Dana Minbaeva Associate Professor in Strategic HRM Center of Strategic Management and Globalization...
-
Upload
moises-bufton -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Dana Minbaeva Associate Professor in Strategic HRM Center of Strategic Management and Globalization...
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.