Emotional Intelligence and Work Engagement as Mediators of Big Five Personality and Knowledge Sharing

Abstract

<p>The purpose of this paper is to examine the interrelationships among various interpersonal psychological factors to explain their effect on knowledge sharing behaviors at workplace. A sample of 450 employees was drawn from knowledge based industries. To tap the information regarding performance on knowledge sharing, Big Five personality, Emotional intelligence and work engagement, Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB) scale by Yi (2009)<sup>56</sup>, Big Five personality traits scale by Gosling et. al. (2003)<sup>21</sup>, Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S) by Jordan & Lawrence (2009)<sup>26</sup> and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale by Schaufeli et. al. (2003)<sup>46</sup> have been used. Partial Least Square technique of Structural Equation Modeling was applied using SmartPLS 2.0.M3 to understand the proposed relationships. Findings show the prominence of conscientiousness among Big Five personality traits to explain knowledge sharing behaviors at workplace (Total Effect of conscientiousness on knowledge sharing being 0.5246 significant at p<0.01). Emotional intelligence proves to be the most important mediator of the relationship between Big Five traits, except agreeableness, and knowledge sharing. Even though work engagement is found to be a significant predictor of knowledge sharing (Total Effect of work engagement on knowledge sharing being 0.1698, significant at p<0.01), its role as a mediator is minor. Although the paper has certain limitations, nevertheless, this is the first study to consider the relationship between personality, emotional intelligence, work engagement and knowledge sharing in a single study and making us understand the interacting and mediating role of emotional intelligence and work engagement to explain knowledge sharing.</p>

Emotional intelligence and knowledge management: A necessary link?

“…This study in a literature review and empirical research is needed to confirm the effect of EI on KM. Efforts have been made to explain the positive impact EI can have on individual behavior in the corporate setting and knowledge processing (e.g., Ansari and Talan, ; Day and Carroll, ; De Geofroy and Evans, ; Xiao and Cooke, ). Yet, more research on how to measure, enable, and process EI is needed (Webb et al, ).…”

“…Where “knowledge is power” the “becoming aware of” and proper management of knowledge enables innovation and global competitiveness (Mathis and Jackson, 2006; Noe et al, ; Rechberg, ). The effective processing of knowledge then “lowers costs involved in organizations, aids development of new products, enhances group dynamics, and raises competitive abilities of organizations” (Ansari and Talan, : p. 16; see also Cummings, ).…”

“…Yet, KM practices in organizations are challenged, as knowledge is private to the individual holding it (Polanyi, ; Rechberg and Syed, ). Individuals may feel a sense of loss for sharing knowledge, choosing to hide knowledge instead of sharing it, hampering KM success (Ansari and Talan, ; Connelly and Zweig, ; Demirkasimoglu, ; Rechberg, ; Rechberg and Syed, ).…”

“…Miao et al () and Sony and Mekoth (), for example, find that high levels of EI positively affect individuals work behavior, their commitment to the job, and their team‐working behavior, and individuals with high EI are found to perform better at work than individuals who have low EI (see also Ahmad et al, ; Boyatzis et al, ; De Geofroy and Evans, ; Fernández‐Berrocal and Extremera, ; Joseph et al, ; O'Boyle et al, ; Zeidner et al, ). Moreover, Ansari and Talan (), explain that EI is a noteworthy mediator between employees' work engagement and their knowledge‐sharing behavior. Where EI predicts organizational citizenship behavior, which according to Organ () leads to employee cooperation and aiding of coworkers (Day and Carroll, ), EI may be a predictor to individuals' participation in KM practices.…”

“…In this paper, it is argued that high levels of EI may be an essential ingredient for knowledge to be processed in organizations. It is argued that EI facilitates knowledge creation, the most valuable knowledge process (Von Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka, ); improves knowledge sharing (Ansari and Talan, ); and assists in knowledge retention, reducing knowledge hoarding and preventing knowledge loss (De Geofroy and Evans, ; Xiao and Cooke, ). This is a theoretical paper intending to provoke discussion on the importance of EI in KM.…”