A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING:
How the strength of the social relation and richness of the communication channel jointly influence knowledge sharing between departments
Master thesis, MSc. HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business December 2009
Peta Teuntje Kwakkel
A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING:
How the strength of the social relation and richness of the communication channel jointly influence knowledge sharing between departments
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of the strength of the social relationship and the communication richness on the amount of knowledge shared between organizational departments. Furthermore, the moderating effect of the strength of the social relationship on the relationship between the communication richness and the amount of knowledge shared is researched. An empirical study is conducted including 86 departments of 10 governmental organizations. A regression analyses supported all three hypothesis, although the result of the moderating effect was opposite of what was expected.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge is a unique and hard to imitate asset. For organizations knowledge can be used as a competitive advantage in a fast changing world (Spender & Grant, 1996; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Alavi & Leidner, 2001). But having the necessary expertise and knowledge in house is not enough; employees also need to share their unique knowledge with each other in order for organizations to survive. Many organizations are facing problems with knowledge sharing, and therefore do not get the most out of the knowledge they capture in their organizations. Take Unilever for example, one of world’s largest consumer goods companies. Unilever tries to serve their consumers based on their local needs. Knowledge is therefore only often shared within the local divisions that serve these specific products. Yet, as some expertise and knowledge is of extreme importance to divisions of other countries as well, Unilever introduced a community of practices, where experts from all around the world join together and discuss on a certain topics (e.g. on supply chain). As a result, the company managed to create common work strategies which helped cut down costs (Pos, Linzen & Aben, 2005).
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section the theoretical background and the conceptual framework will be elaborated. The third section describes the methodology used to empirically test the hypotheses. The fourth section reports the analyses of the data of the study. In the final section the results and implications for future research will be discussed.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Defining knowledge sharing
During the past decades, many articles have been written about knowledge sharing, but a common definition of this concept is still missing. The term knowledge sharing can also be replaced by terms like knowledge transfer, knowledge diffusion, knowledge exchange, knowledge flow or knowledge distribution. (e.g. Bergman, Jantunen, Saksa, 2004; van den Hooff & Ridder, 2004; Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Becker & Knudsen, 2003; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Schulz, 2001). They all describe the same process in an organization.
The most often used definition from knowledge sharing stems from Szulanski (2000), Argote, McEvily & Reagans (2003) and Van den Hooff & de Ridder (2004).. These researchers have operationalized knowledge sharing as a process where the sender and the receiver together create new knowledge by sharing their own knowledge with each other. Hickins (2000) further made a distinction in the type of knowledge that people share. He argues that knowledge sharing is only about capturing the tacit knowledge, which is knowledge that could not be documented. For example, experience or acquired skills (Polanyi, 1966). I have chosen to use the broader definition of Lee (2001). He defines knowledge sharing as “the activities of transferring or disseminating knowledge from one person, group, or organization to another”. He does not make any difference in the type of knowledge shared, both explicit and tacit knowledge are included. Importantly, it focuses on the sender in the process of knowledge sharing. Thus, by means of this definition it is about the amount of knowledge one department is sharing with another department.
Factors influencing knowledge sharing
knowledge shared in the organization. So far, research has made a rough cut between “social” and “technical” factors (Ipe, 2003, Lin & Lee, 2006, Van den Hooff & Schipper, 2005). I will elaborate on these two factors below.
Social factors. The first “social” factor influencing the amount of knowledge shared between departments of an organization has to do with the human aspects of knowledge sharing. Employees are essential for knowledge sharing (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). They mainly capture the knowledge and they need to be motivated to share knowledge. The organizations social structure, the employee’s characteristics and the social relationship between the senders and receivers of knowledge all influence the actual amount of knowledge that is shared within an organization. I will focus on the strength of the social relationship. A social relation can be described as a type of exchange or interaction between two or more entities (Haythornthwaite, 2005). These relationships could exist within families, communities and within or between organizations (Allen, James, Gamlen, 2007). A social relationship can be ranged from weak to strong (Haythornthwaite, 2005, Mathews, White, Soper & von Bergen, 1998). The strength of the relation depends on four factors, namely; the frequency of the contact, trust, intimacy and the interdependency between two departments (e.g. Haythornthwaite, 2005; Benassi, Greve & Harkova, 1999; Blumstein & Kollock, 1988; Granovetter, 1973; Lin, Vaughn & Ensel, 1981; Marsden & Campbell, 1984; Mathews et.al., 1998; Mitchell, 1987; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998; Putman, 1993). According to Krogh, Ichijo & Nonaka (2000) and Szulanski (2000) the strength of the social relationship is one of the most important factors determining knowledge sharing. This implies that problems occurring with knowledge sharing can be decreased when good social relations are built between the different departments of an organization (Szulanski, 2000).
the theory of Daft and Lengel (1984), the media richness of a channel can be determined by two key attributes; the immediacy of feedback and the multiplicity of cues (see also Dennis & Kinney, 1998).
The immediacy of feedback gives the sender of the message the ability to monitor the receiver and adjust the message when needed. The receiver is able to interrupt the sender and redirect the message (Rice, 1987; Melcher & Beller, 1967; Kahai & Cooper, 2003; Burgoon, Buller, White, Afifi & Buslig, 1999). The second factor, the multiplicity of cues refers to “the number of ways in which information can be communicated” (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Kahai & Cooper, 2003). The richer the media, the more cues are involved. For example, body gestures and tone of voice influence the way the message is interpreted during a face-to-face contact.
To summarize, the influence of the social relation between two departments and the richness of the communication channels used have been often researched in isolation. I therefore aim to examine the effect of the richness of the communication channel on the relationship between the strength of the relationship and the amount of knowledge shared. These two factors have never been empirically tested before in combination. In the remaining part of this section the hypotheses will be further elaborated.
How the strength of the social relation will influence the amount of knowledge shared Based on the findings above, I hypothesize that a stronger social relationship between organizational departments is positive related to the amount of knowledge sharing within those departments.
1977; Blair-Loy, 2001; Burt, 1992; Brown & Duguid, 1991; Granovetter, 1973; Rogers, 1995; Szulanski, 1996). Employees tend to turn back to the colleagues of other departments who they are familiar with and committed to. Moreover, under these circumstances, employees feel less insecure about the intentions of others, and are more willing to explain complex items more intensively (Empson, 2001). In addition, they are more motivated to help out, even without the guarantee that those others will give something for their advise or knowledge in return (Uzzi, 1996; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Van Knippenberg, 1999; Lin & Bian, 1991; see also social exchange theory; Gefen & Ridings, 2002).
To conclude, based on the reasoning above, I argue that a strong social relationship between departments will enhance the amount of knowledge shared between those departments. This will lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The strength of the social relationships is positively related to knowledge sharing between organizational departments
How the richness of the communication channel will influence the amount of knowledge shared
(Dennis & Kinney, 1998). Importantly, rich communication channels also have a positive effect on the time barrier that occurs during knowledge sharing. Because the development of knowledge is a process in an organization that keeps on going, knowledge sharing should happen in a short period. Richer communication channels will speed up the knowledge sharing process, and will decrease the risk of using knowledge that is already outdated.
To conclude, I argue that the richness of a technological communication channel will have a positive effect on the amount of knowledge shared between organizational departments. This will lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Richer communication channels are positively related to knowledge sharing between organizational departments.
The moderating effect of the strength of the social relationship on the relationship between the richness of the communication channels used and the amount of knowledge shared.
Yet, in a strong social relationship this is less likely to occur. Based on the frequency of the contact, the trust in the other department and the reciprocity of the relationship, departments expect to get back in contact with each other and ask for further explanations (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky & Vitale, 2000; Yousafzai, Pallister & Foxall, 2003).
In addition, the use of poorer communication channels might lead to more uncertainty because of the lack of immediate feedback and less cues. Yet, when there is a strong social relationship between departments, trust will diminish the feeling of uncertainty. Employees are more loyal to each other, and less scared of a loss of interaction (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Jarvenpaa et.al., 2000; Yousafzai et.al., 2003; Robert et. al., 2008). Finally, the complexity of knowledge sharing generally decreases in case of a strong social relationship between departments, because there is more familiarity and routine between them. As a result, poorer communication channels become sufficient for transferring knowledge, which will eventually result in more knowledge sharing by means of any communication channel (Fish, Kraut, Root & Rice. 1993; Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Rice, 1987; Trevino, Daft & Lengel. 1990).
To conclude, stronger social relations reduces the negative effects of poor communication channels on the amount of knowledge shared with other departments. Thus, in a strong social relation it does not matter what type of communication channels is used to have successful knowledge sharing. This will lead to the following hypothesis:
The conceptual framework is the visual overview of the hypotheses described above.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
To conclude, I will examine the joint effect of the strength of a social relation and the richness of the communication channel on the amount of knowledge shared between organizational departments. I have empirically tested my hypotheses in 10 semi-governmental organizations in The Netherlands. The method used will be elaborated in the following section.
METHODOLOGY Participants
The survey was conducted in 10 governmental or semi-governmental organizations in the Netherlands. Governmental organizations are knowledge intensive by nature, as the core tasks of their employees consists of developing and providing knowledge (Starbuck, 1992). Per organization, individuals from 13 departments were asked to fill in the questionnaire about the amount of knowledge shared with other departments in the same organization. In total 157 questionnaires were filled in (ranging from 5 – 13 departments per organization). Some respondents were from the same department. In the cases of two or more respondents from one department, the scores were merged into an average score per department. In total 85 departments had filled in the questionnaire, only 1 questionnaire was filled in incomplete. Thus, 84 questionnaires were used for this research, which indicates a response rate of 66%.
Procedure
Data collection took place in June, July and August 2009. Organizations were approached by phone. When they agreed to fill in the questionnaire, an email was sent to the contact person with the link to the online questionnaire. In turn, the contact person spread the questionnaire in their own organization. During the period of data collection the organizations were reminded several times by phone or by email to fill in the questionnaire.
Measures
Dependent variable
Amount of knowledge shared
In general, measuring knowledge sharing is difficult. The amount of shared knowledge is not questioned much in previous studies. Whenever the amount of shared knowledge was asked, it happened to be tested in experiments or in studies with multiple measurements in time (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Only Cummings (2001) measured the amount of knowledge shared in a survey. In his survey, respondents were asked to indicate how often they shared five types of knowledge, namely; general overviews, specific requirements, analytical techniques, progress reports and project results. These were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (A lot). Because the types of knowledge tend to be explicit, one question was added about the how often non-documented knowledge was shared. The internal reliability is sufficient (α = .93).
Independent variable(s)
Strength of the social relationship
a strong social relationship between organizational departments. The scale used for measuring the frequency of the contact has been recalculated to a 5-point-scale. All scores of the 7 statements are computed in a mean score. An internal reliability is calculated. The Cronbach’s Alpha was excellent (α =.90).
The richness of the communication channel
The richness of the communication channel consisted of six items measuring the frequency of usage of; 1) face-to-face contact, 2) phone, 3) e-mail, 4) post, 5) documents and 6) intranet (1: Least often used to 7 = Most often used).
To create one mean score for the media richness of the organization, each communication channel got a specific weight based on the multiplicity of cues and the immediacy of feedback. The richest communication channels got the highest weight; the poorest communication channels got the lowest weight (Takeda & Johnson, 2009). Face-to-face conversation is the richest communication channel (Utz, 2007). It is the only communication channel where you actually see the party you communicate with in real life. Telephones are second in the list of media richness. Although touch and visual cues are filtered out, intonation is an important way to give a message emotion, which indicates that more cues are available (Utz, 2007). E-mail will come just behind the telephone in its communication richness (Kelleher, 2001). Email gives individuals the opportunity to send a personal message with more emotions by including for example smilies. This could also be done with the regular posting system, but this will take longer to respond. Intranet and documents are the poorest communications channels. These communication channels are quite static. There is no possibility of multiplicity of cues and no immediacy of feedback (Dennis, Fuller & Valacich, 2008). This will lead to five categories of communication channel, ranging from the richest, face-to-face contact, till the poorest, documents/intranet. Communication Channel Weight
Face-to-face contact 1
Phone 0.8
E-mail 0.6
Post 0.4
By multiplying the scores of the respondent per communication channel with the weight and adding them together a media richness score is measured per department. A higher score means the richer the communication with this department. For communication channels the Cronbach’s Alpha is .73, which is sufficient.
Control variable(s)
To make sure that other factors are not influencing both the dependent as the independent variables, some control variables are included in the survey. Cummings (2004) states that gender, age and tenure will influence knowledge sharing when the knowledge sharing was work related. Thus, gender, age and tenure are the control variables included in this research.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviation and correlation between the strength of the relationship and the media richness.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviation and Pearson’s Correlation between the independent variables
N M SD 1 2
1. Strength of the relation 84 3.01 0.71 -
2. Richness of the 85 16.08 2.19 0.17 -
Communication channel
The strength of the social relation and the media richness of the organization were not significantly correlated. The overall relationship between the strength of the social relation and the richness of the communication channels was positive.
strength of the relationship and media richness of the organization. Gender, age and tenure were included as control variables. In table 2, 3 and 4 the results of these analyses are summarized.
TABLE 2
Regression analysis of the strength of the social relation
R R2 R2Change DF sig
A 0.35 0.12 0.12 3 0.02
B 0.79 0.62 0.50 1 0.00
A = control variables B = strength of the relation
TABLE 3
Regression analysis of the richness of the communication channel
R R2 R2Change DF sig A 0.35 0.09 0.12 3 0.02 C 0.41 0.13 0.05 1 0.04 A = control variables C = media richness TABLE 4
Regression analysis of the moderating effect
R R2 R2Change DF sig A 0.35 0.12 0.12 3 0.02 B 0.79 0.62 0.50 1 0.00 C 0.41 0.13 0.05 1 0.04 B x C 0.80 0.64 0.02 1 0.07 A = control variables
B = strength of the social relation C= media richness
The results show that hypothesis 1 was supported. The strength of the relationship had a significant effect on the amount of knowledge that departments shared with other departments (β = .72; p = 0.00). In fact, this variable explains almost 50% of the amount of variance in knowledge.
The second hypothesis was also supported. The richness of the communication channel had a significant effect on the amount of knowledge that departments shared with other departments (β = .251; p = .05). Actually, this variable explains only 4% of the amount of variance in the amount of knowledge shared.
The third hypothesis was also supported. There is marginal significance (β = -.130; p = .08) between the strength of the relationship and the communication richness. Figure 2 shows how the moderator can be graphically shown.
FIGURE 2
Importantly, the simple slope analyses shows the following: The amount of knowledge shared is higher in a social strong relation, than in a weak social relationship. The amount of knowledge shared during a weak social relation is very low. Contrary to what I had predicted, even the richness of communication channels can not change this effect (p = .42). Moreover, in a strong social relationship the communication richness does effect the amount of knowledge shared (p = .02). Remarkably, the amount of knowledge shared in a strong social relationship is significantly higher when poor communication channels were used compared to richer communication channels. This effect is opposite of what was expected.
CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION
From many studies, knowledge sharing is very important for organizations. When done properly it could improve efficiency, leads to easier problems solving, more creativity and less uncertainty (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995; Almeida 1996; Appleyard 1996; Song, 2002; Ipe, 2003; Govindarajan & Fisher, 1990; Gupta & Govindarajan, 1986; Argote 1999; Grant 1996; Wernerfelt, 1984). Knowledge sharing is “the activities of transferring or disseminating knowledge from one person, group, or organization to another” (Lee, 2001). There are many factors influencing the knowledge shared in organizations. The purpose of this research is to find out whether one highly important “social” factor, the strength of the social relation between two departments and one highly important “technical” factor, the media richness of the communication channels used influence the amount of knowledge shared.
In this study, both hypotheses were confirmed, which suggest that a strong social relation and rich communication channels are positively related to the amount of knowledge shared between organizational departments. Furthermore, the moderating effect of the strength of the social relation on the relationship between the communication richness and the amount of knowledge shared was examined. This effect was in the opposite direction of what I had expected. The following section will discuss these findings.
the routine, experience and the familiarity that comes with a strong social relation. In addition, for the hypothesis about the communication richness the result is significant. This means that the amount of knowledge shared is higher when richer communication channels are used. As predicted, the immediacy of feedback and the multiplicity of cues that comes with communication richness indeed help to overcome problems with understanding the message and give the opportunity to ask for additional knowledge.
I did also find a marginal significant moderating effect of the strength of the relationship on the relationship between the communication richness and the amount of knowledge shared. Yet, the simple slope in a weak social relationship was not significant, meaning that the communication richness could not change the amount of knowledge shared. In a strong social relation the simple slope was significant, but the effect was opposite than expected. The amount of knowledge shared in a strong social relationship was higher when poor communication channels were used compared to the usage of rich communication channels. This means that when only poor communication channels are available within an organization, a strong social relationship between departments will make it easier to share knowledge. This finding can be explained by the fact that the trust and harmony that exist within strong social relationships enhance knowledge sharing when less communication channels are available (Gremler & Gwinner, 2000). In globally distributed teams, for example, members are facing time barriers (there is no immediate feedback possibility) and geographical barriers (there is no multiplicity of cues) in their knowledge sharing process. One could argue that this situation would lead to less knowledge sharing, because it is more difficult for these teams to use rich communication channels (Kotlarski & Orshi, 2004). However, recent research showed that successful knowledge sharing still occurred as long as there was a strong relationship.
strong relation with will be used, because the sender of the knowledge is found reliable (Hsu & Lin, 2008).
Limitations
In this research there are a few limitations that I should mention. At first, the HR department had a central role in this research because they can keep the best overview of the knowledge existing in the organization. They have contacts with all other departments in the organization. This has several benefits for the company, for example, in case of a shortage in knowledge they could hire someone new (Robertson & O’Malley Hammersley, 2000; Flood, Turner, Ramamoorthy & Pearson, 2001). But I of course acknowledge that the content of the knowledge shared between the HR department and other departments may differ from the knowledge shared between other organizational departments.
The second limitation is the measure that I constructed to obtain the richness of the communication channels. Originally, chat, video conferencing and internet were also included in the media richness measurement, but the Cronbach’s Alpha showed low internal consistency between the communication channels. This might be caused by the fact that newer communication channels were not used enough for the participants to agree upon the effectiveness of such communication channels (Davis, 1989). As a consequence, I had to remove the newer communication channels from the final measure.
Third, because this research is conducted in non-profit organizations in The Netherlands, a generalization across other organizations and other countries is hard to make. Non-profit organizations have specific characteristics to distinguish them from profit organizations, like being knowledge intensive, bureaucracy and standardization of the processes (e.g. Mintzberg, 1987; Starbuck, 1992). A replication of my study in the profit field would tell us whether social relations and communication channels are equally important for knowledge sharing in all types of organizations.
Discussion of Future Research
channels. Some critical notes need to be mentioned about this research. This will be elaborated in this section.
The amount of knowledge shared should not be the only thing to look at when it comes to knowledge sharing. One could argue that it is not the quantity that is important, but the quality of the knowledge shared as this will give departments the opportunity to make well informed decisions. For example, in many organizations there is no exact overview of who knows what or where certain knowledge is captured. Searching for knowledge in a big database of knowledge is also very discouraging (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Lack of an overview makes the search for particular knowledge very time consuming and irrelevant knowledge might be found and used (Dworman, 1998; Feldman & March, 1981). Thus, the amount of knowledge shared between organizational departments might be large, but irrelevant knowledge is actually used. In addition to this, it has been reasoned that a strong social relationship does not always have a positive effect on knowledge sharing (Nelson, 1989; Wegener, 1991; Krackhardt, 1992; Podolny & Baron, 1997; Granovetter, 1973). Because everyone in a strong social relationship knows each other, it is more likely that comparable knowledge will be shared (Robertson, Swan & Newell, 1996; Hansen, 1999; Granovetter, 1973). This means that an in-group bias could occur, in which team members tend to overestimated their own knowledge and undervalue knowledge of others in the team (e.g., Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This would lead to less inflow of new knowledge and people are not willing to share because the knowledge will be valued as not useful and will not be accepted or do not want others to benefit from it. Thus, knowledge sharing in a strong social relationship might be less novel and innovative (Hansen, Mors & Lovas, 2005). To conclude, future research should also measure the content of the knowledge exchanged, and investigate which knowledge is actually unique, useable and valuable, and which is not.
communication channels need to be used to prevent multiple interpretations. For analyzable tasks, poorer communication channels are sufficient enough. Sharing knowledge by means of communication channels that are not suited for the task or type of message will lead to ineffectiveness and inefficiency (Carlson & Zmud, 1999; Otondo, van Scotter, Allen & Palvia, 2007). In addition, the experience someone has with a certain communication channel might influence the future choice for this communication channel. The development of new communication channels has its effect on the way employees interact with each other, and thus changing the way employees share knowledge (Taylor, 2006; King & Xia, 1997).
Finally, as argued above, trust and commitment (Kotlarski & Orshi, 2005) might be the variables that explain the unexpected moderating effect that I found. More research needs to be done which includes these variables. This will give us insight in the exact mechanisms underlying the relationship between social relations, the richness of the communication channel and the amount of knowledge shared.
Practical Implications
Acknowledgement
By means of this acknowledgement, I would like to thank my supervisor Inge Bouwhuis. She gave me good and helpful advice and helped me a lot during the first months of writing my thesis. I was shocked when I heard the awful news about her passing away. I also would like to thank my second supervisor, Ms. Rink. It was hard finding the right start for both of us, but your comments on my thesis helped me in improving my thesis.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. 2001. Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly. 25(1): 107-136
Allen, J., James, A.D. & Gamlen, P. 2007. Formal versus informal knowledge networks in R&D: a case study using social network analysis. R&D Management. 37(3): 179-196
Allen, T. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge: MA
Almeida, P. 1996. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: patent citation analysis in the U.S.semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal. 17: 165-66
Appleyard, M.M. 1996. How does knowledge flow? Interfirm patterns in the semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal.17: 137-154
Argote, L. & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes. 82(1):150-169
Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Norwell,
MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Argote, L., McEvily, B. & Reagans, R. 2003. Introduction to the special Issue on managing knowledge in organizations: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management
science. 49, (4):v-viii
Becker, M.C. & Knudsen, M.P. 2003. Intra and inter-organisational knowledge transfer processes: identifying the missing links. Danish research unit of industry dynamics working paper 06-32 Benassi M, A. Greve A & Harkova, J. 1999. Looking for a network organization: The case of
GESTO. Journal of Market– Focused Management. 4:205-229
Bergman, J., Jantunen, A. & Saksa, J. 2004. Managing knowledge creation and sharing–scenarios and dynamic capabilities in inter-industrial knowledge networks. Journal of Knowledge
Management. 8:63-76.
Blair-Loy, M. 2001. It’s not just what you know, it’s who you know: technical knowledge, rainmaking and gender among finance executives, Research in the Sociology of Work. 10:51-84.
Blumstein P.& Kollock, P. 1988. Personal relationships. Annual Review of Sociology. 14:467-490. Brewer, M. B. 1979. Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 307–324.
Brown, J.& Duguid, P. 1991. Organization learning and communities of practice: towards a unified view of working, learning and innovation. Organization Science. 2(1): 40-57.
Burgoon, J., Buller. D., White, C, Afifi, W. & Buslig, A 1999. The role of conversational involvement in deceptive interpersonal interactions. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25(6):669-685.
Carlson, J.R. & Zmud, R.W. 1999. Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of management journal. 42(2):153-170
Cross, R., A. Parker, L. Prusak,& S.P. Borgatti, 2001. Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics. 30(2):100-120
Cummings, J.N. 2001. Work groups and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Academy of
Management Proceedings. D1-D6
Cummings, J.N. 2004. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management science. 50 (3):352-264
Daft, R. L. & Lengel, R. H. 1984. Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in organizational behavior 6:191-233
Dahl, M. S. & Pederson. C. O. R. 2004. Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: myth or reality? Research Policy 33:1673–1686
Darr, E. D., Argote, L., & Epple, D. 1995. The acquisition, transfer, and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41:1750-1762. Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. 13(3):318-342.
Dennis, A.R., R.M. Fuller & J.S. Valacich. 2008. Media, tasks and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly. 32(3), pp. 575-600
Dennis. A.R., & Kinney 1998., S.T. Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality. Information Systems Research. 9(3):256-274
Doney, P.M. & Cannon, J.P. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61(4):35–51.
Dworan, G., 1998. Discovering Patterns in Organizational Memory. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Empson, L. 2001. Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations. 54(7):839-862 Feldman, M.S. & March, J.G. 1981. Information in organizations as signal and symbol.
Administrate. Science Quarterly. 26 171-186.
Fish, R., Kraut, R., Root, R., & Rice, R. 1993. Video as a technology for informal communication.
Communications of the ACM 36(1):48-61.
Flood, P., Turner, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Pearson, J. 2001. Causes and consequences of psychological contracts among knowledge workers in the high technology and financial services industry, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12 (7)1152-1161. Gefen, D., & Ridings, C.M. 2002. Implementation Team Responsiveness and User Evaluation of
Customer Relationship Management: A Quasi-Experimental Design Study of Social Exchange Theory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1): 47-69.
Govindarajan, V. & Fisher, J. 1990. Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: Effects on business-unit performance. Academy of Management Journal. 33(2):259-285
Granovetter, M. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78:1360-1380. Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability
as knowledge integration. Organisational Science. 7:375-387.
Gremler, D. D. & Gwinner, K. P. 2000. Customer–employee rapport in service relationships.
Journal of Service Research 3(1):82-104.
Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations.
Strategic Management Joumal 2:473-496
Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. 1986. Resource sharing among SBUs: Strategic antecedents and administrative implications. Academy of Management Journal. 29(4):695-714
Hansen, M. T. 1999., The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44:82-111.
Haythornthwaite, C. 2005. Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,
Communication and Society. 8(2):125-147
Hendriks, P. H. J. 1999. Do smarter systems make for smarter organizations? Decision support
systems. 35(2):113-126
Hickins, M. 2000. Xerox shares its knowledge. The knowledge management yearbook Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hsu, C. L. & Lin, J. C. C. 2008. Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & management. 45(1):65-74 Ipe, M., 2003. Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review. 2 (4): 337-359
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N. & Vitale, M., 2000. Consumer trust in an internet store.
Information Technology and Management. 1:45–71.
Kahai, S. S. & R. B. Cooper. 2003. Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of
Management Information Systems. 20(1):263-299
Kelleher, T. 2001. Public relations roles and media choice. Journal of Public Relations Research. 13(4):303-320
Kettinger, W. J. & Grover, V., The Use of Computer-mediated Communication in an Interorganizational Context, Decision Sciences (1997) pp. 513-555.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. 1992. Group decision making and communication technology.
Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 52:96-123.
King, R.C. & Xia, W. 1997. Media appropriateness: Effects of experience on communication media choice. Decision Sciences. 28(4):877-910
Kotlarsky, J. & Oshri, I. 2005. Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems 14:37-48
Krackhardt, D. 1992 The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In Nitin Nohria & Robert G. Eccles (eds.), Networks and Organizations: 216-239. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. 2000. Enabling knowledge creation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lee, J. N. 2001. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability, and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information Management., 38(5):323-335.
Lessard, D. R. & Zaheer, S. 1996. Breaking the silos: Distributed knowledge and strategic responses to volatile exchange rates. Strategic Management journal. 17(7):513-533
Lin, H. F. & Lee, G. G. 2006. Effect of socio-technical factors on organizational intention to encourage knowledge sharing. Management Decision. 44 (1):74-88
Lin, N, Vaughn, J. C. & Ensel, W. M., 1981. Social resources and occupational status attainment.
Social Forces. 59:1163-1181.
Lin, N., & Bian, Y. 1991. Getting ahead in urban china. American Journal of Sociology 97(3):657-688.
Marsden P. V. & Campbell, K.E. 1984. Measuring tie-strength. Social Forces. 63:482-501.
Mathews K. M, White, M. C., Soper, B & von Bergen, C.W., 1998. Association of indicators and predictors of tie-strength. Psychological Reports. 83:1459-1469
Melcher, A. J. & Beller, R., 1967. Toward a theory of organization communication: consideration in channel selection. Academy of Management Journal. 10(1):39-52
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. Harper Row, New York.
Mintzberg, H. 1987. Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 66-75.
Nelson, R. E. 1989. The strength of strong ties: Social networks and inter-group conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 32:377-401.
Nonaka , I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation . New York:Oxford University Press .
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. 1998. If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review. 40:154-174.
Osterloh, M. & Frey, B.S. 2000. Motivation transfer, and organizational forms. Organization
science. 11(5):538-550
Otondo, R.F., van Scotter, J.R., Allen, D.G. & Palvia, P. 2007. The complexity of richness: Media, message, and communication outcomes. Information & Management. 45:21-30.
Pelz, D. C. & F. M. Andrews. 1966. Scientists in organizations: productive climates for research and development. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Podolny, J.M. & Baron, J.N. 1997. Relationships and resources: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62:673-693.
Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Day Books.
Pos, A., Linse, K. & Aben, M. 2005. Unilever: Leveraging community value. Inside Knowledge. 8(4)
Putman, R. 1993. The prosperous community: Social capital and public life, American Prospect. 13:35-42.
Reagans, R. & B. McEvily 2003., Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly. 48(2):240-267
Rice, R. E. 1987. Computer mediated communication and organizational innovation. Journal of
Communication 37(4):65-94.
Robert, L.P., A.R. Dennis & M.K. Ahuja. 2008. Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams. Information System Research. 19(3):314-334
Robertson, M. & O’Malley Hammersley, G. 2000. Knowledge management practices within a knowledge-intensive firm: the significance of the people management dimension, Journal of
European Industrial Training, 24(2-4):241-253.
Robertson, M., Swan, J. & Newell, S. 1996. The role of networks in the diffusion of technological innovation, Journal of Management Studies. (33):335-361
Rogers, E. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press
Salmon, S. & Joiner, T.A. 2005. Toward an understanding communication channel preferences for the receipt of management information. The journal of American academy of business. 7 (2):56-62
Schulz. M. 2001. Uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows.
Academy of Management Journal. 44(4):661-681
Sheppard, B.H. & D.M. Sherman, 1998. The grammars of trust: a model and general Implications.
Academy of Management Review. 23(3):422-438.
Song, S. 2002. An internet knowledge sharing system, Journal of computer information systems. 42(3):25-30
Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. 1996. Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management
Journal. 17:5–9.
Starbuck, W. H. 1992. Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies 29:713-740.
Stevenson , Williamson B. & M.C . Gilly . 1991 . Information processing and problem solving: the migration of problems through formal positions and networks of ties. Academy of
Management Journal 34(4):918-28
Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 17:27-43
Szulanski, G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Nelson Hall. Takeda, H. & Johnson, R.D. 2009. A survey of communicatio media utilized during IS group
projects. Information systems education journal. 7 (9):1-10
Taylor, E.Z., 2006. The effect of incentives on the knowledge sharing in computer-mediated communication: an experimental investigation. Journal of information systems. 20(1):103-116 Teece, D. F., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal. 18:509-533.
Trevino, L. K. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1990. Understanding managers’ media choice: A symbolic interactionist perspective. In Organizations and communication technology, eds. J. Fulk and C.W. Stein. eld, pp. 71–94. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Utz, S. 2007. Media use in long distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society . 10(5):694-713
Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review. 61:674-698.
Van den Hooff, B. & de Ridder, J.A. 2004. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management. 8:117-130.
Van den Hooff, B. & Schipper, S. 2005. Kennisdeling en competitieve organisatiecultuur.
Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap 33(3):195-207.
Van Knippenberg, D. 1999. Social identity and persuasion: Reconsidering the role of group membership. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds., Social identity and social cognition (pp. 315– 331). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers
Wasko, M.M. & Faraj, S. 2005. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly. 29:35-57.
Wegener, B. 1991.Job mobility and social ties: Social resources, prior job, and status attainment.
American Sociological Review. 56: 60-71.
Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 5:171-181 Yousafzai, S.Y., Pallister, J.G.& Foxall, G.R. 2003. A proposed model of e-trust for electronic
APPENDIX
Algemene vragen Soort vraag
In welke organisatie bent u werkzaam? Open vraag
Op welke afdeling werkt u? Open vraag
Hoelang bent u al werkzaam in de organisatie? Open vraag
Wat is uw leeftijd? Open vraag
Wat is uw geslacht? Man Vrouw
Afdelings specifieke vragen
Gebruikte media
face to face
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
video conference
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
bellen
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
"gewone" post
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
documenten
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
internet
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
intranet
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
Chat
Hoe vaak gebruikt u dit communicatiemiddel? 1 tot 7 Minst-meest
Sterkte van de relatie
Hoe zou u uw relatie met deze afdeling beschrijven? schaal 1-5 Bekende- vriend
Hoe vaak vraagt deze afdeling u voor advies? schaal 1-5 Niet/Nooit – dagelijks/altijd/overal
Bespreekt u problemen met deze afdeling? schaal 1-5 Niet/Nooit – dagelijks/altijd/overal
Bespreekt deze afdeling problemen met u? schaal 1-5 Niet/Nooit – dagelijks/altijd/overal
Hoe vaak heeft u formeel (zakelijk) contact met iemand van de deze afdeling gedurende 1 jaar? Schaal 1-7 nooit - een paar keer per week Hoe vaak heeft u informeel (persoonlijk) contact met iemand van de deze afdeling gedurende 1 jaar? Schaal 1-7 nooit - een paar keer per week
Kennisdeling
Hoe vaak deelt u algemene overzichten met deze afdeling? schaal 1: nooit
2: zelden 3: soms 4: regelmatig 5: vaak
Hoe vaak deelt u specifieke vereisten met deze afdeling? Schaal Zie hierboven
Hoe vaak deelt u (analytische) werkwijzes met deze afdeling? schaal Zie hierboven
Hoe vaak deelt u voortgangsrapporten met deze afdeling? schaal Zie hierboven
Hoe vaak deelt u resultaten van projecten met deze afdeling? schaal Zie hierboven
