minbaeva presentation

8/12/2019 Minbaeva Presentation

1/31

Dana MinbaevaAssociate Professor in Strategic HRM

Center of Strategic Management and

GlobalizationCopenhagen Business School

Denmark

What drives knowledge sharing

behavior of individuals?


2/31

My research

All papers are available upon the request


3/31

Knowledge characteristics

Knowledge transfer and HRM

Sender ReceiverKnowledge

Organizational environment

Disseminativecapac

ity

Absorptivecapacity

Barren organizational context

Minbaeva and

Michailova (2004) inEmployee Relations

Minbaeva et al (2003) inJIBS

Minbaeva (2005) in

Personnel Review

Minbaeva (2008) in

ManagementInternational Review


4/31

Governance of knowledge processes

Firm:

governance

mechanisms

Individual:

conditions of

individual actions

Individual:

individual knowledge

sharing behavior

Firm:

knowledge

processes outcomes

Gooderham, Minbaeva and Pedersen (2010), in Journal of Mgt Studies

Minbaeva and Pedersen (2010), in IJSCM

Michailova and Minbaeva (2011), forthcoming in International Business

Review

Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen and Reinholt (2009) in Human Resource

Management

Minbaeva, Foss and Snell (2009), Special Issue of Human Resource


5/31

(S)HRM in MNCs

Navrbjerg and Minbaeva (2009) in InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management

Minbaeva, Hutching and Thomson (2007) in

European Journal of International Management

Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron (2010) in

International Journal of Human Resource

Management

Employment Practices of Multinationals in Organizational

Context, international project, www.cbs.dk/mnc


6/31

Dana Minbaeva and Torben

Pedersen

Center of Strategic Management and

Globalization

Copenhagen Business School

What drives knowledgesharing behavior of

individuals?


7/31

Rationale

Whether knowledge sharing takes place in anorganization depends to a great extent on

individual organizational members decision to

share or not the knowledge they possess.

in any model of knowledge sharing the

knowledge sharing behavior of individuals

has to be explained endogenously and on

individual level there are not so many studies which managed

to do so empirically


8/31

Why not? (1) The theories in which the discussion of intra-

organizational knowledge sharing is nested areusually collective ones (Felin and Hesterly, 2007).

Knowledge-based scholars should carefully revisittheir underlying philosophical and theoreticalassumptions about the primacy given to collectivesand to consider potential individual-level explanationsas antecedents to new value creation (Felin andHesterly, 2007: 214).

Hence to push further the empirical research onknowledge sharing, we need to integrate someind iv idual-level theoriesthose consideringindividuals and their actions as the basic units ofanalysis (Elstner, 1989).

Motivation theory


9/31

Why not? (2) To empirically study knowledge sharing at the

individual level, we need ind iv idual level datacollected at various locations, organizationalunits, hierarchical levels, etc.

That is necessary since individuals are randomlydistributed within the organization.

Further, the data should be collected from varioussocial groups (gender, age, level of education)since individuals are a priori heterogeneous.


10/31


11/31

In response

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) The TPB is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned

Action (TRA) introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen

(1975)

Aim: to explain behavior of individualsendogenously as determined by its predictors

(intentions, attitude, subjective norms and

perceived control)


12/31

The motivation sequence


13/31

The TPB in a nutshell

Source: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/tpb.htmlhttp://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/tpb.html


14/31

Why the TPB?

The TPB was extensively used to studyhuman behavior and design appropriate

behavioral intervent ionsto change behavior

by affecting one or more of its determinants


15/31

Knowledge governance mechanisms

KGA in Foss (2007): governance mechanisms are deployedin the belief that in f luencing the condi t ions of indiv idu alact ions in a certain manner will lead employees to take thosedecisions that when aggregated lead to favorableorganizat ional outcomes(knowledge acquisition andutilization).

Represents a reaction to what it regards as the "methodologicalcollectivism" of explanations of knowledge processes currently

dominating the KBV research (Foss, 2007)

Understanding of relations between governance mechanisms

and knowledge processes implies theorizing individuals (Grant,

1996), individual heterogeneity (Felin and Hesterly, 2007), andindividual interaction (Felin and Foss, 2005).

Intra-organizational knowledge processes can be influenced and

directed through the deployment of governance mechanisms

(Foss, 2007)

Knowledge governance mechanisms conditions of


16/31


We propose a number of knowledgegovernance mechanisms that can be appliedto influence the previously identified

antecedents o f behavio ral intent ion s(attitude, subjective norm and perceivedcontrol) and thereby affect knowledgeshar ing behavio r of ind iv iduals.


17/31


Ajzen(1991): it is at the level of beliefs thatwe can learn about the unique factors that

induce one person to engage in the behavior

of interest (p. 206-207).


18/31


three types of governance mechanismsinfluencing behavioral, normative and control

beliefs and label them accordingly as

extrinsic rewards (behavioral beliefs)

reciprocal schemes ( normative beliefs) and

communication mechanisms (control beliefs).


19/31

Conceptual model

Rewards

Reciprocity

schemes

Communication

mechanisms

Attitude

Subjective

norm

Perceived

control

Intention to

share

Knowledge

sharing

behavior

H1

H2

H3

H4

H7

H6

H5


20/31

Hypotheses H1. Strong intention to engage in knowledge sharing behavior positively

influences the extent of knowledge sharing behavior.

H2. A positive attitude toward knowledge sharing positively influences the

individuals intention to share knowledge.

H3. Strong subjective norms about knowledge sharing positively influence

the individuals intention to share knowledge.

H4. Perceived behavioral control positively influences the individuals

intention to share knowledge

H5. The more individuals are externally rewarded for knowledge sharing, the

more positive their attitude toward knowledge sharing is.

H6. The more individuals are reciprocally rewarded for knowledge sharing,

the more positive their subjective norm regarding knowledge sharing is.

H7. The more individuals use communication mechanisms, the stronger their

perceived behavioral control is.


21/31

Data

Danisco and Chr. Hansen

MANDI Questionnaire on Knowledge Sharing

Response rate

Danisco: 77.94%; 219 respondents

Chr. Hansen: 72.75%; 251 respondents


22/31


23/31

Measures

We usedperceptual

measures for

operationalization

of all variables inthis study


24/31

Results

2[127] = 311.5

GFI = 0.93RMSEA= 0.05


25/31

Goodness-of-fit statistics for three

competing specification of the model


26/31

Results: antecedents

The decision not-to-share is individual, oftenrational and well justified from the perspective of

the individual

The intention to share knowledge is formed as a

combination of the social influence (social norms),an individuals confidence in her ability to perform

the knowledge sharing (perceived control), and

the individuals own attitude toward sharing of

knowledge (attitude).


27/31

Results: governance

mechanisms

A posi t ive feedbackon past instances ofknowledge sharing, being acknowledged of their

contribution to the work of others and/or

organizational development

Availability and use of required resou rces and

oppor tuni t ies to carry out and successfully

complete that behavior


28/31

Results: BUT!

Contrary to commonly accepted practices

associated with knowledge management

initiatives, a felt need for extr insic rewards

may very well hinderthe development of

favorable attitudes toward knowledge sharing

Such a finding might simply be a reflection of

the specific extrinsic rewards applied in two

organizations

Insights from Motivational Theory on the link

between extrinsic motivation and performance(e.g. Vroom)

Insights from Creativity Theory(e.g. Amabile)

Rewards and knowledge sharing (e.g. Bock et al,

2005; Minbaeva, Makela and Rabbiosi, 2010)

Performance

Rewards


29/31

Limitations Our limitations

cross-sectional data

two MNCs from Denmark

using perceptual

instruments

Future studies longitudinal research

a wider variety of firms

the impact of the external

environment (formal and

informal institutions)

more elaborate measures,

combining perceptualones with some objective

indicators


30/31

Implications

The use of external rewards seems surprisinglyenough to be counterproductive in creating a

positive attitude toward knowledge sharing.

The interactions of governance mechanisms -

complementar i ty effect(which could benegative, neutral or positive)


31/31

To conclude

We need to push HRM scholars out of their

natural comfort zone(Becker and Huselid, 2006:900)

which assumes the aggregation of individuals,

existence of an average individual and no

differences in individual perception of external

stimulus and reaction to that.

minbaeva presentation

Documents