According to the knowledge-based view of the firm, knowledge constitutes the most strategically significant organizational asset which sustains organization’s core competence and may produce long-term competitive edge. Knowledge sources – as they are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, causally ambiguous, path dependent, and firm-specific (Barney, 1991; Boisot, 1998) – enable organizations to create and to appropriate value and for this reason they foster and facilitate knowledge creation processes. A great deal of knowledge within organizations resides in the minds of its employees. For this reason, researchers have outlined the importance of sharing knowledge in order to promote creativity and enhance innovation capability (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Daellenbach & Davenport, 2004). When it comes to sharing knowledge, it is common to refer to a process of transfer or dissemination of knowledge between two or more actors, who may be individuals or groups, within, across, and outside the organization (Coleman, 1990; Elster, 1989; Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen & Reinholt, 2009). For the purpose of this research, we use a better specified view, thus conceiving knowledge sharing in terms of a relational act (Foss et al., 2009), a set of behaviours of mutual exchange (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) through which knowledge held by an individual shall be made available (spontaneously or on demand) (De Vries, Van den Hooff, & De Ridder, 2006) for the interpretation, understanding, and assimilation by other actors. As known, knowledge is first and foremost a resource of the individual actor, which he/she keeps in his/her mind, so deciding when, how much, and how to use it. If it is not possible to take for granted the willingness of an individual actor to share his/her own knowledge (Foss et al., 2009; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), organizations are questioning about what conditions can hinder as well as facilitate the sharing of individual knowledge, especially when it is not the result of a “donation”, i.e., a voluntary behaviour, but it follows an explicit request. As suggested (Ismail & Yusof, 2010; Gibbert & Krause, 2002), knowledge sharing behaviours cannot be forced but only be encouraged, and despite the advance in communication technologies and the development of new organizational forms, people are found to be still reluctant to share knowledge. In this paper, we conceive knowledge sharing as ‘on demand’ behaviours and consider them as occurring when someone asks others for information and knowledge. Given its non-voluntary nature, scholars have sought to identify some factors that can promote behaviours aimed at sharing knowledge. A variety of knowledge sharing enablers have been addressed in mainstream literature. Among the individual determinants, scholars have focused on a number of factors such as personality, organizational commitment, knowledge self-efficacy, career satisfaction, job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci 2000a), perceived loss of knowledge power, enjoyment in helping others (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Bock, Zmud, Kim & Lee, 2005; Riege, 2005; Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006). Others have devoted attention to social factors, namely reciprocity, trust, team collaboration, and social interaction (Lin, 2006) as well as organizational determinants, that is communication and information systems, rewards, organizational structure, job design, human resources management practices, organizational culture, leadership style (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Lin, 2006; Yeh, Lai, & Ho 2006; Aulawi, Sudirman, Suryadi & Govindaraju, 2009). Research has also highlighted the importance of technological factors, especially technology infrastructure, including e-mail, bulletin boards, chat-rooms, whiteboards, audio and video-conferencing, specialized groupware applications, integrated portals, intranets, and extranets (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999; Handzic, 2003; Kim & Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007; Sharma, Singh, & Neha, 2012). Among these, individual enabling factors such as introjected motivation and knowledge self-efficacy and organizational enablers as supportive leadership style and extrinsic rewards are incorporated into our model, although our focus is in particular on the latter ones. Mainstream literature has suggested that leadership style is an important factor affecting knowledge sharing, in particular as far as transformational leadership is concerned. Avolio and Bass (1988) classified transformational leadership within four major attributes which include idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. According to Bass (1985), individualized consideration occurs when a leader has a developmental orientation towards staff, displays individualized attention, develops close and cohesive relationships with employees, shows general support for the efforts of followers. In particular, the behaviours encompassed by individualized consideration identifies a “supportive leadership” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000) that may create an enabling climate for knowledge sharing, thanks to closer and more cohesive relationships developed between managers and employees who have already absorbed a sense of confidence, trust, and openness. Similarly, prior research (i.e., Self Determination Theory) suggests that individuals are more likely to share knowledge when extrinsic rewards for knowledge sharing are provided. Extrinsic rewards are believed to effectively motivate knowledge sharing behaviours by developing a more sustained motivation called “self-determined motivation” (Bartol & Locke, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1991) and by providing employees with desired outcomes that can be obtained through knowledge sharing (Wolfe & Loraas, 2008; Wang & Noe, 2010). Based on a review of Bass’s model, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) proposed five sub-dimensions of transformational leadership, namely vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership and personal recognition. In their study, supportive leadership is linked to concern for followers and takes into account their individual needs; intellectual stimulation enhances employees’ interest in, and awareness of problems, and increases their ability to think about struggles in new ways. Consistent with Ogbonna and Harris (2000), Rafferty and Griffin (2004) frame supportive leadership within the construct of individualized consideration. Informed of a critical approach to the organizational factors enabling knowledge sharing, typical of the Critical Management Studies perspective, this work examines the direct and indirect influence exerted by supportive leadership style and extrinsic rewards on knowledge sharing on demand in a sample of international manufacturing companies. The research sets out the main characteristics of these two variables and it questions mainstream literature in recognizing their positive effects. Our analysis reveals some critical, dysfunctional effects of supportive leadership and extrinsic rewards on knowledge sharing on demand, so producing consequences for companies’ innovation capabilities and their performance. The work seeks to extend the literature on the critical view of knowledge sharing studies in four main ways. First, it enriches knowledge sharing studies by proposing a new concept, the ‘knowledge sharing on demand’, as a component of the knowledge collecting process (see De Vries et al., 2006; Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004; Van den Hooff & Van Weenen, 2004). Second, we offer a critical approach to knowledge sharing, which is still lacking in extant literature. Third, through a critical lens, we particularly examine some implications of organizational variables, namely supportive leadership and extrinsic rewards, on knowledge sharing processes, ignored in previous studies. Fourth, this work suggests that the relationship between individual-level variables and knowledge sharing behaviours needs to be analyzed through a contingency approach, that is by looking at the contextual factors which are in place (i.e., leadership style and reward systems). This work begins by analysing the perspective of critical management studies and defining the theoretical framework within which this research moves. We then outline our research method, followed by a review of the empirical findings and by a concluding discussion. The analysis ends with considering how the results can contribute to the knowledge sharing literature and promote greater awareness among managers of the impact of organizational mechanisms on knowledge-based processes.
Not Everything That Glitters is Gold: The Dark Side of Leadership and Rewards
BONTI, MARIACRISTINA;
2017-01-01
Abstract
According to the knowledge-based view of the firm, knowledge constitutes the most strategically significant organizational asset which sustains organization’s core competence and may produce long-term competitive edge. Knowledge sources – as they are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, causally ambiguous, path dependent, and firm-specific (Barney, 1991; Boisot, 1998) – enable organizations to create and to appropriate value and for this reason they foster and facilitate knowledge creation processes. A great deal of knowledge within organizations resides in the minds of its employees. For this reason, researchers have outlined the importance of sharing knowledge in order to promote creativity and enhance innovation capability (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Daellenbach & Davenport, 2004). When it comes to sharing knowledge, it is common to refer to a process of transfer or dissemination of knowledge between two or more actors, who may be individuals or groups, within, across, and outside the organization (Coleman, 1990; Elster, 1989; Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen & Reinholt, 2009). For the purpose of this research, we use a better specified view, thus conceiving knowledge sharing in terms of a relational act (Foss et al., 2009), a set of behaviours of mutual exchange (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) through which knowledge held by an individual shall be made available (spontaneously or on demand) (De Vries, Van den Hooff, & De Ridder, 2006) for the interpretation, understanding, and assimilation by other actors. As known, knowledge is first and foremost a resource of the individual actor, which he/she keeps in his/her mind, so deciding when, how much, and how to use it. If it is not possible to take for granted the willingness of an individual actor to share his/her own knowledge (Foss et al., 2009; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002), organizations are questioning about what conditions can hinder as well as facilitate the sharing of individual knowledge, especially when it is not the result of a “donation”, i.e., a voluntary behaviour, but it follows an explicit request. As suggested (Ismail & Yusof, 2010; Gibbert & Krause, 2002), knowledge sharing behaviours cannot be forced but only be encouraged, and despite the advance in communication technologies and the development of new organizational forms, people are found to be still reluctant to share knowledge. In this paper, we conceive knowledge sharing as ‘on demand’ behaviours and consider them as occurring when someone asks others for information and knowledge. Given its non-voluntary nature, scholars have sought to identify some factors that can promote behaviours aimed at sharing knowledge. A variety of knowledge sharing enablers have been addressed in mainstream literature. Among the individual determinants, scholars have focused on a number of factors such as personality, organizational commitment, knowledge self-efficacy, career satisfaction, job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci 2000a), perceived loss of knowledge power, enjoyment in helping others (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Bock, Zmud, Kim & Lee, 2005; Riege, 2005; Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006). Others have devoted attention to social factors, namely reciprocity, trust, team collaboration, and social interaction (Lin, 2006) as well as organizational determinants, that is communication and information systems, rewards, organizational structure, job design, human resources management practices, organizational culture, leadership style (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Lin, 2006; Yeh, Lai, & Ho 2006; Aulawi, Sudirman, Suryadi & Govindaraju, 2009). Research has also highlighted the importance of technological factors, especially technology infrastructure, including e-mail, bulletin boards, chat-rooms, whiteboards, audio and video-conferencing, specialized groupware applications, integrated portals, intranets, and extranets (Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999; Handzic, 2003; Kim & Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007; Sharma, Singh, & Neha, 2012). Among these, individual enabling factors such as introjected motivation and knowledge self-efficacy and organizational enablers as supportive leadership style and extrinsic rewards are incorporated into our model, although our focus is in particular on the latter ones. Mainstream literature has suggested that leadership style is an important factor affecting knowledge sharing, in particular as far as transformational leadership is concerned. Avolio and Bass (1988) classified transformational leadership within four major attributes which include idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. According to Bass (1985), individualized consideration occurs when a leader has a developmental orientation towards staff, displays individualized attention, develops close and cohesive relationships with employees, shows general support for the efforts of followers. In particular, the behaviours encompassed by individualized consideration identifies a “supportive leadership” (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000) that may create an enabling climate for knowledge sharing, thanks to closer and more cohesive relationships developed between managers and employees who have already absorbed a sense of confidence, trust, and openness. Similarly, prior research (i.e., Self Determination Theory) suggests that individuals are more likely to share knowledge when extrinsic rewards for knowledge sharing are provided. Extrinsic rewards are believed to effectively motivate knowledge sharing behaviours by developing a more sustained motivation called “self-determined motivation” (Bartol & Locke, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1991) and by providing employees with desired outcomes that can be obtained through knowledge sharing (Wolfe & Loraas, 2008; Wang & Noe, 2010). Based on a review of Bass’s model, Rafferty and Griffin (2004) proposed five sub-dimensions of transformational leadership, namely vision, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, supportive leadership and personal recognition. In their study, supportive leadership is linked to concern for followers and takes into account their individual needs; intellectual stimulation enhances employees’ interest in, and awareness of problems, and increases their ability to think about struggles in new ways. Consistent with Ogbonna and Harris (2000), Rafferty and Griffin (2004) frame supportive leadership within the construct of individualized consideration. Informed of a critical approach to the organizational factors enabling knowledge sharing, typical of the Critical Management Studies perspective, this work examines the direct and indirect influence exerted by supportive leadership style and extrinsic rewards on knowledge sharing on demand in a sample of international manufacturing companies. The research sets out the main characteristics of these two variables and it questions mainstream literature in recognizing their positive effects. Our analysis reveals some critical, dysfunctional effects of supportive leadership and extrinsic rewards on knowledge sharing on demand, so producing consequences for companies’ innovation capabilities and their performance. The work seeks to extend the literature on the critical view of knowledge sharing studies in four main ways. First, it enriches knowledge sharing studies by proposing a new concept, the ‘knowledge sharing on demand’, as a component of the knowledge collecting process (see De Vries et al., 2006; Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004; Van den Hooff & Van Weenen, 2004). Second, we offer a critical approach to knowledge sharing, which is still lacking in extant literature. Third, through a critical lens, we particularly examine some implications of organizational variables, namely supportive leadership and extrinsic rewards, on knowledge sharing processes, ignored in previous studies. Fourth, this work suggests that the relationship between individual-level variables and knowledge sharing behaviours needs to be analyzed through a contingency approach, that is by looking at the contextual factors which are in place (i.e., leadership style and reward systems). This work begins by analysing the perspective of critical management studies and defining the theoretical framework within which this research moves. We then outline our research method, followed by a review of the empirical findings and by a concluding discussion. The analysis ends with considering how the results can contribute to the knowledge sharing literature and promote greater awareness among managers of the impact of organizational mechanisms on knowledge-based processes.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
