Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams

Lin, Tung‐Ching; Huang, Chien-Chih

doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.02.001

Cited by 172 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, prior studies on knowledge withholding and hiding [3,5] have proposed several KWI antecedents, which differ from the antecedents of knowledge sharing [12]. For example, prior knowledge sharing studies have seldom focused on variables such as justice perceptions, social exchange variables, and task variables, even though the literature on effort withholding suggests these variables are highly useful when tracing the origin of knowledge withholding [13,14].…”

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition

Tsay

Lin

Yoon

et al. 2014

Decision Support Systems

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decision of members in a knowledge-intensive team to withhold their knowledge may threaten the performance of the team. To address the problem of knowledge resource risk in project teams, we maintain that it is important to understand why team members choose to withhold their knowledge, conceptualized as knowledge-withholding intention. In line with the literature on effort withholding, the research on multifoci relations between justice perceptions and social exchanges, and social cognitive theory, we proposed that the social exchange relationships that individuals form in the workplace, their perceptions of justice, and their knowledge withholding self-efficacy would influence their knowledgewithholding intentions. Through a survey of 227 information system development team workers, we found that all social exchange relationship variables had a significant impact on knowledge-withholding intentions. However, the justice perception variables only indirectly influenced knowledge-withholding intentions through the mediation of social exchange relationships. In addition, one of the task variables, task interdependence, influenced knowledge withholding intention through the mediation of knowledge withholding self-efficacy. Our results contribute to the knowledge management literature by providing a better understanding of the antecedents of knowledge withholding. We also offer suggestions for future research utilizing the framework of Kidwell and Bennett (1993) to study effort and knowledge withholding.Keywords: Knowledge-withholding intentions, information system development team, organizational justice, social cognitive theory, social exchange theory Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CFI, comparative fit index; DJ, distributive justice; IJ, interactional justice; ISD, information system development; KWI, knowledge-withholding intentions; KWSE, knowledge withholding self-efficacy; LMX, leader-member exchange; MIS, management information systems; PJ, procedural justice; POS, perceived organizational support; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SCT, social cognitive theory; SEM, structural equation modeling; SET, A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3 social exchange theory; SRMR, standardized root mean square residual; TI, task interdependence; TV, task visibility; TMX, team-member exchange.

show abstract

Section: Accepted M Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition

Tsay

Lin

Yoon

et al. 2014

Decision Support Systems

Self Cite

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The way in which the knowledge is converted, disseminated, and applied within the organisation will ultimately enable success. When studying the transfer of knowledge between the project and the organisation, the important factors to consider are the characteristics of the knowledge source, the recipient, the knowledge itself, the characteristics of the context within which the knowledge transfer took place, and the absorptive power of the recipient [10,14,[26][27][28].…”

Section: (Mainly Explicit Knowledge)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge-Sharing Within the Project-Based Organizsation: A Knowledge-Pull Framework

Bell¹,

Waveren²,

Steyn³

2016

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines mechanisms to use lessons learned on individual projects within an organisation. A Delphi study highlighted the organisation's responsibility for incorporating knowledge from projects into a project management methodology. Knowledge from a project should be transferred through a centralised knowledge management function that should evaluate codified knowledge within the context in which it was generated, determine how the knowledge should be used, and maintain the explicit knowledge database and the knowledge flow process. Based on a literature review, structured interviews, archived data, and a Delphi survey, a framework for transferring knowledge to the organisation is proposed. The framework enables the organisation to motivate and guide knowledge transfer within a methodology that indicates where, when, and how knowledge transfer and use should take place. OPSOMMINGMeganismes om lesse wat op projekte geleer is in 'n organisasie te gebruik, is ondersoek. 'n Delphi studie het die verantwoordelikheid van die organisasie t.o.v. die inkorporering van kennis in 'n projekbestuur-metodologie uitgelig. Kennis vanuit 'n projek behoort via 'n sentrale kennisbestuur-funksie oorgedra te word. Hierdie funksie moet gekodifiseerde kennis evalueer in die konteks waarin dit ontwikkel is, bepaal hoe die kennis gebruik behoort te word, en die databasis asook die kennis vloeiproses instand hou. Op grond van die literatuur, gestruktureerde onderhoude, geargiveerde data en 'n Delphi opname, word 'n raamwerk vir die oordrag van kennis na die organisasie voorgestel. Die raamwerk stel die organisasie in staat om die oordrag van kennis te motiveer en te lei in 'n metodologie wat aandui waar, wanneer en hoe kennisoordrag en benutting behoort plaas te vind.

show abstract

“…Earl (2001) invokes a culture of mutual support as critical to KS while others more explicitly emphasise a culture based on trust (e.g., Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010;Panahi, Watson and Partridge, 2013;Leonard, 2007;Lin and Huang, 2010;Bock et al, 2005). In their literature review and case study examining the effects of culture in KM practices in general, Yoo and Torrey (2002) claim that KS is concerned with trust, integrity, and status.…”

Section: Knowledge Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Debates from KM concerning knowledge sharing and trust are discussed in Chapter 1 (e.g., Bock et al, 2005;Leonard, 2007;Lin andHuang, 2010, Yoo andTorrey, 2002). Here, it is argued that what is missing from these accounts is an explanation of how trust mediates knowledge sharing (other than as a help or hindrance).…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The importance of trust in knowledge sharing (e.g., Bontis, 2002;Yoo and Torrey, 2002;Earl, 2001;Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010;Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee, 2005;Leonard, 2007;Lin and Huang, 2010;Panahi, Watson and Partridge, 2013;Rechberg and Syed, 2013) and trust's status as the essence of operational functioning (e.g., Clifton, 2012) This leads to the speculation that knowledge sharing is contingent to trust, and that trust works relationally with the other identified thematic categories of knowledge sharingidentity, risk and context.…”

Section: The Importance Of Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

Crane¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: The role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams

Cited by 172 publications

References 24 publications

Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition

Knowledge withholding intentions in teams: The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social cognition

Knowledge-Sharing Within the Project-Based Organizsation: A Knowledge-Pull Framework

Knowledge and Discourse Matters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About