Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ORGANIZATIOANL PERFORMANCE:
KNOWLEDGE SHARING AS A MEDIATOR
1
Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang TechnologyUniversity, Taichung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
2
Professor, Department of Marketing and Distribution Management,
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
3
Lecturer, Department of International Trade, Cheng-Shiu University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Correspondence:
Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang TechnologyUniversity, Taichung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
Tel: 886 7 4 2623 3427
E-mail: wliu01@ms15.hinet.net
HOW CAN “GOOD SOLDIERS” ENHANCE
ORGANIZATIOANL PERFORMANCE:
KNOWLEDGE SHARING AS A MEDIATOR
ABSTRACT
Knowledge Sharing
From knowledge-based view, a firm is regarded as a knowledge base (Kogut &
Zander, 1992, 1996; Grant, 1996b). Since knowledge is dispersed and embedded in
individuals, equipment or routines, it would be difficult to govern knowledge related
activities if knowledge can not be thoroughly shared within the organization.
Therefore, the antecedent role of knowledge sharing in the process of knowledge
creation has always been a critical issue in knowledge management (Nonaka, 1994;
Nonaka, Toyama & Konno, 2000).
Yet, the definition of knowledge sharing has not yet reached consensus. Scholars
interpret the concept of knowledge sharing from different perspectives: knowledge
interaction perspective (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), learning perspective
(Senge,1998), knowledge market perspective (Davenport and Prusak,1998),
communication perspective(Hendriks, 1999), political power perspective (Frehcn and
Raven, 1959; Emerson, 1962). No matter what perspective lens has been taken to
explore the nature of knowledge sharing, a basic concept to be clarified is that
knowledge sharing and information sharing tell different stories. Generally speaking,
information is often open and accessible, while knowledge sharing mostly depends on
the agreement of the other party (Senge, 1998) That is, in addition to the fact that the
knowledge provider is willing to disseminate his knowledge, he is also ready to help
the receiver understand and learn the content of this knowledge. The advanced level
of knowledge sharing would be the knowledge receiver transformed the received
knowledge into his own with distinctive characteristics. In the light of this viewpoint,
knowledge sharing includes two aspects: willingness and ability of knowledge sharing
(Hansen, 1999). Kostova (1999) discussed the process of knowledge transformation
from psychological and cognitive aspects, proposing that successful knowledge
transfer is absolutely dependent on both parties’ ability as well as their willingness.
Dixon (2000) and Senge (1998) argued that the interaction of knowledge sharing is to
achieve others’ “knowledge knowing”. Thus, without the relevant ability for
executing knowledge sharing, such as communication, information delivering and
interpretation, the effect of knowledge sharing would be discounted even organization
members are willing to share their knowledge. To be specific, the dedicated
willingness and ability to share are two key components for knowledge sharing. But
in terms of the nature of our research question and the perspective we took to examine
the impact of OCB on knowledge sharing, we would focus on the dimension of the
willingness of knowledge sharing. Thus, the focus of the willingness of knowledge
sharing in this study is that whether the knowledge provider is willing to assist others
in learning and share his personal knowledge. As for other issues such as knowledge
characteristics, content and the knowledge receiver’s absorptive ability are beyond the
scope of our research. Based on Nonaka and Takevchis’s (1995) contention that the
willingness of knowledge sharing as the individual member actively involve in
sharing knowledge, this paper interprets knowledge sharing as “organization members
spontaneously share their knowledge and are indifferent to external motivation
with-out the organization.”
Davenport and Prusak (1998) compared “knowledge sharing” to a process of
members’ searching and exchanging knowledge in an internal organizational
knowledge market. Using the concept of “exchange” to examine the willingness of
knowledge sharing helps recognize two parties involving in knowledge sharing: a
“knowledge holder” and a “knowledge receiver” as a seller and a buyer respectively
in the knowledge market while “knowledge” is the target of exchange. As such,
whether individual members in the organization are willing to transact or exchange
their knowledge resources depends on mutual benefit, reciprocity, reputation and
altruism (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Bouty, 2000). In this study, we focus on
regarding the context of an organization as a social community rather than an
internal-market described by Davenport & Prusak (1998 ). We suppose that under the
identity-shared or common-value context, through formal and informal
communication channels, organization members will exchange resource or help with
each other spontaneously. Related research proposes that the richness of personal
interaction, especially informal communication channels have higher impact on
knowledge sharing than formal communication channels (Davenport & Prusak, 1998;
Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). The interaction channels enable organization members to
shape the shared identity and through the mechanism of “common language” (Grant,
1996) to promote the quantity and quality of knowledge sharing (Davenport &
Prusak,1998; Madhavan & Griver,1998; Hansen ,1999; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). And,
Trust stands for a multi-dimensional concept. The meaning of trust includes: (a) a
status of cognition, not easy for objective evaluation; (b) a belief of expectation, the
trusters do not expect disadvantageous action from the trustees; (c) a behavior of
mutual interaction (d) a behavior of trust is advantageous to inter-personal or
inter-divisional positive interaction (Dodgson, 1993; Davenport, Davis & Grimes,
1999).
Nonaka et al. (2000) pointed that the premise of members’ sharing tacit knowledge
is that there should be intensive love, caring, trust and commitment between members.
Under this ambience, organization members would be induced to share their tacit
knowledge. Therefore, trust is a key factor to provoke knowledge sharing. Blau (1964)
suggested that a trust-based behavior resulting from reciprocal consideration in the
long run rather than concern of short-term interest. Consequently, individual members
would share their knowledge because of mutual trust in the hope of future
remuneration. Jones & George (1998) indicated that once non-conditional trust occurs
among people, they will share their knowledge and information of their own accord.
Thus, trust has a predicting effect on the knowledge sharing behavior. A study of
collaborative R&D project teams (Davenport et al., 1999) found that mutual trust
among team members is essential for promoting the performance of R&D cooperation.
Whereas the trust between the two knowledge sharers not only means the trust on the
knowledge demander’s behavior, the component of the trust also includes the trust on
the exchanged target.
In terms of the nature of our research question, trust is the centrality of knowledge
exchange and sharing. Davenport & Prusak (1998) postulated that trust is not only the
necessary condition for knowledge exchange, it could be also the outcome of
knowledge exchange and sharing. If the organizational members could interact and
build up trust, the two parties of knowledge exchange would be able to recognize both
quality and quantity of the target knowledge and be able to identify if the exchange is
satisfactory or not. We think that this will encourage knowledge flow within
organizations. Therefore, we argue that mutual trust among organization members
could facilitate the knowledge flow thoroughly and transparently within the
organization (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Davenport, et al., 1999). In a nutshell, trust
among organization members help eliminate the barrier for knowledge sharing,
improve the quality and quantity of knowledge exchange and further strengthen
organizational knowledge creation.
Based on the above contention, we suppose that if there is high degree of trust
between organization members, they are more willing to exchange information and
ideas. In the long run, the effect of knowledge sharing would be promoted.
Accordingly,
Proposition 3: When the organization members are more willing to share their
knowledge, the more efficient the new product development will be.
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
Adler, P. S. & Kwon Seok-Woo 2002. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept.
Academy of Management Review, 27: 17-40.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier:The
Relationshipbetween Affect and Employee Citizenship. Academy of
Management Journal, 26: 587-595.
Blau, P. M.1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Brooks, L.1999. Organizational Behavior, London:Pitman Publishing.
Bouty, 2000. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges
between R&D researchers organizational boundaries. Academy of
Management Journal, 43: 50-65.
Bolino, M. D. 1999. Citizenship and impression management:Good soldiers or good
actors. Academy of management Review, 24: 82-98.
Conner, K. M. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996), “A resource-based theory of the firm:
knowledge versus opportunism” ,Organization Science, 7(5) , pp.477-501.
Davenport, S., Davies, J. & Grimes, C. 1999, Collaborative research programmes :
Building trust from difference. Technovation, 19: 31-40.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How organizations
manage what they know. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Dixon, N. D. 2000. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they
know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures.
Organization Studies, 14: 375-394.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. 2000. Creating and managing A High-performance
Knowledge-sharing Network: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management
Journal, 21: 345-367.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and
Sources of Inter-organizational Competitive Advantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23: 660-679.
Emerson, R.A. 1962. Power-dependence Relations. American Sociological Review,
27: 31-41.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior
in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 241-253.
French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. 1959. The Base of Social Power. In D CartWright(ed.),
Studies in Social Power, An Arbor, MI.: University of Michigan Press.
George, J. M., & Battenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales
performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An Essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249-270.
Grant, R. M. 1996a. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments:
organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7:
375-387.
Grant, R. M. 1996b. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17: 109-122.
Gulati, R. 1995. Does Familiarity Breed Trust:The Implications of Repeated Ties for
Contractual Choice in Alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38:
85-112.
Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliances and Networks”, Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp.
293-317.
Kogut,B. & Zander,U (1992), “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and
the replication of technology” ,Organization Science, 3(3) , pp.383-397.
Kogut,B. & Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? Coordination, identity and learning” ,
Organization Science, 7(5) , pp. 502-518.
Konvsky, M. A. & Organ, D. W. 1996. Dispositional and Contextual Determinants of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 17:
253-266.
Kostova Tatlana 1999. Transnational Transfer of Strategic Organizational Practices: A
Contextual Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24: 308-324.
Krilowicz, T. J, & Lowery, C. M. 1996. The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on the performance appraisal process: A cross-cultural study.
International Journal of Management, 13(1):94-101.
Lesser, E. L. 2000. Leveraging Social Capital in Organizations, In Lesser E. L. (ed.),
Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications,3-16.
Liu C.W., Chen C.S., & Lin S. L. 2004. Besides American Values, What Else Do We
Know about Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Non-U.S. Context?. 9th
APDSI Conference, Seoul, Korea
Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. 1998. From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied
Knowledge: New Product Development as Knowledge Management. Journal
of Marketing, 62: 1-12.
Moorman, Robert H. 1991. Relationship between Organizational Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:
845-855.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital ,intellectual capital ,and the
rganizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno N. 2000. SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model
of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33: 5-34.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi , H. (1995) ,The knowledge-creating company, Oxford : Oxford
University Press.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Solider
Syndrome, Lexingtion, MA: Lexingtion Books.
Organ, D. W. 1990. The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. in
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings(eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior,
Greenwich, CT:JAI Press, 12, pp.43-72.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 48: 775-802.
Organ, D.W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behaviors it’s construct clean up time.
Human Performance, 10: 85-97.
Osterloh, M., and Frey, B. S. 2000. Motivation, knowledge trans for and
organizational forms. Organization Science, 11: 538-550.
Podsakoff P.M., & MacKenzie, S. B.1994. Organizational Citizenship behavior and
sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Researc, 3(1):351-363.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 18: 262-270.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, B. P., & Bachrach, D.G. 2000.
Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26: 513-563.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 15: 1-43.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Psychological Contracts and OCB:The
effect of Unfulfilled Obligations on Civil virtue Behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16: 289-298.
Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8: 121-139.
Schein, E. H. 1980. Organizational Psychology, 3rd ed., Pretence-Hall.
Senge, P. (1998). Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 15(6), 11-12.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J, P. 1983. Organizational Citizenship
Behavior:Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology. 68:
653-663.
Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27-43.
Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social Capital and Value Creation: the Role of
Intrarfirm Networks ”, Academy of Management Journal, 41, pp. 464-476.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational citizenship
behavior:construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 37: 765-802.
Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Tontti, V. 2002. Social Capital, Knowledge, and the
nternational Growth of Technology-based New Firms. International Business
Review, 11: 279-304.
Zander U., & Kogut B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation
of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science, 6:
76-92.