Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:18:31.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of indicators of willingness in the knowledge transfer process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

YingFei Héliot  and
Michael Riley
YingFei Héliot
Affiliation:
School of Management, Faculty of Management and Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Michael Riley
Affiliation:
School of Management, Faculty of Management and Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The literature on knowledge transfer is confident in its assertion that a ‘stickiness’ pervades knowledge disclosure process. This phenomenon is often attributed to structural communication barriers but an equally valid explanation could stem from the individual feeling a sense of ownership of their knowledge which then engenders a reluctance to be open about their knowledge within a formal knowledge transfer process. We pursue this idea theoretically through notions of possessiveness and psychological ownership; and empirically by exploring the concept of willingness to disclose. Assuming willingness to be unidimensional a methodology is put forward that uses indicators to measures its direction. Using a sample of 1050 UK engineers we illustrate the direction of willingness on a reluctance–willing dimension. We argue that knowledge transfer requires management to examine more closely the stimuli that affect the process.

Keywords

willingnessknowledgepsychological ownershippossessivenessengineersknowledge transfer
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , July 2010 , pp. 399 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aryee, S, Chay, YW and Chew, J (1996). An investigation of the willingness of managerial employment to accept an expatriate assignment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3): 267–283.Google Scholar
Badaracco, JL (1991) Alliances speed knowledge transfer, Planning Review, 03-April: 10-16.Google Scholar
Baumard, P (1999) Tacit knowledge in organisations, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Beggan, JK (1992) On the social nature of nonsocial perceptions: the mere ownership effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2): 229–237.Google Scholar
Bernstein, B (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity, rev. ed., Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Birkinshaw, J, Nobel, R and Ridderstrale, J (2002) Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge predict organisation structure, Organization Science, 13(3): 274–289.Google Scholar
Burke, PJ and Reitzes, DC (1991) An identity theory approach to commitment, Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 239–251.Google Scholar
Carlile, PC. (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries; Boundary objects in new product development, Organisation Science, 13: 442–455.Google Scholar
Cook, SDN, and Brown, JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4): 381–400.Google Scholar
Coopey, J and Burgoyne, J (2000) Politics and organizational learning, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6): 869–885.Google Scholar
Darrah, C N (1996) Learning and work; an exploration in industrial ethnography, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Dayasindhu, N. (2002). Embeddeness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: a case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22, 551–560.Google Scholar
Dirks, KT, Cummings, LL and Pierce, JL (1996) Psychological ownership in organizations: conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A., (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. 9. Greenwich CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Dunn-Rankin, P (1983) Scaling methods, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Felin, T and Hesterley, WS (2007) The knowledge-based view, nested herterogeneity, and the new creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge, Academy of Management Review, 32(1): 195–218.Google Scholar
Formanek, R (1991) Why they collect: collectors reveal their motivations, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6: 275–286.Google Scholar
Fosh, P (1993) Membership participation in workplace unionism: the possibility of union renewal, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31: 577–592.Google Scholar
Furby, L (1991) Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: a personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6: 457–463.Google Scholar
Gallucci, M and Perugini, M (2003) Information seeking and reciprocity: a transformational analysis, European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4): 473–495.Google Scholar
Garavelli, AC, Gorgoglione, M and Scozzi, B (2002) Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies, Technovation, 22: 269–279.Google Scholar
Gao, Y and Riley, M (2009) Knowledge and identity: a review, International Journal of Management Reviews, DOI 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00265.x.Google Scholar
Goh, SC (2002) Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1):23–30.Google Scholar
Guzman, G and Wilson, J (2005) The soft dimension of organizational knowledge transfer, Journal of Management Knowledge, 9(2): 59–74Google Scholar
Halbwach, M (1992) On collective memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huxham, C and Vangen, S (2001) What makes practitioners tick? understanding collaboration practice and practicing collaboration understanding. In Genefke, J and McDonal, F (Eds), Effective collaboration: managing obstacles to success, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Isabella, LA (1990) Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organizational events, Academy of Management Journal, 33(1): 7–41.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, PN (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4): 692–724.Google Scholar
Kelly, C and Kelly, J (1994) Who gets involved in collective action? Social psychological determinants of individual participation in trade unions, Human Relations, 47(1): 63–88.Google Scholar
Landau, JC, Shamir, B and Arthur, MB (1992) Predictors of willingness to relocate for managerial and professional employees, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(7): 667–680.Google Scholar
Lam, A (2000) Tacit knowledge, organisational learning and societal institutions: an integrated framework, Organization Studies, 21(3): 487–513.Google Scholar
May, DR, Gilson, R and Harter, LM (2004) The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1): 11–37.Google Scholar
Mills, PK, Hall, JL, Leidecker, JK and Margulies, N (1983) Flexiform: a model for professional service organizations, Academy of Management Review, 8(1): 118–131.Google Scholar
Magnus, JR, and Morgan, MS (1999) Methodology and tacit knowledge: Two experiments in econometrics, Chichester/New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Molm, LD (1994) Dependence and risk: transforming the structure of social exchange, Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(3): 163–176.Google Scholar
Morris, T and Empson, L (1998) Organisation and expertise: an exploration of knowledge bases and management of accounting and consulting firms, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5): 609–624.Google Scholar
Morgan, SE, Miller, JK and Arasaratnam, LA (2003) Similarities and differences between African Americans' and European Americans' attitudes, knowledge, and willingness to communicate about organ donation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(4): 693–715.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J and Ghoshal, S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organisational advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 242–266.Google Scholar
Newell, S, Robertson, M, Scarbrough, H and Swan, J (2002) Managing knowledge work, New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H (1995) The knowledge-creating company, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nuttin, J (1987) Affective consequences of mere ownership: the name letter effect in twelve European languages, European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(4): 381–402.Google Scholar
O'Dell, C and Grayson, CJ (1998) If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practise, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Osterloh, M and Frey, BS (2000) Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5): 538–550.Google Scholar
Parsons, M (2004) Effective knowledge management for law firm, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perugeni, M and Gallucci, M (2001) Individual differences and social norms: the distinction between reciprocators and pro-socials, European Journal of Personality, 15(1): 19–35.Google Scholar
Pierce, JL, Kostova, T and Dirks, KT (2003) The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research, Review of General Psychology, 7(1): 84–107.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1964) Personal knowledge: toward a post-critical philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prentice, DA (1987) Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 993–1003.Google Scholar
Reber, AS (1993) Implicit learning and tacit knowledge; An essay on cognitive unconsciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, DM (2005) I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves London: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
Rudmin, FW (1993) Property. In Lonner, W and Malpass, R (Eds.), Psychology and culture, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Sammons, P (2005) Buying knowledge: Effective acquisition of extend knowledge, Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
Scribner, S (1986) Thinking in action: some characteristics of practical thought. In Sternberg, R.J and Wagner, RK (Eds), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, T and Premarjan, RK (2007) Antecedents to knowledge transfer: Trust and culture, The South Asian Journal of Management, 14(1): 93–104.Google Scholar
Smith, HA, McKeen, JD and Singh, S (2007) Tacit knowledge transfer; making it happen, Journal of Information Science & Technology, 4(2): 23–44.Google Scholar
Steiner, G (1978) Martin Heidegger, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stilwell, D, Liden, R, Parsons, C and Deconinck, J (1998) Transfer decision making: different decision models depending on the transfer conditions? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(6): 539–557.Google Scholar
Sullivan, JJ and Nonaka, I (1986) The application of organizational learning theory to Japanese and American management, Journal of International Business Studies, 17 (3): 127–147.Google Scholar
Szulanski, G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (special issue): 27–44.Google Scholar
Svensson, R (2000) Success strategies and knowledge transfer in cross-border consulting operations, Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Van de Ven, AH and Johnson, PE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 802–821.Google Scholar
Von Krogh, G, Ichijo, K and Nonaka, I. (2000) Enabling knowledge creation, Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Walsh, J, P, , Henderson, CM and Deighton, J (1988) Negotiated belief structures and decision performance: An empirical investigation, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 42: 194–216.Google Scholar
Wang, P, Tong, TW and Koh, CP (2003) An integrated model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary, Journal of World Business 169 (08): 1–15.Google Scholar
Watson, S and Hewett, K (2006) A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse, Journal of Management Studies, 43(2): 141–173.Google Scholar
Weick, K and Roberts, KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3): 357–381.Google Scholar
Zander, U (1991) Exploiting a technological edge -Voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology. PhD Dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics.Google Scholar
Zhikun, D, Fungfai, N and Qiying, C (2007) Personal constructs affecting interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge between architects in project design teams, Construction Management & Economics, 25(9): 937–950.Google Scholar