IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbire/v10y2016i1p102-120.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational factors for effective knowledge sharing: an empirical study of Korean learning teams

Author

Listed:
  • Gyewan Moon
  • Suk Bong Choi
  • Shaikh Javed Fardin

Abstract

In a knowledge-intensive work environment, communities of practices (CoPs) are regarded as an important instrument for collaborative learning within an organisation. CoPs are informal relational structures that connect people for the purpose of sharing expertise and experience. In spite of the wide proliferation of CoPs in diverse organisation, the factors leading to effective knowledge sharing in CoPs are still not well understood. Plus, empirical studies are still rare. Therefore, this paper presents a research model that defines the critical factors determining knowledge sharing in CoPs. The contribution of community member motivation and trust to successful knowledge sharing in CoPs is investigated. Plus, the moderating roles of management support and team culture are examined in relation to member motivation and trust for knowledge sharing. Based on extensive survey data from Korean multinational companies, the empirical results show that motivation and trust have an active influence on the knowledge sharing process in CoPs. The roles of management support and team culture are also discussed, along with the theoretical and managerial implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Gyewan Moon & Suk Bong Choi & Shaikh Javed Fardin, 2016. "Organisational factors for effective knowledge sharing: an empirical study of Korean learning teams," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 102-120.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbire:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:102-120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=73246
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Probst, Gilbert & Borzillo, Stefano, 2008. "Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 335-347, October.
    2. Jang-Hwan Lee & Young-Gul Kim & Min-Yong Kim, 2006. "Effects of Managerial Drivers and Climate Maturity on Knowledge-Management Performance: Empirical Validation," Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ), IGI Global, vol. 19(3), pages 48-60, July.
    3. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2000. "Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(5), pages 538-550, October.
    4. Barrett, Michael & Cappleman, Sam & Shoib, Gamila & Walsham, Geoff, 2004. "Learning in Knowledge Communities:: Managing Technology and Context," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-11, February.
    5. Chris Kimble & Paul Hildreth, 2005. "Dualities, Distributed Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management," Post-Print halshs-00492436, HAL.
    6. Gyewan Moon & Chungshin Park & Dong K. Yoo & Sukbong Choi, 2011. "Effective implementation of Communities of Practices (CoPs) in a knowledge habitat: a case study of Samsung Electronics," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(3), pages 335-346.
    7. Daniel Z. Levin & Rob Cross, 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1477-1490, November.
    8. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    2. Renzl, Birgit, 2008. "Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 206-220, April.
    3. Joel M. Evans & Michael G. Hendron & James B. Oldroyd, 2015. "Withholding the Ace: The Individual- and Unit-Level Performance Effects of Self-Reported and Perceived Knowledge Hoarding," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 494-510, April.
    4. Xin Liu & Lin Zhang & Abhinav Gupta & Xiaoming Zheng & Changqi Wu, 2022. "Upper echelons and intra‐organizational learning: How executive narcissism affects knowledge transfer among business units," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(11), pages 2351-2381, November.
    5. Cristina Páez-Avilés & Esteve Juanola-Feliu & Islam Bogachan-Tahirbegi & Mónica Mir & Manel González-Piñero & Josep Samitier, 2015. "Innovation And Technology Transfer Of Medical Devices Fostered By Cross-Disciplinary Communities Of Practitioners," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(06), pages 1-27, December.
    6. Rogo, Francesco & Cricelli, Livio & Grimaldi, Michele, 2014. "Assessing the performance of open innovation practices: A case study of a community of innovation," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 60-80.
    7. Martine R. Haas & Sangchan Park, 2010. "To Share or Not to Share? Professional Norms, Reference Groups, and Information Withholding Among Life Scientists," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 873-891, August.
    8. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2012. "How Knowledge Transfer Impacts Performance: A Multilevel Model of Benefits and Liabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1748-1766, December.
    9. Mudambi, Ram & Swift, Tim, 2009. "Professional guilds, tension and knowledge management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 736-745, June.
    10. Nancy Beauregard & Louise Lemyre & Jacques Barrette, 2015. "The Domains of Organizational Learning Practices: An Agency-Structure Perspective," Societies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Fuller, Johann & Jawecki, Gregor & Muhlbacher, Hans, 2007. "Innovation creation by online basketball communities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 60-71, January.
    12. Isabelle Bourdon & Chris Kimble, 2008. "An Analysis of Key Factors for the Success of the Communal Management of Knowledge," Post-Print halshs-00487656, HAL.
    13. Agterberg, M. & Huysman, M. & Hooff, B. van den, 2008. "Leadership in online knowledge networks : challenges and coping strategies in a network of practice," Serie Research Memoranda 0004, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    14. Virginie Jacquier-Roux & Hiroatsu Nohara & Claude Paraponaris, 2020. "La régulation dynamique des dispositifs et des situations de gestion des connaissances au cœur de l’innovation des firmes multinationales," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 23(N° spécia), pages 57-87, may.
    15. Janhonen, Minna & Johanson, Jan-Erik, 2011. "Role of knowledge conversion and social networks in team performance," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 217-225.
    16. Narda R. Quigley & Paul E. Tesluk & Edwin A. Locke & Kathryn M. Bartol, 2007. "A Multilevel Investigation of the Motivational Mechanisms Underlying Knowledge Sharing and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 71-88, February.
    17. Nicolai J. Foss & Kenneth Husted & Snejina Michailova, 2010. "Governing Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research Directions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 455-482, May.
    18. Sanghyun Park & Phanish Puranam, 2020. "Learning what they think vs. learning what they do: The micro-foundations of vicarious learning," Papers 2007.15264, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    19. Perotti, Francesco Antonio & Ferraris, Alberto & Candelo, Elena & Busso, Donatella, 2022. "The dark side of knowledge sharing: Exploring “knowledge sabotage” and its antecedents," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 422-432.
    20. da Silva, Filipa Pires & Mosquera, Pilar & Soares, Maria Eduarda, 2022. "Factors influencing knowledge sharing among IT geographically dispersed teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijbire:v:10:y:2016:i:1:p:102-120. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=203 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.