Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To share or not to share? Self-perception and knowledge-sharing intent

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

The paper explores the intent of knowledge sharing in complex organizational contexts. Findings from semi-structured interviewing with 54 subjects in two large organizations in Saudi Arabia indicate that self-perception and contextual interpretation create tensions that affect the way knowledge is managed and shared. The dichotomy between self-centeredness and self-doubt was found to affect trust and openness necessary for genuine knowledge sharing. Mutual trust, developed through timely self-disclosure, was found to offer psychological safety for employees to share knowledge more openly. Inner tensions become the stimuli for maximizing the social aspect of interaction to negotiate meanings, strategize knowledge sharing, and redefine role identity. The interplay of cognitive and behavioural participation challenges one’s knowing and becoming, increasing the complexity and dynamics of knowledge sharing. Knowledge-sharing intent determines the learning of individuals and learning in organizations. A conceptual framework is introduced and implications for practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argote L (1999) Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schön D (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social practice perspective. Organization Science 12 (2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera A and Cabrera EF (2002) Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies 23 (5), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera E and Cabrera A (2005) Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (5), 720–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera A, Collins WC and Salgado JF (2010) Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (2), 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile P (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13 (4), 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15 (5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg SR, Kornberger M and Rhodes C (2005) Learning/becoming/organizing. Organization 12 (2), 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins CJ and Smith KG (2006) Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal 49 (3), 544–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook SDN and Brown JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 10 (4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook SD and Yanow D (1993) Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry 2 (1), 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cramton C (2001) The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science 12 (3), 346–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie G and Kerrin M (2003) Human resource management and knowledge management: enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of Human Resource Management 15 (6), 1027–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck C and Leggett E (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95 (2), 256–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer J and Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21 (3), 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (2), 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss NJ, Husted K and Michailova S (2010) Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies 47 (3), 455–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherardi S (2001) From organizational learning to practice-based knowing. Human Relations 54 (1), 131–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons FX and Buunk BP (1999) Individual differences in social comparison: development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1), 129–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C (2001) From knowledge accumulation to accommodation: cycles of collective cognition in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (1), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Padron TL, Chabowski BR, Hult GTM and Ketchen Jr. DJ (2010) Knowledge management and balanced scorecard outcomes: exploring the importance of interpretation, learning and internationality. British Journal of Management 21 (4), 967–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith T and Sawyer JE (2010) Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 (1), 1003–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG and Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin N and Lincoln Y, Eds), pp 105–117, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (1999) Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science 13 (3), 232–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holste JS and Fields D (2010) Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management 14 (1), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ipe M (2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review 2 (4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasper H, Lehrer M, Mühlbacher J and Müller B (2010) Thinning knowledge: an interpretive field study of knowledge-sharing practices of firms in three multinational contexts. Journal of Management Inquiry 19 (1), 367–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K (1980) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckartz U (1995) Case-oriented quantification. In Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis: Theory, Methods and Practice (Kelle U, Ed), pp 158–176, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl J (1992) A theory of self-regulation: action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications. Applied Psychology 41 (2), 97–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TW (1999) Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennie I (1999) Beyond Management. Sage, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liao L (2008) Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: a social power and social exchange theory perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19 (10), 1881–1895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin HF (2007) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science 33 (2), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkelä K and Brewster C (2009) Interunit interaction contexts, interpersonal social capital and the differing levels of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management 48 (4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe BD and Murfin T (2012) Leadership, social development and political economy in the Middle East: an introduction. In Leadership Development in the Middle East (Metcalfe BE and Mimouni F, Eds), pp 1–60, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed MS, O’Sullivan KJ and Ribiere V (2008) A paradigm shift in the Arab region knowledge evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management 12 (5), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed S and Dumville BC (2001) Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G and Smircich L (1980) The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review 5 (4), 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nag R, Corley KG and Gioia DA (2007) The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice: attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal 50 (4), 821–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review 23 (2), 2242–2266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Nishiguchi T (2001) Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Teece DJ (2001) Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski WJ (2002) Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science 13 (3), 248–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall KR, Resick CJ and DeChurch LA (2011) Building team adaptive capacity: the roles of sensegiving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (3), 525–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refaiy M and Labib A (2009) The effect of applying tacit knowledge on maintenance performance: an empirical study of the energy sector in the UK and Arab countries. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 7 (1), 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus TH, Ranft AL, Lamont BT and Adams GL (2009) An interpretive systems view of knowledge investments. Academy of Management Review 34 (3), 382–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein EH and Bennis W (1965) Personal and Organizational Change Via Group Methods. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran U (2000) Research Methods for Business. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner BF (1953) Science and Human Behavior. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith PB, Achoui M and Harb C (2007) Unity and diversity in Arab managerial styles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 7 (3), 275–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava A, Bartol KM and Locke EA (2006) Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49 (6), 1239–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf S, Colarelli S and Hartman K (1983) Development of the career exploration survey. Journal of Vocational Psychology 22 (2), 191–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempest S (2009) Learning from the alien: knowledge relationships with temporary workers in network contexts. International Journal of Human Resource Management 20 (4), 912–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thau S, Aquino K and Wittek R (2007) An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: the relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1), 250–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H and Chia R (2002) On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science 13 (5), 567–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzabbar D, Aharonson BS, Amburgey TL and Al-Laham A (2008) When is the whole bigger than the sum of its parts? Bundling knowledge stocks for innovative success. Strategic Organization 6 (4), 375–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos K (2001) Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (6), 931–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM and Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16 (4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson R (2012) Globalization, governance and leadership development in the Middle East. In Leadership Development in the Middle East (Metcalfe BE and Mimouni F, Eds), pp 61–85, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanow D (2004) Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management 15 (1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yauch CA and Steudel HJ (2003) Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods 6 (4), 465–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the editors for their comments that helped improve the final version of the paper. The support given by King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals is also acknowledged as this project (IN090011) was funded through the University’s internal research grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Australia, Australia

    Roland K Yeo

  2. King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

    Roland K Yeo

  3. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, U.S.A.

    Michael J Marquardt

Authors
  1. Roland K Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J Marquardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland K Yeo.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix Interview Protocol

Stage 1:

  1. 1

    Is knowledge sharing important to you and your co-workers in your department or company?Probes: Need to share, informal sharing, formal sharing, ‘cost’ of sharing, impact of sharing

  2. 2

    Under what circumstances is knowledge sharing most effective to you and your co-workers?Probes: Essential information, attention getting, role importance, task relevance, performance expectation

  3. 3

    Do you think you can sustain interest in knowledge sharing in your department or company?Probes: Culture, support, participants, personal interest, emotion

Stage 2 (4 months after):

  1. 1

    What deters you from participating in knowledge sharing with your co-workers?Probes: Lack of incentives, competing priorities, different personalities, no reciprocation

  2. 2

    Are there times when you felt disappointed sharing information with others?Probes: Opportunistic behaviour, wrong usage of information, power play

  3. 3

    How do you control your information or knowledge to be shared?Probes: Environmental cues, familiarity of people, expert knowledge, people’s interest

Stage 3 (10 months after):

  1. 1

    Have you learnt anything valuable from your co-workers through knowledge sharing?Probes: Success stories, pitfalls, work-related issues, philosophies of life

  2. 2

    Has the knowledge-sharing programme been successful up to this point?Probes: A common practice, noticeable change in people, translation of ideas into outcomes, rejection of programme

  3. 3

    Have you noticed any impact of the knowledge-sharing programmes on you and the people around you?Probes: Critical thinking, social relations, problem solving, decision making, collaborative spirit

  4. 4

    What else can your department or company do to promote knowledge sharing?Probes: Publicity, recognition, incentives, support, cultural change, task integration, leadership

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yeo, R., Marquardt, M. To share or not to share? Self-perception and knowledge-sharing intent. Knowl Manage Res Pract 13, 311–328 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.52

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.52

Keywords

Search

Navigation