Knowledge Sharing in an Organization From the Perspective of the Individual

Andolšek, Dana Mesner; Andolšek, Stanislav

doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-2-65-76

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This situation has motivated scholars to analyse how the flow of knowledge is regulated (Mesner-Andolšek & Andolšek, 2015) through various concepts and definitions related to knowledge concealment, which is still considered an under-researched topic in the KS field (Holten et al, 2016). While prior research has established well-defined individual definitions and concepts within this subject area, it is still unclear how impediments to the flow of knowledge are related to KS and its underlying processes of KC and KD.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: how are they related?

Garcia

Oliveira

Brohman³

2020

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article consolidates the notions of Knowledge Hiding (KHi) and Knowledge Hoarding (KHo) and their relationship with Knowledge Collection (KC) and Knowledge Donation (KD). Following a systematic literature review involving content analysis, seventeen characteristics were identified. KHi is related to KC because, when someone hides and does not share the knowledge that somebody else requested, its collection will be impeded. KHo is related to KD, because when people hoard some unrequested knowledge, they avoid sharing what somebody else could take advantage of, even though they may be unaware of that fact. Thus, a new framework that articulates the inherent characteristics of KHi, KHo, KC and KD is proposed. From this new perspective, there is an expectation that future research could deepen the understanding of the incentives and obstacles to knowledge flow, and how their interaction will benefit or harm the performance of individuals and organisations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding: how are they related?

Garcia

Oliveira

Brohman³

2020

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They do not feel frightened by sharing complex knowledge that contributes to the progress of others. Thus, they do not perceive the loss of their competitive advantage in the organization, which is in contrast to Andolšek and Andolšek (2015). c) SATS occurs when KS exists and the FLP is absent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Therefore, the people with this type of knowledge are likely to do a cost-benefit analysis before sharing it (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). If the cost-benefit analyses indicates a cost from sharing, the individual will not share the knowledge because it contributes to the progress of other individuals that leads to losing the competitive advantage over others in the organization (Andolšek and Andolšek, 2015). Sharing the individual knowledge in the group is limited by the fear of losing value in the group, in the same way employees lose value in the organizations (Lam and Lambermont-Ford, 2010).…”

Section: Complex and Complementary Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

East vs West: Satisfaction With Knowledge Sharing Among Millennials

Curado,

Oliveira,

Lopes Henriques

et al. 2023

ECKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge sharing (KS) among individuals working together is complex and has an effect on their satisfaction. We adopt the self-determination theory and the theory of reasoned action to examine the relationship between millennials’ characteristics, KS and the resulting satisfaction. Using a mixed-method approach we address the antecedents of satisfaction in KS for 213 millennials attending Master programs in management at Polish and Portuguese business schools. The quantitative results show that knowledge characteristics influence KS as well as the fear of losing power due to KS. Knowledge complementarity and knowledge complexity positively contribute to KS. Knowledge complexity increases the fear of losing power due to KS, while knowledge complementarity decreases it, probably because individuals recognize complex knowledge as a more valuable one. The qualitative findings corroborate the quantitative results. Knowledge complementarity’s presence alone leads to KS, while its absence and knowledge complexity’s existence generate the fear of losing power. KS behavior and not being afraid of losing power due to KS lead to satisfaction from KS. The integration of both outputs is robust since quantitative results and qualitative findings converge: a) KS results from knowledge complementarity: knowledge complementarity relates positively to KS, which is consistent with a high level of knowledge complementarity providing a sufficient condition for a high level of KS; b) The fear of losing power results from the absence of knowledge complementarity and the existence of knowledge complexity, which is consistent with knowledge complementarity relating negatively to the fear of losing power and knowledge complexity relating positively to the fear of losing power; c) Satisfaction occurs when KS exists and the fear of losing power is absent, which is in line with KS relating positively to satisfaction and the fear of losing power due to KS relating negatively to satisfaction. Furthermore, the results show that millennial students’ satisfaction from KS is really a behavioral question and not a cultural one since there is no evidence of significant differences between the two subsamples. Millennials behave uniformly on Europe’s western and eastern ends.

show abstract