Epistemic motivation, task reflexivity, and knowledge contribution behavior on team wikis: A cross‐level moderation model

Abstract

A cross-level model based on the information processing perspective and trait activation theory was developed and tested in order to investigate the effects of individual-level epistemic motivation and team-level task reflexivity on three different individual contribution behaviors (i.e., adding, deleting, and revising) in the process of knowledge creation on team wikis. Using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling software package and the 2-wave data from 166 individuals in 51 wiki-based teams, we found cross-level interaction effects between individual epistemic motivation and team task reflexivity on different knowledge contribution behaviors on wikis. Epistemic motivation exerted a positive effect on adding, which was strengthened by team task reflexivity. The effect of epistemic motivation on deleting was positive only when task reflexivity was high. In addition, epistemic motivation was strongly positively related to revising, regardless of the level of task reflexivity involved.

What Influences Physicians’ Online Knowledge Sharing? A Stimulus–Response Perspective

“…To save time, physicians can summarize the common questions they encounter and publish the answers on the online health platform. They can then use this knowledge to improve their professional knowledge capability, which increases the possibility of publishing relevant articles on the online health platform ( Zhang et al, 2019a ; Meng et al, 2021 ). In addition, a higher number of patient consultations show that physicians are interacting with patients on the platform more; that is, physicians are more involved in the platform.…”

Understanding co-editing mechanism of wiki-based digital humanities projects

“…Co-editing of online encyclopedia has been extensively explored. Earlier research focuses on the individual collaborative behavior, such as the taxonomy for categorizing contributors' actions (Pfeil et al, 2006), motivations of participating in co-editing (Arazy and Gellatly, 2013), the effects of personal traits (Zhang et al, 2018), etc. Some research has explored co-editing from a technical perspective, including the implementation of the co-editing system (Li et al, 2004), and the interaction interface (He and Han, 2006).…”

“…technology and management) about co-editing, such as the function and interaction interface of wiki system (Li et al, 2004;He and Han, 2006), the organization of contributors (Miller, 2005;Nov, 2007), editing coordination (Kittur and Kraut, 2008), conflict management and so on. A few studies focus on co-editing activities, such as encyclopedia contributors' behaviors and co-editing patterns (Kittur and Kraut, 2008;Kimmerle et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2018). However, the scholarly literature has offered little guidance on exploring co-editing mechanism from the perspective of content creation.…”

How technological knowledge management capability compliments knowledge‐intensive human resource management practices to enhance team outcomes: A moderated mediation analysis

“…HRM scholars, on the other hand, focus on HRM practices that intend to develop KM skills and behaviors of teams to promote the acquisition, exploration, and exploitation of knowledge (Chuang et al, 2016; Shahzad et al, 2022). Although both streams highlight important determinants and mechanisms of team performance, how KM technologies and HRM practices can be integrated to promote knowledge development within teams or, according to IS scholars, how such teams systematically deploy KM technologies to develop and update unique knowledge, to effectively perform in a dynamic knowledge‐intensive environment (e.g., see Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2015; Wang et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2019) is still undertheorized in a KIT context. It is an important gap this study intends to address.…”

“…Our study's motivation to consider knowledge sharing and reflexivity is based on the conceptual and empirical evidence that KIT perform in a complex and dynamic knowledge‐intensive environment where the key to success is to expand and continuously upgrade the team's knowledge resources and capabilities (Massey et al, 2002; Monks et al, 2016; Schippers et al, 2013). Knowledge sharing and reflexivity are critical processes that facilitate the team's adaptability processes by promoting information exchange and collective learning (Cao et al, 2021; Schippers et al, 2015; Zhang & Guo, 2019; Zhang et al, 2019), leading to superior team performance (Wang et al, 2021). Although Shahzad et al (2022) have identified knowledge exploration and exploitation as critical mechanism of HRM practices to influence team performance, their conceptualization offers a relatively static view of teams' external knowledge acquisition and utilization and thus does not explain as how teams internally adapt and adjust during the performance process to match continuously changing environment.…”