Motivational Explanations for Employees’ Knowledge Sharing and Openness
to Change
Master Thesis, Msc. HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 11, 2017
Manon ten Have Student number: 2200511 E-mail: m.ten.have.1@student.rug.nl
ABSTRACT
Rapid technological development and increasing globalization in the 21st century call for employee adaptability in order for organizations to stay competitive. This paper aims to increase understanding on why some employees are more motivated than others to adapt to change. Survey research was employed to link employees’ power, achievement and affiliation to two important characteristics of employee adaptability: openness to change and knowledge sharing. Additionally, risk avoidance was tested as a mediator of the relationship between employees’ motivation and employee adaptability. Results show a positive relationship between achievement motivation – but not power and affiliation motivation – and employee adaptability. Achievement-oriented employees turn to learning to cope with change and are intrinsically motivated to accomplish challenging problems. Employees’ motivation negatively influenced risk avoidance, which in turn showed a negative link to employee adaptability. However, risk avoidance did not mediate the relationship between employees’ motivation and employee adaptability. Further results and implications of the study are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In light of globalization and current technological development, organizations are required to make rapid and effective changes in order to stay competitive (Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998). However, only one-third of all organizational change initiatives are successful (Meaney & Pung, 2008). Consequences of failed change efforts include high turnover rates, restriction of output and lower efficiency (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Coch & French Jr, 1948). Employee motivation plays a major role in the success or failure of these changes (Brown & Cregan, 2008) and today, employees face changes at a more rapid pace than ever before (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Hence, the need for adaptive employees has become increasingly important (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997). Therefore, it is important to understand what motivates employees to adapt to change (i.e., have high employee adaptability).
To date, scholars have shown great interest in employee adaptability (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). This line of research mainly emphasizes the influence of employees’ traits (e.g., neuroticism (Oreg & Berson, 2011), openness to experience and conscientiousness (LePine et al., 2000)) and situational factors (e.g., job security (Chawla & Kevin Kelloway, 2004), trust and participation (Devos, Buelens, & Bouckenooghe, 2007)) for employee adaptability. In comparison, little attention has been paid to the role of employees’ motives for explaining their adaptability to change. Therefore, the origin and reason explaining why some employees have a higher level of adaptability remains unclear. The goal of the present research is to identify how motives specifically drive employee adaptability.
The motivational theory of McClelland (1967) distinguishes three motivations of human behavior: the need for power (i.e., a concern for influencing people or for having an impact on them), the need for achievement (i.e., the desire to do something better than it has been done before), and the need for affiliation (i.e., the extent to which one wants to establish or maintain friendly relations with others). Research shows that these motivations have a distinct impact on how employees function in organizations (e.g., Lee, 1997; Nicholls, 1984; Stahl, 1983; McClelland & Burnham, 1976). The present research proposes that these motives also influence employees’ adaptibility to change. I expect that employees with a high power motive and employees with a high achievement motive will show greater employee adaptability to change, while employees with a high affiliation motive will show less employee adaptability.
than others. For example, research has shown that employees with a high tolerance for risk (i.e., low in risk avoidance) are better able to cope with change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). Subsequently, the present research proposes that employees’ risk avoidance can explain the relationships between employees’ motivation and their adaptability to change. Motivational theory links power, achievement and affiliation motives to different amounts of risk-taking (McClelland, 1987). Research has shown that power motivated individuals take high risk, achievement motivated individuals take moderate risk and affiliation motivated individuals take low risk or even avoid risk (McClelland, 1987). As a consequence, I introduce risk avoidance as a mediator between employees’ motivation and employee adaptability.
literature on knowledge sharing that is now often separately presented, by offering an integrated framework to explain employee adaptability.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Operationalization of Employee Adaptability
Employee adaptability is not a new concept, but the term is rarely specifically mentioned in the literature. Scholars are increasingly interested in understanding and enhancing employee adaptability (LePine et al., 2000; Pulakos et al., 2000). Adaptability is studied as various related concepts such as: adaptive job performance (Pulakos et al., 2000), employee flexibility (Sanchez, 1995), adaptive performance (Neal & Hesketh, 1999) and HR flexibility (Bhattacharya, Gibson, & Doty, 2005). Furthermore, adaptation has been discussed in relation to organizational relevant variables (e.g., new technology, new people and teams, novel and ill-defined problems, different cultures). In this paper employee adaptability comprises: 1) a general open attitude towards improvement to establish competitive advantages and 2) the ability to respond to various demands from a dynamic competitive environment.
knowledge creation, innovation and organizational learning (Oyemomi et al., 2016; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). An employees’ ability to acquire and share knowledge about new practices, new technology, markets, customers and trends makes an organization more attuned to environmental change and can lead to a competitive advantage over slower, ill-informed competitors (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen Jr, 2001). Hence, both high openness to change and high levels of knowledge sharing represent employees’ adaptability to change.
The Impact of Employees’ Motivation on Employee adaptability
Many scholars have recognized the role of motivation for knowledge sharing and change behavior (e.g., McShane & Von Glinow, 2011; Hansen, Mors, & Løvås, 2005; Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Motivation represents what one values rather than what someone is like (Schwartz, 2012) and affects one’s direction, persistence and intensity of voluntary behavior (McShane & Von Glinow, 2011). Therefore motivation directly predicts attitudes, beliefs and behaviors during change. For example, employees who value friendly relations and harmony (i.e., have a high need for affiliation), might have a negative attitude towards organizational change that disturbs the current team composition and working relations, while power motivated
employees see a chance to get a promotion. The next paragraphs outline the hypotheses that will be used to test whether the motivations outlined by McClelland (1967) (i.e., power, achievement and affiliation) are individually related to employee adaptability.
The need for power is thought to have a profound effect on peoples’ thoughts and behaviors (Magee & Langner, 2008). This paper proposes that employees with a high power motive are more adaptive to change. These employees have a need to influence others and they view change as a positive opportunity to enhance status rather than as a threat. Moreover, during times of change (i.e., where there is limited information) sharing knowledge provides employees’ with the opportunity to control others and thus increases their claim for power. Similarly, it is considered that having an impact (i.e., exerting influence) on people by guiding and transmitting knowledge is an essential component of the power motive (Kuhl & Scheffer, 1999; McAdams, 1985).
Empirical research indeed showed that motivation affected knowledge sharing. For example, Wu and Sukoco (2010) conducted a study of an iPhone community in Thailand, to examine why consumers share knowledge in a brand community. One of the results of the survey suggested that power motivation has a positive effect on behavioral intention to share knowledge in the brand community. This effect was expected because consumers hope to gain reputation or attain status through sharing information (Stewart, 2005). Through writing impressive solutions to others’ problems (Mathwick, Wiertz & De Ruyter, 2008) they hope to become an opinion leader (Füller, Jawecki & Mühlbacher, 2007) who can influence other participants. In addition, recognition from peers is a main reason for participants to join online brand communities
Another reason for the expectation of a positive relationship between power motivation and employee adaptability, is that employees with strong power motives are assertive (McClelland, 1987). Assertiveness is characterised by taking charge of situations, speaking up in important matters and being forceful (Lounsbury, et al., 2003). In the study of Lounsbury et al. (2003) assertiveness was strongly correlated with openness (i.e., openness to change, learning, innovation and new experiences), optimism (i.e., an optimistic and hopeful outlook on the future, prospects and people, even during difficulty) and emotional resilience (i.e., level of adjustment and emotional resilience when there is stress and pressure). All three factors strongly suggest higher employee ability to adapt to change for the assertive power motivated employee.
In summary, power motivated employees have a need to influence others to gain power, status and recognition. To attain these goals, it is expected that they share knowledge to increase their power. Additionally, power motivated employees’ assertiveness is a possible reason for a positive relationship with openness to change.
Hypothesis 1: The need for power is positively associated with openness to change and knowledge sharing.
Achievement Motive and Employee Adaptability
motivation is associated with willingness to create a positive mood, with the result of voluntary participation in knowledge sharing (Osterloh & Frey, 2000). In addition, Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) indicate that knowledge sharing can be defined as an activity that increases the ability to achieve individual and organizational goals, which is crucial to employees with high achievement motivation. Moreover, Hendriks (1999) claims that the motivation for knowledge sharing with IT needs a sense of achievement. Tampoe (1996) establishes that personal growth and task achievement are both achievement-oriented triggers for knowledge.
Evidence from survey research amongst consumers participating in an online brand community also suggests that the main motivation for knowledge sharing is the need for achievement (Wu & Sukoco, 2010). Professional participants in these online communities (e.g., the Nike shoes community (Füller et al., 2007) and the Linux user groups (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006)) post their suggestions to fulfill their achievement needs (Butler, 2001). Members of these communities gain expertise and feel competent by sharing their knowledge (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003). Similarly to these consumers in online brand communities, I expect therefore a critical role for employees’ achievement motivation concerning knowledge sharing.
change effort of a national insurance company found a significant positive relationship between need for achievement and openness to change (Miller et al., 1994). The employees found the change a challenge, which is favoured by employees with a high achievement motive (Litwin & & Stringer Jr, 1968).
In summary, achievement motivated employees enjoy to accomplish challenging tasks and resort to learning when faced with these tasks. Therefore, this leads to knowledge sharing and an open attitude to change to solve these complex tasks in a changing environment.
Hypothesis 2: The need for achievement is positively associated with openness to change and knowledge sharing.
Affiliation Motive and Employee Adaptability
This research proposes a negative relationship between the affiliation motive and employee adaptability. Different characteristics are indicative of this relationship: 1) a preference for stability and conservatism and 2) a preference for harmony and friendly relationships.
collectivism, tradition, conformity), which is conflicting with openness to change (i.e., associated with individualism, and self-direction) (Schwartz, 2012; Seppälä, Lipponen, Bardi, & Pirttilä‐ Backman, 2012; Triandis, 1996) which is inherently progressive in nature.
Second, in Murrays framework, the affiliation motive is explained as “the tendency to receive gratification from harmonious relationships and a sense of community” (Murray, 1938). McClelland and Burnham (2003) add that affiliative employees are more concerned with their own popularity, having a preference to be liked more than they want to get things done. This could hinder possible organizational change (McClelland & Burnham, 2003) because change disrupts the current harmony and current friendly relations. Affiliative employees are therefore very sensitive to the group opinion. For example, when a change is received with negativity by others, an affiliative employees is then unlikely to counter the group opinion, which would make him or her less popular. In support of this, McClleland (1967) suggests that they avoid conflicts as much as possible and tend to go along with the status quo and what the rest of the group wants to do. This means also that affiliative employees are less likely to share novel or unique knowledge that could threaten the current relationships.
Statistically it is likely that affiliation motivation thus has the oppposite effect on employee adaptability.
Hypothesis 3: The need for affiliation is negatively associated with openness to change and knowledge sharing.
The Mediating Role of Risk Avoidance
The current dynamic environment of organizations is full of risks and challenges. Therefore one of the main mechanisms that could explain the expected relationship between motivation and employee adaptability is risk avoidance. Regarding employee adaptability, risk avoidance is linked to negatively coping with change (Judge et al., 1999) and has a negative effect on knowledge creation (Wang, Su, & Yang, 2011). Therefore I propose that higher risk avoidance leads to less employee adaptability.
Next to this, McClelland (1987) shows that power, achievement and affiliation motives are linked to different levels of risk avoidance. Therefore I hypothesize that risk avoidance is a mediator that explains how the different motives, with different levels of risk avoidance, lead to different levels of employee adaptability (Figure 1).
perception of risk) and are likely to focus on the increase in status they resulting from sharing knowledge.
Similarly, employees who have a strong achievement motivation prefer moderate risks over long or short odds, calculating the possibility of the outcome (i.e. display moderate risk avoidance) (McClelland, 1987). Atkinson (1957) explained this results by assuming that the preference for various tasks is a function of the motive to achieve, the probability of success and the incentive value of the success. Wherein the value of the success is proportional to the probability of success, therefore the probability of success is highest at a moderate level of risk. This represents the tendency for achievement-oriented individuals to work on moderately difficult tasks (Oyemomi et al., 2016; Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). Therefore achievement-oriented individuals still are low in risk avoidance but not so low as those with high power motivation.
expressed, he or she may risk the safety and harmony of the relationship with the manager as it is unclear if he or she will react positively.
Summarizing, power and achievement motivated individuals likely have low risk avoidance and are therefore less adaptable to change. Contrary to this, I expect affiliative employees to have high risk avoidance and thus lower employee adaptability.
Hypothesis 4: Risk avoidance mediates the relationships between power, achievement, and affiliation motivation with knowledge sharing and openness to change.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model of the impact of employees’ motivation on employee adaptability
Motivational theory Mediator Employee adaptability
METHOD
Procedure
Data was gathered using a survey for Dutch employees. An online questionnaire was constructed using Qualtrics. The survey was distributed in several organizations in the Netherlands in different companies such as an architectural firm, an employment agency, a
consultancy firm an hospital pharmacy, a construction company and an industrial company to ensure a variety of participants. The survey was distributed with help of employees in the different companies who e-mailed the survey link to their subordinates and coworkers. Moreover, the survey was distributed using LinkedIn and other social networks with an anonymous link.
Sample
This procedure yielded a sample of 169 responses, from which 51.5% were female and 48.5% were male. The mean age was 33.90 years (SD = 11.23). Thirty-seven percent of the employees’ educational level was ‘HBO’, 34.9% reported ‘WO’ and 17.2% indicated ‘MBO’ as their educational level. The majority of the surveyed employees had a permanent contract (67.5%). The participants worked 36 or more hours per week (48.5%), others worked between 0 - 12 hours (18.3%), 12 - 24 hours (15.4%) or 24 - 36 hours (17.8%) per week. Most participants worked in financial services or a business service company (19.5%), the public sector (19.5%) or the industrial sector (14.8%). Moreover, the average employee organizational tenure in the sample is 7.7 years (SD = 8.63) and the positional tenure 4.8 years (SD = 6.17). Last, the majority of employees was not in a management position (72.2%) and did not supervise other employees (72.8%).
Measurements
Employee motivation was measured using the unified motive scales (UMS) (Schönbrodt
& Gerstenberg, 2012). This measure containing ten statements per motive, has demonstrated incremental validity over other motive scales (Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012). As
recommended by Schönbrodt and Gerstenberg (2012) the thirty items were split into two sections with first one half of the items agreement-rated and the second half importance-rated. Agreement rating entailed to what extent the participants agreed with the statement from a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Importance rating contained to what extent they found the statement important in their job on a scale from 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very important). Within the two sections, similar statements were not placed subsequently, meaning that power, achievement and affiliation statements were presented mixed.
Power motivation statements included for example; ‘I’d like to have the final say’ or ‘the opportunity to exercise control over an organization or group’. The scale was highly reliable and internally consistent (α = .890). Achievement motivation items included: ‘maintaining high standards for the quality of work’ and ‘to continuously improve myself’ (α = .802). Lastly, the affiliation motivation measure consisted out of items such as ‘try to be in the company of friends as much as possible’ and ‘engage in a lot of activities with other people’ (α = .871).
Openness to change was assessed with the openness to changes at work scale from
Fugate and Kinicki (2008). Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the presented statements. The scale consisted out of five statements including ‘I would consider myself open to changes at work’ and ‘I can handle job and organizational changes effectively’ (α = .838).
Knowledge sharing was assessed with the eight-item knowledge sharing behavior scale
in eight behaviors. Examples of statements are: “I share with others useful work experience and know-how” and “After learning new knowledge useful to work, I promote it to let more people learn it” (α = .739).
Risk avoidance was measured by construction of a scale using items from Cable & Judge
(1994) who have developed a risk aversion scale using items from Slovic (1972) which has exhibited high reliability for organizational research (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1989). As few options were fitting to the present study or were relatively unestablished, additional items were added by the researcher. Items included: ‘I think risks should be avoided as much as possible’ and ‘In my daily work, I am not prepared to take risks when making important decisions’. The resulting internal consistency was acceptable (α = .714).
Control variables that were included in the study were: age, gender and education level.
All control variables were measured using single item questions. Age and education were included because older and less educated individuals have a tendency to be less positive to change(Kirton & Mulligan, 1973). Moreover, older managers tend to be more conservative than younger aged managers (Kirton & Mulligan, 1973). Next to age and education, gender was included as a control variable as previous research has shown that males view organizational change as more negative than females (Decker, Wheeler, Johnson, & Parsons, 2001).
Analysis
dependent variables and gender were standardized. Second, Pearson correlations were used to determine if any relations existed between variables. Third, the first, second and third hypotheses were tested with a linear regression analysis including the appropriate control variables. The method detected whether the motivational variables were significant predictors of openness to change and knowledge sharing. Fourth, the last hypothesis was tested with a mediation analysis using model 4 in with the regression analysis procedure PROCESS developed by Hayes (2013).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analysis
In order to perform a regression analysis, five assumptions must be met. First, because all variables were measured on a five-point Likert scale, the dependent and independent variables are continuous. Secondly, scatter diagrams1 indicated linear relationship exist between the independent and dependent variables. Third, the Durban Watson test showed that openness to change and the independent variables are independent of each other (1.5 < 1.780 < 2.5). Fourth, proximal normal distribution was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test which is meant for a number of observations smaller than 2000. The check for normality revealed that both dependent variables, openness to change (D(168) = 0.96, p < .05) and knowledge sharing were not normally distributed (D(168) = 0.98, p < .05). Therefore, fifth, two significant outliers were discarded and not included in the analysis. Again the check for normality was performed, resulting in that
openness to change was still not normally distributed (D(167) = 0.96, p < .05), but knowledge sharing however was now normally distributed (D(167) = 0.99, p < .05). The presence of multivariate normality was however visible in Q-Q plots2 for openness to change. Furthermore, openness to change has a skewness of -,296 (SE = .19) and a kurtosis of .376 (SE = .37). As skewness and kurtosis are both less than twice the standard deviation, the data can be treated as normally distributed and used for regression.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
In table 1 the means, standard deviations and correlations between variables are presented. The motives were all positively related to each other. As expected, power motivation was related positively to openness to change (R = .155, p < .01) but unexpectedly not significantly positive to knowledge sharing (R = .150, p > .05). According to expectation, also a positive relation was found between achievement motivation and both openness to change (R = .319, p < .01) and knowledge sharing (R = .438, p < .01) However, contrary to expectation, affiliation motivation was less strongly correlated, but also significantly positively related to both openness to change (R = .210, p < .01) and knowledge sharing (R = .152, p < .05). Positive relationships thus exist between employees’ motivation and employee adaptability.
According to expectation, the correlations showed that the power motive (R = -.374 p < .01), achievement motive (R = -.324 p < .01) and the affiliation motive (R = -.209 p < .01) were
negatively related to risk avoidance. As expected, risk avoidance also had a negative relationship with openness to change (R = .219, p < .01) and knowledge sharing (R = .218, p < .01) .
For the control variables, age correlated negatively with power motivation (R = -.188, p < .05) and affiliation motivation (R = .248, p < .01), but not with achievement motivation (R = .003, p > .05). Age was also significantly positively related to knowledge sharing (R = .268, p < .01) but not with openness to change (R = -.040, p >.05). The correlations also showed that females were more risk avoidant than male employees (R = .233, p < .01). Furthermore, men were likelier to score higher on power (R = -. 233, p < .01) and achievement motivation (R = -.254, p < .01). On the other hand, female employees scored higher on affiliation motivation (R = .160, p < .05). As both age and gender affected predictor and/or explanatory variables, they were both taken into account as control variables in the regression analysis. Educational level was only positively related to power motivation. (R = 153, p > .05) but did not impact any other predictor or explanatory variables, and was therefore excluded from further analysis.
Regression Analysis
Linear regression analysis were performed to test the first three hypotheses. The control variables age and gender were taken into account when performing the analysis. First, the effect of employees’ motivation was tested on openness to change (Table 2). Results show that the model explained 11.7% of the variance in openness to change. No significant effect of power motivation or affiliation motivation was found. However a significant positive effect was found for achievement motivation on openness to change.
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Power motive 2.94 .72 2. Achievement motive 3.82 .47 .393** 3. Affiliation motive 3.33 .64 .185* .286** 4. Openness to Change 3.93 .54 .155* .319** .210** 5. Knowledge Sharing 3.88 .48 .150 .438** .152* .233** 6. Risk avoidance 2.66 .64 -.374** -.324** -.209** - .219** - .218** 7. Age 33.90 11.23 -.188* .003 -.248** - .040 .268** - .080 8. Gender .51 .50 - .189* -.254** .160* - .084 -.134 .233** - .408** 9. Education level 5.95 1.19 .153* .113 .135 .029 -.101 - .044 - .294** - .046
TABLE 2
Regression analysis of motivational variables including control variables on openness to change
Variables B SE t p Power motivation .008 .044 .178 .859 Achievement motivation .138 .045 3.101 .002 Affiliation motivation .066 .043 1.549 .123 Age -.010 .045 -.219 .827 Gender -.035 .091 -.381 .704
Note. N = 166 - 169 . Gender, male = 0 female = 1
Second, the effect of employees’ motivation was tested on knowledge sharing (Table 3). Results show that the model explained 28.1% of the variance in knowledge sharing. Similar to the effect on openness to change, both power motivation and affiliation motivation had no significant impact on knowledge sharing. Therefore hypothesis 1 and 3 were rejected. Again, achievement motivation had a significant effect on knowledge sharing. As achievement motivation predicted both openness to change and knowledge sharing, hypothesis 2 is supported.
TABLE 3
Regression analysis of motivational variables including control variables on knowledge sharing
Variables B SE t p Power motivation .024 .035 .696 .487 Achievement motivation .190 .036 5.331 .000 Affiliation motivation .043 .034 1.256 .211 Age .155 .036 4.316 .000 Gender .087 .073 1.194 .234
Mediation Analysis
As only achievement motivation was significant in the regression (Table 2), only this motivation was used in the mediation. Using the Process program of Hayes (2013), regression analysis was performed to test hypothesis 4. Risk avoidance was first included as a mediator in the relationship between achievement motivation and openness to change. Results indicated that achievement motivation was a significant predictor of risk avoidance (B = -.3214, SE = .073, p = .0000), however risk avoidance was not a significant predictor of openness to change (B = -.0674, SE = .040, p = .0955). These results do not support the mediational hypothesis. Also, the direct effect of achievement motivation was still a significant predictor when controlling for risk avoidance(B = .1441, SE = .0402, p = .0004). Approximately 12% of the variance in openness to change was accounted for directly by the achievement motivation (R2 = .1167).
TABLE 4
Risk avoidance as mediator between achievement motivation and openness to change.
Variables B SE CI
A- path -.3214 .0734 -4.3764 .0000
B-path -.0674 .0402 -1.6766 .0955
Direct effect (c’) .1441 .0402 3.5863 .0004
Indirect effect .0217 .0169 -.0040 (LLCL) .0626 (ULCL)
Note. N = 168
the hypothesis that risk avoidance mediates the effect of achievement motivation on knowledge sharing. Results indicated that achievement motivation was a significant predictor of risk avoidance (B = -.3269, SE = .0736, p = .0000), however risk avoidance was not a significant predictor of knowledge sharing (B = -.0253, SE = .0329, p = .442). Therefore there is no support for the mediational hypothesis. The direct effect of achievement motivation was still a significant predictor when taking into account risk avoidance and age (B = .1929, SE = .0328, p = .0000). Approximately 27% of the variance in knowledge sharing was accounted for by the direct predictors achievement motivation and age (R2 =.2659). In conclusion, risk avoidance was not a mediator of the relation between achievement motivation and employee adaptability.
TABLE 5
Risk avoidance as mediator between achievement motivation and knowledge sharing.
Variables B SE CI
A - path -.3269 .0736 -4.4403 .0000
Age – Risk avoidance -.0783 .0738 -1.0603 .2906
B -path -.0253 .0329 -.7694 .442
Age – Knowledge sharing .1196 .0311 3.8381 .0002
Direct effect (c’) .1929 .0328 5.8845 .0000
Indirect effect .0083 .0112 -.0111 (LLCL) .0345 (ULCL)
Note. N = 166
Additional Analysis
= 2.05, SD = .95) was correlated with openness to change (R = -.201, p < 0.01) and knowledge sharing (R = -.177, p < 0.05) but not with power (R = -.079, p > 0.05), achievement (R = -.115 p > 0.05) or affiliation (R = -.087, p < 0.05) motivation. Therefore threat to power was additionally considered as a predictor of employee adaptability.
First, to test whether threat to power was impacting openness to change, a regression analysis was performed (Table 6). Next to achievement motivation, threat to power had a significant negative relation with openness to change. The model with threat to power explained 15% (R2 =.152) of the variation in openness to change, adding some explanatory value over the model without this variable which accounted for 12% of the variation (Table 2, R2 =.117).
TABLE 6
Inclusion of threat to power in the regression on openness to change
Variables B SE t P Power motivation .040 .045 .885 .377 Achievement motivation .121 .046 2.694 .009 Affiliation motivation .061 .043 1.441 .160 Age .024 .046 .532 .595 Gender -.039 .092 -.417 .677 Threat to power -.105 .041 -2.540 .012 Note. N = 167
TABLE 7
Inclusion of threat to power in the regression on knowledge sharing
Variables B SE t p Power motivation .041 .035 1.175 .242 Achievement motivation .175 .035 4.934 .000 Affiliation motivation .039 .033 1.169 .244 Age .172 .036 4.827 .000 Gender .085 .072 1.185 .238 Threat to power -.090 .032 -2.794 .006 Note. N = 166 DISCUSSION
The present research aimed to show a link between power, achievement and affiliation motivation for employee adaptability, and the mediating role of risk avoidance. Results mainly showed, that from the three motives, achievement motivation particularly predicts employees’ employee adaptability. Unexpectedly, power and affiliation motivation however did not predict employee adaptability and no mediating role of risk avoidance was found.
Theoretical Implications
goals such as rewards or benefits earned when performing the activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In this way, power motivated employees focus on rewards as status and promotion and affiliation motivated employees benefit from outcomes such as friendly relations or approval from others.
Achievement motivated employees engage in activities, for example sharing knowledge, for the single object of achieving itself, they derive satisfaction from this experience. When extrinsically motivated, employees mainly consider the value of the outcome of sharing knowledge for their personal goal (Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei, 2005; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Concerning knowledge sharing, consistent with the findings of Lin (2007), intrinsic motivators (e.g., knowledge self-efficacy and pleasure in sharing knowledge) and not extrinsic motivators (i.e., organizational rewards such as promotion) influence knowledge sharing. Therefore, the present research suggests that intrinsic motivation can be the reason why achievement motivation and not power or affiliation motivation has a positive relationship with employee adaptability.
Second, in accordance with the study of consumers in online brand communities (Wu and Sukoco, 2010) employees’ achievement motivation had a larger effect on knowledge sharing than power motivation. Therefore, the present research suggests that employees with high power motivation share knowledge strategically based on a cost-benefit analysis (Kelly & Thibaut, 1978) instead of enjoyment (Lin, 2007) or for a feeling of competence or self-efficacy, which is essential for dealing with the environment (Deci, 1975). Based on whether adapting or not adapting will benefit their position/status during or after the change, power motivated individuals make the decision to share knowledge or to be open to change.
did not share had no opportunity to influence others. However, employees might have low awareness of these benefits (Riege, 2005) or more costs to sharing are perceived. For instance, the current study shows that threat to the current power position negatively impacts knowledge sharing and openness to change Threat can result in perceiving little benefit in change, and induce fear of exploitation (i.e., when asked to give up valuable knowledge, with little or no benefits in return) which is a barrier for sharing knowledge (Empson, 2001).
As either outcome of this cost-benefit analysis is likely in a given change situation, power motivation is probably ambiguously impacting employee adaptability. Suggesting that change is not always a situation wherein power motivated employees perceive power-related benefits (e.g., to influence others or to gain power and status). Conversely, this research suggests that for the achievement motivated employees either: 1) a cost- benefit analysis is less important, (e.g., sharing knowledge is less often a strategic choice) 2) costs are structurally perceived as lower, or 3) change is a situation in which they perceive structurally more benefits (e.g., opportunities for self-efficacy, enjoyment and competence).
pleasurable and challenging, they also enjoy helping others (Lin, 2007; Wasko & Faraj; 2005, 2000). Similarly, for openness to change, it is likely that affiliative employees help each other by using ‘social buffering’ and smoothing to resolve conflicts, anxiety and stress (Kikusui, Winslow & Mori, 2006; Jones & Melcher, 1982) that may occur during change. For theory, the findings of this research suggests that enjoyment of challenge is more indicative of employee adaptability than receiving pleasure from helping others.
Fourth, a more straightforward implication relates to the finding that risk avoidance was not a mediator of the relationship between achievement motivation and employee adaptability. It is likely that employees with high achievement motivation focus on positive rewards such as opportunities for mastering skills or improving old ways of working rather than the possible risks of a change. As achievement motivation was negatively related to risk avoidance, but not to employee adaptability (Table 4 & 5), it is likely that they perceive little risk in change and knowledge sharing. Therefore, when little risk is perceived, the extent to which one is risk avoidant does not matter when predicting employee adaptability.
Practical Implications
Adaptive employees have become increasingly important (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999; Smith et al., 1997). That is why it is essential to recruit, train and retain these employees in the current dynamic environment (Hitt et al., 1998). Several practical implications of this study are mentioned below.
Recruitment and selection. Test based on how intrinsically one is motivated to achieve
positively correlates with achievement motivation (Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000) and can indicate to what extent someone is motivated to achieve and thus can be an important factor when considering job applicants.
Training. Both psychoanalysts and behavior theorist agree that the motives are very
difficult to change (Fagenson, 1992). Achievement-oriented employees’ tendency to resort to learning when faced with change (Coad & Berry, 1998), however may be trained. Employee training must therefore emphasize how one can learn from change and make achieving and learning in itself a goal, rather than focusing training about change on external rewards. Moreover, providing mentoring might help focus on achievement and to actually nurture achievement orientation. Research of Fagenson (1992) found for example that mentoring proved to help protegés, who are often high in achievement and power motivation, to learn to achieve success.
Retaining. Moreover, the impact of achievement motivation can have important
implications for job design to retain employees. Steers (1983) found that increasing motivation can be accomplished through basic changes in the nature of jobs (i.e., job enrichment) to reduce turnover and absenteeism. For achievement motivation, jobs should be redesigned to allow for opportunities for advancement, personal growth, increased challenge and recognition. In this way achievement-oriented employees are less likely to leave the organization.
(Empson, 2001). Moreover, less emphasis on position status can reduce this fear and increase knowledge sharing (Riege, 2005).
Limitations and Future Research
The present research has several limitations that make more research necessary. The first methodical limitation is that all variables were self-attributed. Participants could therefore put down favourable answers. Moreover, evidence shows that self-attributed motives derived from self-reports, are predicting immediate responses to structured situations whereas implicit motives predict spontaneous trends in behavior over time (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989) . Therefore validating the results with an implicit motivation study or with a field study can prove to be of additional value.
In addition, the study was single source, collecting data with only the survey method, from the same employee at one point in time. This raises a potential concern for common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). Further research can reduce this measurement error by including multiple moments of testing, adding other raters, or adding another method of measurement. For example, a future study could ask also close colleagues to answer the statements for employee adaptability and risk avoidance for an employee.
control for the environmental stability or to what extent the employees actually experience change in their organization. Knowledge sharing was also measured in general and could have been specified to knowledge sharing during change to display a better component of employee adaptability. Further research, could tie measurement of openness to change, knowledge sharing and risk avoidance to a specific change situation. In this way it is for example easier for employees to think of how likely it is that they would share knowledge and thus make the study results more reliable.
Also, all participants were Dutch. Therefore results might not be generalizable or applicable to countries with a significantly different culture. Further research including other cultures can increase the generalizability of the study.
CONCLUSION
In the current fast changing environment greater employee adaptability is a prerequisite for keeping competitive advantage. This paper proposed that employee adaptability is related to human motivation. A significant positive relation between achievement and employee
REFERENCES
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal of knowledge management, 7(1), 64-77.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological review, 64(6), 359 -372.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management science, 52(7), 1099-1115.
Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of management, 27(6), 625-641.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76.
Bhattacharya, M., Gibson, D. E., & Doty, D. H. (2005). The effects of flexibility in employee skills, employee behaviors, and human resource practices on firm performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 622-640.
Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 667-686.
Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: A resource-based model of online social structures. Information systems research, 12(4), 346-362. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person‐
organization fit perspective. Personnel psychology, 47(2), 317-348.
Chawla, A., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(6), 485-498.
Coad, A. F., & Berry, A. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and learning
orientation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(3), 164-172. Coch, L., & French Jr, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human relations, 1(4),
512-532.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly,, 35(1), 128-152.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in experimental social psychology, 13, 39-80.
Deci, E.L (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1), 417-440.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256-273.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic management journal, 21(3), 345-367. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(5), 968-980.
Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge transfer in mergers between professional service firms. Human relations, 54(7), 839-862. Fagenson, E. A. (1992). Mentoring—Who needs it? A comparison of protégés' and nonprotégés' needs for power, achievement, affiliation, and autonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41(1), 48-60.
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 503-527.
Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60-71.
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Løvås, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases.Academy of Management journal,48(5), 776-793.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100.
Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape: Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 22-42.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88-115.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development. Frontiers of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related stressors: a multilevel study. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 349-361.
Jones, R. E., & Melcher, B. H. (1982). Personality and the preference for modes of conflict resolution. Human Relations, 35(8), 649-658.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 84(2), 107-122.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley New York.
Kikusui, T., Winslow, J. T., & Mori, Y. (2006). Social buffering: relief from stress and anxiety. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 361(1476), 2215-2228.
Kirton, M. J., & Mulligan, G. (1973). Correlates of managers' attitudes toward change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(1), 101-107.
Koestner, R., & McClelland, D. (1992). The affiliation motive. In C. Smith (Ed.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (pp. 205-210). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527937.014
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard business review, 130-139.
Kuhl, J., & Scheffer, D. (1999). Der operante multi-motiv-test (OMT): Manual. Germany: University of Osnabrück.
Lee, F. (1997). When the going gets tough, do the tough ask for help? Help seeking and power motivation in organizations. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 72(3), 336-363.
Leonard, D., & Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California management review, 40(3), 112-132.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of information science, 33(2), 135-149.
Litwin, G. H., & & Stringer Jr, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Harvard University Press.
Lounsbury, J. W., Loveland, J. M., Sundstrom, E. D., Gibson, L. W., Drost, A. W., & & Hamrick, F. L. (2003). An investigation of personality traits in relation to career satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(3), 287-307.
Lu, L., Leung, K., & Koch, P. T. (2006). Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review, 2(1), 15-41.
Magee, J. C., & Langner, C. A. (2008). How personalized and socialized power motivation facilitate antisocial and prosocial decision-making. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1547-1559.
Mathwick, C., Wiertz, C., & De Ruyter, K. (2008). Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of consumer research, 34(6), 832-849.
McAdams, D. P. (1985). Power, intimacy, and the life story. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness to change and the introduction of GDSS: Explaining initial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organization Science, 6(5).
McClelland, D. C. (1967). Achieving society. New York: Simon and Schuster.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard business
review, 54(2), 100-110.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the great motivator. Harvard business review, 81(1), 117-126.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological review, 96(4), 690-702.
McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2011).Organizational behavior. Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2008). Creating organizational transformations: McKinsey global
survey result. McKinsey Quarterly, 1-7.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1980). Archetypes of organizational transition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 268-299.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J. R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22(1), 59-80.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Neal, A. F., & Hesketh, B. (1999). Technology and performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological review, 91(3), 328-346.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). leadership and employees’reactions to change: the role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel psychology, 64(3), 627-659.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. (2000). Motivation, knowledge, transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
Oyemomi, O., Liu, S., Neaga, I., & Alkhuraiji, A. (2016). How knowledge sharing and business process contribute to organizational performance: Using the fsQCA approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5222-5227.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & 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.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(4), 612-624.
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 18-35.
Sanchez, R. (1995). Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic management journal, 16(1), 135-159.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Gerstenberg, F. X. (2012). . An IRT analysis of motive questionnaires: The unified motive scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 725-742.
Schroth, M. L., & McCormack, W. A. (2000). Sensation seeking and need for achievement among study-abroad students. The Journal of social psychology, 140(4), 533-535. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1-65. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. In The Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11-20.
Seppälä, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & & Pirttilä‐Backman, A. M. (2012). Change‐oriented organizational citizenship behaviour: An interactive product of openness to change values, work unit identification, and sense of power. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,, 85(1), 136-155.
Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1997). Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research. Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies (pp. 89-118). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 7-74). San Fransisco: Freeman
Stahl, M. J. (1983). Achievement, power and managerial motivation: Selecting managerial talent with the job choice exercise. Personnel Psychology, 36(4), 775-789.
Tampoe, M. (1996). Motivating knowledge workers - the challenge for the 1990s. In Myers, P. Knowledge Management and Organizational Design (pp. 179–190). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985). The Social Identity Theory of Group Behavior IN Worchel, S., & Austin, W.G. Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24), Chicago: Nelson-Hall Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American psychologist, 51(4), 407.
Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intelligence and
personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change. Journal of managerial psychology, 19(2), 88-110.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.
Wang, D., Su, Z., & Yang, D. (2011). Organizational culture and knowledge creation capability. Journal of knowledge management, 15(3), 363-373.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (2001). Organizational identification among virtual workers: The role of need for affiliation and perceived work-based social support. Journal of management, 27(2), 213-229.
APPENDIX A
A1: Translated items Power motivation
As recommended for the unified motive scales (Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012) the first five items were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The last five items were rated on an importance rating from 1 (very unimportant to me) to 5 (very important to me).
1. Ik heb graag het laatste woord.
2. Ik zou graag een manager zijn met veel invloed.
3. Ik probeer eerder invloed over anderen uit te oefenen dan dat ik hun mij laat beïnvloeden.
4. Ik heb veel interesse in leiding geven aan anderen. 5. Ik heb veel vertrouwen in mijzelf als ik leiding geef. 6. Controle uit oefenen over een organisatie of groep. 7. Invloed uitoefenen.
8. Een positie met status .
9. Een leiderschapspositie hebben, waarin anderen voor mij werken of naar mij kijken voor sturing.
10. Mogelijkheden om anderen te beïnvloeden.
A2: Translated items Achievement motivation
1. Ik heb als doel om op zijn minst een beetje meer te doen dan andere mensen voor mij hebben gedaan.
2. Ik voel mij aangetrokken tot situaties waarin ik mijn capaciteiten kan testen. 3. Dingen beter doen dan dat ze hiervoor gedaan zijn.
4. Moeilijke/uitdagende doelen en verantwoordelijkheden aan kunnen gaan. 5. Mijzelf continu te kunnen verbeteren.
6. Behouden van hoge kwaliteitsstandaarden op het werk. 7. Werk produceren van hoge kwaliteit.
8. Projecten die mij uitdagen tot aan het limiet van mijn kunnen. 9. De mogelijkheid om nieuwe dingen te creëren.
10. Constant deelnemen aan nieuwe, interessante en uitdagende doelen en projecten.
A3: Translated items Affiliation motivation
Affiliation motivation was adapted from the unified motive scales (Schönbrodt & Gerstenberg, 2012) items 1 – 8 were rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The last two items were rated on an importance scale ranging from 1 (very unimportant to me) to 5 (very important to me).
1. Ik besteed veel tijd aan het bezoeken van vrienden. 2. Ik maak graag nieuwe vrienden.
3. Ik krijg veel energie van het ontmoeten van nieuwe mensen. 4. Ik kies hobby's die ik kan delen met andere mensen.
5. Ik word blij van ontmoetingen met andere mensen. 6. Ik doe veel moeite om mensen te ontmoeten.
8. Ik ben vaak liever alleen dan met een groep vrienden*. 9. Activiteiten met andere mensen.
10. Een brede kring van vrienden hebben.
A4: Translated items of Openness to Change
1. Ik heb het idee dat veranderingen op het werk over het algemeen een positieve impact hebben.
2. Ik vind dat ik verandering op het werk accepteer.
3. Ik vind dat ik een open houding heb tegenover veranderingen op het werk. 4. Ik kan effectief omgaan met verandering in mijn werk en mijn organisatie. 5. Ik ben in staat mij aan te passen aan veranderende omstandigheden op het werk.
A5: Translated items in Knowledge Sharing scale
1. In mijn dagelijks werk neem ik het initiatief om werk-gerelateerde kennis te delen met collega's.
2. Ik houd mijn werkervaring voor mijzelf en deel deze niet makkelijk met anderen*. 3. Ik deel nuttige ervaringen en kennis met anderen.
4. Ik geef nieuw verkregen kennis door aan andere mensen.
5. Ik vertel anderen nooit over mijn werkervaring, tenzij het nodig is in de organisatie*. 6. Op de werkvloer deel ik mijn kennis met veel mensen.
7. Ik maak actief gebruik van de beschikbare IT faciliteiten in het bedrijf om mijn kennis te delen.
A6: Translated items of Risk Avoidance
1. Ik ben bereid om risico's te nemen in mijn organisatie*.
2. In mijn dagelijks werk ben ik niet bereid om risico's te nemen bij het maken van belangrijke beslissingen.
3. Ik heb een voorkeur voor situaties die weinig risico's met zich mee brengen. 4. Ik ben bereid om risico's te nemen voor het bereiken van de organisatiedoelen*. 5. Ik vind dat risico's zoveel mogelijk vermeden moeten worden.
A7: Translated items of threat to power
1. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn positie in de organisatie dreig kwijt te raken. 2. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn status in de organisatie dreig kwijt te raken. 3. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn invloed in de organisatie dreig kwijt te raken. 4. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn controle in de organisatie dreig kwijt te raken. 5. Ik heb het gevoel dat mijn positie in de organisatie onstabiel is.
6. Ik heb het gevoel dat mijn positie in de organisatie stabiel is.
