|
Research by Kay Bartol and Paul Tesluk
Business success in the digital era is driven by
information; knowledge sharing within organizations is
crucial but not easy to achieve. If knowledge is power, then
what motivates a worker to give up a source of advantage? If
a worker shares knowledge, can she trust that it will be
used correctly, or that she will be acknowledged for her
contribution? Why should she take time from her own tasks to
share information with others? In some organizations, even
admitting that you need information may be perceived as
risky. Understanding the different factors that motivate
workers to share knowledge, and the ways that those factors
interact, can help managers create an environment that
results in the greatest amount of knowledge sharing,
utilization and performance.
In their paper, “A Multi-Level Investigation of the
Motivational Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing and
Performance,” Narda Quigley, former Smith School PhD student
and now an assistant professor at Villanova University, Paul
E. Tesluk, associate professor of management and
organization, Edwin A. Locke, emeritus professor of
management and organization, and Kathryn M. Bartol, Robert
H. Smith Professor of Management and Organization, combine
three different theories of motivation and explain how their
interactions affect knowledge sharing and utilization in
ways that affect performance.
The study is the first to integrate several different
motivational mechanisms to explain and predict knowledge
sharing. It also considers the perspectives of both the
knowledge sharer and the knowledge recipient, examining what
motivates someone to share knowledge and what motivates the
recipient to use that knowledge effectively. “Combining both
perspectives resulted in a theoretical model that was more
than the sum of its parts,” says Tesluk.
Study participants worked on CELCOM21, a computer-based
interactive management decision-making simulation that
challenged them to increase their unit’s market share. They
worked in two-person groups, physically separated from their
partners at networked computers in different rooms but able
to communicate via instant messaging. Each participant was
provided with unique information that, if shared and
applied, would result in greatest success for their company.
The design of the study included three incentive pay
conditions: individual, group, and a hybrid that consisted
of both individual and group incentives. While knowledge
providers working under hybrid systems shared more knowledge
than those in the individual pay incentive system, they did
not share as much knowledge as those working under pure
group-based incentives. Incentives had more effect when
mutual norms for knowledge sharing developed between the
knowledge sender and recipient. This suggests that companies
can motivate knowledge sharing by creating incentives that
emphasize group performance and are strongly reinforced
through clear norms for sharing.
“Rewarding individuals for knowledge sharing may send a
mixed message,” says Bartol. “Group incentives that reward
cooperative behavior reinforce a culture of open exchange.”
Companies might also consider recognizing knowledge sharing
in performance appraisals, recognizing and praising those
who go out of their way to actively share their knowledge
with others, and consistently highlighting common goals and
objectives that can link potential knowledge providers and
recipients.
Bartol and Tesluk found that knowledge recipients who
were confident in their own ability to perform well on a
task were more likely to set high goals for their own
performance when they trusted their partners.
Workers must also be motivated to apply the new knowledge
they have acquired in ways that promote performance. While
both knowledge sharing and goal setting had direct effects
on performance, performance was highest only when
participants both had access to knowledge and set stretch
goals for themselves. “The higher the goals were set, the
higher the performance improvement, but only if people had
access to new knowledge as well,” says Tesluk.
The study was conducted in the Smith School’s Netcentric
Behavioral Lab, a setting that allowed the authors to
control the knowledge sharing process in a way that is not
possible in the field. “We were able to track what pieces of
information were being shared and precisely when they were
being shared,” says Tesluk. Future research might
investigate how these findings generalize to knowledge
workers in actual organizational settings.
“A Multi-Level Investigation of the Motivational
Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing and Performance”
will be published in Organization Science. For more
information about this research, contact
kbartol@rhsmith.umd.edu or
ptesluk@rhsmith.umd.edu.
|
