Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective

Abstract

Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their peers for their expertise? To answer this question, this paper develops a theoretical model predicting dyadic expertise use in teams based on the opportunity-ability-motivation framework of behavior in organizations. We argue that 3 complementary conditions influence dyadic expertise use in teams: A focal team member is more likely to use a peer's expertise in a specific domain when the peer is perceived to have valuable expertise (opportunity), when the member is psychologically empowered (motivation), and when the member shares a strong tie with the peer (ability). We tested our framework using a 2-wave dataset consisting of 1,898 observations of dyadic domain-specific peer expertise use based on 71 members rating 166 peers nested within 22 teams. Findings suggest that tie strength and psychological empowerment jointly moderate the relationship between perceived peer expertise level and peer expertise use.

A cross-level examination of team-directed empowering leadership and subordinates' innovative performance: an AMO theory perspective

“…Motivation refers to the willingness to perform a task. And opportunity refers to conditions that enable or constrain task performance (Hong and Gajendran, 2018).…”

The Vital Few: Exploring the Role of Expertise in the Process of Team Creativity

“…The results indicate that there are significant differences in team creativity between VF, RV, and CS: The role of expertise leads to better creative results, which is consistent with recent findings in creativity research. For example, salient expertise identity works to promote both idea generation and idea diffusion in a group and inspire creativity (Simon, Allix‐Desfautaux, Khelil, & Le Nadant, 2018), and inputs from peers with task‐related expertise contribute to the refinement of individuals’ creative ideas (Hong & Gajendran, 2018). The implicit hierarchy rooted in the differences in task‐related expertise brings both initial task representation and more promising directions for team creativity and systematically integrates individual knowledge to the team level.…”

“…Practitioners should be committed to facilitating open knowledge exchange, high level of psychological empowerment, positive group affective tone, and interpersonal trust (Harris et al, 2014; Rapp et al, 2016; Shin, Kim, & Lee, 2019; Tan, Lau, Kung, & Kailsan, 2019). Only in this way can individuals with relevant expertise emerge freely in a specific task period and lead the team process with recognition from team members (Grand et al, 2016; Hong & Gajendran, 2018), and it is then very likely that the team could deliver better creative outputs. The positive effects of expertise could be reinforced and the negative ones eliminated.…”

“…First, this study analyzes the role of expertise in the process of team creativity but leaves the boundary conditions undiscussed. It is clear that teams with a similar composition do not always deliver similar creative outcomes (Bock, 2015), the availability of expertise does not guarantee its use (Hong & Gajendran, 2018; Mell, Van Knippenberg, & Van Ginkel, 2014), and the role of expertise might expand too much to dominate the creative process and inhibit creative contributions of other members (Sherf et al, 2018). According to the differences between VF and VF‐C in the simulation, without totally new knowledge created, expertise could stop team creativity at a sub‐optimal level.…”

Teams as boundaries: How intra‐team and inter‐team brokerage influence network changes in knowledge‐seeking networks

“…However, KS ties are more informal than those relationships that are mandated by the organization because one can go beyond the organizational chart to seek out information. Second, KS ties are important in contemporary organizations characterized by team-based, knowledge-intensive, dynamic task environments in which the ability to continually acquire new task-and context-related knowledge from multiple sources is critical for success (Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007;Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005;Hong & Gajendran, 2018). Successful KS in such an environment would arguably require the focal person to establish links with those who possess the required knowledge and to continually evaluate the utility of these connections and adapt them as knowledge requirements change (Ahuja, Soda, & Zaheer, 2012;Gray & Meister, 2004).…”