心理科学进展, 2018, 26(11): 2057-2067 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02057

研究前沿

分享还是不分享:社会困境视角下知识分享

陆欣欣1, 涂乙冬,2

1 中国人民大学劳动与人事学院, 北京 100872

2 武汉大学经济与管理学院, 武汉 430072

To share or not to share: Knowledge sharing in a social dilemma perspective

LU Xinxin1, TU Yidong,2

1 School of Labor and Human Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China

2 Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China

通讯作者: 涂乙冬 E-mail: ydtu@whu.edu.cn

收稿日期: 2016-03-21   网络出版日期: 2018-11-15

基金资助: * 国家自然科学基金项目.  71402127
* 国家自然科学基金项目.  71872139
教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目.  18YJC630164
武汉大学自主科研项目(人文社会科学)研究成果, 得到“中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金”资助.  

Received: 2016-03-21   Online: 2018-11-15

摘要

知识分享是一种典型的公共物品社会困境, 个体在组织内部面临着分享知识或不分享知识的博弈。但是, 目前从社会困境理论分析“知识分享困境”特征、应对策略及解决机理的研究仍然缺乏。针对这一问题, 从社会困境理论出发, 分析了知识分享社会困境的内涵和表现形式。同时, 结合社会困境对策的研究, 划分了应对知识分享社会困境的战略性对策、结构性对策和动机性对策。在此基础上, 归纳和总结了促进知识分享的相关实践, 并阐述这些实践促进知识分享的内在机理。最后, 在理论分析和对策总结的基础上, 为未来知识分享研究提供了研究启示。

关键词: 知识分享 ; 社会困境 ; 战略性对策 ; 结构性对策 ; 动机性对策

Abstract

Knowledge sharing is typical public goods social dilemma, employees in organizations have to face to the cooperative game of knowledge sharing. However, there is still a dearth of research analyzing the characteristics, solutions, and the underlying mechanisms of social dilemma of knowledge sharing. To address the problem, relying on social dilemma theory, we intend to illustrate connotations and manifestations of the social dilemma inherent in knowledge sharing. Meanwhile, combining with research on social dilemma and knowledge sharing, we propose and classify three tactics to social dilemma of knowledge sharing, including strategic tactics, structural tactics and motivational tactics. We further integrate extant practices for facilitating knowledge sharing and clarify the underlying mechanisms by which they can help solve social dilemma of knowledge sharing. Finally, based on the theoretical analysis and literature review, we provide both theoretical and methodological implications for future research on social dilemma of knowledge sharing.

Keywords: knowledge sharing ; social dilemma ; strategic tactics ; structural tactics ; motivational tactics

PDF (588KB) 元数据 多维度评价 相关文章 导出 EndNote| Ris| Bibtex  收藏本文

本文引用格式

陆欣欣, 涂乙冬. (2018). 分享还是不分享:社会困境视角下知识分享. 心理科学进展, 26(11), 2057-2067

LU Xinxin, TU Yidong. (2018). To share or not to share: Knowledge sharing in a social dilemma perspective. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(11), 2057-2067

1 引言

知识经济时代, 知识对企业发展具有决定性的作用, 是企业生存发展和获取竞争优势的关键(Pais & dos Santos, 2015; Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011)。但是, 由于企业的知识潜存于个体之中, 知识分享是知识管理和利用的重要前提(Caimo & Lomi, 2015)。同时, 随着组织扁平化和团队作业的普及化, 员工间的互依性日益增加, 知识分享成为组织各项职能运行的重要条件(Wang, Tseng, & Yen, 2012)。实证研究表明, 知识分享能正向预测团队创新、创造力(蔡亚华, 贾良定, 尤树洋, 2013; Zhang et al., 2011), 和团队绩效(孙锐, 陈国权, 2012), 且与组织的创新、绩效和利润率正相关(Bartol, Liu, Zeng, & Wu, 2009)。

但是, 尽管投入了大量的资金和技术, 企业促进员工知识分享的措施却收效甚微(Connelly & Zweig, 2015)。越来越多的管理者开始意识到, 知识分享根本上是一种“人”的活动, 个人意愿在知识分享中起着决定性的作用(Gagné, 2009)。然而, 研究者发现个体本能地倾向于藏匿和储存知识, 而不是分享自己知识(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Liu & DeFrank, 2013)。一方面, 知识分享需要分享者投入大量的时间和精力。另一方面, 知识是组织中个人竞争优势的来源, 分享知识意味着个人优势的丧失(Renzl, 2008)。同时, 由于知识分享的可见性和可量化性较低, 知识分享难以得到等值的奖励。从理性的角度来看, 知识分享的成本远高于收益, 有悖于个人理性。社会困境研究者指出, 如果所有员工都理性地不分享知识, 就可能导致集体的非理性, 从而引发“社会困境(Social dilemma)” (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013; Razmerita, Kirchner, & Nielsen, et al., 2016)。解决这个社会困境是促进员工知识分享的关键。

目前, 社会困境理论被广泛用于解释知识分享过程中的障碍, 以及知识分享促进策略的中间机理(Liu & DeFrank, 2013; Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013; Razmerita et al., 2016; Pais & dos Santos, 2015)。但是, 已有的研究在以下几个方面仍然存在着不足。首先, 关于知识分享中社会困境的表现形式、产生原因和特征的探索有限。目前, 大部分研究者都认可知识分享是一种典型的社会困境。但是, 对于知识分享社会困境产生的具体原因、表现形式及其与其他形式社会困境的异同, 已有的探讨仍然十分有限。有必要深入社会困境理论, 挖掘知识分享过程中社会困境特殊的内涵和表征。其次, 对知识分享社会困境解决策略的研究较为缺乏。当前社会困境视角下知识分享的相关研究, 仍集中于论证知识分享中社会困境的存在性, 对解决策略的理论探讨和实证研究相对较少。作为一个成熟的理论, 社会困境理论在经济学、社会学和心理学研究中都得到了广泛关注。不同学科的研究者都针对社会困境提出了应对策略(Wilkesmann, Wilkesmann, & Virgillito, 2009)。有必要将这些多领域的研究引入知识分享的研究中, 为推动知识分享的研究和实践提供启示。最后, 目前知识分享社会困境的理论探讨与实证研究呈现分离的状态。尽管社会困境理论已被普遍用于解释知识分享的相关机理, 但是关于管理实践如何通过解决社会困境促进知识分享仍然是未知的。要深入理解知识分享促进机理, 就需要将社会困境理论与知识分享的实证研究结合起来, 以全面揭示如何理解和破解知识分享的社会困境影响个人知识分享的过程。

针对上述问题, 本文将从社会困境理论出发, 分析知识分享中社会困境的内涵、形式和特征。结合社会困境的应对策略, 总结和归纳解决知识分享社会困境的对策。同时, 整合社会困境应对策略和知识分享的实证研究, 全面揭示知识分享管理实践如何通过解决社会困境促进知识分享的过程。本文期望通过理论分析和整合, 为理解知识分享的社会困境和推动知识分享管理实践提供一定启示。

2 知识分享的社会困境视角

2.1 社会困境理论

社会困境是指在相互依赖的情形下, 个体理性化决策导致集体非理性的一种情形(Van Lange, Joireman, Parks, & Van Dijk, 2013; 陈晓萍, 2013)。其前提是“理性人”假设, 即个体以最大化个人利益为目标。社会困境理论认为在相互依赖的情境中, 当个人自身选择利益最大化且预测他人将以利益最大化为目标时, 全体成员均选择自身利益最大化策略可能导致集体境况的恶化。研究者将个体在社会困境中的选择划分为合作策略和背叛策略(Balliet & Ferris, 2013)。其中, 背叛策略是选择最大化个人目标而无视集体目标的决策, 合作策略是为最大化集体目标而牺牲个人目标的决策。在缺乏惩罚背叛策略措施的情况下, 采用背叛策略会使个人短期收益高于合作策略中的收益。但是, 如果所有个体均选择背叛策略, 就会导致集体境况恶化以及个人长期收益降低。相反, 如果个体均选择合作策略, 尽管短期收益或者单次交易的收益水平较低, 但是长期收益水平将提高(Van Lange et al., 2013)。贪婪和害怕是个人选择背叛策略的深层次动机(Barnes, Hollenbeck, Jundt, DeRue, & Harmon, 2011)。贪婪是指员工期望自己不贡献而通过他人贡献获得最大收益。害怕是指员工担心自己贡献而他人不贡献而致使自身利益受损。在这两种心理的影响下, 个体普遍选择背叛策略就会导致社会困境。

社会困境具有以下几个方面的特征。第一, 社会困境是在互依的环境中产生的。社会困境产生的一个重要条件是, 个体意识到自己的行动会影响其他人的决策和境况, 并且依据他人的反应作出决策。在“理性人”假设下, 当个体预期自己和他人均会采取背叛策略时, 才会导致集体的非理性(Dorfman, Eyal, & Bereby-Meyer, 2014)。第二, 对背叛策略惩罚的缺失是社会困境产生的重要条件。社会困境是群体大多数成员选择个体理性的结果, 这种群体非理性产生的重要条件是制度性惩罚措施缺失。制度性惩罚措施的缺失降低了背叛策略的成本, 强化了个人的自利倾向。第三, 社会困境本质上是一种个人和集体利益的冲突(Van Lange et al., 2013)。在背叛策略中, 个人能够最大化短期收益, 却将损害集体利益。而在合作策略中, 个人短期收益受损, 却利于集体利益。因此, 从短期来看, 社会困境反映了个体与集体利益的冲突。第四, 社会困境中的合作策略是合意的。社会困境中的合作策略以集体和长期个人利益为目标, 符合功利主义最大化大多数人福利的主旨(Dorfman et al., 2014)。因此, 合作策略无疑是符合亲社会价值观和社会规范的。

总体来说, 社会困境视角是对传统“理性人”视角的发展, 将“理性人”假设置于相互依赖的情境中, 探索个体“理性”对群体结果的影响。事实上, 社会困境普遍存在于日常生活之中, 用于解释个体在面临个人与群体利益冲突时的抉择困境。研究者从经济学、社会学和心理学等不同学科视角出发, 对社会困境理论进行了发展。该理论也为从更高层次理解人们面临的决策困境提供了启发性的框架。

2.2 知识分享的社会困境

知识通常被定义为“一种整合结构化的经验、价值观、情境信任和专业视角的流体” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p. 5)。在知识管理中, 分享知识是实现知识在组织内流动和价值转化的前提。知识分享是个体提供任务信息和经验帮助他人, 通过与他人合作解决问题、开发新想法和实施新流程的过程。因此, 知识分享实质上是个体间相互交换知识, 共同创造新知识的过程(Wang & Noe, 2010)。知识分享既包括显性知识分享, 也包括隐性知识分享。其中, 隐性知识分享难度更大, 也是知识分享研究的主要对象(Wang & Noe, 2010)。在组织中, 知识分享存在于组织、团队和个体等多个层次。其中, 个体间的知识分享是最基本的单元, 是团队和组织知识分享的基础。个体层次的知识分享具有意向性、目标性和单方向性的特征, 是一种典型的自我决定行为(Gagné, 2009)。

理性视角认为, 知识分享本质上是一种理性行为, 个体只有在收益高于成本时, 才愿意分享自己的知识(Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006)。但是, 传统理性视角倾向于孤立地看待个人理性。针对这一问题, Cabrera和Cabrera (2002)最早将社会困境理论引入知识分享的研究, 用于解释知识分享中存在的障碍。他们指出, 由于组织中的知识通常被视为一种公共物品, 因此, 知识分享就可能产生公共物品普遍存在的社会困境, 如“公地悲剧”。首先, 个人对组织的知识没有所有权, 不必对知识的供应和维护负责。在组织中, 知识被默认为公有的财产, 个人无法直接从供给知识中获得收益, 也不必承担供给或者维持知识的责任。其次, 组织成员在获取知识方面享有同等的权限, 而不考虑他们对知识的贡献。在这种情况下, 员工的贪婪和害怕都会被放大。一方面, 员工在贪婪的诱惑下, 希望尽可能多地利用公有的知识。另一方面, 因为担心自己的知识被利用, 员工会尽可能少分享自己的知识(Barnes et al., 2011)。再次, 员工间的理性预期是相互的。知识分享中, 员工不仅自己受到贪婪和害怕的驱使, 还会认为其他人也受贪婪和害怕的驱动。当他们认为其他人会尽可能利用公共知识且不分享自己的知识时, 就有更强的动机选择背叛而不是合作策略。Cabrera和Cabrera (2002)指出, 知识作为公共物品最大的危险在于所有成员都能不考虑个人贡献而从知识中获益。这就会鼓励员工耗竭式地利用组织知识, 而不分享自己的知识, 导致社会困境。再次, 员工不分享知识不会遭受正式的惩罚(Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013)。由于知识分享本质上是一种自我决定行为, 组织难以规定惩罚员工不分享知识的措施。最后, 知识分享策略是合意的。知识分享作为一种合作策略, 有利于组织各项职能的展开和绩效的提高, 符合群体和个人的利益(Bartol et al., 2009)。综上所述, 知识分享是一种典型的公共物品社会困境。

值得注意的是, 知识本身的特征加剧了知识分享中的社会困境。首先, 知识的价值具有不可衡量和不可量化的特征, 组织难以等量地奖励知识分享行为(Wilkesmann et al., 2009)。由于知识分享需要大量的时间和精力投入, 缺乏物质激励会大大提高知识分享的成本和风险。在这种情况下, 员工更倾向于选择背叛策略。其次, 知识分享行为具有低可见性, 不分享知识不会遭到惩罚。大部分的知识, 尤其是隐性知识, 是无法观察和记录的(Pais & dos Santos, 2015)。员工不分享知识不会受到正式的惩罚。这就降低背叛策略的成本, 加剧了社会困境。最后, 知识分享中合作策略的社会合意性更高。实证研究结果表明, 知识分享对组织发展和各项职能的展开有积极的作用(Wang et al., 2012), 符合组织和集体利益, 具有较高的社会合意性。反过来, 基于知识的价值, 员工也更愿意通过藏匿知识来保持个人优势(Park, Chae, & Choi, 2017)。此时, 背叛策略对组织的损害也更大。

总而言之, 知识分享是一种典型的公共物品社会困境。社会困境理论对理解和解决知识分享中的难题具有重要意义。知识分享中的社会困境与一般的社会困境有诸多相似, 但也有自己的特点。知识本身的特性和价值加剧了知识分享中的社会困境, 也增加了解决这种社会困境的难度。

3 解决知识分享社会困境的对策

研究者从不同的角度探讨了解决社会困境的对策(Van Lange et al., 2013)。从社会困境背叛策略的动机来看, 解决社会困境的核心是抑制贪婪欲望/促进利他动机和降低风险/增加收益(Barnes et al., 2011)。基于此, 研究者提出了应对社会困境的三类对策, 即战略性对策、结构性对策和激励性对策(Kollock, 1998)。首先, 战略性对策主要通过第三方改变决策规则和收益结构, 在组织中主要表现为提供奖励来改变行为的收益结构。例如, 提供选择性的激励措施, 奖励合作以及惩罚背叛等(Barnes et al., 2011)。其次, 结构性对策的主要目标是通过改变交换双方的关系来影响社会困境中个人的收益和成本。例如, 改变交换双方的社会网络结构, 提高个体间的互依性, 增加他们的合作倾向。第三, 动机性对策旨在影响个人分配自身和集体利益的相关动机。动机性方案的目的在于, 通过激发个体与亲社会、合作和集体价值有关的动机促使下属选择合作策略。

Wilkesmann等人(2009)系统地提出了解决知识分享社会困境的战略性、结构性和动机性对策, 并对其机理进行了深入探讨。首先, 战略性对策主要包括以重构个人知识分享收益结构为目标的激励措施。这些对策包括以奖励合作和惩罚背叛为目标的知识分享激励系统、以鼓励知识分享为目标的社会认可系统, 以及将个人知识分享与组织目标相结合的利润分享计划。Cabrera和Cabrera (2002)指出, 重构收益结构的关键, 一是增加合作策略的收益, 二是将个人收益与集体收益相结合。这就有利于个体将关注点从自我利益转移到集体利益上, 提高个体的利他动机。同时, 奖励制度增加了对知识分享的补偿, 降低了对潜在风险的担心。其次, 结构性对策是指影响知识分享中个体间互动方式的策略, 主要包括构建员工之间的关系、社会网络结构和群体互动规范等。这些结构性对策的关键在于建立知识分享的个体间互依的关系或群体规范, 从而为个体决策设定限制。一方面, 互依性的关系增加了彼此的监督, 增加了背叛的成本, 降低了个体背叛的可能性。另一方面, 频繁的互动有利于建立互信互惠的关系, 为相互沟通和交换提供了渠道。结构性对策区别于战略性对策的关键在于, 结构性对策面向个体间的关系, 而战略性策略旨在改变个体与组织间的关系。第三, 动机性对策是指包括提高效能感、构建群体身份和强化责任感在内的所有以改变员工知识分享动机为目标的措施。与战略性和结构性对策不同, 动机性对策侧重于影响员工的心理层面。以增加员工的效能感为目标的措施, 目的在于提高员工对自身能力的信心和在组织中价值的感知, 增强他们承担风险的意愿和知识分享的义务感。构建群体身份则能够增进员工之间的相互了解和对群体利益的承诺, 提高责任感能够强化员工对知识分享的认同。这些都有利于强化员工知识分享的动机。

社会困境的解决对策, 为深入探索如何解决知识分享中的社会困境提供了理论框架。总结已有的研究, 应对知识分享社会困境的对策主要包括战略性、结构性和动机性三种对策。这些对策都期望对社会困境中的个人选择进行限制, 通过抑制贪婪欲望/促进利他动机和降低风险/增加收益来解决社会困境。因此, 本文认为抑制贪婪欲望/促进利他动机、降低风险/增加收益可能是解决知识分享社会困境的两大心理机制。

3.1 战略性对策

从定义来看, 战略性对策主要是从制度上改变个体知识分享的收益结构, 我们将组织人力资源管理实践、组织文化和氛围、激励措施和奖励等管理措施视作一种广义的制度因素将个体收益与集体收益相连接。

(1) 人力资源管理实践。组织的人力资源管理实践会直接作用于解决知识分享社会困境的三种策略, 对知识分享意愿有重要的影响(Camelo- Ordaz, García-Cruz, Sousa-Ginel, & Valle-Cabrera, 2011)。研究发现, 组织通过选拔与组织价值观一致的员工(Aklamanu, Degbey, & Tarba, 2016); 多元化管理(Shen, Tang, & D'Netto, 2014); 改进工作设计(Gagné, 2009); 增加对员工的培训密度(Kuvaas, Buch, & Dysvik, 2012); 鼓励员工参与决策和不同部门之间的沟通以及非正式会议等(Caimo & Lomi, 2015), 能够改变个体的收益结构, 建立有利于知识分享的组织氛围(Wang, Noe, & Wang, 2014), 增强员工之间的沟通、互信和互惠, 提高员工的内在动机和对组织的认同感, 从而促进员工的知识分享。例如, Collins和Smith (2006)对136家技术公司的研究发现, 高承诺人力资源管理系统能够通过建立良好的人际氛围, 包括信任、合作和共享语言和编码, 促进员工的支持分享。Aklamanu等人(2016)发现, 人力资源管理实践能够通过增加组织内部的社会资本来促进知识分享。Liu和Liu (2011)发现, 人力资源管理实践能够通过提高自我效能感促进员工的知识分享行为。Camelo-Ordaz等人(2011)发现, 人力资源管理实践能够强化员工对组织的情感承诺, 从而提高他们知识分享的意愿。因此, 人力资源管理实践会对组织奖励和文化、群体关系和互动, 以及员工个人动机产生深刻的影响。

(2) 组织文化和氛围。组织文化和氛围是所有成员共享的感知、观点和实践, 提供了行为合意性(behavioral desirability)的合法信息, 对员工的行为具有重要影响(Mueller, 2014)。研究表明, 强调个人竞争的文化会给知识分享造成障碍(He, Baruch, & Lin, 2014), 而强调合作和创新的企业文化则有利于促进组织成员间的知识分享(Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005)。在众多的组织氛围中, 信任和创新是受到关注最多的两个维度。在信任程度较高的环境中, 员工之间能够进行有效地沟通, 并且愿意承担知识分享的风险(Shih, Chiang, & Chen, 2012)。孙锐和陈国权(2012)研究发现, 充满信任、合作和共享的语言的社会氛围, 对员工的知识分享有显著的预测作用。创新氛围较高的团队强调学习、开放性的信息流动和理性的冒险, 鼓励员工寻求新的想法和创造新知识(李燕萍, 刘宗华, 林叶, 2016)。因此, 鼓励知识分享的组织文化或氛围对知识分享的奖励和认可, 降低了知识分享的成本。同时, 这种组织文化或氛围作为共享的规范(孙锐, 陈国权, 2012), 传达了知识分享的合法性和规范性, 能够在一定程度上降低个人的自利倾向。

(3) 激励措施(incentives)和奖励。在众多战略性策略中, 激励措施和奖励得到了最多的关注。Siemsen, Balasubramanian和Roth (2007)研究表明, 基于个体和团队的激励措施都有利于促进团队的知识分享和合作行为。其中, 团队导向的激励结构有利于将个人与集体收益结合起来, 从而解决知识分享的社会困境。然而, 也有研究表明, 有形激励措施可能对知识分享具有消极作用(Bock et al., 2005), 竞争性的奖励系统可能减少员工的知识分享。Chang, Yeh和Yeh (2007)的研究也表明, 基于结果的奖励和薪酬并不会带来个人知识分享努力的增加。Siemsen等人(2007)研究发现, 团队奖励的有效性存在一定条件。只有当团队奖励措施能够促进个人奖励增加时, 员工才会乐于分享自己的知识。Wang等人(2014)发现, 组织奖励的激励作用在不同个体间存在差异。总的来说, 激励性措施和奖励期望通过增加相关收益, 让个人知识分享的收益超过成本, 降低了知识分享的风险(Barnes et al., 2011)。另一方面, 团队导向的激励能够将个人利益与集体利益结合起来, 有效地抑制了个人的自利动机。

3.2 结构性对策

结构性对策是影响知识分享中个体间关系的要素, 具体包括群体结构特征(如团队特征、规模)、团队领导和团队社会关系。

(1) 团队特征。团队构成和团队规模是影响知识分享两个重要的团队特征。研究发现团队成立的时间越长, 团队的凝聚力越高, 员工更愿意分享各自的知识(Gilson, Lim, Luciano, & Choi, 2013)。同时, 团队成员信息多元化和社会属性多元化都能够有效预测员工的知识分享(刘宁, 贾俊生, 2012)。基于相似-吸引范式, 女性成员比例较高的研发团队, 员工之间的知识分享也更多。此外, 团队规模会显著影响团队成员在社会困境中的决策。一般来说, 规模较小的团队中, 知识分享的成本较低, 并且通过团队成员之间相互监督, 员工选择背叛策略的可能性也较低。但是, 随着团队规模扩大, 直接沟通更为困难, 对知识分享的监控成本也增加, 可能滋生员工的“搭便车”行为。大量的实验和实地研究表明团队规模与知识分享之间关系显著(Wilkesmann et al., 2009)。归根结底, 团队特征深刻地影响着团队成员间的关系和互动。团队成员间良好的互动和沟通降低了知识分享的成本, 增加了员工对集体目标的认同感, 抑制了他们的自利动机。

(2) 群体规范。规范是指团队成员经过长期交往形成的相对稳定的行为预期。已有的研究表明, 公平、互惠、创新、合作的群体规范(Tjosvold, Yu, & Wu, 2009), 有利于建立充满归属感、信任、心理安全的人际关系(孙锐, 陈国权, 2012), 从而促进知识分享(钟竞, 罗瑾琏, 韩杨, 2015)。He等人(2014)研究发现集体主义对知识分享具有积极的预测作用。针对知识分享社会困境, 群体规范的根本目标在于建立充满信任和互惠的人际关系。信任有利于降低知识分享的成本, 减少个人对风险的担心。彼此信任的双方更加愿意分享和接受他人的知识(Connelly & Zweig, 2015; Zhang, Jiang, Wu, & Li, in press)。互惠增加了员工知识分享回报的预期, 减少了知识分享的成本和风险, 能够有效提高个人知识分享意愿(Caimo & Lomi, 2015)。因此, 群体规范明确了团队成员人际交往规范, 提高了知识分享收益的可预见性, 大大降低了知识分享的成本。同时, 群体规范有助于建立互依和互惠的关系, 增加了自利行为的风险, 能够有效抑制自利行为。

(3) 群体领导。Srivastava, Bartol和Locke (2006)指出知识分享并不是自动发生的, 群体领导在促进知识分享的过程中扮演着重要的角色。研究发现, 授权型领导(Srivastava et al., 2006; 张亚军, 张金隆, 张千帆, 张军伟, 2015)和变革型领导(Dong, Bartol, Zhang, & Li, 2017; Liu & DeFrank, 2013)对知识分享具有积极影响, 而威权领导对知识分享具有消极的影响(Zhang et al., 2011; 张亚军等, 2015)。具体的, Srivastava等人(2006)研究发现, 授权型领导能够通过鼓励公开的沟通促进下属的知识分享。Dong等人(2017)指出, 变革型领导会通过建立群体共享的目标促进知识分享。Shih等人(2012)发现, 变革型领导能够通过构建团队内部信任氛围, 促进员工的知识分享行为。Liu和DeFrank (2013)研究发现, 变革型领导能够通过减少员工的自利动机来促进他们的知识分享。因此, 领导作为组织合法的角色模型和团队管理者, 能够通过影响群体规范、人际关系和个人动机, 引导员工在知识分享的社会困境中选择合作策略。

(4) 社会网络。知识分享依赖于人际关系, 需要借由人际互动和社会关系网络来实现。社会网络是知识分享研究中受到广泛关注的概念。社会网络的视角主要关注网络中关系的内容和结构对个人知识分享的影响。内容视角认为, 员工的社会网络能够为个人的知识分享提供渠道和途径(蔡亚华等, 2013; Caimo & Lomi, 2015), 有利于促进知识分享和提高所分享知识的质量(Zhang et al., in press)。例如, 虚拟社区中个人与其他成员之间的关系能正向预测他们知识分享的数量和质量(Hwang, Singh, & Argote, 2015)。结构视角发现, 个人社会网络范围、社会网络密度(蔡亚华等, 2013)、关系强度、结构洞和网络中心度(周志民, 张江乐, 熊义萍, 2014)都对知识分享具有重要的影响。其中, 强关系中频繁和亲密的互动, 有利于促进复杂知识的分享; 弱关系则有利于促进简单和显性知识的分享。高密度的社会网络为知识分享提供了充足的渠道和来源(蔡亚华等, 2013)。社会网络中较多的结构洞有利于减少知识冗余, 提高所分享知识的异质性和多样性。处于网络中心地位的员工, 能够获得更多不同的知识, 同时也便于分享自己的知识(周志民等, 2014)。Reinholt, Pedersen和Foss (2011)研究发现, 处于网络中心地位的员工在同时拥有自主激励和分享能力时, 获取和提供知识的水平是最高的。对于知识分享的社会困境而言, 社会网络塑造了员工间的关系结构, 增加了员工间的信息互换, 提高他人行为的可预见性, 降低了知识分享的风险(Caimo & Lomi, 2015)。另一方面, 复杂和交错的社会网络同时也会增加个体间的互依性, 加强对个人自利行为的监督和惩罚, 能够显著抑制个人的自利动机。

3.3 动机性对策

动机性对策是与个人知识分享意愿和动机直接相关的各种因素, 主要包括人格特质、个体能力、工作态度和内在/自主动机等。

(1) 人格特征。人格是个体稳定的认知和行为倾向。与主动性、开放性和亲社会有关的人格特质, 对知识分享具有稳定的预测作用(Matzler, Renzl, Mooradian, von Krogh, & Mueller, 2011)。这是因为, 在知识分享社会困境中, 这些员工往往较少考虑个人得失, 更多关注工作本身和组织的利益, 因而分享知识的意愿更高。实证研究表明, 具有主动性人格(张振刚, 余传鹏, 李云健, 2016)、经验开放性(Cabrera et al., 2006)、外倾性(周志民等, 2014)、亲和力、责任心(Wang et al., 2014)的员工知识分享意愿也更高。人格特征反映了个人在感知行为风险, 以及在分配个人和集体利益方面的倾向。具有主动性、开放性和责任心的个体, 对知识分享风险的敏感度更低。即使在风险较高的情况下, 也更愿意分享知识。具有亲社会人格的个体认为集体利益高于个人利益, 会自发地减少自利行为。因此, 人格特征会通过减少感知的风险和抑制自利动机, 影响知识分享行为。

(2) 个体能力。知识分享很大程度上受到员工利用和分享知识的能力的限制。研究发现, 自我效能感高的员工有更高的知识分享责任感, 也更愿意分享自己的知识(Liu & Liu, 2011)。随着主动行为研究的展开, 研究者开始关注员工超出工作要求的自我效能感, 即角色宽度效能感(Role breadth self-efficacy)。由于知识分享本身并不在工作要求的范围内, 需要员工具备在工作之外承担任务和人际角色能力的信心。Cabrera等人(2006)的研究表明, 在控制了其他变量的前提下, 角色宽度效能仍然能够显著预测员工的知识分享意愿。这也表明, 当具备超出工作要求的工作和人际能力时, 员工更有意愿和能力承担知识分享的风险。因此, 增强员工对自身专业技能和沟通能力的信心, 能够极大地降低他们对知识分享风险的畏惧, 并减少他们在知识分享中的自利倾向。

(3) 个人态度。组织能够通过让员工产生对知识分享的积极态度来促进他们的知识分享。个人态度对行为合意性和结果的积极预期, 是行为意向的重要预测变量(Park et al., 2017)。Bock等人(2005)研究发现, 员工积极的态度对知识分享意愿和行为都有正向预测作用。具体的, 个人对知识的心理所有权(Wang & Noe, 2010)、情感承诺(Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2011)、地位感知(胡琼晶, 谢小云, 2015)和组织承诺(Matzler et al., 2011)等, 均为知识分享重要的预测变量。个人对知识分享行为的积极态度会降低他们对风险的感知。他们对组织的积极态度, 会增加他们对组织目标的认同, 减少采取自利行为的可能。

(4) 内在/自主动机。知识分享本质上是一种自主决定行为, 受到个体内在和自主动机的影响(Gagné, 2009)。Bock等人(2005)通过实地调查发现, 内在动机是影响员工知识分享的重要因素。Minbaeva等人(2012)对丹麦3家跨国公司811名员工的研究也表明, 内在动机对知识分享有显著的正向预测作用。Wilkesmann等人(2009)的研究则直接支持了内在动机在解决知识分享“搭便车”行为中的重要作用。另一方面, 研究者进一步将内在动机拓宽到了自主动机。Reinholt等人(2011)的实证研究表明, 自主动机高的员工乐于分享知识帮助有需要的同事。总体来说, 内在动机和自主动机源于对行动本身的内化, 模糊了个人与集体目标之间的界限。内在动机和自主动机高的员工对集体利益的赋值更高, 自利行为的倾向较低。同时, 对内在动机高的员工来说, 知识分享本身充满了乐趣, 他们不会计较知识分享过程中的损失(Wilkesmann et al., 2009), 感知到的知识分享风险也更低。

3.4 边界条件

知识本身的特征是影响知识分享的重要因素。已有的研究提出了显性和隐性知识分享的划分, 但实证研究中并未对二者进行明确区分。研究者普遍认为隐性知识分享的难度更大, 更可能受到社会困境的影响(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Gilson et al., 2013)。因此, 解决社会困境的机制可能对于隐性知识分享更为有效。本文认为知识特征会调节破解社会困境两种心理机制对知识分享意愿的促进作用。其中, 相比显性知识分享, 在隐性知识分享过程中, 两种心理机制对知识分享意愿的作用可能更加显著。

4 未来发展方向

本文将在知识分享社会困境及其破解对策分析的基础上, 结合已有研究为未来研究的发展方向提供一些启示。

首先, 社会困境理论及其应对策略的研究, 是理解知识分享困境和推动知识分享研究的重要理论框架(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002)。在管理领域, 研究者对“如何促进员工分享知识”这个问题进行了多年的探索, 也从不同学科和视角提出了多种策略。但是, 研究者面临的最大挑战就是员工本能地不愿意分享自己的知识(Liu & DeFrank, 2013)。个人理性与集体理性间的不一致是知识分享的最大障碍。理解并解决这种不一致, 让个人与集体利益从对立走到一致, 是知识分享困局的重要突破口。总体而言, 社会困境的视角, 更为鲜明和集中地描述了员工知识分享主要的障碍。该理论为划分和整合促进知识分享的管理实践提供了框架(Wilkesmann et al., 2009), 为解释和促进员工知识分享的过程提供了一种全新的视角(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002)。未来的研究应当重视社会困境的理论视角, 深入分析知识分享社会困境的实质和内涵, 并运用社会困境理论分析管理实践促进知识分享的内在机理。同时, 研究者可以将社会困境视角与知识分享研究中其他的理论视角结合起来, 更全面地揭示员工知识分享的发生过程和内在逻辑。

其次, 基于社会困境理论提出的促使知识分享的对策和措施及其作用机理, 应当得到更多实证研究的关注和验证(Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013)。在已有的研究中, 社会困境视角在知识分享的研究中得到了一定的关注, 其应对策略的作用过程也被用于解释各种实践对知识分享的影响(Liu & DeFrank, 2013)。但是, 这些对策和措施影响知识分享的内在机理, 却很少得到实证研究的直接支持(Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013)。目前的研究没有直接分析和解决知识分享过程中的社会困境问题, 对于不同机理在减少知识分享“困境”和增加知识分享中的作用也没有进行区分和整合。本文基于理论分析提出, 抑制自利动机/提高利他动机和降低风险/增加收益是各项策略促进破解知识分享“困境”的中间机理。但是, 该设想尚未得到实证研究的支持。未来的研究有必要进一步探讨知识分享社会困境破解的具体过程和内在机理, 运用实验和实地的研究验证这些促进策略, 并解释其内在机理。

再次, 由于知识分享中的社会困境发生在组织情境中, 需要充分考虑组织环境的复杂性和特殊性。普遍意义上的社会困境, 有着严格的前提条件和情境设定, 具有环境纯净的特点。但是, 知识分享中的社会困境与严格意义的社会困境具有一定差异, 其表现形式和解决方式也需要充分考虑组织环境的特殊性。Lu, Leung和Koch (2006)指出, 组织情境下的知识分享并不是一种纯粹的社会困境, 相比严格条件下社会困境的无限制性, 组织情境下的知识分享受到多种因素的影响。组织文化、组织结构、信息系统、奖励系统、领导和人际关系等都可以通过多种渠道影响个人在知识分享中的决策。这些外部情境会限制个人在知识分享中的利己决策, 促使他们采取合作策略(Maciejovsky & Budescu, 2013)。因此, 运用社会困境理论分析和解释知识分享管理实践时, 还需要充分考虑组织环境的特征。同时, 各项管理实践影响知识分享困境的过程, 也可能受到多种情境因素的制约。未来的研究还有必要进一步探索各项实践有效的边界条件。

最后, 国内关于破解知识分享社会困境的研究, 需要充分考虑中国文化和情境的特点 (Chen, Tjosvold, Li, Fu, & Liu, 2011)。首先, 知识分享可能受到文化情境的影响。Lu等人(2006)指出, 知识分享的内容和形式受到具体文化情境的影响, 知识分享社会困境出现的概率在不同社会中也是有差异的。文化情境可能是影响知识分享和知识分享社会困境解决的重要因素。其次, 解决知识分享社会困境的策略在不同情境下的有效性是不同的。中国文化具有关系主义和层级主义特征, 注重人际互惠和关系和谐, 强调对权威的尊重和服从(Tjosvold et al., 2009)。因此, 在中国情境下, 人际关系在知识分享中具有重要的作用, 集体主义导向也是协调个人和集体关系(Chen et al., 2011)的重要因素。未来本土的知识分享研究应当充分挖掘组织人际关系和社会网络对破解知识分享困境的影响。另一方面, 中国情境下的领导具有更多正式和非正式的权力, 在规范群体互动和影响下属动机方面的作用更为突出(Zhang et al., 2011)。最后, 了解员工知识分享的阻力和解决对策, 需要考虑中国情境特有的文化因素, 如面子等。面子作为中国社会一种特殊的现象, 对员工知识分享意愿的影响可能是复杂的。Wang和Noe (2010)指出, 担心他人的评价会阻碍员工分享知识。因此, 重视面子的员工可能会因为担心他人质疑自己知识的准确性而不愿意分享知识。但是, 面子还隐含了互惠的需要和对未来回报的期望。重视面子的员工即使不愿意分享自己的知识, 也会碍于面子而不得不分享自己的知识。未来的研究可以结合中国文化特有的现象, 深入理解影响员工知识分享的因素。

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
作者已声明无竞争性利益关系。

参考文献

蔡亚华, 贾良定, 尤树洋 . ( 2013).

差异化变革型领导对知识分享与团队创造力的影响:社会网络机制的解释

心理学报, 45( 5), 585-598.

[本文引用: 4]

陈晓萍 . ( 2013). 走出社会困境:有效诱导合作的心理机制. 北京: 北京大学出版社

[本文引用: 1]

胡琼晶, 谢小云 . ( 2015).

团队成员地位与知识分享行为: 基于动机的视角

心理学报, 47( 4), 545-554.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Knowledge sharing has long been recognized as an effective way of making full use of the information and knowledge owned by group members. Although there are still few studies in exploring the relationship between status and knowledge sharing, extant literature has demonstrated contradictory conclusions concerning the effect of status. From a motivational perspective, this study aimed to explore how status would influence group members’ knowledge sharing behavior under different circumstances. Specifically, we speculated that the effect of status on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior was contingent on status stability within groups. When the difference in status was stable, high-status members would demonstrate more knowledge sharing behavior than low-status members. However, when the status difference was unstable, the condition would be reversed. Furthermore, we posited that the extent to which a group member would be influenced by status might depend on his or her concern for status. We predicted that individual status, status stability, and concern for status would have a three-way interaction effect on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior. A 2 (Status: high vs. low) × 2 (Status stability: stable vs. unstable) between-group experiment was conducted to test our hypotheses. A total of 113 college students participated in the experiment and were directed to finish two tests on a computer program. Each participant had two simulated teammates. After the first round of test, “artificial” performance was fed back to each participant. In the second round, each participant was given 12 chances to share answers with his or her teammates. After the test, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the computer. In this study, we used performance rating to manipulate individual status in groups and manipulated status stability by changing the task type in the second round of test. Knowledge sharing behavior was measured by the times each participant agreed to share his or her answer. We used SPSS 17.0 to analyze our data. Most of our hypotheses were supported by the results. First, status stability would interact with individual status to have a significant effect on group members’ knowledge sharing behavior. F-test showed that in a high status stability condition, high-status members demonstrated more knowledge sharing behavior than low-status members did. However, in a low status stability condition, low-status members tended to share more knowledge with others than high-status members did. It was also revealed that high-status members were more likely to share their knowledge when the status difference was stable than when it was unstable condition. In addition, when the status difference was stable within group, individual’s concern for status would interact with one’s status to impact his or her knowledge sharing behavior, such that the more concern the low-status members had for their status, the less they would share their knowledge within the group. Overall, we discuss individual’s dual motives at different status levels as well as the relationship between group members’ status and knowledge sharing behavior. It contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, it optimizes ecological validity of group study and makes a contribution to explore the interaction process within group. Second, by introducing status stability as a contextual factor, we integrate contradictory theories and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the effect of status. What is more, we supplement the study of status by investigating status from a motivational perspective. The findings have practical implications for group knowledge management.

李燕萍, 刘宗华, 林叶 . ( 2016).

员工知识分享的动力何在?——创新文化的跨层次作用机制

经济管理, 16( 5), 75-86.

[本文引用: 1]

刘宁, 贾俊生 . ( 2013).

研发团队多元性, 知识分享与创新绩效关系的实证研究

南开管理评论, 15( 6), 85-92.

[本文引用: 1]

孙锐, 陈国权 . ( 2012).

企业跨部门心理安全, 知识分享与组织绩效间关系的实证研究

南开管理评论, 15( 1), 67-74.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

知识分享是组织学习研究领域中的一个热点话题,本研究旨在探讨跨部门心理安全对组织内部知识分享以及组织绩效的影响机制.本文实证研究发现,组织跨部门心理安全与组织知识分享、组织绩效之间均存在“倒U”关系,而知识分享会对组织绩效的提升产生正向影响,知识分享在跨部门心理安全对组织绩效的作用中扮演中介角色.研究发现有助于加深我们对跨部门心理安全与组织知识分享、组织绩效间作用关系的深入了解,为企业管理实践提供有益的借鉴和启示.

张振刚, 余传鹏, 李云健 . ( 2016).

主动性人格, 知识分享与员工创新行为关系研究

管理评论, 28( 4), 123-133.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

基于个体特征与情境特征视角,对199名员工调查,运用多元回归统计方法,考察主动性人格、知识分享对员工创新行为的影响,在此基础上运用特征激活理论,整合以上两个视角,检验创新氛围对主动性人格与知识分享、员工创新行为之间关系的调节作用。回归分析结果表明:(1)主动性人格对个体创新行为有着正向的影响作用;(2)主动性人格通过知识分享的部分中介作用促进员工创新行为;(3)创新氛围在主动性人格与知识分享和员工创新行为之间的关系中起负向调节作用,当创新氛围较高时,主动性人格与知识分享和员工创新行为之间的正向关系均较弱。这一结论进一步支持了特征激活理论的基本观点,给企业管理提供了指导,即以良好的组织创新氛围来弥补员工主动性的"不足"。

钟竞, 罗瑾琏, 韩杨 . ( 2015).

知识分享中介作用下的经验开放性与团队内聚力对员工创造力的影响

管理学报, 12( 5), 679-686.

[本文引用: 1]

张亚军, 张金隆, 张千帆, 张军伟 . ( 2015).

威权和授权领导对员工隐性知识共享的影响研究

管理评论, 27( 9), 130-139.

[本文引用: 2]

周志民, 张江乐, 熊义萍 . ( 2014).

内外倾人格特质如何影响在线品牌社群中的知识分享行为——网络中心性与互惠规范的中介作用

南开管理评论, 17( 3), 19-29.

[本文引用: 3]

Aklamanu, A., Degbey, W. Y., & Tarba, S. Y. ( 2016).

The role of HRM and social capital configuration for knowledge sharing in post-M&A integration: A framework for future empirical investigation

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27( 22), 2790-2822.

[本文引用: 2]

Balliet, D., & Ferris, D.L. ( 2013).

Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120( 2), 298-308.

[本文引用: 1]

Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., DeRue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J. ( 2011).

Mixing individual incentives and group incentives: Best of both worlds or social dilemma?

Journal of Management, 37( 6), 1611-1635.

[本文引用: 5]

Bartol, K. M., Liu, W., Zeng, X. Q., & Wu, K. L. ( 2009).

Social exchange and knowledge sharing among knowledge workers: The moderating role of perceived job security

Management and Organization Review, 5( 2), 223-240.

[本文引用: 2]

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. ( 2005).

Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social- psychological forces, and organizational climate

MIS Quarterly, 29( 1), 87-111.

[本文引用: 4]

Cabrera, Á., & Cabrera, E.F. ( 2002).

Knowledge-sharing dilemmas

Organization Studies, 23( 5), 687-710.

[本文引用: 8]

Cabrera, Á., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. ( 2006).

Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17( 2), 245-264.

[本文引用: 3]

Caimo, A., & Lomi, A.( 2015).

Knowledge sharing in organizations: A Bayesian analysis of the role of reciprocity and formal structure

Journal of Management, 41( 2), 665-691.

[本文引用: 5]

Camelo-Ordaz, C., García-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. ( 2011).

The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22( 7), 1442-1463.

[本文引用: 3]

Chang, T. J., Yeh, S. P., & Yeh, I. J. ( 2007).

The effects of joint reward system in new product development

International Journal of Manpower, 28( 3-4), 276-297.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Purpose – This study purports to examine the effects of a joint reward system (JRS) under a new product development (NPD) setting by identifying four neglected aspects of JRS that contains a procedural view (participation of reward decision and reward contingent on NPD phases) and a monetary view (risk-free to participate and over-reward incentive) in a conceptual model, and then to empirically test their effects on knowledge sharing and NPD performance. Design/methodology/approach – Using regression analysis, the proposed model was tested on 233 valid respondents (112 in R&D, 50 in marketing, and 71 in manufacturing), including 92 from electronics firms, 87 from semiconductor firms, 29 from biotechnology firms, and 25 from pharmaceutical firms in Taiwan. Findings – The results indicated that risk-free to NPD project members is the most salient aspect of JRS on knowledge sharing and NPD performance. Joint determination of reward allocation was found to be a favorable JRS for only marketing and NPD performance. Rewards contingent on NPD phases have shown conflicting results between R&D and marketing. No relationship was found for over-reward incentive on knowledge sharing and NPD performance. Despite the mixed effects of JRS, knowledge sharing is a strong predictor of NPD performance. Originality/value – This study extends understanding of the complexities of rewards on knowledge sharing and NPD success by decomposing and testing four unique aspects of JRS, which sheds a new light on NPD researches.

Chen, G. Q., Tjosvold, D., Li, N., Fu, Y., & Liu, D. W. ( 2011).

Knowledge management in Chinese organizations: Collectivist values for open-minded discussions

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22( 16), 3393-3412.

[本文引用: 2]

Collins, C.J., & Smith, K.G . ( 2006).

Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms

Academy of Management Journal, 49( 3), 544-560.

[本文引用: 1]

Connelly, C.E., & Zweig, D.( 2015).

How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in organizations

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24( 3), 479-489.

[本文引用: 2]

Davenport, T. H. , & Prusak, L.( 1998).

Working knowledge:How organizations manage what they know Harvard Business School Press How organizations manage what they know

Harvard Business School Press.

[本文引用: 1]

Dong, Y. T., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. W. ( 2017).

Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual‐focused transformational leadership

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38( 3), 439-458

[本文引用: 2]

Dorfman, A., Eyal, T., & Bereby-Meyer, Y. ( 2014).

Proud to cooperate: The consideration of pride promotes cooperation in a social dilemma

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 105-109.

[本文引用: 2]

Gagné, M.( 2009).

A model of knowledge-sharing motivation

Human Resource Management, 48( 4), 571-589.

URL     [本文引用: 4]

Abstract In this article, I present a model of knowledge-sharing motivation based on a combination of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and self-determination theory (SDT), along with a review of research supporting the model and suggestions for future research and methodologies to study knowledgesharing behavior. I also give suggestions for designing five important human resource management (HRM) practices, including staffing, job design, performance and compensation systems, managerial styles, and training. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M., & Choi, J. N. ( 2013).

Unpacking the cross-level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86( 2), 203-222.

[本文引用: 2]

He, H. W., Baruch, Y., & Lin, C. P. ( 2014).

Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition

Human Relations, 67( 8), 947-978.

[本文引用: 2]

Hwang, E. H., Singh, P. V., & Argote, L. ( 2015).

Knowledge sharing in online communities: Learning to cross geographic and hierarchical boundaries

Organization Science, 26( 6), 1593-1611.

[本文引用: 1]

Kollock, P.( 1998).

Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation

Annual Review of Sociology, 24( 1), 183-214.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

The study of social dilemmas is the study of the tension between individual and collective rationality. In a social dilemma, individually reasonable behavior leads to a situation in which everyone is worse off. The first part of this review is a discussion of categories of social dilemmas and how they are modeled. The key two-person social dilemmas (Prisoner's Dilemma, Assurance, Chicken) and multiple-person social dilemmas (public goods dilemmas and commons dilemmas) are examined. The second part is an extended treatment of possible solutions for social dilemmas. These solutions are organized into three broad categories based on whether the solutions assume egoistic actors and whether the structure of the situation can be changed: Motivational solutions assume actors are not completely egoistic and so give some weight to the outcomes of their partners. Strategic solutions assume egoistic actors, and neither of these categories of solutions involve changing the fundamental structure of the situation. Solutions that do involve changing the rules of the game are considered in the section on structural solutions. I conclude the review with a discussion of current research and directions for future work.

Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., & Dysvik, A. ( 2012).

Perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing: Sharing for intrinsic and prosocial reasons

Human Resource Management, 51( 2), 167-187.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

This study investigated the relationship between perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing, including the moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and social and economic exchange perceptions. Data from 310 employees working in three organizations located in Norway revealed a positive relationship between perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing for employees with low levels of intrinsic motivation and economic exchange perception, and high levels of social exchange perception. These findings suggest that perceived training intensity increases knowledge sharing only under specific motivational influences. Implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed. 漏 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Liu, N.C., & Liu, M.S . ( 2011).

Human resource practices and individual knowledge-sharing behavior-an empirical study for Taiwanese R&D professionals

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22( 04), 981-997.

[本文引用: 2]

Liu, Y.W., & DeFrank, R.S . ( 2013).

Self-interest and knowledge-sharing intentions: The impacts of transformational leadership climate and HR practices

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24( 6), 1151-1164.

[本文引用: 6]

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.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

abstract This paper describes two studies conducted in the People's Republic of China aimed at improving understanding of knowledge sharing among managers. Study 1 found evidence for the role of two individual factors: greed which reduced knowledge sharing, and self-efficacy which increased it. In addition, co-worker collegiality has an indirect influence on knowledge sharing by lowering greed and raising self-efficacy. Study 2 replicated the key findings of Study 1 and also identified the influence of organizational support on knowledge sharing. Organizational support led to higher utilization of information and communication technologies, resulting in more knowledge sharing, especially for explicit as opposed to implicit knowledge.

Maciejovsky, B., & Budescu, D.V. ( 2013).

Markets as a structural solution to knowledge-sharing dilemmas

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120( 2), 154-167.

URL     [本文引用: 6]

The authors propose a new structural solution to the knowledge-sharing dilemma. They show that simple auction mechanisms, which impose a rigid set of rules designed to standardize interactions and communication among participants, can prevent some of the detrimental effects associated with conflict of interest in freely interacting groups. The authors report results of two experiments that show that transparent conflicts of interest lead to a breakdown of information sharing, learning, and knowledge transfer in freely interacting groups, but not in simple markets and auctions. In these settings, participants were able to identify the best candidate in a voting game and to learn the solution to an intellective reasoning task, allowing participants to successfully transfer their insights to a series of new intellective tasks (tackled up to four weeks later), despite the conflicts of interests among traders. The authors explain their findings within the theoretical framework of collective induction. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., von Krogh, G., & Mueller, J. ( 2011).

Personality traits, affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22( 02), 296-310.

[本文引用: 2]

Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. ( 2012).

Linking HRM and knowledge transfer via individual-level mechanisms

Human Resource Management, 51( 3), 387-405.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

In response to recent calls for more research on micro-foundations, we seek to link human resource management (HRM) and knowledge transfer through individual-level mechanisms, arguing that individual-level conditions of action influence the extent to which employees engage in knowledge exchange. We examine four such conditions empirically using data from 811 employees in three Danish multinational corporations (MNCs). Our findings suggest that individual-level perceptions of organizational commitment to knowledge sharing, and extrinsic motivation, directly influence the extent to which employees engage in firm-internal knowledge exchange. We also find that intrinsic motivation and engagement in social interaction significantly mediate the relationship between perceived organizational commitment and knowledge exchange. Given that HRM can influence such conditions through an overall signaling effect and various practices, an understanding of these micro-foundations will shed light on how organizations can effectively enhance knowledge transfer through HRM. 漏 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Mueller, J.( 2014).

A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams

European Management Journal, 32( 2), 190-202.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Companies focus on knowledge management initiatives to fully derive business value from their employees knowledge and foster organizational learning. Many companies organize their processes around projects; therefore, knowledge sharing between project teams becomes vital to organization-wide learning. The aim of this article is to investigate the cultural antecedents of knowledge sharing between project teams. In contrast to previous research that focused on cultural values for knowledge sharing between individuals, this study specifically examines new cultural elements that are important for knowledge sharing between project teams. The results of a quantitative survey indicate that time, structure, output orientation, and openness have positive effects on this specific knowledge process. These outcomes differ from existing studies that mostly focus on a general knowledge culture, leaving the potential for discovering differences for specific knowledge processes.

Pais, L., & dos Santos, N. R. ( 2015).

Knowledge-sharing, cooperation, and personal development

In K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. R dos Santos & S. Malvezzi (Eds), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Training, Development, and Performance Improvement (pp. 278- 302). UK, Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

URL     [本文引用: 3]

Summary This chapter focuses on knowledge-sharing as a cooperative process in organizations and the impact of knowledge-sharing on personal development. It approaches the literature on knowledge-sharing highlighting aspects where this is oriented to the importance of people, the interactions they carry out in organizations and which presuppose/involve cooperation and potentially lead to development of the different organizational actors. This is followed by a review of knowledge-sharing as a core concept in knowledge management, knowledge-sharing as a cooperative process considered as a social dilemma, and suggestions for future research particularly focused on the expected relationships of these concepts with personal development. The social dilemma approach is powerful in the clarity with which it equates the contradictory motivations present in the knowledge-sharing process.

Park, J., Chae, H., & Choi, J. N. ( 2017).

The need for status as a hidden motive of knowledge-sharing behavior: An application of costly signaling theory

Human Performance, 30( 1), 21-37.

[本文引用: 2]

Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K., & Nielsen, P. ( 2016).

What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication

Journal of Knowledge Management, 20( 6), 1225-1246.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. ( 2011).

Why a central network position isn’t enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks

Academy of Management Journal, 54( 6), 1277-1297.

[本文引用: 2]

Renzl, B.( 2008).

Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation

Omega, 36( 2), 206-220.

URL     [本文引用: 1]

Shen, J., Tang, N., & D'Netto, B. ( 2014).

A multilevel analysis of the effects of HR diversity management on employee knowledge sharing: The case of Chinese employees

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25( 12), 1720-1738.

[本文引用: 1]

Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H., & Chen, T. J. ( 2012).

Transformational leadership, trusting climate, and knowledge- exchange behaviors in Taiwan

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23( 6), 1057-1073.

[本文引用: 2]

Siemsen, E., Balasubramanian, S., & Roth, A. V. ( 2007).

Incentives that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing in workgroups

Management Science, 53( 10), 1533-1550.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Cooperation and coordination among employees can yield significant productivity gains. In this study, we explore the design of optimal incentive systems that induce task-related effort, helping, and knowledge sharing within workgroups. We identify three distinct types of employee linkages that must be accommodated in the design of effective incentive systems: (1) outcome linkages, whereby the outcome of one employee's task is influenced by that of another; (2) help linkages, whereby each employee can directly expend effort on helping another; and (3) knowledge linkages, whereby each employee can share job-related knowledge with another. We analytically investigate the effect of each type of employee linkage, and some combinations of these linkages, on the optimal design of incentive systems. Our analytical results demonstrate how, by optimally weighting individual-level and workgroup-level incentives, managers can balance the need to induce cooperation and coordination among employees with the need to manage employees' incentive-related risk. Counter to conventional wisdom, we also demonstrate that both group and individual incentives are necessary to facilitate cooperative behaviors such as knowledge sharing in workgroups. Further, we empirically test some of the insights developed from the analytical models; our empirical findings support these analytical results.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. ( 2006).

Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance

Academy of Management Journal, 49( 6), 1239-1251.

[本文引用: 3]

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Wu, P. ( 2009).

Empowering individuals for team innovation in China: Conflict management and problem solving

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2( 2), 185-205.

URL     [本文引用: 2]

Although emphases on teams and on individuals are often considered mutually exclusive, teams both rely upon individuals to perform their tasks skillfully and can support and encourage individuals to perform effectively. This study proposes that team capability to help individual team members overcome obstacles to performance facilitates the integration of individual's ideas and efforts that results in team innovation. It further suggests that managing conflict cooperatively helps teams provide effective support so that individuals solve problems and contribute. Two hundred employees in 100 work teams in China completed measures of their team's cooperative, competitive, and avoiding approaches to managing conflict and team support for problem solving by individuals, and 100 managers indicated the team's innovation. Structural equation analysis suggests that a cooperative conflict management approach promotes group support for problem solving by individuals that in turn results in team innovation. These findings, coupled with previous research, suggest that cooperative conflict management and team assistance to help individuals solve problems provide a strong foundation for innovative teams.

Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. ( 2013).

The psychology of social dilemmas: A review

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120( 2), 125-141.

[本文引用: 4]

Wang, H. K., Tseng, J. F., & Yen, Y. F. ( 2012).

Examining the mechanisms linking guanxi, norms and knowledge sharing: The mediating roles of trust in Taiwan’s high-tech firms

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23( 19), 4048-4068.

[本文引用: 2]

Wang, S., & Noe, R.A. ( 2010).

Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research

Human Resource Management Review, 20( 2), 115-131.

[本文引用: 4]

Wang, S., Noe, R. A., & Wang, Z. M. ( 2014).

Motivating knowledge sharing in knowledge management systems: A quasi-field experiment

Journal of Management, 40( 4), 978-1009.

[本文引用: 3]

Wilkesmann, U., Wilkesmann, M., & Virgillito, A. ( 2009).

The absence of cooperation is not necessarily defection: Structural and motivational constraints of knowledge transfer in a social dilemma situation

Organization Studies, 30( 10), 1141-1164.

[本文引用: 7]

Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. ( 2011).

Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes

The Leadership Quarterly, 22( 5), 851-862.

[本文引用: 4]

Zhang, J., Jiang, H., Wu, R., & Li, J.,(in press).

Reconciling the dilemma of knowledge sharing: A network pluralism framework of firms’ R&D alliance network and innovation performance

.Journal of Management.

[本文引用: 2]

版权所有 © 《心理科学进展》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn

/