The Determinants of Knowledge Transfer: The Study of a Refined Model

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 2)

Abstract

Starting form previously research findings this chapter investigates the determinants of knowledge transfer. The intention of the present research is to refine a previous proposed model, in order to utilize it for further empirical research. Personal traits and the concept of trust, along with absorptive capacity, dependency and availability to share, are stressed out in order to enhance the proposed model. The outcome of the chapter is a theoretical model, which will serve as a torch bearer for future empirical research.

Keywords

Knowledge Transfer Sharing Trust Dependency Absorptive capacity Ability Availability 

References

  1. 1.
    Cavallari, M. (2012). Creativity and the mediating role of social capital in the domain of information systems security. In C. Rossignoli (Ed.), Proceedings of XIII Workshop dei Ricercatori e dei Docenti di Organizzazione Aziendale, WOA 2012, Desperatly Seeking Performance in Organizations, Verona (VR) Italy.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciborra, C. (2002). The labyrinths of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge transfer: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2, 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nieminen, H. T. (2005). Successful inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Developing pre-conditions through the management of the relationship context.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gabbay, S. M., & Leenders, R. Th. A. J. (1999). The structure of advantage and disadvantage. In R. Th. A. J. Leenders, & S. M. Gabbay (Eds.), Corporate social capital and liability (pp. 1–14). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Espinosa, J., Slaughter, S., Kraut, R., & Herbsleb, J. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kwaśniewska, J., & Nęcka, E. (2004). Perception of the climate for creativity in the workplace: The role of the level in the organization and gender. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge transfer. Knowledge and Process Management 6(2).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bain, P., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationship between team climate and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hinds, P., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations don’t “know what they know”: Cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In M. Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Beyond knowledge management: sharing expertise (pp. 3–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge transfer. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou, J., Shinm, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1544–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge transfer: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2, 15–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hau, L. N., & Evangelista, F. (2007). Acquiring tacit and explicit marketing knowledge from foreign partners in IJVs. Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1152–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tagliaventi, M. R., & Mattarelli, E. (2006). The role of networks of practice, value sharing, and operational proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Human Relations, 59, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott, E. B. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation and sharing: An empirical study in a software firm. Group & Organization Management, 30(3), 319–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42(1), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cummings, J. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge transfer in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiwana, A., & McLean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13–44.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review Sociology, 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 925–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leana, C., & Van Buren, H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538–555.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31, 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organization and knowledge. Organization Science, 13, 224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hinds, P., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1232–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howells, J. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martin, X., & Salomon, R. (2003). Tacitness, learning and international expansion: A study of foreign direct investment in a knowledge-intensive industry. Organization Science, 14–3, 207–311.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barnes, L. B. (1981). Managing the paradox of organizational trust. Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elsbach, K. D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects the perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic remedies for trust/distrust. Organizational Science, 4, 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 12, pp. 295–336).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bromiley, P., & Cummings, L. L. (1995). Organizations with trust. In R. Bies, R. Lewicki, & Sheppard, B (Eds.), Research in negotiations (pp. 219–247), 5th Edn.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (1995). Trust building processes in organizational relationships. In C. T. Ragsdale & E. C. Houck, R. T. Sumichrast (Eds.), Proceedings Decision Sciences Institute (vol. 2, pp. 751–753).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mishra, A. K. (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler, (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 261–287).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (1994). The role of trust in effective downsizing strategies. Human Resource Management, 33(2), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of National culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 601–620.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Elsbach, K. D., & Elofson, G. (2000). How the packaging of decision explanations affects the perceptions of trustworthiness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mcallister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., et al. (2008). Inter-and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2010). PERSPECTIVE—absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21(4), 931–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Das, T. K., Teng, B. S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: a Conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Daneshgar, F., & Seyyedeh, N. (2010). What drives organizations to share knowledge with their supply chain partners?. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Information Systems ECIS, Pretoria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università CattolicaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations