1 / 17

The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups

The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups. Enno Siemsen University of Illinois Aleda V. Roth Clemson University Sridhar Balasubramanian University of North Carolina. Agenda. Introduction Theory Empirical Test Conclusion.

eryk
Download Presentation

The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups Enno Siemsen University of Illinois Aleda V. Roth Clemson University Sridhar Balasubramanian University of North Carolina

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Theory • Empirical Test • Conclusion

  3. Specialists vs. Generalists Specialists are -Focused -Experienced -Innovative -Informed Generalists are Flexible- More Motivated- Innovative- For example: For example: Hopp and van Oyen (2004) Skinner (1978) Hackman and Oldham (1980) Argote (1999) Schilling et al. (2003) Schultz et al. (2003)

  4. Agile Production Systems • Workforce Flexibility (Hopp and van Oyen 2004) • Knowledge Transfer and Learning (Roth et al. 1994; Schroeder at al. 2002; Ferdows 2006)

  5. Research Question • Key Construct: Competence Similarity “The ability of an employee to perform the tasks of a coworker” • Research Question: “Does competence similarity enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing within a dyad?”

  6. Theoretical Model Uniqueness Theory Snyder and Fromkin (1980); Maslow (1962) Performance Feedback Theory Feistinger (1954) Social Interdep. Theory Deutsch (1949) Competition (-) Motivation to Share (+) Competence Similarity

  7. Theoretical Model Competition (-) Motivation to Share Help Linkage Job Design Kiggundu (1981) Self Efficacy Gist and Mitchell (1992) (+) (+) Worksharing Systems Buzacott (2004); Hopp and van Oyen (2004) Competence Similarity (+)

  8. Theoretical Model Diversity in Workgroups Northcraft et al. (1995) Social Identity Theory Henessy and West (1999) Workgroup Identification (-) Competition (-) Outcome Linkage Motivation to Share (+) Help Linkage (+) (+) (+) Competence Similarity (+) Uncertainty Reduction Theory Hogg et al. (2005)

  9. Theoretical Model Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Brewer and Weber (1994) Workgroup Identification (-) Competition (-) (-) Outcome Linkage Motivation to Share (+) Help Linkage (+) (+) (+) Competence Similarity (+)

  10. Data Collection • Survey Based Research • Knowledge Sharing Incident • Auxiliary Network Data • Four Different Sites • Design Engineers (Pilot, N=130) • IT Specialists (N=58) • Line Workers (N=101) • Assembly Technicians (N=31)

  11. Knowledge SharingVertical vs. Horizontal Flow Management Vertical Knowledge Sharing Workgroup Workgroup Horizontal (between Group) Knowledge Sharing Horizontal (within Group) Knowledge Sharing Focus of this Research!

  12. Tribal Knowledge • Work-related knowledge, mostly generated from the experience of employees engaged in organizational tasks involving their daily work. (adapted from Dixon 2000) "Design ideas for creating a system which would force more project requirement documentation before software engineers could begin programming." "I discovered that if pallets of product were turned a certain way, more product could be put on the railcars." "When building an engine, our day shift has a flow which allows us to get further on building the engine."

  13. Empirical Analysis • Reliability/Validity • Multiple Imputation • Tobit Models • Hypothesized Relationships • Direct Effects • Square Terms • Control Variables • Company • Age, Gender, Education • Tenure, Management Responsibility • Group Leadership, Group Pay • Total Compensation, Paid per Hour • Robustness Tests

  14. Empirical Results Workgroup Identification -.58*** Competition -.26*** -.08 Outcome Linkage Motivation to Share .13* .03 -.19/ -.20** Help Linkage .44*** Competence Similarity .57*** * Indicates significance at .1 level ** Indicates significance at .05 level *** Indicates significance at .01 level

  15. Empirical Results(for low-friendship relationships) Warning Exploratory Results Workgroup Identification -.50*** Competition -.26*** -.34** Outcome Linkage Motivation to Share .12* .03 -.21* -.20* Help Linkage .44*** Competence Similarity .57*** * Indicates significance at .1 level ** Indicates significance at .05 level *** Indicates significance at .01 level

  16. Empirical Results

  17. Conclusion • Competence similarity generally seems to have a positive impact on cooperative behaviors like knowledge sharing. • Only for low levels of friendship, competence similarity may trigger a need for uniqueness and performance comparisons that lead to competition.

More Related