The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups

Enno Siemsen University of IllinoisAleda V. Roth Clemson UniversitySridhar Balasubramanian University of North Carolina

INFORMS 2006

Agenda

I. Introduction

II. Theory

III. Empirical Test

IV. Conclusion

INFORMS 2006

Specialists vs. Generalists

Specialists are

-Focused

-Experienced

-Innovative

-Informed

Generalists are

Flexible-

More Motivated-

Innovative-

Skinner (1978)

Argote (1999)

For example:

Hopp and van Oyen (2004)

Hackman and Oldham (1980)

Schilling et al. (2003)

For example:

Schultz et al. (2003)

INFORMS 2006

Agile Production Systems

• Workforce Flexibility(Hopp and van Oyen 2004)

• Knowledge Transfer and Learning(Roth et al. 1994; Schroeder at al. 2002; Ferdows 2006)

INFORMS 2006

Research Question

• Key Construct: Competence Similarity“The ability of an employee to perform the tasks of a coworker”

• Research Question:“Does competence similarity enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing within a dyad?”

INFORMS 2006

Uniqueness Theory

Snyder and Fromkin (1980); Maslow (1962)

Performance Feedback Theory

Feistinger (1954)

Theoretical Model

Motivation to Share

Competition(-)

Competence Similarity

(+)

Social Interdep. Theory

Deutsch (1949)

INFORMS 2006

Theoretical Model

Motivation to Share

Competition

Help Linkage

(-)

(+)Competence Similarity

(+)

(+)

Worksharing Systems

Buzacott (2004); Hopp and van Oyen (2004)

Job Design

Kiggundu (1981)

Self Efficacy

Gist and Mitchell (1992)

INFORMS 2006

Theoretical Model

Motivation to Share

Competition

Help Linkage

(-)

(+)

Workgroup Identification

Competence Similarity

OutcomeLinkage

(+)

(+)

(+)

(-)

(+)

Diversity in Workgroups

Northcraft et al. (1995)

Social Identity Theory

Henessy and West (1999)

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

Hogg et al. (2005)

INFORMS 2006

Theoretical Model

Motivation to Share

Competition

Help Linkage

(-)

(+)

Workgroup Identification

Competence Similarity

OutcomeLinkage

(+)

(+)

(+)

(-)

(-)

(+)

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Brewer and Weber (1994)

INFORMS 2006

Data Collection

• Survey Based Research

• Knowledge Sharing Incident

• Auxiliary Network Data

• Four Different Sites– Design Engineers (Pilot, N=130)– IT Specialists (N=58)– Line Workers (N=101)– Assembly Technicians (N=31)

INFORMS 2006

Knowledge SharingVertical vs. Horizontal Flow

Vertical Knowledge Sharing

Workgroup

Management

Horizontal (within Group)Knowledge Sharing

Focus of this Research!

Workgroup

Horizontal (between Group)Knowledge Sharing

INFORMS 2006

Tribal Knowledge

• Work-related knowledge, mostly generated from the experience of employees engaged in organizational tasks involving their daily work. (adapted from Dixon 2000)

"Design ideas for creating a system which would force more project requirement documentation before software engineers could begin programming."

"I discovered that if pallets of product were turned a certain way, more product could be put on the railcars."

"When building an engine, our day shift has a flow which allows us to get further on building the engine."

INFORMS 2006

Empirical Analysis

• Reliability/Validity• Multiple Imputation• Tobit Models

– Hypothesized Relationships– Direct Effects– Square Terms– Control Variables

• Company• Age, Gender, Education• Tenure, Management

Responsibility• Group Leadership, Group Pay• Total Compensation, Paid per Hour

• Robustness Tests

INFORMS 2006

Empirical Results

* Indicates significance at .1 level** Indicates significance at .05 level*** Indicates significance at .01 level

Motivation to Share

Competition

Help Linkage

-.26***

.44***

Workgroup Identification

Competence Similarity

OutcomeLinkage .03

.13*

-.19/-.20**

-.08

-.58***

.57***

INFORMS 2006

Empirical Results(for low-friendship relationships)

* Indicates significance at .1 level** Indicates significance at .05 level*** Indicates significance at .01 level

Motivation to Share

Competition

Help Linkage

-.26***

.44***

Workgroup Identification

Competence Similarity

OutcomeLinkage .03

.12*

-.21*-.20*

-.34**

-.50***

.57***

War

ning

Explo

rato

ry R

esul

ts

INFORMS 2006

Empirical Results

Friendship=-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8

Competence Similarity

Co

mp

etit

ion

ID=-1.5

ID=0

ID=1.5

Friendship=0

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8

Competence Similarity

Co

mp

etit

ion

iID=-1.5

ID=0

ID=1.5

INFORMS 2006

Conclusion

• Competence similarity generally seems to have a positive impact on cooperative behaviors like knowledge sharing.

• Only for low levels of friendship, competence similarity may trigger a need for uniqueness and performance comparisons that lead to competition.