1

WHY INDIVIDUAL SHARE KNOWLEDGE IN THE WORK

PLACE? － THE EFFECTS OF MOTIVATION AND CONTEXT

Yio-Eih, Shih,International Trade Department, Graduate School of Management

Chen-Shiu University I-Su University833 Cheng-Ching Rd., 1, Section 1, Hsueh-Cheng Rd.,

Niou-Song Hsiang Ta-Shu Hsiang,Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, R.O.C. Kaohsiung County, Taiwan, R.O.C.

D9231009@stmail.isu.edu.tw

ABSTRACTThis paper develops a theoretical framework for analyzing why individuals

share knowledge in the work context. It explores the effects of motivations andcontextual factors on the knowledge sharing behavior in work context. Theframework addresses the relationships among sources of work motivation,knowledge-sharing motivation, and contextual factors that affect individuals’ knowledge-sharing behavior. Pervious literatures of knowledge sharing tended to treatpeople homogeneously. The author, however, suggested that it was important toconsider the differences of motivation which people share their knowledge with. Itwas hereby assumed that individuals were heterogeneous because of the differentmotivation they were working with. Due to the differences on motivations, contextualfactors that affect knowledge sharing of individual will have different effects ondifferent people.

INTRODUCTIONThe issue of knowledge-sharing is important in the agenda of organizational

research. In the field of management practice, the coming of knowledge-economicera announced that knowledge and technology play an important role for organizationto success. There are more and more organizations base their competitive advantageon knowledge (e.g.: biotech company, computer-software-development company,technology-based company, on-line service company, R&D department incompany…etc.). Given that knowledge is imperative for those organizations, knowledge sharing among employees may be an important source of sustainable fortheir competition advantage. For individuals who depend on knowledge to createvalue (e.g.: computer software engineer, R&D researcher, scientist … etc.), knowledge sharing with each other can improve their and their organization’s

2

performance efficiently and effectively. In the field of organization research,knowledge base view of the firm argues that knowledge is a vital source ofcompetitive advantage in the new economic era (Nonaka, 1994; Kogut and Zander,1992). In Nonaka’s modes of the knowledge creation (internalization, socialization,externalization, and combination), knowledge sharing plays an important role insocialization and combination. That is, without sharing knowledge withinorganization, the creation of organizational knowledge becomes impossible.

Just like the important role of knowledge sharing play in the organizationresearch, individuals’motivation of knowledge sharing can not be neglected. First,knowledge sharing among individuals in organization is perceived to be the mostessential process for knowledge management (Bock and Kim, 2002). Second,contextual factors do not determine behavior directly － Individuals construe

contexts and supporting their autonomy or controlling their behavior (Deci & Ryan,1985). Third, there is a dilemma for an individual to share his/her knowledge in thework place. According to Davenport (1997), knowledge sharing is a voluntary act,which implies an action taken by individual who participates in the knowledgeexchange even though there is no compulsion to do so (Ipe, 2003). However,Davenport (1997) further argued that sharing knowledge is often unnatural. Peopletend to withhold rather than share if they think their knowledge is valuable andimportant (Bock and Kim, 2002). Knowledge sharing provides intangible anduncertain reward and may involve more significant effort or sacrifice (Connelly andKelloway, 2003). Therefore, it is interesting and critical to explore what motivateindividuals to share knowledge in organization and how they are motivated.

This paper explores the effects of motivations and contextual factors on theknowledge sharing behavior in work context. Firstly, knowledge sharing can be or canbe not relative to work and organization. This paper discusses knowledge sharing thatis relative to work. Since the context is work place and the focus phenomenon isknowledge sharing, we analyze different knowledge-sharing motivations and linkthem to the theory of work motivation. Different sources of motivation are treated asdifferent mechanisms through which contextual factors affect individuals’ knowledge-sharing behavior.

Secondly, we highlight the importance of exploring motivational difference inthe research of knowledge sharing. Osterloh and Frey (2000) suggested that differentcharacters of organizational forms should be linked to different motivations ofknowledge sharing. They suggested a typology combining motivational andknowledge requirements in different organization forms. In their typology, knowledgesharing in certain organizations is imperative and intrinsic motivation, rather thanextrinsic motivation, is needed. Osterloh and Frey (2000) remind us that difference in

3

motivation on knowledge-sharing should not be neglected.Thirdly, we assume that individuals are different in their dominated motivation

(Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl, 1999). While discussing knowledge sharing amongindividual, some scholars assume that individuals are homogenous (Ipe, 2003;Kelloway and Barling, 2000; Osterloh and Fray). They tend to ignore individualdifferences and thus assume that individuals would response indifferently againstincentive, managerial and organizational impacts. We, however, consider that it isimportant to consider individual difference in term of motivation in the work context.According to Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999), there are five basic sources ofwork motivation and every individual is dominated by a source of work motivationthat acts as focus by which they make decision and channel behavior. That is,individuals are not homogeneous on the motivational aspect. Basing on the work ofLeonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) and literatures about motivation of knowledgesharing (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Ipe, 2003), we try to explore the individualmotivation in the work context and answer the following question:

1. What and how specific motivational factor affects different individual onhis/her knowledge-sharing behavior?2. What and how contextual factors influence different individual on his/herknowledge-sharing behavior?

MOTIVATION, CONTEXT, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARINGWe proposed a model (Figure 1) to describe how knowledge sharing is motivated

in the work place. This model incorporates theory of work motivation proposed byLeonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) and literatures of knowledge sharing amongindividuals in organization (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Bock and Kim, 2000;Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos, 1998; Ipe, 2003;Kelloway and Barling, 2000; Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Tissen, Andriessen, andDeprez, 1998). Firstly, limitations in literatures on individual’s motivation of knowledge-sharing are addressed and theory of work motivation is applied inexplaining the sources of individual’s knowledge-sharing motivation. Secondly,mechanisms of knowledge sharing are identified and links to different workmotivations and individuals are treated dominated by different motivations (P1－P8).Thirdly, contextual factors affecting which kind of individual are addressed (P9－

P11).

4

KNOWLEDGE SHARING AMONG INDIVIDUALSKnowledge is a “set of beliefs about causal relationships in the world and an

organization” (Sanchez, 2001). Knowledge is created when information interacts with

Individuals Dominated byDifferent Sources of Motivation

－Mechanisms of Knowledge Sharing

KnowledgeSharing

Figure 1The Effect of Motivation and Contextual Factors on Knowledge Sharing

between Individuals in Work Context

P1-P8P9-P11

Managerial Support(P10)

Contextual Factors

Individuals dominated byintrinsic process motivation

－Enjoyment(P1)

Individuals dominated byextrinsic motivation－Reward from

organization(P2)－Expectation of

Reciprocity(P3)

Individuals dominated bygoal-internalizationmotivation－Affective Commitment(P4)

Individuals dominated byexternal self-concept-basedmotivation－Power (P5)－Reciprocity (P6)－Trust with recipient (P7)

Individuals dominated byinternal self-concept basedmotivation－Task outcome (P8)

Positive SocialInteraction Culture

(P11)

Incentive(P9)

5

the beliefs and commitments of its holders (Ipe, 2003). In organizations, knowledgecan be hold in personal level, group level, and organizational level (Fahey, 2000).This paper focuses on the most basic of these level － individual level. Individual

employee is important in the knowledge creation process (Nonaka and Takeuchi,1995). According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is created throughinteraction between individuals at various levels in the organization. They argued thatthe knowledge is likely to have limit impact on organizational effectiveness unlessindividual knowledge is shared with other individuals and groups. Sanchez (2001)also suggested that individual knowledge must be shared with other individuals in agroup or organization before that knowledge can become the basis for taking action.Therefore, knowledge sharing among individuals is imperative for organizations thatneed group or organization level of knowledge to sustain their competitive advantage.

Knowledge sharing is a set of behaviors that involve the exchange of informationor assistance to others (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). Within the organization, such abehavior contains the act of making knowledge available to others (Ipe, 2003). Thebehavior of making knowledge available to other faces some dilemmas, becauseknowledge is linked to status, career prospects, and individual reputations (Andrewand Delahaye, 2000). The ownership of knowledge is being recognized by bothindividuals and the organizations (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Staples and Jarvenpaa,2001; Weiss, 1999). While personally owned knowledge is the major source for anindividual’s value to an organization, knowledge sharing might consequently diminishthe value of the individual. In such circumstance, individual might reluctant to engagein knowledge-sharing activities (Alvesson, 1993; Empson, 2001; Ipe, 2003). Thus, fororganizations that need members’ knowledge to sustain competitive advantage, exploring the ways to motivate members to share their knowledge is imperative.

SOURCES OF MOTIVATION Motivation “refers to internal factors that impel action and to external factors that can act as inducements to action” (Locke & Latham, 2004). According Osterloh and Fray (2000), sharing knowledge can be motivated by extrinsic as well as intrinsicfactors. They distinguished intrinsic motivation from extrinsic motivation ofknowledge sharing by how employees were satisfied. Intrinsic motivation satisfiedemployee’s immediate need while extrinsic motivation satisfied employee’s need indirectly. Intrinsic motivation “is valued for its own sake and appears to be self sustained” (Calder and Staw, 1975, p. 599) while extrinsic motivation does not comefrom work or activity itself. Intrinsic motivation can be enforced by work or activityitself and “can be an undisputed organizational advantage because it lowers transaction cost and raises trust and social capital” (Osterloh and Frey, 2000, p.540).

6

However, employees’ intrinsic motivation has to comply with organization in order to support the goal of organization. If employees’ intrinsic motivations do not support the goal of organization, it might raise coordination problems in organization andreduce the efficient and effective of the organization.

Osterloh and Fray (2000) had proposed a category of knowledge-sharingmotivation for general conceptualization, we, however, focuses on the work contextand assume that the concept of work motivation can be applied to understand themotivation of knowledge sharing in the work context. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl(1999) proposed a comprehensive category of work motivation of individual inorganization. We believe that applying this category to the theorizing of individual’s knowledge-sharing motivation is plausible because our focus on knowledge sharing isassociated with individual’s work in organization. Besides, we suggest that this application would be fruitful. First, Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) proposedfive sources of work motivation: Intrinsic process motivation, external force,motivation based on goal internalization, external self-concept based motivation, andinternal self-concept-based motivation. Second, they indicated that “Individual can be characterized by motivational profiles which reflect the relative strength of each of thefive sources (p.201). Thus, they assume that individuals are not homogeneous.Previous literatures treat knowledge-sharing motivation as homogeneous amongindividuals (Ipe, 2003; Kelloway and Barling, 2000; Osterloh and Fray, 2000).However, in the theoretical model of Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999), thedifference among individual is not left out of their considerations. Third, theysuggested that different individual is dominated by a specific source of motivation.Although individual is affected by five sources of motivation, there is a dominatedsource that plays a determinative role. Fourth, Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999)incorporated cognition factor (goal internalization and self concept) into the schemeof individual’s motivation that had been dominated by exchange and expectation perspectives. Cognition is an important factor that shaves individual’s motivation and affect their behavior as, for example, knowledge sharing motivation and behavior.Fifth, Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) link self-concept-based motivation toindividual disposition and enriched our understanding of individual motivation.Basing on the classic work of Leonard, Beauvais and Sholl (1999), the followingsdiscuss the five sources of motivation and their implication in knowledge sharing.

Intrinsic processIntrinsic-process motivation indicated that the reason of individual to do

something is just because fun. Individuals are motivated by intrinsic processmotivation while they “enjoy the work and feel rewarded simply by performing the

7

task” (p.192). This intrinsic process motivation is similar to intrinsicmotivation ofknowledge sharing proposed by Osterloh and Fray (2000). Leonard, Beauvais, andScholl (1999) suggested that individual dominated by intrinsic process motivation willchoose enjoyable task. However, intrinsic process motivation proposed by them isdifferent from intrinsic motivation which is drawn upon by critics of transaction consttheory and discussed in literature on psychological contract, which “emphasize intrinsic motivation in the form of identification with the firm’s strategic goals,sharepurposes, and the fulfillment of norms for its own sake” (Osterloh and Frey, 2000, p. 540).

Thus, for individual who is dominated by intrinsic process motivation, the reasonfor he/she to share knowledge is not because reward or obligation, but because he/sheenjoy to do so. Therefore, if the knowledge sharing is devised into enjoyable activitiesfor this kind of individual, he/she will be motivated to engage in knowledge sharingactivity.

ExtrinsicExtrinsic motivation is induced by external forces and based on individuals’

“rational maximizers of personal utility” (Shamir, 1990, p.39). Extrinsic motivation can be explained by expectancy and equity theory which are accepted models ofmotivation based on exchange relationship. In other words, individual is motivated byextrinsic motivation while he/she deems himself/herself is situated in an exchangerelationship and expects his/her effort in this exchange will earn a favorable or fairoutcome for him/her. This extrinsic motivation is also similar to extrinsic motivationproposed by Osterloh and Fray (2000). Such motivation reflects one’s need for physiological need and safety need in Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory. That is, individual can earn money for their physiological and safety need. Leonard, Beauvais,and Scholl (1999) suggested that individuals dominated by extrinsic motivation willengage in most rewarded task (i.e., pay and promotion). That is, individual who isdominated by extrinsic motivation will behave in ways that maximize positiveoutcomes and minimize negative outcome.

For individual who is dominated by extrinsic motivation, reward affects his/herknowledge-sharing behavior. If knowledge sharing is not rewarded, he/she is notmotivated to share his/her knowledge. This kind of individual may involve inknowledge sharing activities because they are motivated by the monetary or otherform of rewards been offered. Therefore, if the knowledge sharing is rewarded byreward system or promotion scheme, he/she will motivate to engage in knowledgesharing activity.

8

Goal internalizationThe motivation based on goal internalization means individual adopts attitudes

and behaviors because their content is congruent with their value system (Kelman,1958). In the organization setting, individuals are motivated by goal internalizationwhile they accept and internalize the object or vision of the organization. Motivationbased on goal internalization may reflect one’s need for achievement. While organization goal are consist with one’s value system, one’s effort on the work may driven by the desire to attain the goal. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999)suggested that individual dominated by goal-internalization will engage in tasks thatare most likely to achieve organization’s goal. Motivation based on goalinternalization may also reflect one of the underlying reasons of commitment tohis/her organization. For example, Noel and Ulrich (1984) suggest that creation of avision to mobilize commitment is the requirement of transformational leadership.Through goal internalization mechanisms that make the vision been accept byemployee, (e.g.: staff work culminated in committee discussions) organization canevoke agreement and commitment to the mission statement of the vision (see Noeland Ulrich, 1984, p.82). Goal internalization among employees may invoke bysharing opinion with each other about vision of organization. While individualsinternalize the goal of their organization, they share the same object for their actionand are more tend to help each other to obtain their common goal.

For individual who is dominated by internalized organization goal, whetherhis/her knowledge sharing activity can contribute to the attainment of the organizationgoal plays a major role on affecting their attitude about knowledge sharing. Inorganization where knowledge and skill play important role, individual whointernalizes organization goal is tend to share his/her knowledge with others and helpothers to contribute their efforts to their common organization goal. Therefore, it isimportant for him/her to recognize that his/her knowledge-sharing activity cancontribute to the goal attainment. Management can remind he/her for that his/herknowledge-sharing action can contribute to others work as well as to the attainment oforganization goal. Management can either remind he/she that his/her knowledgesharing contribution is important for organization by vocally praise, offer evidences,or link the outcome to his/her knowledge-sharing contribution.

For an organization, knowledge sharing among individuals motivated byinternalized goal can be more effective for their organization than the above twosources of motivation. Since the driven force is aligned with organization’s goal, the knowledge sharing activities will focus on the job and more efficient and effectivethen those that will not. For intrinsic sources of motivation, individual share theirknowledge is because it is enjoyable for them. Therefore, he/she may share

9

knowledge that is nothing to do with job. For extrinsic sources of motivation,individual share their knowledge is because of reward. However, it is difficult tomeasure both the value and contribution of the knowledge been shared. Thus, thecontribution of knowledge sharing may be over or under rewarded.

External self-conceptExternal self-concept-based motivation indicates that the “individual attempts to

meet the expectations of others by behaving in way that will elicit social feedbackconsistent with self-perception” (Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl ,1999, p.199). Self per-perception reflects an individual’s global sense of self. The global sense of self includes traits, competencies, and values. If individual did not internalize or partialinternalize the traits, competencies, and values of the reference group (because he/shehad received negative feedback or positive but conditional feedback), he/she becomeother-directed. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) pointed out that whileindividual is primarily other-directed, his/her behaviors tend to driven by externalself-concept-based motivation. Other-directed individual usually attempts to meet theexpectation of reference group and this is associated with his/her need to gainacceptance and status.

External self-concept reflects individual’s identity on his/her organization. While individual desires and works toward organizational successful, they may bemotivated by his/her social identity on being a member of the organization. The morethe successful of the organization, the more the individual who identity on theorganization is been accepted or/and received high status from others. Leonard,Beauvais, and Scholl (1991) posited that individuals dominated by externalself-concept based motivation will engage in tasks that provide them with positivesocial feedback. Thus, external self-concept-based motivation may reflect Maslow’s needs for belongings and needs for esteem, as well as McClelland’s (1961) need for affiliation and need for power.

For individual with external self-concept based motivation, sharing knowledge ornot depends whether he/she can has positive social feedback from their sharing action.That is, knowledge sharing behavior can be motivated by positive social feedback forother-directed people. For example, if knowledge sharing action is been expected,been appreciated, gaining respect, or improving relationship with others, he/she willmotivated to share his/her knowledge.

Internal self-conceptInternal self-concept based motivation means that behavior is motivated by the

internal standard set by the individual to maintain his/her idea self. If individual

10

internalized or the traits, competencies, and values of the reference group (becausehe/she had received positive and unconditional feedback), he/she becomeinner-directed. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) pointed out that while individualis primarily inner-directed, his/her behaviors tend to driven by internalself-concept-based motivation. Such a motivation reflects one’s need to achieve someperformance to maintain his/her self-perception. This motivation is similar toMcClelland’s (1961) need for achievement and Maslow’s need for self-actualization.

However, internal self-concept based motivation has some implications otherthan the above two need theories. Some people tie organization success/failure to theirindividual identity and they perceive less important of other members effect onorganization success/failure. These individuals believe internally that success is due totheir efforts. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) suggested that individualdominated by internal self-concept-based motivation will engage in tasks that providethem with affirmative task feedback.

For individual with internal self-concept-based motivation, sharing knowledge ornot depend on whether the shared knowledge will help him/herself accomplish his/herwork or work more efficiently by helping others to work more effectively and/orefficiently. Thus, individual with internal self-concept-based motivation may sharehis/her knowledge with those whose work are associated with his/her work. Ifhis/her knowledge sharing activity is not likely toward those whose work is notrelated with him/her, it would not be any help for improving his/her work and thus,he/her will not be motivated to share knowledge.

MOTIVATIONS AND KNOWLEDGE SHARINGIn this section, we identify different motivations of knowledge sharing from prior

literatures. We link the factors of knowledge sharing motivation of those literatures tothe category of work motivation source proposed by Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl(1999). This linkage allows us to apply the implications for knowledge sharingdiscussed above: individual difference in term of work motivation and its impact onknowledge-sharing behavior. Ipe (2003) identified two sources of knowledge sharingmotivations: internal and external factors. Internal factors included knowledge aspower and reciprocity. External factors included relationship with recipient (trust withrecipient and power and status of knowledge sharer vis-á-vis the knowledge recipient)and rewards for sharing. Kelloway and Barling (2000) identified affectivecommitment to the organization as an important motivation affecting knowledge work.Bock and Kim (2000), basing on economic and social exchange theory and socialcognitive theory, proposed that expected rewards, expected associations, and expectedcontribution as three variables affecting attitude toward knowledge sharing.

11

Expected rewards is the degree to which one believes that one can have extrinsicincentives due to one’s knowledge sharing. Expected associations means the degree to which on believes on can improve mutual relationship through one’s knowledge. Expected contribution indicates that the degree to which one believes that one canimprove the organization’s performance through one’s knowledge sharing. Basing on the works of these authors and our previous discussion, we propose eight differentmotivations of knowledge: enjoyment, reward, power, expectation of reciprocity,affective commitment in organization, reciprocity, trust with the recipient, andassociation with self’s task. The followings discuss these factors and link them to the five sources of work motivation proposed by Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999).

Enjoyment on sharing knowledgeSome people like to share their knowledge just because they enjoy doing it

(Orsterloh and Frey, 2000). One does not have to induce or enforce them in order tomake them to share their knowledge. As discussed earlier, enjoyment is the majorreason for individual who is dominated by intrinsic process motivation to sharehis/her knowledge. Thus, the main cause for this kind of individual to share his/herknowledge is not reward or obligation, but is the fact that he/she enjoy sharingknowledge. Accordingly,

Proposition 1: For an individual who is dominated by intrinsic processmotivation, he/she will share knowledge because of enjoyment.

Tangible RewardsMotivation driven by tangible rewards demonstrates the effect of extrinsic

motivation. According to Osterloh and Frey (2000), knowledge sharing can bemotivated by tangible and intangible rewards. Monetary compensation for knowledgesharing is an example of tangible rewards. Money is a “goal which provides satisfaction independent of the actual activity itself” (Calder and Staw, 1975, p.599), it might suffer from opportunism problem suggested by transactions cost theory(Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Willismaon, 1996). However, according to economicexchange theory, tangible rewards can Accordingly,

Proposition 2: For an individual who is dominated by extrinsic motivation,he/her will share knowledge because of tangible reward.

Tissen, Andriessen, and Deprez, (1998) argued that tangible reward alone wasnot sufficient to motivate knowledge sharing among individuals. They suggested that

12

intangible reward also plays an important role in motivating individual to share theirknowledge. Similarly, Bartol and Srivastava (2002) suggested that informalknowledge sharing would be rewarded by intangible incentives such as enhancing theexpertise and recognition of individuals. We include intangible reward for knowledgesharing in the fowling discuss of reciprocity expectation.

Expectation of ReciprocityExpectation of reciprocity also reflects extrinsic motivation. Reciprocity

expectation is associated with motivation about people’s expectation of favorable return. Knowledge sharer might think knowledge sharing as an investment that wouldproduct certain benefit in the future (Kelloway and Barling, 1998). From the view ofexpectancy theory, reciprocity can become extrinsic motivation if individualanticipate that sharing knowledge can add value to him/herself (Ipe, 2003; Hendriks,1999; Weiss, 1999). Expectancy theory suggested that individual’s work effort is directed toward behaviors that people believe will lead to desired outcomes (McShaneand Von Glinow, 2003). Individual who share knowledge might consider knowledgesharing as an investment that will lead to certain benefit for knowledge sharer(Kelloway and Barling, 1998). Kelloway and Barling (1998) suggested thatemployees expected a return on their investment of knowledge sharing － the more

possibility of return, the more knowledge employees are willing to share with.Therefore, knowledge sharing motivated by reciprocity is sometimes an expectationand desire that those who share their knowledge will be able to acquire or benefitfrom some of the value created by their contribution. Accordingly,

Proposition 3: For an individual who is dominated by extrinsic motivation,he/she will share knowledge because of expectation of reciprocity.

Affective commitment in organization Affective commitment is defined as individuals’ desire to remain in theorganization and work hard for the organization because they want to (Meyer andAllen, 1997). Affective commitment reflects employee’s desire to be a part of the organization and willingness to retain in their membership of the organization.Individual who has affective commitment in organization is more likely to bemotivated to help organization instead of consider only self-interest. People who haveaffective commitment with their organizations reflect their pride in their membershipof the organization and their want to stay in and work hard for their organizations(Meyer and Allen, 1997). While people want to stay in and work hard for theirorganization, they are eager to make their organization better, even the efforts would

13

scarify their personal interest. In such circumstance, they are willing to helporganizational members by sharing their knowledge, with the risk of scarifying theirpower or status come from knowledge, to have contribution to the organizations theyserve.

Affective commitment reflects one’s goal-internalization in his/her organization.Individual who internalized the goal of organization will find it is meaning forhim/her to work for this organization and thus tend to stay and work hard for it. Thiskind of individual identifies with the organization. Thus, affective commitment can bedriven by goal-internalization motivation. According,

Proposition 4: For an individual who is dominated by goal-internalizationmotivation, he/she will share knowledge because of affective commitment.

PowerIpe (2003) suggested that power attach to the knowledge is one important factor

of knowledge-sharing motivation. He suggest that given the increasing important rolethat knowledge play in organization’s competition advantage, those who possess theright kind of knowledge might be conductive to creating the notion of power fromknowledge. It is argued that critical knowledge brings power to individual and thus,for individual with high need for power, knowledge sharing can be motivated bypower consideration. Need for power refers to a desire to control and influence one’s environment, for examples, people and resources. Ipe (2003) suggested that theperceptions of power attach to knowledge and competitive among members oforganization is two reasons of knowledge hoarding instead of knowledge sharing(Brown and Woodland, 1999; Davenport, 1997; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). Inorder to defense or attain their goal, employees may withhold knowledge from thosewhom considered as competitors (Brown and Woodland, 1999; Pfeffer, 1980).Therefore, Ipe (2003) suggested that political competition consideration might be animportant negative factor of knowledge sharing motivation.

We, however, suggest that individual dominated by external self-concept-basedmotivation tend to share his/her knowledge. Our reason is that individual withholdtheir knowledge may keep expert power but loose social status and power (McShaneand von Glinow, 2003). Expert power comes from having superior knowledge orability in specific areas and thus, such kind of power are limited to these areas (John,French, and Raven, 1959). Knowledge sharing motivated by power reflects one’s external self-concept-based motivation. Individual motivated by externalself-concept-based motivation attempt to meet the expectations of others and gainacceptance and status from the eye’s of others (Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl, 1999).

14

In an organization with knowledge sharing culture, withholding knowledge does notcomply with the expectation of others. In such circumstance, individual who withholdtheir knowledge will not be psychologically accepted as a member of organizationand thus will hurt his/her social status and power in the group or organization. Thus,for an individual dominated by self-concept based motivation, sharing knowledge is abetter choice than withholding knowledge. Accordingly,

Proposition 5: For an individual who is dominated by external self-concept-basedmotivation, he/she will share knowledge because of power consideration.

ReciprocityReciprocity is a mutual give-and-take action that involve the replying the favor

of others. Knowledge sharing might be a return action taken by the party who hadever receipt benefits or knowledge from the other party (Ipe, 2003). In suchcircumstance, the purpose of knowledge sharing is to conform to other party’s wishes and expectations of return and reflect knowledge sharer’s need for affiliation. Need for affiliation refers to a desire to “seek approval from others, conform to their wishesand expectations, and avoid conflict and confrontation” (McShane and von Glinow, 2003: p.138). Individual who have high need for affiliation would like to reply other’s favor based on conforming to others expectation of return and on avoiding potentialnegative social feedback arise by the resentment of other parties. Leonard, Beauvais,and Scholl (1991) posited that individuals dominated by external self-concept basedmotivation will engage in tasks that provide them with positive social feedback.One’s reciprocity for other favor is conforming to other’s expectation and very likely to receive positive social feedback. Accordingly,

Proposition 6: For an individual who is dominated by externalself-concept-based motivation, he/she will share knowledge because ofreciprocity.

Trust with recipient According to Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998), trust is “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based uponpositive expectations of the intentions of behavior of another” (p.395). Without trust, knowledge providers do not have confident that knowledge recipients will not use theknowledge against their interest and, on the other hand, knowledge seekers do nothave the confident that knowledge provider will willing to provide the right kind ofknowledge (Ipe, 2003). Under certain circumstance, decisions to exchange knowledge

15

are base on trust (Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos, 1998). Therefore, trust is importantelement of relationship between knowledge provider and the recipient (Ipe, 2003).

Trust with recipient also reflects external self-concept-based motivation. Ipe(2003) suggested that the relationship between sender and recipient was an externalfactor and trust is an important elements included in the relationship. We identifiedtrust with recipient as external self-concept-based motivation because trust is formedby previous positive social interaction. Trust in the relationship between individualsreflects relational trust discussed by Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer (1998).Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt and Camerer identified different forms of trust:Deterrence-based trust, calculus-based trust, institution-based trust, and relationaltrust. Deterrence-based trust come from the costly sanctions on the opportunisticbehavior which make the lost of breach of trust over the gain. Calculus-based trust isbased on the rational choice of trustor who “perceives that the trustee intends to perform an action that is beneficial” (p.399). Institution-based trust indicates that trustbetween individual is affect by the institutional environment. Relational trust is basedon the reliability and dependability in previous interactions between trustor andtrustee. Scholars often refer relational trust as “affective trust” because long term and frequent interactions leads to the formation of attachment based upon reciprocatedinterpersonal care and concern (McAllister, 1995). Relational trust compriseemotional component and thus, if the trustor have the knowledge that is needed forthe trustee, the trustor may willing to share the knowledge base on goodwill to andperceived reliability of the trustee.

Proposition 7: For an individual who is dominated by external self-concept-basedmotivation, he/she will share knowledge because of trust with recipient.

Association with own taskSome individual is motivated to share their knowledge to coworkers while their

works are related with his/her work. While he/she perceive the need to share his/herknowledge to perform the task, he/she will share his/her knowledge with those whosetask is associated with his/her own task or their work are joined together. This kindof knowledge-sharing motivation reflects internal self-concept-based motivation. Asmentioned earlier, the major concern of individual with self-concept-based motivationis the task outcome. If his/her knowledge can be use to contribute to his/her task,he/she will like to share his/her knowledge. Otherwise, he/she is not interest insharing his/her knowledge. That is, for an individual dominated with internalself-concept-based motivation, sharing knowledge or not depend on whether theshared knowledge will help him/her accomplish his/her task. Accordingly,

16

Proposition 8: For an individual who is dominated by internal self-concept-basedmotivation, he/she will share knowledge because of association with his/her owntask.

CONTEXTUAL FACTORSWe have discussed knowledge-sharing motivations and their sources. The next

step is to explore what and how contextual factors affect knowledge sharing behavior.In order to explore the question what, we identify incentive system, management’s support, and positive social interaction culture (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003) asimportant contextual factors that influence motivations of knowledge sharing. In orderto explore the question how, we refer to Deci & Ryan(1985). According to Deci &Ryan(1985), contextual factors do not determine behavior directly; instead, individualprovide psychological meaning to contextual factors and thus supporting his/herautonomy or control his/her behavior. We suggest that different motivation provideindividual different attitude to construe contextual factors that are important or notimportant to him/her.

5.1 IncentiveIncentive can be either come from organization or knowledge recipient. Firstly,

incentive from organization is a form of reward for knowledge provider. Rewardsprovide high-power incentives that consequences been tightly linked to actions(Williamson, 1991). Organization may offer monetary reward or promotional schemefor those who share their knowledge. Secondly, knowledge provider may expectreward from knowledge recipient. In other words, the major reason for an individualto share their knowledge may be that he/she looks forward to the future reciprocityfrom knowledge recipient. Reciprocity expectation as a motivator of knowledgesharing implies that individuals must be able to anticipate that sharing knowledge willprove worthwhile (Schultz, 2001).

For individual who is dominated by extrinsic motivation, incentive will excitehim/her to take action. As stated earlier, reward is a major driver of extrinsicknowledge-sharing motivation. Kelloway and Barling (1998) suggested thatemployees expected a return on their investment of knowledge sharing － the more

the incentive, the more the reward been expected, and the more the possibility that theemployees are willing to share their knowledge. Accordingly,

Proposition 9: Incentive will motivate individual who is dominated by extrinsicmotivation to share their knowledge with others.

17

5.2 Managerial supportManagerial support for knowledge sharing activity has positive effect on

knowledge sharing (MacNeil, 2004; Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). Managerialsupport for knowledge sharing activity include, for example, the direct order comefrom management asking employee to share their knowledge to others, thecommitment on the development of employees’ knowledge, the present of knowledge sharing technology (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). Connelly and Kelloway (2003)suggested that perceptions of management’s support for knowledge sharing are positively associated with knowledge sharing cultures. MacNeil (2004) posited thatsupervisors, through their devolved responsibility for people of learning or developing,can promote knowledge sharing within their team.

Although the above literature suggested that managerial support was a positiveforce for knowledge sharing among organization members, other literature remind usthat the members who own the focus knowledge have certain degreed of latitude todetermine whether or not or how much to share their knowledge. For example,Martiny (1998) found that the final decision of whether or not to share knowledge wasalways up to employees, although he identified leadership commitment to knowledgesharing as a key consideration for knowledge sharing.

Given that the final decision of knowledge sharing is hold by individual, howdoes managerial support facilitate knowledge sharing behavior among organizationmembers? We suggested that the answer lies in how management affectingemployees’ motivation－ specifically, motivation from affective commitment.

Kelloway and Barling (2000) suggested that affective commitment is based on anexchange-based relationship between organization and the individual. Managerialsupport is an important source supporting the exchange relationship. Managerialsupport in the knowledge sharing activities or behavior represents the commitmentoffered by organization. This commitment from management will induce employees’ affective commitment on knowledge sharing because employees will perceive that themanagement is really devoted to the promotion knowledge sharing behavior, not just apolicy slogan.

Managerial support is meaningful for individual dominated bygoal-internalization motivation. With management support, individual will likely toshare their knowledge because they believe this effort devotes not only to theknowledge recipients but also to the goal of organization. If management did notsupport knowledge sharing behavior, employees would see sharing knowledge ismore a favor to the knowledge recipients and less a contribution to the goal oforganization. In such a circumstance, knowledge sharing has less meaning for those

18

who is merely motivated by affective commitment. As stated earlier, goalinternalization is a major source of knowledge-sharing motivated by affectivecommitment. Accordingly,

Proposition 11: Managerial support will motivate individual who is dominatedby goal internalization to share their knowledge with others.

5.3 Positive social interaction culturePositive social interaction culture is the belief and norm about that both

management and employees, with little regard for their organizational status, socializeand interact frequently with each other (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). Individuals inorganization with positive social interaction culture tend to give others positive socialfeedback. Positive social feedback is a major driver of external self-concept-basedmotivation which is the source of knowledge-sharing motivation in term of power,reciprocity, and trust with recipient.

Firstly, power is meaningful for individual who is dominated by externalself-concept motivation. As stated earlier, the source of knowledge-sharing motivationfor power consideration is external self-concept-based motivation. Above discussionalso concludes that, for individual who is dominated by external self-concept-basedmotivation, the major knowledge-sharing-motivation factor is positive social feedback.In organization with social interaction culture, one might consider social status ismore important than expert power. Social power comes from sharing knowledgewhile expert power is kept by withholding knowledge. Thus, social interaction culturewill have a positive effect on individual’s knowledge sharing motivation. While individual frequently with each other, status differentials and other barriers tocommunication are reduced. Members in positive social interaction culture areencouraged to share their idea and the consideration of social power prevails over theconcern about expert power. Intention to withhold knowledge for power is reducedbecause employees may perceive that if they withhold personal knowledge, theymight lose the status in the organizations. Affinity groups are examples of positivesocial interaction culture (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). In affinity groups, eachgroup members have the same position or job title and thus encourage all members toshare their ideas. Members in affinity groups are concerned about whether their ideato be heard because if they do not demonstrate their knowledge or expert, they wouldbe degraded in term of the status and power in the social network of the group.

In an organization with positive social interaction culture, authority andknowledge give way to social influence since individuals have more chances todemonstrate their power through social interaction. Besides, knowledge power is

19

limited to very specific areas as expert power does (Jone, French, and Raven, 1959).In such circumstances, withholding knowledge give individuals little chance toexercise their power and enhance their status. On the other hand, in an organizationwithout positive social interaction culture, individual would like to withhold theirknowledge to keep their expert power.

Secondly, reciprocity is also concerned by individual who is dominated byexternal self-concept motivation. Reciprocity in knowledge sharing context is amutual give-and-take of knowledge (Ipe, 2003). In organization with positive socialinteraction culture, members interact with each other frequently and thus offer moreopportunity for reciprocal actions. In a large-scale field experiment, Frey and Bruno(2004) found evident of social interaction effects that contained reciprocity behavior.Because social interaction is taken for granted, knowledge recipient may take thechange of social interaction to return the favor, either in the form of offering personalknowledge or assistant effort. Besides, good reputation may be distributed withinorganization through the social interaction between knowledge recipient and othermembers. Therefore, it is reasonable to posit that positive social interaction willenhance knowledge sharing among individuals through the motivation of reciprocity.

Thirdly, trust is built through previous social interaction between parties and isconcerned by individual who is dominated by external self-concept motivation. Asstated earlier, the source of knowledge-sharing motivation for trust the recipient isexternal self-concept-based motivation. +Social interactions provide employeeschances to know each other. Through social interaction, employees will chat to eachother and find someone they like to talk with and, eventually, to trust with. Kellowayand Barling (2000) suggested that benefits of positive social interaction cultureinclude that employee would trust more colleagues and trust them more completely. Itappears that social interaction fosters mutual trust among employees to shareknowledge in organization.

Positive social interaction culture provides an environment to exercise power,make reciprocity, and nurture trust through social interaction among individual. Forindividual who is dominated by external self-concept-based motivation, positivefeedback from social interaction is important form him/her. Accordingly,

Proposition 14: Positive social interaction culture will motivate individual whois dominated by self-concept-based motivation to share their knowledge withothers.

CONCLUSIONWe propose a model including different kinds of knowledge-sharing motivations

20

(reward, expectation of reciprocity, affective commitment, power, reciprocal, and trustwith recipient), their major sources (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, goalinternalization, external self-concept, and internal self-concept), and contextualfactors (incentive, managerial support, positive social-interaction culture). This modelindicates that for an individual who is dominated by a source of motivation, he can bemotivated by this motivation. We, however, do not posit that he/she can not bemotivated by other motivations. According to Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999),individual can be characterized by motivational profiles which reflect the relativestrength of each of the five sources and every individual is dominant by a source ofmotivation. This implies that individual can be motivated by a second source ofmotivation if the dominated one is absence. Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) propose that individual’s behavior is guided by a dominant source of motivation and dominant source will prevail whiletwo or more sources of motivation are conflict. We, however, put a step furtherthrough the consideration of the notion from Deci & Ryan (1987). They argue thatcontextual factors affect individual behavior through his/her interpretation. As showedin our model, motivation not only moderate but also mediate the relation of contextualfactors and knowledge sharing. We, thus, suggest that whether sharing knowledge ornot are affected by the interaction of motivation and relative contextual factors.

In the proposed model, intrinsic process motivation and internal self-conceptbased motivation are not affected by the three contextual factors. This may imply that,as to knowledge-sharing behavior, individual who is dominated by intrinsic processmotivation or internal self-concept based motivation will not or not easy to beaffected by contextual factors. If this is so, the selection of members will play a rolefor an organization that considers the knowledge sharing behavior of its members.

ReferenceAllen, T. J., and Cohen, S. I., 1969. Information flow in research and development

laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12－19.

Barnlund, D. C. and Harland, C., 1963. Propinquity and prestige as determinants ofcommunication networks. Sociometry, 26, 466－479.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Bock, G. W. and Kim, Y. G., 2002. Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory

study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information ResourcesManagement Journal. Apr-June: 14－21.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. D., 1980. New work attitudes measures of trust, organizationalcommitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational

21

Psychology, 53, 39－52.

Connelly, C. E. and Catherine, E. K., 2002. Predictors of employees’ perceptions ofknowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and Organization DevelopmentJournal, 24(5): 294－301.

Davenport, T. H., 1997. Some principles of knowledge management. Workingpaper.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and self-Determination inHuman Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 1987. The support of autonomy and the control ofbehavior. J. Pers. Soc. Pshchol. 53:1024－37.

John R. P., French Jr., and Raven B., 1959. The base of social power. Classics oforganization theory (5th ed.), 319–328. Orlando, Fl: Harcourt.

Gupta, A. K., and Govindarajan, V. ,2000. Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lewssons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1): 71－80.

Huber, G. (1982). Organizational information systems: Determinats of theirperformance and behavior. Management Science, 28(2), 138－155.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework.Human Resource Development Review, 2(4): 337－359.

Kelloway, E. K. and Barling, J., 2000. Knowledge works as organizational behavior.International Journal of Management Reviews. 2(3): 287－304.

Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M. and Putnam, L. L., 1987. Communication theory andorganizational communication: Multiple perspective. In F. M. Jablin, L. L.Putnam, K.

Leonard, N. H., Beauvais, L. L. and Scholl R. W. ,1999. Work Motivation: TheIncorporation of Self-Concept-Based Processes. In Organizational Behavior,Ott, J. S., Pasrkes, S. J. and Simpson, R. B. eds., 2002, Thomson Learning Inc,p.191－209.

Locke, E. A. and Latham G. P. 2004. What should we do about motivation theory?Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of ManagementReview, 29(3): 388－403.

Roberts, H. and Porter, L. W. (Eds), Handbook of organizational communication: Aninterdisciplinary perspective (pp. 18－40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McAllister, D.J., 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations forinterpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,38, 24－49.

O’Reilly, C., 1978. The intentional distortion of information in organizationalcommunication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations, 31,173－193.

22

Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. S., 2000. Motivation, knowledge transfer, andorganizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5): 538－550.

Pearce, J., and Branyicki, I., 2000. Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitmentin particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11(2):148－170.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C., 1998. Not so differentafter all: a cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23:393－404.

Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discretestructure alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36:269－296.

Zucker, Lynn G., 1986. Production of trust: Institutional sources of economicstructure, 1840-1920. Res. Organ. Behavior. 8: 53-112.