AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MOTIVATORS AND EFFECTS OFFORMALIZED KNOWLEDGE SHARING AT THEWORKPLACE: A QUALITATIVE APPROACH

摘要

Current empirical research and organizational efforts have revealed the significance in comprehending and promoting knowledgernmanagement (KM) and the knowledge sharing that ensues from it (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Leidner,rn1998; Prusak, 2000; Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge sharing has been identified as a key enabler of KM and can be viewedrnas the interactive, people-to-people dissemination of knowledge between and among individuals and groups (Davenport, 1998).rnIn fact, information sharing within organizations has been implemented for several years now, especially enabled by the conceptsrnof total quality management and the new organization (Drucker, 1988). In Geus and Senge (1997), Senge succinctly highlightsrnthe notion and importance of sharing knowledge in enabling a rich and fulfilling work life.rnYet, little empirical research has actually been conducted on knowledge sharing, particularly from the viewpoint of the individualsrnwho share knowledge and the environments and mechanisms that are conducive to formalized knowledge sharing. A formalizedrnsetting is one where the knowledge sharing does not occur through serendipity (e.g., water cooler conversations) or throughrnpersonal networks. Rather, an employee seeking information utilizes a formal organizational tool or process such as a communityrnof practice, training session, mentoring, or rotation to enable knowledge sharing.rnThe crux of this study is to understand a crucial human behavior within the work environment – the knowledge sharing behaviorrn(KSB). In trying to understand this behavior, it is important to investigate what motivates it and what its effects are on the personrndisplaying the behavior. One would expect that “sharers” perceive tangible and intangible effects from the KSB’s they display.rnBandura’s (1977) Social Learning Theory (SLT) provides a framework that explains human behavior in terms of therntangible/intangible effects it produces. In the KM context, SLT helps explains KSB’s through the continuous interaction betweenrnthe person, his environment, and the behavior. It posits that response consequences (e.g., enhanced personal knowledgebase,rngratification, bonuses) affect the chance that an individual will display a KSB again in a given situation. Further, these responsernconsequences of the behavior are instrumental in the individual forming expectations of the outcomes of their behavior. Usingrnthis theory, this study investigates the perceived cognitive (I.e., how it affects one’s personal knowledgebase), affective (I.e., howrnit affects one’s feelings), social (I.e., how it affects one’s social work life), and tangible effects (e.g., monetary rewards orrnenhancement of tools) of formalized knowledge sharing on the sharer.rnUsing a multi-case-study approach, data were gathered via 60 in-depth interviews conducted at two fortune 500 companies. Arntypical interview began with a short introduction to the expectations and goals of the study. The respondent was then asked torndescribe a knowledge sharing experience he/she had (as the sharer) that stood out in his/her mind as being positive. Next,rnmotivators of the particular knowledge sharing experience described were elicited. Then, “effects on the sharer” were elicitedrnalong two major themes: perceived cognitive/affective effects of knowledge sharing and perceived social/tangible effects ofrnknowledge sharing. For the affective effects question, a pre-determined list of potential feelings was provided to the respondentrnwith the option of adding feelings that were absent on the list. All of the remaining questions were completely open-ended. Severalrnprobes for depth, clarity and completeness were conducted throughout the interview. The respondent was then asked to describerna knowledge sharing experience that stood out in his/her mind as being negative (if one had occurred). Questions were then askedrnto elicit the motivators and effects of the negative knowledge sharing experience and these were similar to the questions askedrnfor the positive sharing incident. The respondent was given a lot of leeway to describe effects that were not necessarily addressedrnby SLT. The interview culminated by having the respondent describe what he/she perceived to be his/her overall motivators/de-