Dana MinbaevaAssociate Professor in Strategic HRMCenter of Strategic Management and

Globalization Copenhagen Business School

Denmark

What drives knowledge sharing behavior of

individuals?

My research

All papers are available upon the request

Knowledge characteristics

Knowledge transfer and HRM

Sender ReceiverKnowledge

Organizational environment

Dis

sem

inat

ive

capa

city

Abs

orpt

ive

capa

city

Barren organizational context

Minbaeva and Michailova (2004) in Employee Relations

Minbaeva et al (2003) in JIBS

Minbaeva (2005) in Personnel Review

Minbaeva (2008) in Management

International Review

Governance of knowledge processes

Firm: governance

mechanisms

Individual: conditions of

individual actions

Individual: individual knowledge sharing behavior

Firm: knowledge processes’ outcomes

•Gooderham, Minbaeva and Pedersen (2010), in Journal of Mgt Studies•Minbaeva and Pedersen (2010), in IJSCM•Michailova and Minbaeva (2011), forthcoming in International Business Review•Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen and Reinholt (2009) in Human Resource Management•Minbaeva, Foss and Snell (2009), Special Issue of Human Resource Management•Minbaeva (2008) in International Business Review•Minbaeva, Makela and Rabbiosi (2009), SMG Working Paper and under review

(S)HRM in MNCsNavrbjerg and Minbaeva (2009) in

International Journal of Human Resource Management

Minbaeva, Hutching and Thomson (2007) in European Journal of International Management

Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron (2010) in International Journal of Human Resource Management

“Employment Practices of Multinationals in Organizational Context”, international project,

www.cbs.dk/mnc

Dana Minbaeva and Torben Pedersen

Center of Strategic Management and Globalization

Copenhagen Business School

What drives knowledge sharing behavior of

individuals?

RationaleWhether knowledge sharing takes place

in an organization depends to a great extent on individual organizational members’ decision to share or not the knowledge they possess.in any model of knowledge sharing the

knowledge sharing behavior of individuals has to be explained endogenously and on individual level“… there are not so many studies which

managed to do so empirically”

Why not? (1)The theories in which the discussion of intra-

organizational knowledge sharing is nested are usually collective ones (Felin and Hesterly, 2007).

Knowledge-based scholars should “carefully revisit their underlying philosophical and theoretical assumptions about the primacy given to collectives and to consider potential individual-level explanations as antecedents to new value creation” (Felin and Hesterly, 2007: 214).

Hence to push further the empirical research on knowledge sharing, we need to integrate some individual-level theories – those considering individuals and their actions as the basic units of analysis (Elstner, 1989). Motivation theory

Why not? (2) To empirically study knowledge sharing at

the individual level, we need individual level data collected at various locations, organizational units, hierarchical levels, etc. That is necessary since individuals are

randomly distributed within the organization. Further, the data should be collected from

various social groups (gender, age, level of education) since individuals are a priori heterogeneous.

Why not? (3) Just understanding of the conditions of

individual action does not mean a lot for managers.

Hence, we need to consider managerial interventions (governance mechanisms in Foss, 2007) which managers could employ to appeal to the conditions of individual actions and thereby facilitate individual knowledge sharing behavior.

In response … The theory of planned behavior (TPB)

The TPB is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975)

Aim: to explain behavior of individuals endogenously as determined by its predictors (intentions, attitude, subjective norms and perceived control)

The motivation sequence

The TPB in a nutshell

Source: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/

Why the TPB?The TPB was extensively used to study

human behavior and design appropriate behavioral interventions to change behavior by affecting one or more of its determinants

Knowledge governance mechanisms KGA in Foss (2007): governance mechanisms are deployed in the

belief that influencing the conditions of individual actions in a certain manner will lead employees to take those decisions that when aggregated lead to favorable organizational outcomes (knowledge acquisition and utilization).

Represents a reaction to what it regards as the "methodological collectivism" of explanations of knowledge processes currently dominating the KBV research (Foss, 2007)

Understanding of relations between governance mechanisms and knowledge processes implies theorizing individuals (Grant, 1996), individual heterogeneity (Felin and Hesterly, 2007), and individual interaction (Felin and Foss, 2005).

• Intra-organizational knowledge processes can be influenced and directed through the deployment of governance mechanisms (Foss, 2007)• Knowledge governance mechanisms → conditions of individual actions

→ individual actions → (when aggregated) favorable organizational outcomes, such as knowledge transfer. E.g. theoretically: Foss and Michailova (2009) and empirically Gooderham, Minbaeva and

Pedersen(2010)

Knowledge governance mechanisms

We propose a number of knowledge governance mechanisms that can be applied to influence the previously identified antecedents of behavioral intentions (attitude, subjective norm and perceived control) and thereby affect knowledge sharing behavior of individuals.

Knowledge governance mechanismsAjzen (1991): “it is at the level of

beliefs that we can learn about the unique factors that induce one person to engage in the behavior of interest” (p. 206-207).

Knowledge governance mechanismsthree types of governance mechanisms

influencing behavioral, normative and control beliefs and label them accordingly as extrinsic rewards (behavioral beliefs)reciprocal schemes ( normative beliefs) and communication mechanisms (control beliefs).

Conceptual model

Rewards

Reciprocity schemes

Communication mechanisms

Attitude

Subjective norm

Perceived control

Intention to share

Knowledge sharing

behavior

H1

H2

H3

H4

H7

H6

H5

Hypotheses H1. Strong intention to engage in knowledge sharing behavior positively

influences the extent of knowledge sharing behavior. H2. A positive attitude toward knowledge sharing positively influences

the individual’s intention to share knowledge. H3. Strong subjective norms about knowledge sharing positively

influence the individual’s intention to share knowledge. H4. Perceived behavioral control positively influences the individual’s

intention to share knowledge H5. The more individuals are externally rewarded for knowledge sharing,

the more positive their attitude toward knowledge sharing is. H6. The more individuals are reciprocally rewarded for knowledge

sharing, the more positive their subjective norm regarding knowledge sharing is.

H7. The more individuals use communication mechanisms, the stronger their perceived behavioral control is.

Data Danisco and Chr. HansenMANDI Questionnaire on Knowledge

SharingResponse rate

Danisco: 77.94%; 219 respondentsChr. Hansen: 72.75%; 251 respondents

RespondentsAfter

consultation with each company’s representative, the distribution of the survey responses was regarded as representative.

MeasuresWe used

perceptual measures for operationalization of all variables in this study

Results

2[127] = 311.5 GFI = 0.93RMSEA= 0.05

Goodness-of-fit statistics for three competing specification of the model

Results: antecedentsThe decision “not-to-share” is individual,

often rational and well justified from the perspective of the individual

The intention to share knowledge is formed as a combination of the social influence (social norms), an individual’s confidence in her ability to perform the knowledge sharing (perceived control), and the individual’s own attitude toward sharing of knowledge (attitude).

Results: governance mechanismsA positive feedback on past instances of

knowledge sharing, being acknowledged of their contribution to the work of others and/or organizational development

Availability and use of required resources and opportunities to carry out and successfully complete that behavior

Results: BUT! Contrary to commonly accepted practices

associated with knowledge management initiatives, a felt need for extrinsic rewards may very well hinder the development of favorable attitudes toward knowledge sharing

Such a finding might simply be a reflection of the specific extrinsic rewards applied in two organizations Insights from Motivational Theory on the link

between extrinsic motivation and performance (e.g. Vroom)

Insights from Creativity Theory(e.g. Amabile) Rewards and knowledge sharing (e.g. Bock et

al, 2005; Minbaeva, Makela and Rabbiosi, 2010)

Performance

Rewards

LimitationsOur limitations …

cross-sectional data

two MNCs from Denmark

using perceptual instruments

Future studies … longitudinal research a wider variety of firms the impact of the

external environment (formal and informal institutions)

more elaborate measures, combining perceptual ones with some objective indicators

ImplicationsThe use of external rewards seems

surprisingly enough to be counterproductive in creating a positive attitude toward knowledge sharing.

The interactions of governance mechanisms - complementarity effect (which could be negative, neutral or positive)

To concludeWe need to push HRM scholars out of their

“natural comfort zone” (Becker and Huselid, 2006: 900) which assumes the aggregation of individuals, existence of an

“average individual” and no differences in individual perception of external stimulus and reaction to that.