A study of indicators of willingness in the knowledge transfer process
YingFei Héliot
School of Management, Faculty of Management and Law
University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
Michael Riley
School of Management, Faculty of Management and Law
University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom
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
willingness, knowledge, psychological ownership, possessiveness, engineers, knowledge transfer
Article Text
This paper describes an exploratory study of the willingness of individuals to disclose and exchange knowledge in the knowledge transfer process. There has been a tendency within the literature to take a number of individual level factors for granted (for example, willingness) by appearing to assume that knowledge transfer is automatic once procedures are in place and structural and communication impediments have been overcome. We argue that this is not the case because once the individual is placed at the centre of the knowledge transfer process the assumption becomes unrealistic.
We acknowledge that willingness is a malleable entity that can be influenced and therefore accept that social and political aspects of any exchange situation may influence the willingness of individual. However, we make a case for an intrinsic form of influence and suggest that irrespective of social pressure, the individual will express a natural reticence or reluctance to simply disclose or exchange their knowledge even in accommodating collaborative frameworks (Huxham & Vangen 2001). This rationale is supported by the 'stickiness' observed in the knowledge management literature in which knowledge is reluctant to flow between workers (Szulanski 1996). Whilst such stickiness is often attributed to structural communication difficulties, one equally plausible explanation could be that it emanates from a personal reluctance to divulge, stemming from a sense of psychologically ownership of knowledge (Dirks, Cummings & Pierce 1996). This is the theoretical stance taken in this paper.
Our emphasis, following the line of Lam (2000), acknowledges different types of knowledge and the fact that they can be held individually and collectively. However, notwithstanding the type of knowledge and allowing for the degree of awareness of that knowledge, we argue that disclosing or exchanging such knowledge is not an automatic process. We draw a distinction between willingness to collaborate and actually being prepared to divulge knowledge on the grounds that even in collaborative frameworks the individual's propensity still matters.
Szulanski's (1996) notion of 'internal stickiness' is a useful starting point because of his concern for barriers to knowledge transfer. We note that he emphasises ambiguity and comprehension as communication uncertainties but also that he attributes little influence to personal motivation.
We concur with Szulanski in that the process of knowledge transfer is not automatic, but, we go further to argue that psychological ownership of knowledge has an intervening role in the individual's willingness to disclose knowledge; this is the basic premise which drives the theoretical and conceptual arguments in this paper. We examine psychological ownership from an individualistic perspective through the literature that explores feelings of possessiveness, the sense of 'mine', and make a connection between the feelings of possessiveness and willingness to disclose knowledge. The arguments fully recognise the legal and organisational rights within knowledge transfer processes but emphasis that there is a human element within those processes.
The theoretical analysis which follows begins by examining the nature of willingness then draws in the notion of possessiveness and makes a case that knowledge can be possessed. At this juncture the arguments are introduced to the context of knowledge transfer process. A central issue here is the difference between collaborative tendencies (willingness to participate) and willingness to disclose and transfer knowledge. The empirical study described is an attempt to find a way of measuring individuals' willingness. It is based on a sample of UK engineers on the grounds that they represent a diverse skill set within a common nomenclature that have high levels of human capital and are regularly involved in knowledge transfer processes.
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.
Badaracco JL (1991) Alliances speed knowledge transfer, Planning Review, March-April: 10-16.
Baumard P (1999) Tacit knowledge in organisations, Sage, London.
Beggan, JK (1992) On the social nature of non-social perceptions: the mere ownership effect, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2): 229-237.
Bernstein, B (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity, rev. ed., Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield.
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.
Burke, PJ and Reitzes, DC (1991) An identity theory approach to commitment, Social Psychology Quarterly, 54: 239-251.
Carlile, PC. (2002) A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries;
Boundary Objects in new Product Development, Organisation Science, 13,
pp. 442-455.
Cook, SDN, and Brown, JS (1999) Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10 (4): 381-400.
Coopey, J and Burgoyne, J (2000) Politics and Organizational Learning, Journal of Management Studies, 37(6): 869-885.
Darrah C N (1996) Learning and work; an exploration in industrial ethnography,
New York, Garland Publishing.
Dayasindhu, N. (2002). Embeddeness, knowledge transfer, industry clusters and global competitiveness: a case study of the Indian software industry. Technovation, 22, 551-560.
Dirks KT, Cummings, LL and Pierce, JL (1996) Psychological ownership in organizations: conditions under which individuals promote and resist change. In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore, (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development. 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dunn-Rankin P (1983) Scaling methods, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Formanek R (1991) Why they collect: collectors reveal their motivations, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6: 275-286.
Fosh P (1993) Membership participation in work-place unionism: the possibility of union renewal, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 31: 577-592.
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.
Gallucci M and Perugini M (2003) Information seeking and reciprocity: a transformational analysis, European Journal of Social Psychology, 33 (4): 473-495.
Garavelli AC, Gorgoglione M and Scozzi B (2002) Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies, Technovation, 22:269-279.
Gao Y and Riley M (2009) Identity and knowledge: a review, International Journal of Management Reviews, forthcoming.
Goh SC (2002) Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (1):23-30.
Guzman G and Wilson J (2005) The soft dimension of organizational knowledge transfer, Journal of Management Knowledge 9 (2): 59-74
Halbwach M (1992) On collective memory, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Huxham C and Vangen S (2001) What makes practitioners tick? understanding collaboration practice and practicing collaboration understanding. In J Genefke and F McDonal (Eds), Effective collaboration: managing obstacles to success, London: Palgrave.
Isabella LA (1990) Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organizational events, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (1): 7-41.
Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Kahn WA (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work, Academy of Management Journal, 33 (4): 692-724.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Magnus JR, and Morgan, MS (1999) Methodology and tacit Knowledge: Two experiments in econometrics, Chichester/New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Molm LD (1994) Dependence and risk: transforming the structure of social exchange, Social Psychology Quarterly, 57 (3): 163-176.
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.
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.
Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organisational advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242-266.
Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H, and Swan J (2002) Managing knowledge work, New York, Palgrave.
Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company, New York, Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538-550.
Parsons M (2004) Effective knowledge management for law firm, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Polanyi M (1964) Personal knowledge: toward a post-critical philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Prentice DA (1987) Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (December): 993-1003.
Reber AS (1993) Implicit learning and tacit Knowledge; an essay on cognitive unconsciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rousseau DM (2005) I-deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves M.E. Sharpe London.
Rudmin FW (1993) Property. In W Lonner and R Malpass (Eds.), Psychology and Culture, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sammons P (2005) Buying knowledge: Effective acquisition of extend knowledge, Aldershot: Gower.
Scribner S (1986) Thinking in action: some characteristics of practical thought. In R.J Sternberg and RK Wagner (Eds), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Singh T, Premarjan R.K. (2007) Antecedents to Knowledge Transfer: Trust and
Culture, The South Asian Journal Of management, 14 (1): 93-104.
Smith, HA, McKeen, J D and Singh S (2007) Tacit knowledge transfer; making it happen, Journal of Information Science & Technology, 4 (2): 23-44.
Steiner G (1978) Martin Heidegger, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 27-44.
Svensson R (2000) Success strategies and knowledge transfer in cross-border consulting operations, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Van de Ven AH and Johnson PE (2006) Knowledge for theory and practice Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 802-821.
Von Krogh G, Ichijo K and Nonaka I. (2000) Enabling knowledge creation, Oxford, Oxford University.
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.
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 (August): 1-15.
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.
Weick K and Roberts KH (1993) Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks, Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (3): 357-381.
Zander U (1991) Exploiting a technological edge - voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology. PhD dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics.
Zhikun D, Fungfai N, 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.
eContent Home
