The differences in knowledge sharing between profit and nonprofit organizations

(1)

The differences in knowledge sharing

between profit and nonprofit

organizations

‘An analysis on profit and nonprofit organizations in the Dutch

traffic research industry’

M.J. Scholing

(2)

Master Thesis

by

M. J. Scholing

s1538934

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Msc Strategy and Innovation

November, 2011

Supervisor:

(3)

Preface

In front of you lies my master thesis, about the differences in knowledge sharing between profit and nonprofit organizations. This is the second time I graduate on the topic of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is a topic that always interested and fascinated me. If everyone was sharing his knowledge in an organization, a lot more innovations occurred. Also, working could be made easier, because processes could be executed more smoothly. Effectively sharing knowledge in an organization could be the foundation for a competitive advantage. The possibilities of knowledge sharing are enormous. So why is a certain person sharing his knowledge and another person is not? In this thesis, you will read that a lot of factors are influencing knowledge sharing, from organizational to cultural to individual characteristics.

I think the reason why someone is sharing his knowledge and another person is not, often is a conflict of interests. Certain people hold back knowledge, so that their power position is maintained. Sharing specific expert knowledge will make the knowledge common and therefore their position in the organization redundant. That is one view. Another view is that you can be rewarded for sharing knowledge, because this knowledge can contribute to something valuable. Sharing knowledge can therefore establish power positions, instead of eliminating one. As one respondent of my survey pointed out: ‘Don't be afraid to lose your leading position; your leading position will only be

increased by sharing knowledge’. I agree with this respondent.

I worked on it from January 2011 until November 2011. I can tell you that it was a lot of work. Several postponements blocked me from finishing my thesis earlier on. I will share some these experiences here. The first delay was in finding respondents for my survey. At first, I tried to approach my respondents through ‘the front door’, by calling a contact person. Some of these contact persons did their task well for me, in forwarding my survey to potential respondents. Some of these contact persons told me that they would forward it, and did not. I had too much confidence in these people and found out the hard way, that saying ‘yes’ and doing ‘yes’ is not the same. So, after approaching several organizations, I thought that I would have enough people for my sample. This wasn’t the case and I had to approach more and more organizations. After a while, my tactics changed and I was more creative in approaching and finding respondents. These methods were far more effective. So, a lesson would be: don’t be satisfied with your respondents, until you have enough. The idea of approaching a large group of people isn’t enough. Work hard until you have your sample. The second delay was in the statistical calculations. I thought I knew some about statistics, but this is nothing compared to what I know now. Fortunately, my supervisor gave me some advice on what to do and gave me a hint to buy a certain statistics book. That made the statistics part a lot easier, but it was still hard to put it for me.

(4)

Executive Summary

Knowledge is becoming more and more important in society and for organizations. Knowledge is considered as the most important resource which an organization can possess. New knowledge provides the basis for organizational innovations and competitive advantage. Consequently, knowledge management is of great importance for organizations.

Knowledge sharing, part of knowledge management, can be considered as the creation of new knowledge, the acquisition of existing knowledge and storage of this knowledge. When effectively sharing knowledge within an organization, this can lead to a reduction in production costs, faster completion of new product development projects, improved team performance, firm innovation capabilities, and firm performance including sales growth and revenue from new products and services. Therefore, knowledge sharing is considered as an important opportunity for organizations. However, knowledge sharing in organizations is automatically guaranteed. There are several factors that influence a person or a group to share their knowledge within an organization. Therefore, the multiple factors that influence the degree of knowledge sharing must be effectively managed by organizations, in order to successfully share knowledge.

Organizations have to change to keep up with the environment and to sustain a competitive advantage. Furthermore, working more efficiently and getting more out of organizational resources becomes more and more important. Profit oriented organizations must keep up with the environment, in order to survive. These profit organizations are dependent upon customers, sales and shareholders. Without sales, turnover and eventually profit, profit organizations have no reason of existence. This is different for nonprofit organizations, who try to create a social benefit, by potentially selling products and services. This is a difference in vision between profit and nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, nonprofit organizations are dependent on stakeholders, who provide financial support, such as donations or resources and not on consumers, like profit organizations. This is a difference in constraints between profit and nonprofit organizations. Generally put, nonprofit organizations have no reason of existence without a societal objective.

There are more differences between profit and nonprofit organizations. These differences are in risk averseness, learning capacity, efficiency and organizational empowerment. But since knowledge is becoming more and more important and can be determining for a competitive advantage, what are the differences in knowledge sharing between profit and nonprofit organizations? Are different factors influencing the degree of knowledge sharing in profit organizations, than in nonprofit organizations? Do nonprofit organizations share less knowledge perhaps?

These questions were the basis of this research, which tried to answer the following research question:

What are the differences of knowledge sharing between knowledge intensive nonprofit SMEs and profit SMEs?

(5)

There are various factors that can influence the degree of knowledge sharing in an organization. These influential factors can be separated into five categories: influencers in the organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, cultural characteristics, individual characteristics and motivational factors. The most important factors will be discussed. In the organizational context, organizational culture and climate, management support, rewards and incentives and organizational structure are important influencers of knowledge sharing. Next to the previous influential factors, there are interpersonal and team characteristics, such as the diversity of a team and the strength of ties. Individual characteristics are considered what can influence knowledge sharing based on the characteristics of an individual. The last influential factors are motivational factors. These are beliefs of knowledge ownership, perceived benefits and costs, interpersonal trust and justice and individual attitudes.

An online questionnaire was made on knowledge sharing, to test potential differences in knowledge sharing, the factors that influence knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing itself. This questionnaire was distributed in the Dutch traffic research industry; an industry where knowledge is important and where both profit and nonprofit organizations are active. A sample of 50 profit and 50 nonprofit respondents were asked to fill in the survey. In this sample, employees of profit and nonprofit organizations have a different vision towards knowledge sharing. Employees of profit organizations consider knowledge sharing more as a need than employees of nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, a hierarchical regression analysis determined that the factors that influence knowledge sharing are also different between both organization types.

Profit organizations. ‘Organizational communication’ and ‘motivational factors for knowledge

sharing’ are influencing knowledge sharing in profit organizations. In other words, when

communications are considered as good in profit organizations, this can influence the degree of knowledge sharing. However, ‘motivational factors for knowledge sharing’ are more important. When trust is perceived in relationships and the knowledge source beliefs his knowledge is valuable, this is also influencing the degree of knowledge sharing.

Because ‘organizational communication’ and ‘motivational factors for knowledge sharing’ are considered as determining factors for the degree of knowledge sharing, profit organizations should invest in proper communication channels and methods. Respondents of the survey answered that (informal) dialogues and meetings are important methods to share knowledge; more important than technical, digital tools. Furthermore, profit organizations should invest in building relationships and ‘a culture of trust’. Knowledge sharing is considered as a reciprocal behavior and has an intimate relation with trust. When people trust each other, more knowledge will be shared. Furthermore, employees have to consider their knowledge as valuable. When a person has the idea that his knowledge might be of use to another person, this person will have a motivation to share this knowledge. This belief of knowledge ownership must be triggered by the organization, in order to increase the degree of knowledge sharing.

(6)

present, the degree of knowledge sharing is influenced in a positive way. A great potential in nonprofit organizations lies in the reward structure; a relative large part of the employees still remains unrewarded for their knowledge sharing efforts and is unsatisfied with this reward structure. Since this ‘organizational knowledge sharing culture’ is a significant factor in nonprofit organizations, great progress can be made here. Rewards do not have to be expressed in money; the most important rewards are appreciation for the shared knowledge and a positive note by the supervisor.

(7)

Abstract

This master thesis is about the differences in knowledge sharing between profit and nonprofit organizations. Knowledge sharing is of great importance for organizations, as it can be the basis for innovations and competitive advantage. An online survey was executed in the Dutch traffic research industry, where both profit and nonprofit organizations operate. This research was set up in order to see if there were differences in the approach to knowledge sharing, the factors that influence knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing itself. In this sample, profit and nonprofit organizations have a different vision towards the need of knowledge sharing. Furthermore, a hierarchical regression analysis determined that the factors that influence knowledge sharing are also different between both organization types. ‘Organizational communication’ and ‘motivational factors for

knowledge sharing’ are influencing knowledge sharing in profit organizations, while the

‘organizational knowledge sharing culture’ influences knowledge sharing in nonprofit organizations. There was no evidence found on differences in knowledge sharing itself.

Keywords: Best practices Knowledge

Knowledge sharing Knowledge management

Knowledge intensive organization Nonprofit organization

Organizational culture Profit organizations SME

(8)

5.2 Sample ... 40 5.3 Procedure ... 41 5.4 Measures ... 42 5.5 Variables ... 42 5.5.1 Correlations ... 43 5.5.2 Factor analysis ... 43 5.5.3 Reliability ... 45 5.5.4 Correlations subscales ... 45 5.6 Used variables ... 46 5.7 Used analysis ... 47 5.8 Data limitations... 47 5.9 Chapter summary ... 48 6. Results ... 49 6.1 Descriptive Statistics ... 49 6.2 Regression results ... 50

6.3 Results and report of all organizations ... 54

7. Discussion ... 57

7.1 Descriptive statistics ... 57

7.2 Organizational communication ... 58

7.3 Motivational factors for knowledge sharing ... 60

7.4 Organizational knowledge sharing culture ... 60

7.5 Differences in knowledge sharing ... 63

7.6 Comparison general model with differences profit / nonprofit model ... 67

7.7 Best practices on knowledge sharing ... 68

7.8 Generalizability and validity of the models ... 68

8. Conclusion ... 69

8.1 Implications for theory ... 70

8.2 Implications for practice ... 71

(10)

8.4 Future Research opportunities ... 72

9. References ... 74

10. Appendices ... 77

Appendix 10.1 – Questionnaire Knowledge Sharing at work (Dutch) ... 78

Appendix 10.2 – Variables Survey ‘Kennisdeling op het werk’... 86

Appendix 10.3 - Correlations variables ... 87

10.3.1 Legend Correlation Table ... 87

10.3.2 Correlation Table 1 ... 88

Appendix 10.4 – Factor Analysis ... 93

10.4.1 Total Variance Explained ... 93

10.4.2 Scree Plot ... 94

10.4.3 Component Transformation Matrix ... 94

10.4.4 Component Score Coefficient Matrix ... 95

Appendix 10.5 - Items in scales ... 96

Appendix 10.6 - Measures left out analysis ... 97

Appendix 10.7 – Descriptive Statistics ... 98

Appendix 10.8 - Correlation Matrix Regression Analysis... 101

Appendix 10.9 – Model Summary & ANOVA ... 103

Appendix 10.10 – Coefficients ... 105

Appendix 10.11 – Full report regression analysis ... 107

Appendix 10.12 – Best practices of knowledge sharing ... 109

10.12.1 The perfect way to retrieve knowledge ... 109

10.12.2 Tips for colleagues and the organization... 110

Appendix 10.13 – Casewise Diagnositics ... 112

Appendix 10.14 – Histograms on knowledge sharing distribution ... 112

Appendix 10.15 – Normal P –P Plots of Regression Standardized Residual ... 113

Appendix 10.16 – Scatterplots ... 114

(11)

1. Introduction

Knowledge is becoming more and more important in society and for organizations. Therefore, societies become knowledge based societies (Kang, Kim & Chang, 2008). For organizations, knowledge is strategically considered as the most important resource which an organization can possess (Grant, 1996). New knowledge provides can lay the foundation for organizational innovations and competitive advantage (Inkpen, 1996). This competitive advantage for an organization can be determined by the quantity and quality of information and knowledge (Kang, Kim & Chang, 2008). Consequently, knowledge management is of great importance for organizations (Hendriks, 1999; Zhen, Jiang & Song, 2011).

Training and staffing systems, that select employees with certain skills, competencies and knowledge for organizations, are considered not enough to create that competitive advantage. In order to achieve a competitive advantage, organizations can collect more information and knowledge by ‘organizational learning’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). Organizations should consider transferring the expertise and knowledge from experts to the novices who need it (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). This is also called ‘knowledge sharing’, an important part of knowledge management (Bock & Kim, 2002; Hendriks, 1999; Zhen et al., 2011). Organizations should put more emphasize on effectively exploiting the knowledge-based resources that already exist in the organization (Wang & Noe, 2010). Therefore, the key role of modern organizations is ‘creating, stocking and applying knowledge’ (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). Organizational knowledge is perceived as ‘valuable, scarce, path dependent, causally ambiguous, and hard to imitate and substitute by third parties’ (Cabrera, Collins and Salgado, 2006). Concluding, knowledge has become the most precious property for organizations (Liao, 2008). But what exactly are the interests and outcomes for an organization by sharing knowledge?

1.1 Relevance of sharing knowledge

‘All men by nature desire to know’, said philosopher Aristotle (Aristotle, 350 B.C.). This desire has not changed over decades, as knowledge is still important. In order to gain knowledge, a person must interact with a knowing source, which has to share or transfer knowledge (Cook & Brown, 1999; Small & Sage, 2006). Knowledge sharing is the behavior of diffusing knowledge, while knowledge transfer involves both the sharing of knowledge by the knowledge source and the acquisition and application of knowledge by the recipient (Wang & Noe, 2010).

Effective knowledge sharing can be considered as the creation of new knowledge, the acquisition of existing knowledge and storage of this knowledge (Grant, 1996; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). When employees share knowledge, they can contribute to knowledge application, innovation and ultimately the competitive advantage of a company (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). More concrete, sharing knowledge and combining existing knowledge within an organization can lead to a reduction in production costs, faster completion of new product development projects, improved team performance, firm innovation capabilities, and firm performance including sales growth and revenue from new products and services (Wang & Noe, 2010).

(12)

members from having to repeatedly solve the same problems (Marks, Polak, McCoy & Galletta, 2008). Team members can use past experiences and skills to solve new problems (Liao, 2008). Knowledge sharing also has a positive influence on an employee’s work performance (Kang et al., 2008). The mutual trust that is perceived between individuals involved in knowledge sharing also positively influences knowledge sharing and therefore also individual work performance. Concluding, knowledge sharing increases the organizations’ competitive advantage, maintains organizations’ intellectual capital, and facilitates creation of organizational value added (Chen, Zhang & Vogel, 2011).

In the last decade, companies have invested in so called ‘knowledge management systems’ in order to share knowledge. Knowledge management systems are new informational systems, new organizational structures or new human resource policies that are developed with the main purpose of ‘leveraging the collective knowledge of employees’ (Cabrera et al., 2006). IT is an important driving force in these knowledge management systems, where most knowledge systems are ‘knowledge repositories’. In these repositories, employees are allowed to exchange experiences, work methods, improvement ideas and market hints by posting documents onto a database that is accessible to all members of a group. The knowledge repositories can be an important instrument for organizations to share knowledge, but will not guarantee that knowledge sharing will take place (Cabrera et al., 2006). Effective knowledge management depends more on ‘social ecology’, the social system of an organization, than on information-technology platforms (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). For various reasons, many organizations fail to effectively share knowledge within the organization (Hendriks, 1999; Wang & Noe, 2010). Organizational cultural issues, like the ability to convince individuals to cooperate, are common concerns of implementing knowledge management in organizations. In fact, 'effective knowledge management cannot take place without extensive behavioral, cultural and organizational change’ (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) Unless the cultural, management, human, social and organizational elements or factors are aligned properly, the benefits of knowledge management initiatives will not be realized (Small & Sage, 2006). The key to success in knowledge sharing is that the personal ambition should match the group ambition (Hendriks, 1999). But even when knowledge is shared throughout the organization, there are still several barriers that prevent the knowledge from receiving the recipient (Todorova, 2004).

1.2 Chapter summary

(13)

2. Research Questions and context

In a society that becomes more and more a knowledge based society, organizations have to change to keep up with the environment and to sustain a competitive advantage. This obviously holds for profit oriented organizations (after this: profit organizations), who will need the competitive advantage to survive in the market and make a profit. But what about not for profit oriented organizations (after this: nonprofit organizations)? Do nonprofit organizations have the same pressure to keep up with the market? Do nonprofit organizations need to sustain a competitive advantage? Do nonprofit organizations have need and willingness to share knowledge? To be more precise, do nonprofit organizations share the same degree of knowledge as profit organizations do?

This research is about knowledge sharing in profit and nonprofit organizations. The question is whether there is a difference in knowledge sharing between knowledge intensive profit and nonprofit organizations. A focus in this research lies on knowledge intensive, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), from 10 to 250 employees. This leads to the following research question:

What are the differences of knowledge sharing between knowledge intensive nonprofit SMEs and profit SMEs?

The conceptual model of the research question can be displayed in figure 1:

The degree of knowledge sharing Profit Organizations The differences in knowledge sharing Non-Profit Organizations H 1 H 2 H 4 H 3 Knowledge Sharing Influencers H 3

(14)

This research question has the following sub-questions:

 What factors are influencing the degree of knowledge sharing in organizations?  What are reasons (not) to share knowledge?

 What are the differences in general between nonprofit and profit organizations?

2.1 Hypotheses for research

Profit and nonprofit organizations can have different roles, while acting in the same industry. In general, profit organizations have a financial objective and sell services and/or products to generate a profit. Profit organizations need to create a profit in order to ‘survive’ in the market and are dependent upon shareholders. On the other hand, nonprofit organizations do not have a financial objective (hence nonprofit) and provide services or products to create a social benefit. Nonprofit organizations can be funded by donations or funding by supporters. A nonprofit organization can therefore ‘survive’ in a market, without covering expenses (Dolnicar & Lazarevski, 2009; Hansmann, 1980). Like stated in the introduction, stimulating knowledge sharing is a powerful instrument to create a more powerful organization. This is because an organization can effectively exploit the knowledge-based resources that already exist in the organization. A profit organization could sense more urgency and pressure to share knowledge in the organization and needs the potential of knowledge sharing in order to survive. An opposing hypothesis is that nonprofit organizations do not need to survive in the market and therefore are less dependent upon the potential of knowledge sharing. Therefore, based on the available literature, which is discussed in the following chapters, the following hypotheses can be formulated:

H1: Knowledge intensive nonprofit SMEs perceive less need of sharing knowledge in the

organization.

H2: Knowledge intensive profit SMEs perceive more need to share knowledge in the organization. The degree of knowledge sharing is dependent upon various factors within the organization. These are factors like the values and beliefs of the organization, what employees are expected to do, if initiatives are rewarded or appreciated, if there is an atmosphere of trust and more (Wang & Noe, 2010). Because profit and nonprofit organization can be different in for example their objectives and revenues, also different cultures or organizational values can be present. Therefore, there can be various factors that can influence the degree of knowledge sharing, but dependent upon the organization type. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: There is a difference in factors that influence the degree of knowledge sharing between nonprofit

and profit organizations.

Because there can a difference in factors that influencje the degree of knowledge sharing, the degree of knowledge sharing itself can therefore also be different at both organization types. This leads to the last hypothesis:

H4: There is a difference in the degree of knowledge sharing between nonprofit and profit

(15)

2.2 Definitions

In order to successfully conduct a study, definitions of the researched areas need to be formulated.

Knowledge sharing. There are multiple definitions on the term ‘knowledge sharing’. According to Liao (2008), knowledge sharing is ‘the behavior of diffusing one’s own knowledge with other members within one’s organization’. Staples & Webster (2008) define knowledge sharing as ‘an exchange where one party gives some knowledge that s/he has (explicit or tacit) to another party (a person or a repository). Another researcher, Hansen (1999), defines knowledge sharing as ‘the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure’. The last definition is provided by Chen et al. (2011), who define knowledge sharing as ‘individuals communicating task-relevant experience, knowledge, and skills with their colleagues’. The definition that will be used for this research will be a combination of the definitions of Liao (2008) and Staples & Webster (2008):

Knowledge sharing is the behavior of diffusing the explicit or tacit knowledge that one party possesses to another person or repository.

Knowledge sharing will be further discussed in chapter 3.

Knowledge intensive. Alvesson (1993) defines a knowledge intensive organization as ‘a firm that can produce exceptionally good results through the help of outstanding expertise’. According to Starbuck (1992), ‘labeling a firm as knowledge-intensive implies that the input of knowledge has more importance than other inputs’, like labor and capital. Knowledge as the most important input defines the knowledge intensive firm, although the outputs may be capital, labor or knowledge. Based upon Starbuck, Von Nordenflycht (2010) states it slightly different; Knowledge intensity indicates that production of a firm’s output relies on a substantial body of complex knowledge. The definition that will be used for this research will be a combination of Alvesson (1993) and Von Nordenflycht (2010):

The label ‘knowledge-intensive’ indicates that thje input and production of an organization’s output relies on a substantial body of complex knowledge and outstanding expertise.

Profit & nonprofit organizations. Dolnicar & Lazarevski (2009) define nonprofit organizations as ‘any organization without a financial objective, which aims to generate a social benefit for a specific sector of society’. Another definition of a nonprofit organization is given by Shwu-Ing & Jr-Ming (2008), who defines it as a ‘privately-owned non-profit social group’. Hansmann (1980) defines a nonprofit organization as a ‘non-distribution constraint organization’ that is barred from distributing net earnings. The term ‘non-distribution constraint organization’ means that a non-profit organization is prohibited from distributing its profit to individuals, group members, directors, officers, or board members. The definition for nonprofit organization that will be used for this research will be a combination of Dolnicar & Lazarevski (2009) and Hansmann (1980):

A nonprofit organization is any organization without a financial objective, barred from distributing its net earnings, which aims to generate a social benefit for a specific sector or society.

(16)

organization is ‘the absence of stock or other indicia of ownership that give their owners a simultaneous share in both profits and control’.

Since there is no clear definition on a (for) profit organization, the following definition is created, using the opposite of the definitions of Dolnicar & Lazarevski (2009) and Hansmann (1980) and general knowledge on profit organizations:

A profit organization is any organization with a financial objective, which aims to generate a profit by creating and selling a product or service to a specific sector or society.

Profit and nonprofit organizations will be further discusses in chapter 4.

SME’s.

The term ‘SME’ is the analog for Small and Medium sized enterprises. According to the European Union, SMEs are organizations up till 250 employees (European Commission, 2009). Therefore, the definition for SME’s will be the same as the definition the European Union states: Small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s) are organizations up to 250 employees.

Now that the definitions are formulated for this research, a literature review can give an

introduction into the field of knowledge sharing and the complexity of factors that influence this field.

2.3 Chapter summary

(17)

3. Knowledge sharing

In order to understand what knowledge sharing exactly is, the concept ‘knowledge’ first has to be explained. After that, a focus can be placed on the concept of ‘knowledge sharing’, an important part of knowledge management (Zhen et al., 2011).

3.1 What is knowledge?

The debate what knowledge exactly is, is literally going on for ages. Knowledge was defined by Plato and most Western philosophers as ‘justified true belief’, while Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) defined knowledge as ‘justified personal belief’. The word ‘belief’ in both definitions is critical, because knowledge is closely tied ‘to an individual’s, or a group’s, values and beliefs’ (Small & Sage, 2006). Knowledge encompasses experience, expertise, skills, know-how and competencies in addition to theoretical knowledge (Kubr, 2002).

Information is a term that is related to knowledge and is defined as ‘data that is of potential value in decision making’. There are at least three important differences between information and knowledge. The first difference is that knowledge entails a knower. The second difference is that knowledge is much harder to detach, transfer and share than information (Brown & Deguid, as cited by Small & Sage, 2006). Furthermore, knowledge is tied to a knowing subject and is not a commodity that can be passed around freely (Hendriks, 1999). The third difference is that knowledge is much harder to assimilate and understand than information (Brown & Deguid, as cited by Small & Sage, 2006).

The aspects of knowledge are captured by knowing and learning. Knowledge is gained when theory, information and experience are integrated (Miller & Morris, as cited by Small & Sage, 2006).

There are two types of knowledge, (1) tacit and (2) explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is considered to be resided within an individual, which is sticky, complex and hard to verbalize and codify (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Szulanski, 1996). Tacit knowledge consists partly of technical skills and also having a cognitive dimension that consists of mental models, beliefs and ingrained perspectives (Small & Sage, 2006). Tacit knowledge is also known as know-how or implicit knowledge (Cook & Brown, 1999).

Explicit knowledge is easily codifiable knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be articulated, put into print and transmitted, ‘without loss of integrity once the syntactical rules required for deciphering it are known’ (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000). Explicit knowledge are facts, axiomatic propositions and symbols and are mostly found in books, rules and guidelines (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Most explicit and all tacit knowledge is stored within individuals (Grant, 1998 as cited by Staples & Webster, 2008). Tacit knowledge can only be transferred by socializing; through training or gained via personal experience (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). The difficulty of sharing knowledge mostly lies within the sharing of tacit knowledge (Nonaka & von Krogh, 2009). However, the properties of tacit knowledge suggest that it is more likely to result in advantages that are sustainable than explicit knowledge (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Nonaka, 1994).

(18)

(Kubr, 2002). Organizational knowledge, or enterprise knowledge, is a dynamic mix of individual, group, organizational and inter-organizational experiences, values, information and expert insights. Organizational knowledge originates in the minds of the individual worker and emerges as individuals interact with knowledge workers in the environment (Small & Sage, 2006). However, organizational knowledge must be distinguished from organizational knowing. Knowledge that is possessed by the individual is called ‘epistemology of possession’. The individual has knowledge of a certain practice, but can miss the knowledge that is rooted in practice. This missing knowledge is called ‘epistemology of practice’, when people are knowing, as in action, of the practice. New knowledge can be created by an interaction with the factor ‘knowing’ (Cook & Brown, 1999). However, knowledge which is created in the mind of the individuals is generally of little value to an organization, unless it is shared (Small & Sage, 2006). So what is knowledge sharing and how does it exactly occur?

3.2 What is knowledge sharing?

Because knowledge is tied to a knowing subject, ‘an act of reconstruction’, like watching, reading or listening, must be created to teach someone else the knowledge. It takes knowledge to acquire knowledge and consequently to share knowledge (Hendriks, 1999).

Sharing knowledge happens between a knowledge source and recipient and involves the processes through which knowledge is channeled between those two. An additional or alternative party may be a knowledge source, knowledge recipient, or a facilitator or broker of knowledge between a source and a recipient (Cummings & Bing-Sheng, 2006). The knowledge source should communicate the knowledge, ‘consciously and willingly or not, in some form or other’, by acts, speech or writing. The recipient should be able to ‘perceive expressions of knowledge, and makes sense of them’, by listening or reading a text (Hendriks, 1999). The objective of all knowledge sharing processes is to transfer source knowledge successfully to a recipient (Cummings & Bing-Sheng, 2006).

Knowledge sharing within organizations is complex and can therefore be difficult. Knowledge sharing is about the implicit coordination of expertise and who knows what in a group. This goes along with verbal communication about the task and exchange of tangible artifacts (Cummings, 2004).

Furthermore, knowledge sharing contains important normative and political characteristics (Arthur & Kim, 2005). Successfully sharing knowledge depends on the amount and quality of interaction between employees, and the willingness and ability to use knowledge (Lagerstrom and Andersson 2003, as cited by Liao, 2008). Therefore, sharing knowledge can be ‘voluntary behavior with uncertain rewards’ (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

(19)

3.3 How does knowledge sharing occur?

New knowledge for individuals and groups can be acquired with an interaction with the factor ‘knowing’. This interaction can be done as explained by the knowledge creation process of Takeuchi & Nonaka (1995). There are four stages in the knowledge conversion, namely ‘socialization’, ‘externalization’, ‘combination’ and ‘internalization’. These four stages follow up in the process of knowledge conversion. Figure 3.1 displays this process.

In order to understand the concept that is underlying the process of knowledge sharing, the different levels of knowledge have first to be distinguished. Knowledge can be on the level of individual, group, organizational and inter-organization knowledge.

Like previously stated, there are four stages in the knowledge creation process.

The first stage is socialization, where a person is gaining tacit knowledge by other tacit knowledge. This can be achieved by for example observing another person at work. Knowledge sharing in the socialization stage primarily occurs at individual and group level.

The second stage is the externalization stage, where tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge. This conversion can be achieved by codifying tacit knowledge, for example by writing a book about personal experiences. In the externalization stage, knowledge is mainly shared at the group and organizational level.

The third stage, combination, is about transforming explicit knowledge into explicit knowledge. An example of the combination stage is writing a literature study in a scientific article. Knowledge sharing in the combination stage is generally taking place on the organizational and inter-organizational level. The process of knowledge sharing primarily occurs during the socialization, externalization and combination stage.

The last stage, internalization, is about transforming explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. An example of the internalization stage is reading and trying to understand writings in a book. The

(20)

internalization stage is primarily an individual process, when a person is converting explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge. Therefore, knowledge sharing does not occur in this stage. The knowledge creation process of Nonaka & Takeuchi can be seen as an ongoing process (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Sage & Small, 2006).

Knowledge sharing is a process where individuals or groups may perceive that their knowledge is not necessary to share, because it is not needed at that time. Moreover, this knowledge needs to be transferred by people or groups who may not need knowledge at that time (Small & Sage, 2006). This can be seen in the knowledge creation process, where knowledge needs to be transferred from an individual, to a group, to an organization, potentially other organizations to finally reach an individual again (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). As previously discussed, knowledge management is important for organizations (Hendriks, 1999; Zhen, Jiang & Song, 2011). However, knowledge which is created in the mind of the individuals is generally of little value to an organization, unless it is shared. The process of knowledge sharing is dependent upon individuals, who are willing to share and transfer certain knowledge (Small & Sage, 2006). There are numerous factors that are influencing these individuals and groups in an organization to share and transfer knowledge (Wang

& Noe, 2010).

3.4 What are factors that contribute in knowledge sharing?

Knowledge sharing behavior can be perceived as a human behavior in the context of human performance. Human performance can be described as a complex activity that is influenced by many factors (Sage & Small, 2006). Scientific literature distinguishes four areas that are influencing and potentially contribute to the degree of knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). These areas are to found in the organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, cultural characteristics and individual characteristics. These areas can lead to motivational factors for knowledge sharing. Figure 2 displays the connections found in scientific literature on knowledge sharing.

Organizational context Interpersonal and team characteristics Cultural characteristics Motivational factors Individual characteristics Perceptions related to knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing behaviour

Figure 3.2: Framework on knowledge sharing research (based on Wang & Noe, 2010)

(21)

3.4.1 Organizational context

A determining factor in how an organization shares knowledge is the ‘social ecology’. The social ecology is about the social system where people operate and drives an organization’s formal and informal expectations on individuals. Common determinants of an organization’s social ecology are organizational culture, structure, reward system, processes people and leadership (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Wang & Noe (2010) distinguished four factors where the organizational context consists of, that are in line with the research of Gupta & Govindarajan (2000), namely ‘organizational culture and climate’, ‘management support’, ‘rewards and incentives’ and ‘organizational structure’.

3.4.1.1 Organizational culture and climate

In the organizational context is the culture and climate of an organization an important influential factor to the degree of knowledge sharing. The factor ‘trust’ among people is one of the most important reasons to share knowledge (Staples & Webster, 2008) A culture of trust within the organization is linked to positive outcomes and can relieve negative aspects of knowledge sharing, like costs. Cooperation within the organization, from for example working teams, will help create trust. An innovative culture is likely to implement more knowledge sharing systems than other types of organizations, while a (n individual) competitive culture blocks knowledge sharing. Mixed results have been found on a learning culture.

‘Reciprocity’ seems like a factor that is influential in the knowledge sharing process. Reciprocity means that when one party shares knowledge, another party, most likely the recipient, is expected to share knowledge too. However, both positive and negative results have been found on the relationship between reciprocity and knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010).

3.4.1.2 Management support

(22)

3.4.1.3 Rewards and incentives

When employees successfully share knowledge, there can be rewards or incentives. Like previously mentioned, rewards and incentives are important influential factors in communicating management support (Cabrera et al., 2006). Rewards or incentives on knowledge sharing include recognition, appreciation and rewards (Arthur & Kim, 2005; Cabrera et al., 2006; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). A lack of incentives is suggested as a major barrier on knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). However, external rewards, like money bonuses, must be carefully selected; what motivates in one organization may be a barrier in another organization (Sage & Small, 2006).

Rewards and incentives can be individually and group based. Individual reward structures can be about a person achieving a certain goal or objective or sharing important knowledge. The person who performs ‘above par’ will be rewarded for his or her efforts, which could lead to higher motivation. However, when organizations use an individual reward structure, differences are established between organizational members, because one member performed better than another. For every person who wins, there are others who feel they have lost. Not being rewarded can be perceived by organizational members as being punished (Bock & Kim, 2002). Negative sides of the individual reward structure can be envy, social control and eventually conflicts between organizational members. Therefore, the effects of individual reward structures on knowledge sharing are mixed.

A solution to the individual problems can be a group reward structure, where a certain group will be rewarded for efforts, individual or collective, made in that group (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). A co-operative, group reward system is found to be more effective than an individual reward system (Arthur & Kim, 2005). A positive side of the group reward structure is that it can create a positive, competitive climate for knowledge sharing (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Liao (2008) found a positive relation between reward and expert power of a manager to the degree of knowledge sharing of employees.

Cabrera et al. (2006) found that rewards had a moderate effect on knowledge sharing behavior. This effect can be explained that rewards are more a supportive condition for a knowledge sharing environment, than a direct influential factor.

Overall, mixed results have been found on giving incentives to employee knowledge sharing activities (Wang & Noe, 2010).

3.4.1.4 Organizational structure

The organizational structure of the organization can also contribute to knowledge sharing. Organizational structure positively influences the level of relational social capital, which are assets created and leveraged through relationships. These are assets such as trust, norms, expectations and identity. Relational social capital finally influences the degree of knowledge sharing (van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009).

(23)

sharing, reminders of the management on the importance of knowledge sharing, as well as reminders about rivals can be communicated to the organization (Marks et al., 2008).

3.4.2 Interpersonal and team characteristics

Team characteristics and processes are of great importance to the area interpersonal and team characteristics. To some extent, the organization itself is responsible for the successfulness of knowledge sharing when hiring personnel. Organizations should ‘hire personnel with prosocial traits if they want to depend on them to share’ (Marks et al., 2008).

The diversity in an organization is another influential factor in knowledge sharing. Employees who consider themselves a minority, based on gender, marital status or education, share less knowledge than employees who consider themselves a majority (Ohja, 2005 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge is more likely to be diffused between people with similar training and background (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Furthermore, there is evidence found that organizations with high-female ratios are more inclined in knowledge sharing (Sawng et al., 2006 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010).

Another influential factor to knowledge sharing are the social networks in an organization. Informal interpersonal networks are perceived to be important in the knowledge transfer process (Reagans & McEvily). Based on the theory of Granovetter (1973), strong ties in an organization share knowledge more easily than weak ties (Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010). The more individuals interact, the stronger the tie is considered between these individuals. Strong ties involve higher emotional closeness. A weak tie is considered as two individuals who barely interact, who are a nonredundant connection and thus are associated with nonredundant information (Granovetter, 1973; Wang & Noe, 2010). According to Hansen (2002), strong ties must be used to share tacit knowledge, while weak ties must be used to share explicit knowledge. The knowledge of weak ties is perceived as more valuable than strong ties (Levin & Cross, 2004). In social networks, the ties among individuals can simplify the transfer of knowledge and intensify the quality of the information that is received (Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003).

Reagans & McEvily (2003) found that strength of a tie and social cohesion are positively related to the ease of knowledge transfer as perceived by the knowledge source. This suggests that the connections with the knowledge recipients may motivate the knowledge source to share knowledge (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). A related point is that employees who have a good relationship with the firm would generally share knowledge voluntary and unconditionally, while employees with a bad relationship with their firm would be unwilling to share knowledge and experiences (Small & Sage, 2006). More on knowledge transfer and is found in the chapter ‘what can happen after knowledge is shared’.

3.4.3 Cultural characteristics

The culture of a country can determine the degree of knowledge sharing in an organization. Certain cultural characteristics, like collectivism, are positively related to knowledge sharing.

(24)

less likely share their ‘lessons learned’ with another culture (Wang & Noe, 2010). Unfortunately, much research still has to be executed on relationship between knowledge sharing and culture.

3.4.4 Individual characteristics

When looking to individual characteristics, the education and work experience are important to knowledge sharing. The level of education and work experience has a relationship to the degree of knowledge sharing. Employees who have a higher level of education and longer work experience tend to have a positive attitude towards knowledge sharing and share their expertise more easily (Constant et al., 1994 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). Furthermore, individuals who are confident in their ability to share knowledge that is useful are more likely to express intentions to share knowledge. Moreover, these individuals also report higher levels of engagement in knowledge sharing (Cabrera et al., 2006; Wang & Noe, 2010). Therefore, organizations should hire personnel with social characteristics (Marks et al., 2008).

Another influential factor is found by Cabrera et al. (2006), who found that self-efficacy and openness to experience were two factors personal factors contributing to a person’s knowledge sharing activities. It is suggested that individuals who have a high openness to experience tend to have a high level of curiosity. This results in an interest to search for others’ ideas and insights. Requirements for engagement in knowledge exchange are personal competence and confidence. Employees who perceive ‘their co-workers and supervisors to value knowledge sharing’ are more likely to share knowledge than employees who do not perceive this value. Therefore, social support on knowledge sharing is important (Cabrera et al. 2006).

Knowledge sharing can be jammed by a feeling of anxiety based on negative evaluations from the organization (Bordia et al., 2006 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). Furthermore, the social costs evaluated by a knowledge source can be too high to share knowledge. This occurs when certain knowledge is less likely to be shared, because it can result in negative outcomes for members of the organization or the organization itself (Wang & Noe, 2010).

3.4.5 Motivational factors

As seen in figure 3.2, the factors mentioned in ‘organization context’, ‘interpersonal and team characteristics’, ‘cultural characteristics’ and ‘individual characteristics’ lead to the motivational factors to share knowledge. These motivational factors are beliefs of knowledge ownership, perceived benefits / costs and interpersonal trust and justice and individual attitudes.

The first motivational factor, beliefs of knowledge ownership, is that when employees believed they owned valuable information, they are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing. This can be explained by that it gives internal satisfaction to the knowledge sharers (Constant et al., 1994 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). Another reason to share knowledge is also that knowledge source wants to create a learning experience. The person, who wants to share knowledge with others, first has to clearly formulate the knowledge in order to share it. This can result in a better understanding of the knowledge for the sharer himself, and thus a learning experience (Wang & Noe, 2010).

(25)

expected to gain rewards, such as recognition, reputation, respect or tangible incentives (Bock & Kim, 2002; Wang & Noe, 2010). There are two types of rewards, intrinsic and external rewards. Intrinsic rewards are rewards such as saving work time, participating in useful and interesting dialogue and pride by being recognized as an expert. External rewards are often tangible rewards, like monetary rewards. External rewards must be carefully selected; what motivates in one organization can be a barrier in another organization (see chapter 3.4.1.3: ‘rewards and incentives’). Knowledge sharing is best supported by intrinsic rewards (Small & Sage, 2006).

On the other hand, some disadvantages and costs of knowledge sharing will have a negative influence on knowledge sharing. The most cited reasons of not sharing knowledge are a lack of time and unfamiliarity with the subject (Hew & Hara, 2007 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010).

The third motivational factor is about interpersonal trust and justice. Knowledge sharing is often a reciprocal behavior; when the knowledge source shares, it expects a return of knowledge from the recipient. Trust and justice can be determining factors in whether to share knowledge (Wang & Noe, 2010). In turn, knowledge sharing generates trust (Kubr, 2002). Trust has been examined as an antecedent or mediator of knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). Individuals tend to share less knowledge with team members who are perceived as very capable, while more knowledge is shared to team members who are perceived as ‘honest, fair and followed principles’ (Bakker et al., 2006 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010). A climate of trust is critical to the success of knowledge management (Kubr, 2002). But too much trust in a knowledge sharing relation can lead to the recipient losing its critical evaluation towards knowledge. This can lead to misapplication or misuse of the received knowledge. Another negative factor can be evaluation apprehension. This happens when an employee decides not to share knowledge, because he values his knowledge as ‘inaccurate, not valued, and likely to result in unfavorable criticism from others’ (Bordia et al., 2006 as cited by Wang & Noe, 2010).

Overall, when trust is gained, it has a positive influence on knowledge sharing. Unfortunately, there is little research on the justice relation with knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010).

The fourth motivational factor is individual attitudes. Individuals often expect that sharing knowledge can improve relationships with other. This positive knowledge sharing attitude in turn stimulates knowledge sharing intentions and behavior (Bock & Kim, 2002). Furthermore, intentions of the management on encouraging knowledge sharing have positive outcomes on employee knowledge sharing. In turn, perceptions and attitudes of the employee towards the organization, like organizational commitment, also support knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). More motivation factors are knowledge sharing being a normal part of the job, being related to career growth, receiving recognition, knowing how contributions are used by others and knowing knowledge sharing is expected behavior (Small & Sage, 2006).

(26)

3.5 Challenges in knowledge sharing

Gupta & Govindarajan (2000) distinguish the knowledge sharing and mobilization process into four subfactors, which each has its challenges. These four subfactors and main challenges are:

(1) ‘Knowledge identification’, which means uncovering opportunities for knowledge sharing. The first challenge in knowledge identification to overcome is ‘the halo effect’. The halo effect is the perception that high performers in an organization have nothing left to learn and low performers have no good ideas of value to other units. When this perception is present in the organization, some organizational knowledge remains in hiding. The second challenge to overcome is the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ syndrome. This syndrome is a common result when asking all units to upload their best practices into shared databases. When low level, or incorrect knowledge is uploaded, the same low level or incorrect knowledge will be used. However, this is not applicable for correct and useful knowledge. An organization cannot benefit from best practices when nothing is uploaded. Consequently, this syndrome has to be overcome in order to benefit from best practices.

(2) ‘Knowledge outflow’, which is about motivating potential senders of knowledge to share it. There are three challenges in knowledge outflow that need to be overcome. The first challenge is the ‘how does it help me?’ syndrome. This syndrome is about the consideration whether to share knowledge; why should an organizational member share its knowledge to the organization? To overcome this challenge, a reward structure can be set up. The knowledge source is rewarded, in for example money or recognition, to share its knowledge with the organization. The second challenge is the ‘knowledge is power’ syndrome. Certain knowledge can be rare in an organization; it is only stocked in a certain person or group, and therefore can create power positions for these persons or groups (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Wang & Noe, 2010). These power positions can provide positive evaluations or personal gains, such as cash bonuses or promotions for the knowledge holder (Wang & Noe, 2010). It is naturally that people will not share knowledge if they consider it important or valuable. People tend to hoard their knowledge and are suspicious about the knowledge of others (Bock & Kim, 2002).

However, the rare knowledge could be of great value to the rest of the organization, for example some best practices. When this rare knowledge is shared with the rest of the organization, the knowledge becomes more common and the power position is lost. So, sharing knowledge can be about the consideration to give up a power and status positions. Another problem can be that the knowledge is used without crediting the knowledge source (Kubr, 2002). In order to overcome this syndrome, the holder of the rare knowledge must be ‘seduced’ to share his or her knowledge; by for example money or recognition rewards (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Furthermore, when the knowledge is shared with the help of technology in a community of practice, it is easier to (re)gain a power position. By this method, a larger audience can be reached which increases the likelihood of receiving personal recognition (Wang & Noe, 2010).

(27)

(3) ‘Knowledge transmission’ is about building effective and efficient channels for the transfer of knowledge. The first challenge is the mismatch between structure of knowledge and structure of transmission channels. Not every communication channel is effective for sharing certain knowledge. For example, tacit knowledge can be best shared by face to face contacts, while explicit knowledge can effectively be shared through e-mail. A mismatch can be created by using the wrong communication channel for a certain knowledge. The second challenge is the use of multiple links in the transmission chain (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). When knowledge passes across multiple people to the final recipient, there is likely to be some ‘degree of imperfect transmission of the message’ about the opportunities for knowledge use. What happens is that the links in the transmission chain can misunderstand each other, forget details, failing to mention all what they know to the other, filter knowledge or intentionally withhold information (Hansen, 2002). So, when less intermediaries are used in knowledge sharing, the actual knowledge remains more intact.

(4) ‘Knowledge inflow’ is about motivating potential receivers to accept and use the incoming knowledge. The challenge in knowledge inflow is the ‘not invented here’ syndrome, a very common syndrome in organizations (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). This syndrome means that external developments and solutions are left aside, because they are developed outside the organization and therefore are in conflict with organizational culture or values (Katz & Allen, 1982). According to Gupta & Govindarajan (2000), there are two solutions for the ‘not invented here’ syndrome. The first solution is that the organization’s reward structure should signal that it is literally costly relying solely on own efforts in knowledge creation. The second solution is making performances of groups visible to the entire organization. The result can be a competitive culture that can force organizational members to look outside boundaries.

3.6 Best practices of knowledge sharing

Gupta & Govindarajan (2000) give four advices on what should maximize knowledge sharing activities. The first advice is that ‘knowledge hoarding’ should be banned, while ‘knowledge givers’ should be rewarded and recognized. Knowledge should be considered by organizations as a collective resource and should always be shared across the organization. The knowledge cannot be hoarded by one department or subsidiary, but must be shared. For the people who share knowledge, it is important to reward and recognize these knowledge givers.

The second advice is that the organization should rely on group-based rewards. Group based rewards reinforce knowledge sharing as a cultural norm. The power of group based incentives is that it directs attention to maximizing the performance of the entire organization, rather than individuals. The rewards must be large enough to be meaningful and individual behavior in the group should be transparent, in order to empower the group to ‘expel the chronic underperformer’. The third advice is to invest in codifying tacit knowledge. In this method, practically everything organizational members know into standard operating procedures. Although there is a limit in codifying all knowledge, this method can have high payoffs, as costs can decrease and productivity can increase. This method can also uncover what an organization does not know.

(28)

transmission types are mismatched. First needs to be identified which type of knowledge is dealt with, then the transmission mechanisms can be match to it (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).

According to Dyer & Nobeoka (2000), in order to create a successful knowledge-sharing network, three issues have to be taken into account. First, a key factor for knowledge-sharing organizations is to motivate members of the organization ‘to participate and contribute knowledge to the collective good’. Second, the organization must prevent free riders of knowledge sharing activities from receiving knowledge. When this aspect is neglected, organizational members potentially quit sharing knowledge. Third, the costs considering finding and accessing different types of valuable knowledge must be reduced. Organizational members must access knowledge with minimum effort, or the effect of knowledge sharing potentially will suffer (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000).

3.7 What can happen after knowledge is shared

When knowledge is shared, it still is not received by other persons. This is the difference between ‘knowledge sharing’ and ‘knowledge transfer’. Knowledge sharing is the behavior of diffusing knowledge, while knowledge transfer involves both the sharing of knowledge by the knowledge source and the acquisition and application of knowledge by the recipient (Wang & Noe, 2010). In most cases, knowledge can successfully be shared in organizations and groups, while the successfulness of knowledge transfers differs per individual. There are several obstacles that can prevent shared knowledge from the source of successfully reaching the recipient.

In her research, Todorova (2004), based on the work of Szulanski (1996), describes eight barriers of knowledge transfer. These barriers are (1) the perceived value of the knowledge stock, motivation (of (2) source and (3) recipient), absorptive capacity (of (4) source and (5) recipient), (6) types and intensity of ties, (7) the kind of knowledge to be transferred and (8) cultural compatibility.

The first barrier is the perceived value of shared knowledge of the knowledge stock. In this case, the knowledge recipient decides whether or not the knowledge stock is valued interesting enough to be received. The second and third barriers are the motivation of the knowledge source and recipient. In other words, whether the knowledge source and the recipient are motivated enough to transfer and receive the knowledge. A practical example that explains the difference is that the knowledge source shares minimal information about a certain topic and the knowledge recipient is not motivated to internalize the knowledge. An explanation for these barriers can be a conflict of interests (Todorova, 2004).

The fourth and fifth barriers are the absorptive capacity of the recipient and knowledge source. These barriers are about whether or not the recipient and knowledge source are able to absorb the knowledge. Absorptive capacity reflects ‘the ability to value, transform and assimilate knowledge’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). To a large extent, this absorptive capacity is dependent upon prior knowledge and experience. A practical example is that the knowledge source is not experienced enough to transfer his knowledge to the knowledge source, simply because the knowledge is valued as unimportant. The absorptive capacity of the knowledge recipient is that the recipient cannot transform the shared knowledge into useful information.

The differences in knowledge sharing between profit and nonprofit organizations