management, 17 (3): 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, Albert (1986): Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, 1st ed., Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansemir, Bastian and Anne-Katrin Neyer (2009): From Idea Management Systems to Interactive Innovation Management Systems: Designing for Interaction and Knowledge Exchange, in: Hans Robert Hansen, Dimitris Karagiannis, and Hans-Georg Fill (eds.): Business Services: Konzepte, Technologien, Anwendungen, Österreichische Computer-Gesellschaft: Wien, 861–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber, Michael, Douglas Engelbart, Richard Furuta, Starr R. Hiltz, John Noll, Jennifer Preece, Edward A. Stohr, Murray Turoff, and Bartel van de Walle (2002): Toward Virtual Community Knowledge Evolution, Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (4): 11–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, Jonathan (2007): Increasing Participation in Online Communities: A Framework for Human-Computer Interaction, Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (4): 1881–1893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breu, Karin and Christopher Hemingway (2002): Collaborative Processes and Knowledge Creation in Communities-of-Practice, Creativity and Innovation Management, 11 (3): 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, John S. and Paul Duguid (1991): Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organization Science, 2 (1): 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, John S. and Paul Duguid (2001): Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective, Organization Science, 12 (2): 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Donald T. and Julian C. Stanley (1963): Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, 1st ed., Rand McNally: Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Larry B. (2007): Experimental Methodology, 10th ed., Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Chao-Min, Meng-Hsiang Hsu, and Eric T. G. Wang (2006): Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities: An Integration of Social Capital and Social Cognitive Theories, Decision Support Systems, 42 (3): 1872–1888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cote, Joseph A. and Ronald M. Buckley (1987): Estimating Trait, Method, and Error Variance: Generalizing Across 70 Construct Validation Studies, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (3): 315–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, Linus, Lars Frederiksen, and Francesco Rullani (2008): Online Communities and Open Innovation: Governance and Symbolic Value Creation, Industry & Innovation, 15 (2): 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, Stewart I. and Elisa J. Grant-Vallone (2002): Understanding Self-Report Bias in Organizational Behavior Research, Journal of Business and Psychology, 17 (2): 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebner, Winfried, Jan M. Leimeister, and Helmut Krcmar (2009): Community Engineering for Innovations: The Ideas Competition as a Method to Nurture a Virtual Community for Innovations, R&D Management, 39 (4): 342–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbank, James F. and Scott D. Williams (2001): Motivating Creativity and Enhancing Innovation Through Employee Suggestion System Technology, Creativity & Innovation Management, 10 (2): 68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, Nikolaus and Sonali Shah (2003): How Communities Support Innovative Activities: An Exploration of Assistance and Sharing Among End-Users, Research Policy, 32 (1): 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, Barbara L. (1998): What Good are Positive Emotions?, Review of General Psychology, 2 (3): 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, Robert M. (1996): Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Jeffrey A. (1981): A Critique of Eysenck’s Theory of Personality, in: Hans Jürgen Eysenck (ed.): A Model for Personality, Springer: Berlin, 246–276.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Jeffrey A. (1990): Brain Systems That Mediate Both Emotion and Cognition, Cognition & Emotion, 4 (3): 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hippel, Eric von (1994): “Sticky Information” and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation, Management Science, 40 (4): 429–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, Meng-Hsiang, Teresa L. Ju, Chia-Hui Yen, and Chun-Ming Chang (2007): Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Communities: The Relationship Between Trust, Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectations, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65 (2): 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussler, Caroline and Patrick Rondé (2007): The Impact of Cognitive Communities on the Diffusion of Academic Knowledge: Evidence From the Networks of Inventors of a French University, Research Policy, 36 (2): 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilies, Remus and Timothy A. Judge (2005): Goal Regulation Across Time: The Effects of Feedback and Affect, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (3): 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, Alice M. (2001): An Influence of Positive Affect on Decision Making in Complex Situations: Theoretical Issues With Practical Implications, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11 (2): 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, Alice M. (2002): Missing in Action in the AIM: Positive Affect’s Facilitation of Cognitive Flexibility, Innovation, and Problem Solving, Psychological Inquiry, 13 (1): 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isen, Alice M., Paula M. Niedenthal, and Nancy Cantor (1992): An Influence of Positive Affect on Social Categorization, Motivation and Emotion, 16 (1): 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, Ralph and Thomas J. Allen (1982): Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: A Look at the Performance, Tenure, and Communication Patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups, R&D Management, 12 (1): 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Michael, Angelika C. Bullinger, and Kathrin M. Möslein (2009): Social Software für Open Innovation, in: Ansgar Zerfaß and Kathrin M. Möslein (eds.): Kommunikation als Erfolgsfaktor im Innovationsmanagement, Gabler: Wiesbaden, 159–175.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, Georg von, Sebastian Spaeth, and Karim R. Lakhani (2003): Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open Source Software Innovation: A Case Study, Research Policy, 32 (7): 1217–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimeister, Jan Marco, Winfried Ebner, and Helmut Krcmar (2005): Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Trust-Supporting Components in Virtual Communities for Patients, Journal of Management Information Systems, 21 (4): 101–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leymann, Heinz (1996): The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5 (2): 165–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Hsiu-Fen (2007): Knowledge Sharing and Firm Innovation Capability: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Manpower, 28 (3/4): 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccurtain, Sarah, Patrick C. Flood, Nagarajan Ramamoorty, Michael West, and Jeremy Dawson (2009): The Top Team, Trust, Reflexivity, Knowledge Sharing and Innovation, Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Leonard L., David W. Ward, John W. Achee, and Robert S. Wyer (1993): Mood as Input: People Have to Interpret the Motivational Implications of Their Moods, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (3): 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neyer, Anne-Katrin, Angelika C. Bullinger, and Kathrin M. Möslein (2009): Integrating Inside and Outside Innovators: A Sociotechnical Systems Perspective, R&D Management, 39 (4): 410–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995): The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, 1st ed., Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, Bart (2000): Learning by Interaction: Absorptive Capacity, Cognitive Distance and Governance, Journal of Management and Governance, 4 (1): 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Østerlund, Carsten and Paul Carlile (2005): Relations in Practice: Sorting Through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing in Complex Organizations, Information Society, 21 (2): 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peacock, Edward J. and Paul T. P. Wong (1990): The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A Multidimensional Approach to Cognitive Appraisal, Stress Medicine, 6 (3): 227–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003): Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5): 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley, Narda R., Paul E. Tesluk, Edwin A. Locke, and Kathryn M. Bartol (2007): A Multilevel Investigation of the Motivational Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing and Performance, Organization Science, 18 (1): 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarris, Viktor (1990): Methodologische Grundlagen der Experimentalpsychologie, 1st ed., UTB: Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney, Mohanbir and Emanuela Prandelli (2000): Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets, California Management Review, 42 (4): 24–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzer, Ralf and Matthias Jerusalem (1995): Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, in: John Weinman, Stephen C. Wright, and Marie Johnston (eds.): Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio, 1st ed., Nfer-Nelson: Windsor, UK, 35–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, Sonali K. (2006): Motivation, Ggovernance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development, Management Science, 52 (7): 1000–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soekijad, Maura, Mirjam A. A. Huis in’t Veld, and Bert Enserink (2004): Learning and Knowledge Processes in Inter-Organizational Communities of Practice, Knowledge & Process Management, 11 (1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, Julian C. and Donald Thomas Campbell (1966): Experimental and quasi-experimental Designs for research, Rand McNally: Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, Jacky, Sue Newell, Harry Scarbrough, and Donald Hislop (1999): Knowledge Management and Innovation: Networks and Networking, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3 (4): 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, Christiaan and Jan van den Ende (2002): Suggestion Systems: Transferring Employee Creativity Into Practicable Ideas, R&D Management, 32 (5): 387–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, David, David Wiese, Jatin Vaidya, and Auke Tellegen (1999): The Two General Activation Systems of Affect: Structural Findings, Evolutionary Considerations, and Psychobiological Evidence, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76 (5): 820–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, Etienne (1998): Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge et al.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, Robert and Albert Bandura (1989): Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management, Academy of Management Review, 14 (3): 361–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zárraga, Celia, and Jaime Bonache (2005): The Impact of Team Atmosphere on Knowledge Outcomes in Self-Managed Teams, Organization Studies, 26 (5): 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zerfaß, Ansgar and Kathrin M. Möslein (eds.) (2009): Kommunikation als Erfolgsfaktor im Innovationsmanagement, 1st ed., Gabler: Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Leading Innovation & Cooperation (CLIC), HHL — Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Germany

    Bastian Bansemir & Kathrin M. Möslein

  2. Fraunhofer Center for Middle and East Europe, Leipzig, Germany

    Anne-Katrin Neyer

  3. Information Systems I — Innovation & Value Creation, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

    Kathrin M. Möslein

Authors
  1. Bastian Bansemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne-Katrin Neyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathrin M. Möslein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bastian Bansemir.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bansemir, B., Neyer, AK. & Möslein, K.M. Knowledge Exchange in Intra-Organizational Innovation Communities: The Role of Cognitive and Affective States. Bus Res 5, 43–58 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342731

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03342731

JEL classification

  • M100
  • M120

Keywords

  • Innovation community
  • knowledge processes
  • cognition and affect