Why share expertise? A closer look at the quality of motivation to share or withhold knowledge

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of motivation for knowledge sharing (KS) by assessing how four qualitatively different motivation types, as per self-determination theory (SDT), predict KS, its quality and its undesirable counterpart, knowledge withholding. Design/methodology/approach The study was carried out as a survey (n = 200) in an expert organization. The analyses were conducted using structural equation modeling. Findings Autonomous type of extrinsic motivation (identified motivation) was the strongest predictor of KS (in work meetings) and its quality, whereas the other motivation types (intrinsic, introjected and external) had no independent contribution to variance in KS. Knowledge withholding was negatively associated with identified and positively with external KS motivation. Research limitations/implications Single organization limits the generalizability of the results. Future studies should further investigate the role of identified motivation for various KS behaviors. Practical implications The findings suggest that autonomy-supportive management practices known to facilitate self-determined behavior can improve KS. Fostering external motivation by incentivizing KS may be both ineffective and have undesirable consequences. Originality/value Few prior studies investigate KS motivation beyond external and intrinsic motivation or apply SDT to KS using SDT-based scales. This study distinguishes between four different motivation types and is the first to investigate their differential impact on KS and its quality. It is also the first to demonstrate the importance of identified motivation for KS. It further elucidates how the quality of KS motivation is reflected in knowledge withholding, an overall underinvestigated behavior.

Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: a review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context

“…Cabrera and Cabrera ; Haas and Park ; Husted and Michailova ; Stenius et al. ) has been increasing. Subsequently, Connelly, Zweig and Webster () proposed the definition of knowledge hiding in their paper presented at a symposium and then knowledge hiding was separated from knowledge withholding by Webster et al.…”

“…After that, interest in undesirable knowledge behaviours such as knowledge hoarding and knowledge sharing hostility at the workplace (e.g. Cabrera and Cabrera 2002;Haas and Park 2010;Husted and Michailova 2002;Stenius et al 2016) has been increasing. Subsequently, Connelly, Zweig and Webster (2006) proposed the definition of knowledge hiding in their paper presented at a symposium and then knowledge hiding was separated from knowledge withholding by Webster et al (2008).…”

What Motivates Experts to Share? A Prospective Test of the Model of Knowledge‐Sharing Motivation

“…The theory, however, moves beyond the traditional divide between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and specifies a more important distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation (Ryan & Deci, ). The distinction is important as almost all studies of knowledge‐sharing motivation to date operate with the traditional approach characterizing motivation as either intrinsic or extrinsic (Stenius, Hankonen, Ravaja, & Haukkala, ). SDT presents motivation as a continuum ranging from amotivation, which means no motivation at all, to intrinsic motivation, meaning that a behavior is performed for its own sake, out of enjoyment or interest.…”

Are we in this together? Knowledge hiding in teams, collective prosocial motivation and leader-member exchange

“…The second potential contribution of this research is to extend our knowledge of the antecedents of knowledge hiding (cf., Peng, 2013;Serenko & Bontis, 2016;Stenius et al, 2016). This paper draws on social exchange theory as a framework to understand how teamlevel prosocial motivation and LMX predict knowledge hiding among team members.…”