To Share or Not to Share: Modeling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Its Mediators and Antecedents

Abstract

Tacit knowledge sharing discussed in this study is important in the area of business ethics, because an unwillingness to share knowledge that may hurt an organization’s survival is seen as being seriously unethical. In the proposed model of this study, distributive justice, procedural justice, and cooperativeness influence tacit knowledge sharing indirectly via two mediators: organizational commitment and trust in co-workers. Accordingly, instrumental ties and expressive ties influence tacit knowledge sharing indirectly only via the mediation of trust in co-workers. The model is assessed by using data from different companies’ employees, who attend an evening college in Taiwan for advance study. The test results of this study indicate that tacit knowledge sharing is affected by distributive justice, procedural justice, and cooperativeness indirectly via organizational commitment. Additionally, tacit knowledge sharing is also affected by distributive justice, instrumental ties, and expressive ties via trust in co-workers. The paths from procedural justice and cooperativeness to trust in co-workers are shown to be insignificant. Managerial implications of the empirical findings are also provided. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007Knowledge management, organizational commitment, trust in co-workers, justice, cooperativeness,

Islamic Work Ethics And Tacit Knowledge Sharing: Autonomous Motivation As Mediator

“…It has been argued that knowledge, especially tacit knowledge which is defined in the present study as a sharing of ideas, expertise, experiences, and tips among employees within an organization (Lin, 2007), can unlock human potential to the fullest if employees share their knowledge among themselves (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2002). More importantly, tacit knowledge is a strategic resource that allows employees to create new knowledge (Quinn, 1992) and to improve their performance (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2002).…”

“…However, managing tacit knowledge is not an easy task and many initiatives fail because they neglect human factors such as ethical (Lee, 2011;Lin, 2007) and individual factors in understanding tacit knowledge sharing (TKS) (Ryan & O'Connor, 2013). However, Kim (2001:1043) argue that employee's sharing behaviour is 'not natural', hence it needs to be motivated (Hislop, 2003).…”

“…This is a new finding as previous studies only found a direct relationship between Islamic Work Ethics and general knowledge sharing (e.g., Mursleen at al., 2015;Lin, 2007;Wang, 2004), Islamic Work Ethics and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Hayati & Caniago, 2012;Zaman et al,. 2013); and between autonomous motivation and knowledge sharing (e.g., Gagné, 2009;Wang & Hou, 2015;Yeon et al, 2015).…”

Socializar para Adequar-se: Como Redes Sociais Intraorganizacionais Podem Influenciar a Adequação Indivíduo-Organização

“…666-684, Setembro/Outubro, 2017, www.anpad.org.br/rac Contudo, a intensidade dos relacionamentos influencia ainda o nível de confiança entre os membros da rede social. Utilizando a abordagem de redes sociais, os achados de Lin (2007) mostram que o desenvolvimento da confiança entre os membros da organização cria um ambiente propício ao compartilhamento do conhecimento. Similarmente, Borges (2013) encontrou que relacionamentos fortes nas redes sociais das organizações desempenham um papel fundamental no processo de transferência de conhecimento tácito entre os profissionais de tecnologia da informação.…”

Different relationships for coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in organizations

“…is not always easily grasped and many are multiplex (Burt, 2005;Lazega, 1999). One often found distinction between the content of relationships is whether they are instrumental or expressive (Casciaro et al, 1999;Dabos and Rousseau, 2004;Fombrun, 1982;Ibarra, 1993a,b;Ibarra and Andrews, 1993;Lazega, 2001Lazega, ,1992Lin, 2007Lin, , 2006aSaint-Charles, 2001;Saint-Charles and Mongeau, 2005;Umphress et al, 2003). In organizational settings, instrumental relationships are related primarily to work situations, whereas expressive relationships address, above all else, emotional matters (Ibarra, 1993b).…”