Two facets of conscientiousness and the knowledge sharing dilemmas in the workplace: Contrasting moderating functions of supervisor support and coworker support

Abstract

Summary This study adopts self‐ and other‐centered approaches to explain how the two facets of conscientiousness (i.e., dutifulness and achievement striving) distinctly resolve knowledge sharing dilemmas among employees. It also explores how the critical social surroundings of employees (i.e., supervisor support and coworker support) neutralize or activate the effects of dutifulness and achievement striving on knowledge‐sharing behavior. Our analysis of the data collected from 150 employee–supervisor dyads corroborates that the other‐centered facet of conscientiousness (dutifulness) is positively related to knowledge‐sharing behavior, whereas the self‐centered facet (achievement striving) is negatively related to the same behavior. The analysis also affirms that the positive effect of dutifulness and the negative effect of achievement striving on knowledge sharing are strengthened when supervisor support is low and coworker support is high. This study offers theoretical and practical implications relevant to knowledge management in organizations, distinct roles of facet‐specific personalities toward knowledge sharing, and contrasting personality–situation interactions by situation strength and trait activation in shaping employee behavior.

Ethical Leadership and Knowledge Sharing: The Impacts of Prosocial Motivation and Two Facets of Conscientiousness

“…Several studies have found that an individual's personality may influence the implementation of the knowledge sharing process (Lee et al, 2015). We focus on the characteristics of conscientiousness because conscientiousness affects the moral dilemma of knowledge sharing (Chae et al, 2019). Specifically, conscientiousness comprises two separate and primary dimensions of dutifulness and achievement-striving, with each having varying influences on individual behaviors (Moon, 2001;Dudley et al, 2006;Chae et al, 2019).…”

“…To date, an examination of the moderating influence of the two facets of conscientiousness is still lacking, and previous studies have mainly regarded conscientiousness as a monolithic construct. Few studies considered the opposing implications of two distinct personality dimensions of conscientiousness (Chae et al, 2019). Therefore, the current study focuses on investigating the moderating effects of dutifulness and achievement-striving in relation to prosocial motivation and knowledge sharing.…”

“…We focus on the characteristics of conscientiousness because conscientiousness affects the moral dilemma of knowledge sharing ( Chae et al, 2019 ). Specifically, conscientiousness comprises two separate and primary dimensions of dutifulness and achievement-striving, with each having varying influences on individual behaviors ( Moon, 2001 ; Dudley et al, 2006 ; Chae et al, 2019 ). Dutifulness, representing the other-centered dimension, dutiful individuals are tend to engage in the activities that contribute to the other people, organizations, or collective ( Moon et al, 2008 ).…”

An interpersonal perspective of perceived stress: Examining the prosocial coping response patterns of stressed managers

“…At the same time, the extent to which one is the recipient of shared knowledge is related to personal levels of job performance (Wu, Yeh, & Hung, ). The relevance of knowledge sharing as a prosocial coping response is also highlighted by Chae et al (), who examined 150 employer–supervisor dyads and found that dutifulness (an other‐centered construct) was positively associated with knowledge sharing, whereas achievement striving (a self‐centered construct) was not.…”

“…The majority of studies on knowledge sharing have focused on its antecedents. Findings indicate that the primary determinants of an individuals' propensity to share knowledge are commitment, OCBs, perceived trust, and interpersonal support (see Chae, Park, & Choi, ; Han, Seo, Yoon, & Yoon, ; Lee, Kim, & Yun, ; Lee, Yoo, & Yun, ; Lin & Hsiao, ; Nerstad et al, ; Zhao, Liu, Li, & Yu, in press).…”