Knowledge Sharing:
The Influence of Goal Dependencies on Knowledge Sharing between Supervisors and Subordinates and the Role of Leader-Member Exchange Relations
Teresa Lynch
S2211831
University of Groningen
June 2015
Master Thesis MSc Human Resource Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Abstract
Literature on knowledge transfer on the intra-organizational level is flourishing. However, there is still much to be learned. This research investigates the influence of goal dependencies on knowledge sharing behaviors of supervisors and subordinates and the moderating influence of leader-member exchange (LMX) on the goal dependency – knowledge sharing
relationship. In total 48 people participated in the survey, out of which 29 participants were subordinates and 19 supervisors. Based on Deutsch’s goal dependency theory (1949) it was expected that cooperative goals and independent goals are positively related to knowledge sharing, whereas competitive goals were expected to be negatively related to knowledge sharing. Moreover, a high LMX relationship was hypothesized to strengthen the goal
dependencies - knowledge sharing relationship. The results of the regression analysis did not support the assumption that goal dependencies influence knowledge sharing. Furthermore, no support was found for LMX relations to moderate the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship. However, the findings suggest that LMX relations have a greater impact on competitively structured goals. Practical implications and methodological limitations are further discussed.
Knowledge Sharing:
The Influence of Goal Dependencies on Knowledge Sharing between Supervisors and Subordinates and the Role of Leader-Member Exchange Relations
It is widely agreed that knowledge sharing within organizations improves unit and overall organizational performance and promotes the generation of new ideas (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Tsai, 2001; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008). Therefore, it is crucial for organizations to successfully manage the internal knowledge flow and encourage knowledge sharing between its employees. One important aspect in successful knowledge management is to identify the workers with vital knowledge and those who play a crucial role in the process of knowledge distribution and flow (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). Supervisors are of particular interest, as they have the task to manage and distribute knowledge within work units and act as role models by setting norms on knowledge sharing behaviors (Boh & Wong, 2015; Dyerson & Mueller, 1999). Yet, supervisors often receive valuable information from their subordinates, which can contribute to the efficiency of the work unit (Yukl, 2013). Consequently, organizations should promote knowledge sharing between supervisor and subordinates, since the effectiveness of the individual work units have an impact on the overall performance of the organization.
Furthermore, in order to be able to successfully manage knowledge resources,
organizations need to gain an understanding of the motives encouraging individuals to engage in knowledge sharing, as well as of the conditions, which increase the likelihood of
(Pee, Kankanhalli, & Kim, 2010). However, some factors might decrease the willingness of the employees to share knowledge. According to Deutsch’s theory of goal dependencies (1949) one has to distinguish between two types of goal interdependencies to determine whether or not knowledge will be shared. Positively interdependent goals, or cooperative goals, increase cooperative and supportive behavior, since the achievement of one’s goal is positively tied to the attainment of the goal of the other person. Sharing knowledge can consequently increase the probability of achieving one’s goal and thus, benefit the individual possessing the critical knowledge. However, goal interdependencies can also be negatively tied to one another, meaning that negatively interdependent goals, also known as competitive goals, decrease the probability of attaining one’s goal when the other person has achieved his or her goal. In this situation knowledge sharing could create obstacles to achieve own goals. Therefore, it is assumed that cooperative goals of supervisors and subordinates promote knowledge sharing, whereas competitive goals impede knowledge sharing. Moreover, Deutsch’s theory of goal dependencies (1949) takes into account, that goals can also be perceived as independent from one another. When goals are independent, knowledge sharing would neither increase nor decrease the probability of attaining one’s goal. It is expected that supervisor and subordinates are sharing knowledge when their goals are independent, as it can be assumed that sharing knowledge stimulates the reciprocal flow of knowledge and enhances the social and work relationship between the supervisor and subordinate, which in turn can mutually benefit both parties in the future (Ipe, 2003; Lin, 2007). Moreover, sharing knowledge might enhance the perception of expertise and provides the individuals with the opportunity for recognition (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Jarvenpaa & Staples , 2001). Based on the goal dependency theory, it can be expected that the extent to which knowledge is shared depends on the goal dependencies between supervisors and subordinates.
knowledge sharing has limited practical value, because it neglects the social context. In a realistic organizational setting supervisor and subordinates know each other and have
developed a social and work relationship over time, which may affect the interaction between them (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). According to the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), supervisors develop a unique relationship with each subordinate. This relationship can either be of high or low quality. High quality relationships, contrary to low quality relationships, are more likely to increase communication and
knowledge sharing because these relationships are characterized by more cooperative and supportive behavior (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). For this reason, it is assumed that LMX relations can moderate the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship. More precisely, LMX relations are assumed to enhance the positive effects of cooperative and independent goals on knowledge sharing and counterbalance the negative effects of competitive goals on knowledge sharing between supervisors and subordinates.
Consequently, the purpose of this study is to investigate how goal dependencies between supervisors and subordinates are related to knowledge sharing and to clarify the extent to which LMX relations moderate this relationship. The findings of this study will have theoretical, as well as practical significance. Willem and Buelens (2009) previously argued that goal interdependencies play a crucial role in knowledge sharing and have received too little attention in knowledge management literature. Existing research focused on the relationship between goal interdependencies and knowledge sharing on the team or inter-organizational level and was limited to the context of software development projects
positively interdependent (cooperative) goals will be investigated, as it has been done in previous research (Pee, Kankanhalli, & Kim, 2010; Willem & Buelens, 2009), but instead negatively interdependent (competitive) and independent will be considered. Taking the whole construct of Deutsch’s goal dependency theory (1949) into account will provide further insight on the impact of different goal dependencies on knowledge sharing. Moreover,
previous research has acknowledged the influence of social relations but focused on the role of trust in knowledge sharing (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Szulanski, Capetta, & Jensen, 2004; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008). Although, trust can be seen as a critical element in the supervisor-subordinate relationship, influencing the extent to which knowledge is shared, it is important to recognize that competencies, compatibilities and reciprocal
behaviors further determine the quality of the supervisor-subordinate relationship and hence, the knowledge sharing behavior (Yukl, 2013). Therefore, this study examines the moderating influence of LMX quality relations on the relationship between goal dependencies and knowledge sharing.
In practice, the findings help organizations to engage in effective knowledge management by raising awareness about the influence of individual motives, namely goal dependencies and LMX relations of supervisors and subordinates to share knowledge. The results of the study might motivate organizations to take measures to facilitate knowledge sharing between organizational actors and improve knowledge sharing efficiency. These measures could include implementing policies to encourage knowledge flow between supervisor and subordinates and designing rewards systems in a manner that foster goal dependencies to increase knowledge sharing between the two parties. Moreover,
Theoretical Framework
Knowledge sharing
This study focuses on knowledge sharing at the intra-organizational level. In accordance with the resource-based perspective (Barney, 1991) organizational knowledge resides within organizational actors and is the product of their reflection and interpretation based on experience that adds value to the organization (De Long & Fahey, 2000).
Knowledge sharing at the individual level involves forwarding information and knowledge to other organizational members that can help improve work performance and efficiency and prevent failures from occurring. For the organization, knowledge sharing at the individual level has several positive outcomes. Knowledge sharing can positively impact the team, unit and overall organizational performance and promote innovation (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Stewart, 1997; Tsai, 2001; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008). Therefore, it is widely agreed that knowledge is a vital resource for organizations to gain a sustained competitive advantage (e.g Tsai, 2001; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008).
In the last couple of years more attention was paid to knowledge sharing within the managerial context. Topics such as leadership practices and knowledge transfer methods were discussed (Hansen & von Oetinger, 2001; Schlegelmilch & Chini, 2003). Furthermore, the importance of management support has been pointed out (Sveiby, 2007). The task of
managers and supervisors is to organize and distribute knowledge flow (Dyerson & Mueller, 1999). Moreover, they contribute to the development of norms and values and can foster a collaborative climate within the organization (Boh & Wong, 2015; Dyerson & Mueller, 1999; Sveiby & Simons, 2002). A collaborative climate describes an organizational culture in which knowledge can be created, shared and applied (Sveiby & Simons, 2002). In general,
possess crucial declarative knowledge (knowledge about things) (Yukl, 2013). Consequently, supervisors are given the possibility to act as role models and set norms on knowledge sharing behaviors (Boh & Wong, 2015). This way supervisors can contribute to the development of a collaborative or unsupportive climate in which knowledge is either shared or not (Sveiby, 2007).
However, subordinates can also be considered an essential source of valuable
knowledge, as they might possess unique skills and capabilities that are of great value to the organization and its competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Additionally, in the course of time task-related and procedural knowledge is gained through work experience. Procedural
knowledge can be defined as the knowledge about how things are done. Supervisors and the organization in general rely on the expertise and knowledge of these organizational actors and hence, need to ensure that this critical knowledge is passed along (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). Therefore, investigating factors that can promote the knowledge flow between
supervisors and subordinates can gain useful insight on how organizations can increase performances. For this purpose, a closer look will be taken at the role of goal dependencies between supervisors and subordinates on knowledge sharing.
Goal dependencies
Cost and effort can be present in the form of time consumption or mental efforts. Benefits, on the other hand, are the potential gains, such as the personal goal achievement. Following this logic, it can be predicted that when the goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively tied to one another - meaning that the achievement of the personal goal is dependent on the goal attainment of the other person – it is more likely that knowledge will be shared. The increased probability of attaining one’s goal can be seen as the benefit of sharing the valuable knowledge. Consistent with this assumption is the finding of Pee, Kankanhalli and Kim (2010), who found that knowledge between business and external IT professionals is shared when perceived goal, tasks and reward interdependencies are present.
Deutsch developed the theory of goal dependencies (1949) that can help explain the different characteristics of goals dependencies. He distinguished goals by categorizing them into positively and negatively interdependent and independent goals. Positively
interdependent goals, or cooperative goals are positively tied to the goal attainment of the other person, meaning that the probability of attaining a goal increases when the other person has achieved his or her goal. For that reason, people support, communicate and cooperate with each other (Johnson & Johnson, 1978; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981). Previous research on this topic emphasized the positive impact of cooperative goals in the organizational context. For example, cooperative goals can facilitate the achievement of higher quality decisions, as they induce discussions and reflections on different points of views (Tjosvold & McNeely, 1988). Moreover, cooperative goals improve the relationship between supervisor and subordinates by facilitating supportive behavior and lessening coercion, which in turn can improve performances (Tjosvold D. , 1985). Therefore, it is assumed that supervisors and subordinates with cooperative goals are more likely to share knowledge with each other.
goals are negatively related to the goal attainment of another person and thus, reduce the chance of successfully achieving a goal when the other person attained his or her goal.
Although formally, supervisors and subordinates should have cooperative goals, in reality the organizational context is often competitive and factors such as promotions and prestige are present, which can lead to the development of competitive goals (Pfeiffer, 1981). For example, a subordinate might want to engage in career-enhancing practices by omitting valuable information from his supervisor and instead forwarding the information to higher management. This way the subordinate can call attention to himself or herself, which can benefit the personal career. Another way to illustrate competitive goals is the ‘saving the company from failing’ example; the supervisor might consciously permit a failure to happen or withholds crucial information from his or her subordinates that could prevent failures. Then, when the attention is paid to the problem the supervisor speaks up and takes action to fix the problem. This way the supervisor can gain credit, respect and prestige. Following this logic, competitive goals should lead to less knowledge sharing, as knowledge sharing can create an obstacle to the personal goal attainment. Supporting these assumptions previous research has shown that organizational actors with competitive goals are reluctant to engage in discussions about their point of view (Tjosvold & McNeely, 1988). Also supervisors with competitive goals were found to lack motivation to assist and support their subordinates (Tjosvold D. , 1985). In brief, it can be expected that supervisors and subordinates with competitive goals are less likely to share to share their knowledge.
goals are perceived as independent, knowledge will still be shared due to the potential
benefits. It is important to take into consideration the established social and work relationship, when looking at knowledge sharing behaviors of supervisors and subordinates. Sharing knowledge with ones supervisor or subordinate stimulates the course of reciprocal knowledge flow (Ipe, 2003; Lin, 2007). As mentioned before, supervisors and subordinates often rely on the knowledge of each other and thus, are more likely to engage in reciprocal behaviors. Therefore, sharing knowledge can benefit the individuals in the future and encourage knowledge exchange even when goals are perceived as independent. Previous research supported this assumption by demonstrating that anticipated reciprocal relationships are positively affecting the intentions to share knowledge (Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010).
Moreover, when individuals can gain recognition, as it is the case in the context of knowledge sharing between supervisor and subordinate, they are more likely to exchange knowledge (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge sharing also provides the possibility to gain credit and to be perceived as knowledgeable, which in turn promotes knowledge sharing (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Taking the aforementioned arguments into account I expect that
independent goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively related to knowledge sharing.
In conclusion, there is reason to believe that the extent to which knowledge is shared between supervisors and subordinates depends on goal dependencies. Having cooperative or independent goals is expected to promote knowledge sharing, whereas competitive goals are assumed to weaken the extent to which knowledge is shared. Therefore, the following hypotheses arise:
Hypothesis 1b: Competitive goals of supervisors and subordinates are negatively related to knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 1c: Independent goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively related to knowledge sharing.
Leader-Member Exchange
As mentioned previously, supervisors and subordinates develop a relationship over time. This relationship can be characterized by mutual support and cooperative behavior. Both of these attributes facilitate communication and knowledge sharing (Sveiby & Simons, 2002). Therefore, when such a relationship has been established, it can be assumed that it will have an impact on knowledge sharing behaviors of supervisors and subordinates. For that reason, it is not sufficient to solely look at goal dependencies when predicting the extent to which knowledge is shared. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) describes the relationship between supervisor and subordinates as a social exchange
relationship. More specifically, the theory defines the process of role making between subordinate and supervisor by the development of an exchange relationship, which changes over time and redefines the role of the subordinate (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). LMX relationships are formed based on the competence, the compatibility and the dependencies of both parties (Yukl, 2013). The theory builds upon the assumption that the leader has a unique dyadic relationship with each employee, which is developed through an exchange cycle of reciprocal reinforcement behavior (Yukl, 2013). In this way a high quality relationship can be developed between supervisors and subordinates. However, the development of a high
LMX relationships distinguish between high or low quality relationships. Low LMX quality relationships are limited to standard benefits of the job (e.g. salary) and are
characterized by compliance from the subordinate’s side (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga). High
LMX quality relationships however, are associated with supportive behavior, loyalty, negotiating latitude and mutual decision-making (Daft, 1999; Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). The leader in a favorable exchange relationship shows more support, engages in more consultation, delegation and less dominance in conversations (Yukl, 2013). Moreover, high LMX relationships are associated with more open discourse surrounding non-routine problems, joint decision-making and minimal power distance (Fairhurst & Chandler, 1989). Subordinates and supervisors in a high quality LMX relationship are more likely to engage in more communication that goes beyond the interactions required to perform a task (Baker & Ganster, 1985). Additionally, high LMX relations are characterized by mutual trust, and trust was found to determine the extent to which knowledge is shared (Szulanski, Capetta, & Jensen, 2004; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008). Based on the positive effects of high LMX quality relations on the interaction of supervisors and subordinates, it is expected that a high quality LMX relationship promote knowledge sharing regardless of the present goal
dependency (see figure 1 for conceptual model). Based on the preceding argumentation the following hypotheses arise:
Hypothesis 2a: LMX relations moderate the cooperative goal - knowledge sharing relationship of supervisor and subordinate in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when LMX is high.
Hypothesis 2c: LMX relations moderate the independent goal - knowledge sharing relationship of supervisor and subordinate in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when LMX is high.
Methods
Participants
Multiple organizations within the Netherlands and Germany were contacted and my personal network was used to approach potential participants. Organizations were contacted via phone and/or email. In total 57 people opened the online survey. 48 participants
completed the survey and were included in the data analysis. Nine participants had to be discarded from the analyses because of missing responses or an early stop. 29 men and 19 women participated in the study, out of which 29 were subordinates (14 men and 15 women) and 19 supervisors (15 men and four women). The duration of the supervisor-subordinate relationship ranged from one to five years (Mduration = 3.50, SDduration = 1.53). The participants were working in various industries, including: Government agencies, Journalistic/Media, Manufacturing, Insurance, Pharmacy, IT, Banking, Justice, Telecommunication and Mineral oil. Based on the distribution of the sample participants were categorized into governmental (18 participants) and nongovernmental (30 participants) industries.
Procedure
An online survey was conducted with the use of Qualtrics software to collect data to examine the relationship goal dependencies – knowledge sharing relationship of supervisors and subordinates, as well as the moderating influence of the LMX relations on this
relationship. In order to adjust the formulation of the questions to the status of the
questionnaires were available in English, Dutch and German to avoid misunderstandings or misinterpretations. To gather data, participants were contacted via phone and/or e-mail. Information about the purpose and practical significance of the study was also given to arouse interest in the topic and encourage participation. The email included the links to the online surveys and they were sent via email when interest was declared during the phone call. Before the participants were asked to fill out the questionnaires, they were briefly informed about the purpose and content of the study. Subsequently, participants were asked to indicate their gender, the industry they work in and their job title. Thereafter, participants had to fill out the questionnaires assessing the goal dependencies of supervisors and subordinates (see appendix A) and the extent to which knowledge is shared between the two parties (see appendix B). Moreover, the 7-item LMX scale (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; see appendix C) was included in the survey to identify the leader-member relationship. In addition, questions about the quality of knowledge shared, number of people under supervision and the duration of the supervisor-subordinate relation (see appendix D) were asked to be able to control for these variables in the analysis. The survey ended by thanking the participants for their
participation and providing my personal email address in case of remaining questions. Filling out the online study was estimated to take approximately 10 minutes. Participants were
conducting the survey unsupervised and participation was voluntary and anonymous to ensure confidentiality.
Measures
Three questionnaires were included in the online survey. The answers were given on Likert scales to obtain quantitative data on goal dependencies of supervisor and subordinate, time spent on knowledge sharing and the LMX relationship.
subordinates within the sample (see appendix A). In total the questionnaire contained fourteen questions with a 5-point Likert response scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Five items assessed the cooperative goals of participants. The reliability of the measure was sufficient (Cronbach’s alpha = .749). A sample item was ‘To what extent do you believe the supervisor’s goal attainment contributes to your achievement?’. Four questions measured the competitive goal interdependencies (e.g. ‘To what extent do you believe what helps the supervisor gets in your way?’). The reliability of the measurement scale was poor with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .488. However, the alpha coefficient often underestimates the true reliability when fewer items are included in a measure (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013). Nonetheless, the results of competitive goals have to be interpreted with caution. Data on independent goals were assessed by five questions. The reliability of the measure was sufficient with a Cronbach’s alpha of .615. A sample item was ‘To what extent do you and the supervisor work for your own separate interests?’.
Time spent on knowledge sharing. In order to assess the extent to which knowledge is shared between supervisors and subordinates four questions with a 5-point Likert response scale were incorporated in the survey (see appendix B). The questions had to be generally applicable to participants from various industries. Therefore, selected questions previously developed by Boh and Wong (2015) were incorporated in the study. The reliability of the measure is good, with a Cronbach’s alpha score of .828. An example question was ‘On average how often do you share knowledge about appropriate judgments to make in different situations with your supervisor/subordinate, when it is not defined by the standard operating procedure?’. Participants were asked to choose the appropriate answer from the response scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘very often’.
quality of the leader-member or supervisor-subordinate relationships (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The questionnaire contains seven questions with a 5-point Likert scales response format (see appendix C). Questions ranged from ‘Do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do? ‘ to ‘How well does your leader recognize you potential?’. The reliability of the measure was good (Cronbach’s alpha .810).
Data analysis
In order to be able to make assumptions about the relationship between goal
dependencies and knowledge sharing, as well as the moderating influence of LMX relations, regression analysis was run using SPSS. Each standardized independent variable (cooperative goals, competitive goals and independent goals) was investigated separately to examine the influence on the dependent variable (knowledge sharing), while controlling for the quality of knowledge shared. To examine the moderating influence of LMX relations a multiple
regression - including the standardized goal dependency variable, standardized LMX variable and standardized interaction variable (goal dependency * LMX) - was conducted.
Control variables
Within the survey, several factors were assumed to be able to facilitate or inhibit knowledge sharing. Therefore, data was collected to assess which industry participants are working, the duration of the supervisor-subordinate relation, the amount of people under supervision and the perceived quality of shared knowledge between supervisors and
subordinates (see appendix D). Correlation analysis showed that only ‘Quality of knowledge shared’ significantly correlated with the dependent variable ‘Knowledge shared’ (see table 1). Therefore, ‘Quality of knowledge shared’ was controlled for in the regression analysis. It was decided to control for the quality of shared knowledge in the first place, since previous
work and proved to be time saving (Haas & Hansen, 2007). Therefore, it can be assumed that when supervisors and subordinates generally share high quality knowledge, they are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing, since the individual can gain a benefit from sharing knowledge and can stimulate the reciprocal flow of exchanging knowledge with the other individual.
Results
The present study examined the effect of goal dependencies on knowledge sharing and the moderating influence of LMX relations while controlling for the perceived quality of knowledge shared. More precisely, cooperative, competitive and independent goals (independent variables (IV’s)) were assumed to have an impact on knowledge sharing (dependent variable (DV)) and LMX quality relations were included in the regression model to determine the moderating influence on the goal dependency – knowledge sharing
relationship. Before testing the hypothesis the missing data was replaced by the series mean and correlations of the variables were examined (see table 1). Cooperative goals correlated positively with knowledge sharing (r (46) = .370, p < .01) and independent goals correlated negatively with knowledge sharing (r (46) = -.290, p < .05). The moderator LMX also positively correlated with knowledge sharing (r (46) = .422, p < .01). However, competitive goals were not found to significantly correlate with knowledge sharing (r (46) = -.094, p > .10). Furthermore, the control variable ‘Quality of knowledge shared’ positively correlated with the DV (r (46) = .388, p < .01).
Firstly, it was hypothesized (H1a) that cooperative goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively related to knowledge sharing. The prediction model was
statistically significant, F (2, 45) = 4.821, p = .013 and accounted for approximately 18% (R2 = .176, R2adjusted = .140) of the variance of the dependent variable. The results of the analysis
= 0.207, t (44) = 1.188, p = .241.
Secondly, I hypothesized (H1b) that competitive goals of supervisors and subordinates are negatively related to knowledge sharing. Taken into account the ‘Quality of knowledge shared’, the predictive model was significant, F (2, 45) = 4.051, p = .024. The model explained approximately 15% of the variance of the DV (R2 = .153, R2adjusted = .115).
However, competitive goals did not significantly influence the DV, β = 0.047, t (44) = 0.321 p = .750 and the beta coefficient (β = 0.047) reveals a slightly positive relation to knowledge sharing. As a consequence of this surprising trend, it was tested whether ‘Quality of knowledge shared’ moderated the relationship between competitive goals and knowledge sharing. However, the results did not support this assumption, βComGoals*Quality = 0.245, t (43) = 1.533 p = .132. Moreover, a post hoc power analysis, using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) revealed that the study yielded a power of .71. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that the null result was due to the modest sample size if the present study (48).
Moreover, the results need to be interpreted with caution, since the internal reliability of the measurement scale (alpha = 0.488) was low.
Thirdly, I hypothesized (H1c) that independent goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively related to knowledge sharing. The variance explained by the predicted model was approximately 19% (R2 = .188, R2adjusted = .152). The prediction model was statistically significant, F (2, 45) = 5.211, p = .009. However, independent goals were not statistically significant related to the DV, β = -0.201, t (44) = -1.440, p = .175. Although the results were nonsignificant, they suggested a slightly negative relation to knowledge sharing. Similar results were obtained within the correlation analysis (r (46) = -.290, p < .05) and when the regression analysis was conducted excluding the control variable ‘Quality of knowledge
shared’ (βINDEGOAL = -0.290, t (45) = -2.055, p = .046).
sharing relationship of supervisor and subordinate in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when LMX is high (H2a). The prediction model was statistically significant, F (4, 43) = 3.587, p = .013 and accounted for approximately 25% (R2 = .250, R2adjusted = .180) of the
variance of the dependent variable. The results of the analysis did not support H2a. The interaction effect was not statistically significant, β = -1.869, t (37) = -1.491, p = .143.
Although the results were not statistically significant, the data indicates that when cooperative goals were low, high LMX relations strengthened the cooperative goal – knowledge sharing relationship. The interaction effect plot (Figure 2) visualizes the interaction between
cooperative goals and LMX relations. Moreover, within the regression model cooperative goals were not significantly related to knowledge sharing, β = 1.020, t (37) = 1.571, p = .124, as well as LMX quality relation, β = 1.488, t (37) =1.768, p = .084.
Furthermore, it was hypothesized (H2b) that LMX relations moderate the competitive goal – knowledge sharing relationship of supervisor and subordinate in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when LMX is high. The predictive model was significant, F (4, 43) = 3.536, p = .014 and explained approximately 25% of the variance in knowledge sharing (R2 = .248, R2adjusted = .178). The hypothesis (H2b) was once more not supported by the results, β
ComGoals*LMX = 1.801, t (37) = 1.448, p = .155. Thus, no evidence was found for high quality LMX relations to strengthen the competitive goal – knowledge sharing relationship.
interpreted with caution.
Lastly, it was hypothesized (H2c) that LMX relations moderate the independent goal - knowledge sharing relationship of supervisor and subordinate in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when LMX is high. The predictive model was significant, F (4, 43) = 3.160, p < .023 and explained approximately 23% of the variance in the DV (R2 = .227, R2adjusted = .155). Once more, the hypothesis was not supported by the data, the interaction
effect was nonsignificant, β = -0.567, t (37) = -0.721, p = .475. Thus, the quality LMX relation did not substantially contribute to more knowledge sharing. However, when
independent goals were low, high LMX relations seem to have a slightly positive impact on knowledge sharing compared to low quality LMX relations. Figure 4 visualizes the interaction effect of independent goals and LMX relations on knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the other predictors in the regression model did not reach statistical significance, βIndeGoal = 0.511, t (37) = 0.577, p = .567, βLMX = 0.603, t (37) = 1.115, p = .271. However, it is important to note that independent goals were positively related to knowledge sharing, which contradict the
previous findings.
Discussion
Knowledge sharing between supervisors and subordinates is arguably of great importance, as both organizational actors posses critical knowledge and influence the knowledge flow within the organization (Sveiby, 2007; Yukl, 2013). Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate factors that potentially promote or inhibit knowledge sharing between supervisors and subordinates. Previous research suggests that cooperative goals can foster knowledge sharing (Pee, Kankanhalli, & Kim, 2010). However, there is still much to be learned about the effects of goal dependencies on knowledge sharing. Moreover, the
moderating influence of the quality of social and work relations in the managerial context deserves more attention in this field of research. For this reason, this study examines the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship and the moderating influence of LMX quality relations of supervisors and subordinates. The results however, do not support the
assumptions that goal dependencies of supervisors and subordinates are related to knowledge sharing, nor that the LMX relation moderates the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship.
The first hypothesis of this study states that cooperative goals of supervisors and subordinates are positively related to knowledge sharing. Thus, having cooperative goals was assumed to result in more knowledge sharing. Cooperative goals seem to promote knowledge sharing but not as strongly as expected, since the results were not statistically significant. However, previous research that has investigated the impact of cooperative goals on
was collected on knowledge sharing behavior of supervisors and subordinates that was not limited to specific work projects. It can be expected that working in project teams and having task interdependencies can also bring cooperative goal interdependencies into awareness and thus, might promote knowledge sharing. Likewise, when knowledge sharing is investigated in a broader context, goal interdependencies might be less consciously present, resulting in less knowledge sharing. Moreover, even though the results suggest that cooperative goals are not statistically significant related to knowledge sharing, it can be argued that the results still have practical significance, as any factor that positively relates to knowledge sharing should be considered when trying to encourage organizational knowledge transfer. In general, the results stress the importance of further investigating the cooperative goals - knowledge sharing relationship in various business contexts.
Furthermore, it was assumed that competitive goals are negatively related to knowledge sharing. Thus, if supervisors and subordinates have competitive goals it was expected that less knowledge would be shared, as this might prohibit the individual goal attainment. Surprisingly, the analysis revealed that competitive goals promote knowledge sharing, even though this effect was minor and nonsignificant. This finding contradicts previous research that has suggested a negative impact on interaction behaviors of
chances of the personal goal attainment. However, it is important to point out that the reliability of the measurement scale for competitive goals was poor, which indicates that the items used were not measuring the same construct. Moreover, post hoc power analysis using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) revealed a power of .71. Low power increases the probability of type II errors, which means that the chance of accepting the null hypothesis when it should have been rejected is greater. Therefore, the results need to be interpreted with caution, as the low internal reliability of the measurement scale and the low power of the study might have distorted the results.
Moreover, it was hypothesized that supervisors and subordinates, who perceive their goals to be independent from one another would still engage in knowledge sharing, due to the potentially positive impact on their social and work relation (Ipe, 2003), as well as the chance of being perceived as knowledgeable and finding recognition (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Once again, the results did not support the hypothesis. Although the results were
nonsignificant, the findings suggest a somewhat negative relation to knowledge sharing. Similar results were found when the quality of knowledge shared was not controlled for, as well as within the correlation analysis, suggesting that supervisors and subordinates with independent goals share less knowledge with one another. A possible explanation for independent goals to be negatively related to knowledge sharing can be found when looking at knowledge as a source of power and value (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Davenport, Eccles, & Prusak, 1992). Sharing knowledge with other organizational members could threaten ones power and might even result in the loss of power (Davenport, Eccles, & Prusak, 1992).
important to keep in mind that previous research has investigated the impact of independent goals between organizational actors that are not required to work and collaborate together to similar extents as supervisors and subordinates. Therefore, it is questionable whether previous findings are generalizable to the supervisor-subordinate context, as it can be assumed that supervisors and subordinates should be more motivated to work on a high quality relationship, as well as to stimulate the reciprocal flow of knowledge. It can be concluded that more
research is needed to draw conclusions about the possible impact of independent goals on knowledge sharing between supervisors and subordinates.
Lastly, it was assumed that LMX quality relation of supervisor and subordinate moderate the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship in such a manner that high LMX relations strengthens the relationship. Once more, the results did not support the hypothesis. Neither the cooperative goal – knowledge sharing relation, nor the competitive goal – knowledge sharing relations, nor the independent goal – knowledge sharing relation was significantly moderated by the LMX quality relationship. Again, this finding was surprising, as previous research acknowledged the positive impact of high quality LMX relations on knowledge sharing (Baker & Ganster, 1985; Yukl, 2013). Although the results were not statistically significant, they reveal noteworthy trends with regard to cooperative, competitive and independent goal, which can be of practical relevance.
Focusing on the cooperative goal – knowledge sharing relationship, high LMX relations led to more knowledge sharing when cooperative goals were low, compared to high cooperative goals. Similar positive effects on knowledge sharing were found when
relationships when the goals of supervisor and subordinate are structured in such a way that they impede cooperation (low cooperative goals and high competitive goals).
Looking at the independent goal – knowledge sharing relationship one interesting finding was that independent goals were somewhat positively related to knowledge sharing. This result contradicts the earlier finding, which suggested that independent goal are
negatively related to knowledge sharing. Even though the result was nonsignificant, it does show that independent goals need further attention in future research to be able to reveal the actual impact on knowledge sharing. Moreover, when focusing on the moderation effect of LMX relations on the independent goal – knowledge sharing relationship, the extent to which knowledge was shared was higher when LMX relations were high compared to when they were low. Therefore, the findings further suggest that the LMX relation might have a minor but positive impact on the relationship of low independent goals and knowledge sharing. Once again, the moderation effect was not statistically significant and therefore, it has to be outlined that the results can only give a slight indication of trends but inferences cannot be drawn from these findings.
Theoretical Implications
The findings of this study contribute to the limited research that has been conducted on the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship. In particular, the goal dependency theory (1949) was introduced to outline the impact of different types of goals dependencies on knowledge sharing behaviors. Consequently, the findings contribute to literature in the field of knowledge sharing in the managerial context by providing indications of the influence of goal dependencies on knowledge sharing behaviors of supervisors and subordinates.
& Kim, 2010) but also emphasize that the context might play a critical role when examining knowledge sharing behaviors. Further research may be needed to investigate knowledge sharing within different organizational contexts. Moreover, the results of independent goals on knowledge sharing revealed contradicting trends, indicating that independent goals have a minor statistically nonsignificant positive effect on knowledge sharing when taken into account the LMX relation, but a minor nonsignificant negative effect when controlling for the quality of knowledge shared. Thus, more research is necessary to clarify the possible impact of independent goals on knowledge sharing behaviors.
Furthermore, this research looked at the moderating role of LMX relations on the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship, which opens up a new field of research and thus, adds new insight to the field of intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Previous research has mainly focused on the role of trust (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Ipe, 2003; Szulanski, Capetta, & Jensen, 2004; van Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008). However, it can be argued that trust alone does not sufficiently explain the impact of social and work relations, as reciprocal behavior, competencies and compatibilities might as well influence the knowledge exchange between supervisors and subordinates. The results, however, do not reveal that LMX relations moderate the goal dependency – knowledge sharing relationship as much as initially thought. Still, the results disclose that high quality LMX relations might play a more important role in competitive environments, as knowledge was shared to a greater extent when goals were competitively structured.
Practical implications
In general, the findings reveal that the goal dependency - knowledge sharing
practical relevance. The results reveal that cooperative goals are positively related to knowledge sharing. This finding might be of interest to organizations that want to foster knowledge transfer, as any factor contributing to more knowledge sharing should be promoted.
Moreover, this study suggests that LMX relations can promote knowledge sharing when goals are structured in such a manner that cooperation is inhibited (low cooperative goals and high competitive goals). This means that when competitive goals are present and/or cooperative goals are low within an organization, it is necessary to look at the quality of the LMX relation to be able to determine whether knowledge will be shared (LMX high) or not (LMX low). In order to prevent knowledge not being shared, because goals are structured in a manner that impede cooperation and LMX relations are low, organizations are advised to foster cooperative goals between supervisors and subordinates.
More specifically, it is advised that organizations that want to facilitate knowledge sharing should create a collaborative climate within the organization, which fosters
cooperative goals and encourages knowledge sharing (Boh & Wong, 2015; Sveiby & Simons, 2002). Implementing reward systems that promote collaboration between supervisors and subordinates is one measurement that organization might want to consider to increase
knowledge sharing within the organization (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Moreover, the reward system has to be perceived as fair, since motivation to share is build on trust and trust can only be established when fairness is given (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Szulanski, Capetta, & Jensen, 2004). Also, clearly communicating the goals and values of the organization with regard to cooperative goals might increase the extent to which knowledge is shared within the organization (Tjosvold, Andrews, & Jones, 1983). Generally, it can be advised that
Limitations and future directions
The following limitation should be considered when reading the findings of this study. First of all, the low internal reliability of the competitive goal measurement scale raised concerns. The scale included 4 items, which might have been too few to make accurate predictions of the alpha coefficient score, as the true reliability is often underestimated when fewer items are included in a measure (Eisinga, Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013). Nonetheless, the results of the analysis including the variable ‘competitive goals’ have to be interpreted with caution. This limitation could have been addressed by a pilot study. Due to a restricted time frame and the generally low willingness of organizations to participate in uncompensated online surveys, no pilot study was conducted. However, it is advised for future research to conduct pilot studies in order to be able to detect possible weaknesses of the study prior to the main data analysis.
Additionally, the results of a post hoc power analysis using G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) revealed that the design of the study to identify the impact of
competitive goals on knowledge sharing, while controlling for the quality of knowledge shared yielded a power of .71. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that the null result was due to the modest sample size of the present study (48). Note that other study designs yielded sufficient power (ranging from .81 - .87).Based on the low power of the study design it can be argued that more research is needed to investigate the relationship of competitive goals and knowledge sharing in the managerial context. Furthermore, an adequate sample size should be estimated before the data collection to prevent research from suffering from low statistical power.
and treated in confidence to discourage participants from providing socially desirable answers and using clear and simple wording to reduce the ambiguity of items, it was not possible to reduce all common method bias. Previous research pointed out that individuals want to maintain consistency in attitudes, beliefs and actions to prevent cognitive dissonance (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). Thus, participants might have given similar answers to those items assessing the same goal construct, which in turn might have resulted in revealing relationships that do not exist to the same extent in real-life (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Moreover, it cannot be excluded that participants’ responses arrived from illusionary correlations, meaning that individuals might possess implicit theories about potential co-variations that may have biased the data. Additionally, the threat of leniency bias need to be mentioned, since supervisors and subordinates might be more lenient with one another due to knowing each other well (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Furthermore, it can be argued that the sample is potentially biased. The present study used online questionnaires to gather data. Participation was voluntary and uncompensated, which made participation less appealing. Moreover, it can be expected that organizations and work units with a competitive internal environment might have been less willing to participate in the study, due to the confrontation of potential internal problems. It can be assumed that competitive work environments promote competitive goals and low LMX quality relations. Participation would thus draw attention to these issues and reduce the likelihood of
participation (Pfeiffer, 1981). On the other hand, it be expected that organizations that value and promote cooperation and collaboration were more likely to participate in this study, since this would be in accordance with the values of the organization. Future research might want to focus on the effect of competitive and cooperative internal working climates on
intra-organizational knowledge sharing behaviors.
allow for generalizing the results to other organizational context. However, I deliberately chose to test the model in the specific supervisor-subordinate context, as supervisors and subordinates need to exchange and communicate great amounts of knowledge in order to perform effectively, which in turn effect the overall organizational performances (Yukl, 2013). Prior research has focused mainly on the factors contributing to knowledge sharing on the inter-organizational and team level (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Therefore, more research is needed to further investigate factors that motivate and promote knowledge sharing in the managerial context.
Conclusion
References
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in
organizational learning: The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies , 37 (6), 2322-2380.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 82 (1), 150-169.
Babock, P. (2004). Shedding light on knowledge management. HR Magazine , 49 (5), 46-50. Baker, D. D., & Ganster, D. C. (1985). of average versus vertical dyad linkage models. Group
& Organization Studies , 10, 242-259.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management , 17, 99-120.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 9 (1), 64-76.
Boh, W. F., & Wong, S. (2015). Managers versus co-workers as referents: Comparing social influence effect within- and outside-subsidiary knowledge sharing. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes , 126, 1-17.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 35, 128-152.
Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership Theory and Practice. Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company. Dansereau, F. J., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to
leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance , 13, 46-78.
Davenport, T. H., Eccles, R. E., & Prusak, L. (1992). Information politics. Sloan Management Review , 34 (1), 53-65.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executives , 14 (2), 114.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations , 2, 129-152. Dyerson, R., & Mueller, F. U. (1999). Learning, team work appropriability: managing
technological change in the department of social security. Journal of Management Studies , 36 (5), 629-52.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Chandler, T. A. (1989). Social structure in leader-member exchange interaction. Communication Monographs , 216-239.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods , 39, 175-191.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal Of Applied Psychology , 82 (2), 827-844.
Ghobadi, S., & D'Ambra, J. (2013). Modelling high-quality knowledge sharing in cross-functional software teams. Information Processing and Management , 49, 138-157. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly , 6 (2), 219-247.
Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction: Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 30, 109-131.
Haas, M. R., & Hansen, M. H. (2007). Different knowledge, different benefits: towards a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic
Management Journal , 28, 1133–1153.
Hansen, M. T., & von Oetinger, B. (2001). Introducing T-shaped managers: knowledge managements next generation. Harvard Business Review , 79 (3), 106-117. Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of
expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 86, 1232-1243.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework. Human Resource Development Review , 2 (4), 337-359.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples , D. S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18 (1), 151–183.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1978). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Journal of Research and Development in Education , 12, 3-15.
Kelly, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal Relationships: a Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Lin, H. (2007). Effectis of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intention. Journal of Information Science , 33 (2), 135-149.
Lu, S. C., & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Socialization tactics: Antecedent for goal interdepdentce and newcomer adjustment and retention. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 245-254. Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of
attitude change. Psychological Review , 62, 42–55.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science , 11 (5), 538-550.
Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 11 (10), 550-575.
Pfeiffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Boston: Pittman.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal Of Applied Psychology , 88 (5), 879-903.
Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Chini, T. C. (2003). Knowledge transfer between marketing functions in multinational companies: A conceptual model. International Business Review , 12 (2), 215-232.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York, New York: Doubleday Currency.
Sveiby, K. E. (2007). Disabling the context for knowledge work: The role of managers' behaviours. Management Decision , 45 (10), 1636-1655.
Sveiby, K. E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work - an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management , 6 (5), 420-433. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management J,ou2rn7a-l4, 31.7. Strategic Management Journal , 17, 27-43.
Szulanski, G., Capetta, R., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science , 15, 600-613.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Effects of attribution and social context on superiors'influence and interation with low performaing subordinates. Personnel Psychology , 38, 361-176. Tjosvold, D. (1995). Effects of power to reward and Publish incooperative and competitive
context. Journal of Social Psychology , 135, 723-736.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 35, 281-293.
Tjosvold, D., & McNeely, T. (1988). Innovation through communication in an educational bureaucracy. Communication Research , 15, 568-581.
Tjosvold, D., Andrews, I. R., & Jones, H. (1983). Cooperative and competitive relationships between leaders and their subordinates. Human Relations , 36, 1111-1124.
Tohidinia, Z., & Mosakhani, M. (2010). Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors. Industrial Management & Data Systems , 110 (4), 611-631.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (5), 996-1004.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedants and consequences. Journal of Management Studies , 45 (4), 0022-2380.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: The impact of organizational structure. International Journal of Information Management , 29, 151-160.
Figures
Figure 2: Interaction effect of LMX relations on the cooperative goal – knowledge sharing relationship
Figure 4: Interaction effect of LMX relations on the independent goal – knowledge sharing relationship
Assumption check: P – P Plots
Figure 6: Competitive goals
Assumption check: Residuals versus Predicted values plot
Figure 8: Cooperative goals
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire: Goal dependencies
Cooperative Goals
1. My supervisor/subordinate and I share compatible goals.
2. I take interest in the things my supervisor/subordinate wants to accomplish. 3. My supervisor/subordinates and I want each other to succeed.
4. I am pleased when the supervisor/subordinate succeeds.
5. The supervisor’s/subordinate’s goal attainment contributes to your achievement.
Competitive Goals
1. What helps me gets in my supervisor’s/subordinate’s way. 2. My supervisor/subordinate and I have a ‘win-lose’ relationship. 3. I structure things in ways that benefit my goals rather than the
supervisor’s/subordinate’s goals.
4. I give high priority to things I want to accomplish, and low priority to things my supervisor/subordinate wants to accomplish.
Independent Goals
1. I do not know what my supervisor/subordinate wants to accomplish. 2. My supervisor/subordinate and I work for our own interests.
3. I prefer to work alone than with the supervisor/subordinate.
APPENDIX B
Questionnaire: Knowledge sharing
1. On average how often do you spent time on expressing knowledge and experiences to share it with your supervisor/subordinate?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Quite often
5. Very often
2. On average how often do you share knowledge about appropriate judgments to make in different situations with your supervisor/subordinate, when it is not defined by the standard operating procedure? 6. Never 7. Rarely 8. Sometimes 9. Quite often 10. Very often
1. Never
2. Never
3. Sometimes
4. Quite often
5. Very often
4. On average how often do you share knowledge about how to avoid possible pitfalls/mistakes with your supervisor/subordinate?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Quite often
APPENDIX C
Questionnaire: 7-item LMX
1. Do you usually feel that you know where you stand and do you usually know how satisfied your immediate supervisor is with what you do? (Question for
supervisors: Does your subordinate usually know..?) 1. Rarely
2. Occasionally 3. Sometimes 4. Quite often 5. Very often
2. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor understands your problems and needs? (Question for supervisors: How well do you understand the problems and needs of your subordinate?)
1. Not a bit 2. A little
3. A fair amount 4. Quite a bit 5. A great deal
3. How well do you feel that your immediate supervisor recognizes your potential? (Question for supervisors: How well do you recognize the potential of your subordinate?)
2. A little 3. Moderately 4. Mostly 5. Fully
4. Regardless of how much formal authority your immediate supervisor has built into his or her position, what are the chances that he or she would be personally
inclined to use power to help you solve problems m your work? (Question for supervisors: What are the chances that you would use your power to help your subordinate solve a problem?)
1. None 2. Small 3. Moderate 4. High 5. Very high
5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your immediate supervisor has, to what extent can you count on him or her to “bail you out” at his or her expense when you really need it? (Question for supervisors: What are the chances that you would use your power to cover the shortcomings of your subordinate?)
4. High 5. Very high
6. I have enough confidence in my immediate supervisor that I would defend and justify his or her decisions if he or she were not present to do so. (Question for supervisors: Your subordinate would support your decision?)
1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree
3. Neutral 4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate supervisor? (Question for supervisors: How would your subordinate characterize your relationship?)
1. Extremely ineffective 2. Worse than average 3. Average
APPENDIX D
Control variables
Quality of knowledge shared
1. How would you rate the quality of shared knowledge among you and your supervisor/subordinate?
1. Very low 2. Low
3. Neither low nor high 4. High
5. Very high
Duration of supervisor-subordinate relation
1. For how long are you working under the supervision of your current supervisor? (Questions for supervisor: How long are you already supervising the subordinate you have referred to in the previous questions?)
1. Less than one year 2. One year
3. Two years 4. Three years
People under supervision
1. How many people are under the supervision of your current supervisor? (Question supervisor: How many people are you currently supervising?)
