00b6 PDF

Human Resource Development Review
http://hrd.sagepub.com
Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework

Minu Ipe
Human Resource Development Review 2003; 2; 337
DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/4/337
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Academy of Human Resource Development
Additional services and information for Human Resource Development Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://hrd.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 42 articles hosted on the

SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/2/4/337
Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

© 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Theory and Conceptual Article
10.1177/1534484303257985
Human Resource Development Review / December 2003
Ipe / KNOWLEDGE SHARING
ARTICLE
Knowledge Sharing in Organizations:

A Conceptual Framework
MINU IPE
University of Minnesota
Knowledge is now being seen as the most important strategic resource in

organizations, and the management of this knowledge is considered criti-
cal to organizational success. If organizations have to capitalize on the
knowledge they possess, they have to understand how knowledge is cre-
ated, shared, and used within the organization. Knowledge exists and is
shared at different levels in organizations. This article examines knowl-
edge sharing at the most basic level; namely, between individuals in orga-
nizations. Based on a review of existing literature in this area, this article
presents a model that identifies factors that most significantly influence
knowledge sharing at this level.
Keywords: knowledge; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer; knowl-

edge sharing between individuals
In recent years, the concept of knowledge in organizations has become

increasingly popular in the literature (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001), with
knowledge being recognized as the most important resource of organi-
zations (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Spender & Grant, 1996). Although
knowledge has always been an important factor in organizations, only in the
last decade has it been considered the primary source of competitive advan-
tage (Stewart, 1997) and critical to the long-term sustainability and success
of organizations (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The recognition of knowledge
as the key resource of today’s organizations affirms the need for processes
that facilitate the creation, sharing, and leveraging of individual and collec-
tive knowledge (Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Drucker, 1993).
More and more organizations are attempting to set up knowledge manage-
ment systems and practices to more effectively use the knowledge they
have, and numerous publications have discussed the importance of knowl-
edge in organizations. Even so, there is much to be learned and understood
about how knowledge is created, shared, and used in organizations (Grover
& Davenport, 2001; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001).
Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 4 December 2003 337-359

DOI: 10.1177/1534484303257985
© 2003 Sage Publications

338 Human Resource Development Review / December 2003
The purpose of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the

phenomenon of knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations.
Drawing on literature from several fields of study, a model of knowledge
sharing between individuals in organizations is developed. Although
knowledge exists at many levels in organizations, the focus of this article is
the knowledge that exists with and within individuals and the factors that
influence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals.
The field of knowledge management has traditionally been dominated by
information technology and technology-driven perspectives (Davenport,
De Long, & Beers, 1998; Gourlay, 2001). However, there is increasing rec-
ognition of the role of individuals in knowledge management processes and
a growing interest in the “people perspective” of knowledge in organi-
zations (Earl, 2001; Stenmark, 2001). The key to successfully managing
knowledge is now being seen as dependent on the connections between indi-
viduals within the organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991; McDermott,
1999). Increasing empirical evidence also points to the importance of peo-
ple and people-related factors as critical to knowledge processes within
organizations (e.g., Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Quinn, Anderson, &
Finkelstein, 1996).
At the heart of the people perspective of knowledge management is the
notion that individuals in organizations have knowledge (Spender & Grant,
1996) that must move to the level of groups and the organization as a whole
so that it can be used to advance the goals of the organization (Nonaka,
1994). There is growing realization that knowledge sharing is critical to
knowledge creation, organizational learning, and performance achievement
(Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Individuals in organizations have always cre-
ated and shared knowledge and therefore knowledge sharing was consid-
ered to be a natural function of workplaces, an activity that took place auto-
matically (Chakravarthy, Zaheer, & Zaheer, 1999). Yet it is now being
acknowledged that even under the best of circumstances, knowledge shar-
ing within organizations is a multifaceted, complex process (Hendriks,
1999; Lessard & Zaheer, 1996).
Method
A variety of fields have reported on the concept of knowledge and knowl-
edge sharing in organizations. The conceptual framework presented in this
article has drawn on literature from fields such as management theory, stra-
tegic management, information and decision sciences, organizational com-
munication, and organizational behavior. These fields of study were identi-
fied through a search of scholarly literature available primarily through
electronic databases. The initial review of literature began with an examina-
tion of publications that discussed the concept of knowledge and how this

Ipe / KNOWLEDGE SHARING 339
knowledge existed within organizations. The review process was then nar-
rowed down to publications that referred specifically to the movement of
knowledge within organizations. Some of the key concepts considered dur-
ing the review included knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer, knowledge
creation, knowledge acquisition, individual and organizational learning,
and information distribution and dissemination.
The initial broad review of relevant literature was followed by the pro-
cess of analysis and synthesis. Analysis of literature began with identifying
publications that were relevant to this article, those that addressed issues
related to individual knowledge in organizations and how individuals
shared their knowledge with others within their work settings. Once rele-
vant publications were identified, the focus of the analysis shifted to iso-
lating those ideas that specifically related to knowledge sharing between
individuals. Specific attention was given to identifying common themes
among the various sources during this process.
The key factors related to knowledge sharing that emerged from the liter-
ature were then synthesized to form the conceptual framework presented in
this article. The process of synthesis focused on capturing the dominant
ideas related to knowledge sharing as it exists at this point in time. The
review of literature revealed important ideas generated by several fields of
study pertaining to knowledge and knowledge sharing in organizations. The
conceptual framework presented in this article is an attempt to bring
together all these ideas into one whole to provide a more comprehensive
approach to understanding the phenomenon of knowledge sharing within
organizations. The framework also proposes relationships between the dif-
ferent factors identified from the literature. Some of these relationships are
apparent in the literature, whereas others are being proposed in this article to
further explore the interaction between the primary factors that influence
knowledge sharing in organizational settings. These relationships are dis-
cussed in detail later in the article.
Knowledge in Organizations
Although there is much written about why managing knowledge is
important to organizations, there is considerably less on the how—the pro-
cesses that are used to identify, capture, share, and use knowledge within
organizations. Knowledge in organizational settings tends to be fuzzy in
nature and closely attached to the individuals who hold it (Davenport et al.,
1998), challenging efforts to define, measure, and manage it. Knowledge
can also be subject to multiple classifications and can have several mean-
ings. A comprehensive review of the various classifications of knowledge is
beyond the scope of this article. Some useful categorizations may be found
in Blackler (1995) and Venzin, von Krogh, and Roos (1998).

The terms information and knowledge are often used interchangeably in

the literature. Some authors distinguished between the two terms (e.g.,
Blackler, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Pemberton, 1998), whereas others used both terms synonymously (e.g.,
Kogut & Zander, 1992; Stewart, 1997). This article recognizes the distinc-
tion between information and knowledge.
Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined knowledge as “a fluid mix of
framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights that
provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information. It originates in and is applied in the minds of knowers” (p. 5).
Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) definition of knowledge is far broader in
scope and is stated as “a dynamic human process of justifying personal
belief toward the truth” (p. 58). According to these authors, information is
the “flow of messages” (p. 58), and knowledge is created when this flow of
messages interacts with the beliefs and commitments of its holders. They
identified three characteristics that distinguished information from knowl-
edge. First, knowledge is a function of a particular perspective, intention, or
stance taken by individuals, and therefore, unlike information, it is about
beliefs and commitment. Second, knowledge is always about some end,
which means that knowledge is about action. Third, it is context specific and
relational and therefore it is about meaning.
Individual Knowledge in Organizations

Knowledge exists at multiple levels within organizations. De Long and
Fahey (2000) divided it into individual, group, and organizational levels.
Roos and von Krogh (1992) added the levels of departments and divisions.
This article focuses on the most basic of these levels, the knowledge that is
possessed by individuals. Although individuals constitute only one level at
which knowledge resides within organizations, the sharing of individual
knowledge is imperative to the creation, dissemination, and management of
knowledge at all the other levels within an organization.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), in their definitive work The Knowledge
Creating Company, were among the first to recognize the importance of
individual employees in the knowledge creation process. According to
them, knowledge creation should be viewed as a process whereby knowl-
edge held by individuals is amplified and internalized as part of an organi-
zation’s knowledge base. Thus, knowledge is created through interaction
between individuals at various levels in the organization. Nonaka and
Takeuchi argued that organizations cannot create knowledge without indi-
viduals, and unless individual knowledge is shared with other individuals
and groups, the knowledge is likely to have limited impact on organizational
effectiveness.

Lam (2000) defined individual knowledge as “that part of an organiza-

tion’s knowledge which resides in the brains and bodily skills of the individ-
ual” (p. 491). It involves all the knowledge possessed by the individual that
can be applied independently to specific types of tasks and problems.
Because individuals have cognitive limits in terms of storing and processing
information, individual knowledge tends to be specialized and domain-
specific in nature (Lam, 2000). Literature from the area of organizational
learning also contributes to the notion that knowledge in organizations
resides within individuals. Simon (1991) emphasized the role of individuals
in the knowledge process by stating that “all organizational learning takes
place inside human heads” (p. 176). Argyris (1990) reinforced this point of
view by suggesting that organizations learn through individuals and this
individual learning is facilitated or inhibited by factors within the organiza-
tional learning system. Huber (1991) further argued that knowledge could
only reside at the individual level because cognition is a function of individ-
uals that cannot be performed by organizations.
At the individual level, Lowendahl, Revang, and Fosstenlokken (2001)
identified three types of knowledge that are important to value creation in
organizations—know-how, know-what, and dispositional knowledge.
Know-how included experienced-based knowledge that is subjective and
tacit, and know-what included task-related knowledge that is objective in
nature. Dispositional knowledge was defined as personal knowledge that
included talents, aptitude, and abilities. Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2001)
further emphasized the role of individuals in the creation and sharing of
knowledge, while Polanyi (1966) insisted that all knowledge is essentially
personal in nature. Others who suggested that knowledge in organizations is
found at the level of individuals include Alvesson (1995), Brown and Wood-
land (1999), Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), Nonaka (1994), Staples and
Jarvenpaa (2001), and Weiss (1999).
Knowledge Sharing in Organizations

An organization’s ability to effectively leverage its knowledge is highly
dependent on its people, who actually create, share, and use the knowledge.
Leveraging knowledge is only possible when people can share the knowl-
edge they have and build on the knowledge of others. Knowledge sharing is
basically the act of making knowledge available to others within the orga-
nization. Knowledge sharing between individuals is the process by which
knowledge held by an individual is converted into a form that can be under-
stood, absorbed, and used by other individuals. The use of the term sharing
implies that this process of presenting individual knowledge in form that
can be used by others involves some conscious action on the part of the indi-
vidual who possesses the knowledge. Sharing also implies that the sender

does not relinquish ownership of the knowledge; instead, it results in joint

ownership of the knowledge between the sender and the recipient.
Davenport (1997) defined sharing as a voluntary act and distinguished it
from reporting. Reporting involves the exchange of information based on
some routines or structured formats. Sharing, on the other hand, implies a
conscious act by an individual who participates in the knowledge exchange
even though there is no compulsion to do so. Hendriks (1999) suggested that
knowledge sharing implies a relationship between at least two parties—one
that possesses the knowledge and the other that acquires the knowledge.
This article makes a distinction between knowledge sharing between indi-
viduals and the concept of knowledge transfer used predominantly to
describe the movement of knowledge between larger entities within organi-
zations, such as between departments or divisions and between organiza-
tions themselves (e.g., Chakravarthy et al., 1999; Lam, 1997).
Knowledge sharing is important because it provides a link between the
individual and the organization by moving knowledge that resides with indi-
viduals to the organizational level, where it is converted into economic and
competitive value for the organization (Hendriks, 1999). Cohen and
Levinthal (1990) proposed that interactions between individuals who pos-
sess diverse and different knowledge enhance the organization’s ability to
innovate far beyond what any one individual can achieve. Boland and
Tenkasi (1995) concurred with this idea and contended that competitive
advantage and product success in organizations results from individuals
with diverse knowledge collaborating synergistically toward common out-
comes. According to these authors, the creation of an organization’s knowl-
edge base requires “a process of mutual perspective taking where distinctive
individual knowledge is exchanged, evaluated, and integrated with that of
others in the organization” (p. 358). Knowledge sharing also leads to the
dissemination of innovative ideas and is considered critical to creativity and
subsequent innovation in organizations (Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, &
Farris, 2001). However, in practice, the lack of knowledge sharing has
proved to be a major barrier to the effective management of knowledge in
organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999).
Knowledge sharing between individuals is a process that contributes to
both individual and organizational learning (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000;
Nidumolu, Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). Organizational knowledge is rec-
ognized as a key component of organizational learning (Dodgson, 1993;
Huber, 1991). Huber (1991) further identified four knowledge concepts that
contribute to organizational learning—knowledge acquisition, information
distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory. The
concept of knowledge sharing as it is presented in this article is linked to
both knowledge distribution and knowledge acquisition. The voluntary act
of sharing knowledge by an individual contributes to knowledge distribu-

tion, and the process of sharing may result in knowledge acquisition by

other individuals within the organization. Knowledge sharing between indi-
viduals thus results in individual learning, which in turn may contribute to
organizational learning.
Knowledge management calls for managing organizational knowledge
as a corporate asset and harnessing knowledge creation and sharing as key
organizational capabilities (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). A possible concern
in this approach to managing knowledge is that much of organizational
knowledge is controlled at the level of individuals (Staples & Jarvenpaa,
2001). Individuals use the knowledge they have in their daily activities at
work (Lam, 2000), and unless the organization can facilitate the sharing of
this knowledge with others, it is likely to lose this knowledge when individ-
ual employees leave (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). Even if individuals
stay with the organization, the full extent of their knowledge may not be
realized and utilized unless there are opportunities for the individual to
share that knowledge with others in the organization (Weiss, 1999).
Understanding the process of knowledge sharing between individuals is
one step toward a better understanding of knowledge sharing as a whole in
organizations. The following section elaborates on the factors identified
from literature that influence knowledge sharing between individuals in
organizations.
Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing

There is a paucity of research specifically in the area of knowledge shar-
ing between individuals in organizations, and empirical evidence has just
begun to uncover some of the complex dynamics that exist in processes
related to knowledge sharing. Based on a review of theory and research
related to knowledge sharing, the following have been identified as the
major factors that influence knowledge sharing between individuals in
organizations: the nature of knowledge, motivation to share, opportunities
to share, and the culture of the work environment.
Nature of Knowledge
Knowledge by its very nature exists in both tacit and explicit forms. How-
ever, with the increasing recognition of the importance of knowledge in
organizations, different types of knowledge have also begun to be valued
differently within organizations. These two characteristics of the nature of
knowledge, tacitness and explicitness of knowledge, and the value attrib-
uted to knowledge have a significant influence on the way knowledge is
shared within organizations.

Tacit and explicit knowledge. The dominant classification of knowledge in

organizations divides it into two types, tacit and explicit. The critical differ-
ences between these two types are found in three major areas—codifiability
and mechanisms for transfer, methods for acquisition and accumulation, and
the potential to be collected and distributed (Lam, 2000). The concept of tacit
knowledge was first presented by Polanyi (1966), who argued that a large part
of human knowledge cannot be articulated and made explicit easily. Tacit
knowledge can be thought of as the know-how that is acquired through personal
experience (Nonaka, 1994). It is therefore not easily codifiable and cannot be
communicated or used without the individual who is the knower. Tacit knowl-
edge also tends to be sticky in nature. von Hippel (1994) defined stickiness as
the incremental expenditure involved in moving knowledge in a form that is
useable and easily understood by the information seeker. According to von
Hippel, stickiness for the knowledge supplier comes from the tacitness of the
knowledge that has to be shared, whereas absorptive capacity creates stickiness
for the knowledge user. Therefore, tacitness of knowledge is a natural impedi-
ment to the successful sharing of knowledge between individuals in
organizations.
Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be easily codified, stored at a
single location, and transferred across time and space independent of indi-
viduals (Lam, 2000). It is easier to disseminate and communicate (Schulz,
2001). Explicit knowledge therefore has a natural advantage over tacit
knowledge in terms of its ability to be shared relatively easily among indi-
viduals. However, just because explicit knowledge is easily transferred
across individuals and settings, it should not be assumed that it is easily
shared in organizations. Weiss (1999) argued that the ability to articulate
knowledge should not be equated with its availability for use by others in the
organization. To support this point, he made a distinction between explicit
knowledge that is easily shared with that which is not by introducing the
notion of rationalized knowledge and embedded knowledge within the con-
text of professional services organizations. Rationalized knowledge is gen-
eral, context independent, standardized, and public (e.g., methodologies for
conducting consulting projects). Weiss suggested that because this knowl-
edge has been separated from its original source and is independent of spe-
cific individuals, this knowledge is readily shared and available to all those
who seek it. Embedded knowledge, on the other hand, is context dependent,
narrowly applicable, personalized, and may be personally or professionally
sensitive. Therefore, explicit knowledge that is embedded in nature is not
likely to be easily shared among individuals. However, knowledge must be
seen as more than just explicit and tacit in nature. Regardless of whether
knowledge is tacit or explicit, the value attributed to it also has a significant
impact on whether and how individuals share it.

Value of knowledge. Knowledge is increasingly perceived as being com-

mercially valuable, and its ownership is being recognized by both individuals
and the organizations they work in (Brown & Woodland, 1999; Staples &
Jarvenpaa, 2001; Weiss, 1999). When individuals perceive the knowledge they
possess as a valuable commodity, knowledge sharing becomes a process medi-
ated by decisions about what knowledge to share, when to share, and who to
share it with (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). In situations in which it is valued
highly, individuals may tend to claim emotional ownership of knowledge
(Jones & Jordan, 1998). This sense of ownership comes from the fact that in
several settings, individual knowledge is linked to status, career prospects, and
individual reputations (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000). The sharing of such
knowledge is a complex process, and Jones and Jordan (1998) found that it
involved, among other things, the extent to which individuals perceived them-
selves to be valued by their organization.
Certain types of knowledge are valued highly by both individuals and
organizations. For example, knowledge related to research and develop-
ment (R&D) is valued highly because of its commercial and scientific value.
Research suggests that in R&D organizations, creative power resides in a
relatively small number of individuals (Armbrecht et al., 2001), creating
issues of ownership particularly because it is linked to tangible outcomes
such as creation of new products, patents, research grants, and individual
incomes. Therefore, in highly competitive environments or those in which
knowledge has high commercial value, there exists a dilemma resulting
from contradictory incentives to share knowledge and to withhold it.
In organizations in which an individual’s knowledge becomes his or her
primary source of value to the firm, sharing this knowledge might poten-
tially result in diminishing the value of the individual, creating a reluctance
to engage in knowledge-sharing activities (Alvesson, 1993; Empson, 2001).
Professionals, in particular, tend to guard their knowledge as they perceive
that their own value to the firm is a product of the knowledge they possess
(Weiss, 1999). Any reluctance to share knowledge is further heightened in
situations characterized by uncertainties and insecurities, such as mergers
(Empson, 2001) and acquisitions.
Motivation to Share
Knowledge is “intimately and inextricably bound with people’s egos and
occupations” and does not flow easily across the organization (Davenport
et al., 1998, p. 45). According to Stenmark (2001), people are not likely to
share knowledge without strong personal motivation. Motivational factors
that influence knowledge sharing between individuals can be divided into
internal and external factors. Internal factors include the perceived power
attached to the knowledge and the reciprocity that results from sharing.

External factors include relationship with the recipient and rewards for
sharing.
Knowledge as power. The increasing importance given to knowledge in
organizations, and the increasing value attributed to individuals who possess
the right kind of knowledge are conducive to creating the notion of power
around knowledge. If individuals perceive that power comes from the knowl-
edge they possess, it is likely to lead to knowledge hoarding instead of knowl-
edge sharing (Davenport, 1997; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). According to
Brown and Woodland (1999), individuals use knowledge for both control and
defense. In a competitive environment, withholding knowledge from those
considered competitors is often regarded as being useful to attaining one’s
goals (Pfeffer, 1980). Power politics is therefore an important aspect of knowl-
edge sharing in organizations (Weiss, 1999).
In a study of knowledge management initiatives in more than 25 compa-
nies over a period of 2 years, Davenport, Eccles, and Prusak (1992) found
that the primary reason these initiatives did not succeed was because these
organizations did not manage what the authors labeled “the politics of infor-
mation” (p. 53). Blackler, Crump, and McDonald (1998) concurred with the
notion that knowledge can be perceived as a source of power in organiza-
tions. They suggested that because knowledge is always situated within a
particular context, it is natural that culture and power dynamics within the
context affect the way knowledge is perceived and used.
Reciprocity. Reciprocity, or the mutual give-and-take of knowledge can
facilitate knowledge sharing if individuals see that the value-add to them
depends on the extent to which they share their own knowledge with others
(Hendriks, 1999; Weiss, 1999). Molm, Takahashi, and Peterson (2000) defined
reciprocal acts as those in which individuals help others and share information
“without negotiation of terms and without knowledge of whether or when the
other will reciprocate” (p. 1396). Reciprocity as a motivator of knowledge shar-
ing implies that individuals must be able to anticipate that sharing knowledge
will prove worthwhile (Schultz, 2001), even if they are uncertain about exactly
what the outcome will be (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It is the expectation that
those involved in sharing knowledge will be able to acquire or benefit from
some of the value created by their involvement.
Empirical evidence for the relationship between reciprocity and knowl-
edge sharing indicates that receiving knowledge from others stimulates a
reciprocal flow of knowledge in the direction of the sender both horizontally
and vertically in organizations (Schulz, 2001). Support for the relationship
between reciprocity and knowledge sharing was also found by Hall (2001)
and Dyer and Nobeoka (2000). Reciprocity is also thought to be a motivator
of knowledge sharing in communities of practice where knowledge sharing
results in enhancing participants’ expertise and providing opportunities for
recognition (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Orr, 1990).

A negative aspect of reciprocity is the fear of exploitation, which was

found to be a serious threat to knowledge sharing between individuals
(Empson, 2001). Fear of exploitation is a reflection of extreme anxiety that
individuals experience when they perceive that they are being asked to give
away valuable knowledge with very little or no benefit to them in return.
Relationship with recipient. One of the external factors that influence the
motivation to share knowledge is the relationship between the sender and the
recipient. Relationship with the recipient includes two critical elements: (a)
trust and (b) the power and status of the recipient. According to Ghoshal and
Bartlett (1994), trust is one of four primary dimensions in organizations influ-
encing the actions of individuals. Huemer, von Krogh, and Roos (1998) further
argued that even though the distribution of power matters in organizations, trust
is more important as trust facilitates learning, and decisions to exchange knowl-
edge under certain conditions are based on trust.
In writing about knowledge communities (“groups or organizations
whose primary purpose is the development and promulgation of collective
knowledge”), Kramer (1999, p. 163) referred to trust as being a critical fac-
tor that influenced the way knowledge was shared within these communi-
ties. According to Kramer, barriers to trust rise from perceptions that others
are not contributing equally to the community or that others might exploit
their own cooperative efforts. These doubts and suspicions create a reluc-
tance to initiate exchanges with others or respond to others’ invitations to
participate in cooperative exchanges with members of the community.
The importance of perceived trustworthiness to knowledge sharing in
organizations was further reinforced by Andrews and Delahaye (2000) who
found that the role of trust was central to the way knowledge was shared by
individuals. Their study established that in the absence of trust, formal
knowledge-sharing practices were insufficient to encourage individuals to
share knowledge with others within the same work environment. Environ-
ments that are highly competitive are even more likely to have problems
with knowledge sharing that arise out of trust-related issues. Others who
stressed the importance of trust in knowledge sharing include Read (1962),
Roberts (2000), and Zand (1972).
Another aspect of the relationship with knowledge recipients points to
the power and status of the knowledge sharer vis-à-vis the knowledge recip-
ient. Issues of power that mediate the relationships between individuals
involved in such exchanges influence to some extent whether and how
knowledge is shared (Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987; O’Reilly, 1978). In
his analysis of organizational information processing, Huber (1982) stated
that (a) individuals with low status and power in the organization tend to
direct information to those with more status and power, and (b) individuals
with more status and power tend to direct information more toward their
peers than toward those with low status and power. These findings find sup-

port in research done by Allen and Cohen (1969) and Barnlund and Harland
(1963). Empirical evidence also indicates that individuals tend to screen
information that is passed upward in organizations, withholding or refrain-
ing from sharing information that would be unfavorable to the communica-
tor (O’Reilly, 1978; Read, 1962) or that which would make them vulnerable
(Weiss, 1999). Other research that supports this notion includes the social-
psychological research on the suppression of bad news in communication
(Rosen & Tesser, 1970) and research dealing with the suppression of infor-
mation that reflects adversely on the units that possess the information
(Carter, 1972).
Rewards for sharing. Real and perceived rewards and penalties for individu-
als that come from sharing and not sharing knowledge also influence the
knowledge-sharing process. O’Reilly and Pondy (1980) indicated that the
probability that organizational members will route information to other mem-
bers is positively related to the rewards and negatively related to the penalties
that they expect to result from sharing. The relationship between knowledge
sharing and incentives was further supported by studies (e.g., Gupta &
Govindarajan, 2000; Quinn et al., 1996) finding that significant changes had to
be made in the incentive system to encourage individuals to share their knowl-
edge, particularly through technology-based networks in organizations.
Rewards have also been considered important to knowledge sharing within
intranets (Hall, 2001), in the creation and sustenance of knowledge-sharing
networks (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000), and the success of knowledge-management
initiatives within organizations (Earl, 2001; Liebowitz, 1999).
Although there are those who perceive rewards and incentives to be indis-
pensable to knowledge sharing (e.g., Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;
O’Reilly & Pondy, 1980; Quinn et al., 1996), others have argued that tangi-
ble rewards alone are not sufficient to motivate knowledge sharing among
individuals. Professionals participate in knowledge-sharing activities
because of the intrinsic reward that comes from the work itself (Tissen,
Andriessen, & Deprez, 1998), and in some cases, formal rewards may be
perceived as demeaning by professionals who are motivated by a sense of
involvement and contribution (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Yet others
argued against the use of incentives to share knowledge claiming that in the
long run, unless knowledge-sharing activities help employees meet their
own goals, tangible rewards alone will not help to sustain the system
(O’Dell & Grayson, 1998).
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) proposed a relationship between different
types of knowledge sharing and monetary reward systems. They identified
four mechanisms of knowledge sharing—individual contribution to data-
bases, formal interactions within and between teams, knowledge sharing
across work units, and knowledge sharing through informal interactions.
Bartol and Srivastava suggested that monetary rewards could be instituted

to encourage knowledge sharing through the first three mechanisms,

whereas informal knowledge sharing would be rewarded by intangible
incentives such as enhancing the expertise and recognition of individuals.
Opportunities to Share
Opportunities to share knowledge in organizations can be both formal

and informal in nature. Formal opportunities include training programs,
structured work teams, and technology-based systems that facilitate the
sharing of knowledge. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) referred to these as
“formal interactions,” and Rulke and Zaheer (2000) called them “purposive
learning channels”—those that are designed to explicitly acquire and dis-
seminate knowledge. Informal opportunities include personal relationships
and social networks that facilitate learning and the sharing of knowledge
(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Rulke and Zaheer
referred to these informal opportunities as “relational learning channels.”
Purposive learning channels provide individuals with a structured envi-
ronment in which to share knowledge. Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002)
identified some formal interventions that facilitate knowledge sharing in
organizations, from basic instructions to share knowledge, to more complex
interventions such as Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi Technique.
Formal interventions and opportunities not only create a context in which to
share knowledge but also provide individuals with the tools necessary to do
so. However, knowledge shared through formal channels tends to be mainly
explicit in nature (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Rulke & Zaheer, 2000). The
advantages of purposive learning channels are that they are able to connect
a large number of individuals and they allow for the speedy dissemination
of shared knowledge, especially through electronic networks and other
technology-based systems. Empirical evidence for successful knowledge
sharing through formal channels was found by Constant, Sproull, and
Kiesler (1996) and Hickins (1999).
Although purposive learning channels play an important role in facilitat-
ing knowledge sharing, research indicates that the most amount of knowl-
edge is shared in informal settings—through the relational learning chan-
nels (e.g., Jones & Jordan, 1998; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999; Truran, 1998).
Relational channels facilitate face-to-face communication, which allows
for the building of trust, which in turn is critical to sharing knowledge.
These informal opportunities to interact with other people help individuals
develop respect and friendship, which influences their behavior (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998). Granovetter (1992) called this “relational embedded-
ness”—the kind of personal relationships that people develop when they
interact with each other over a period of time. Brown and Duguid (1991), in
their analysis of communities of practice found that shared learning is

located in complex, collaborative practices involving informal networks

within the community. Stevenson and Gilly (1991) found that even when
clearly designated channels of communication existed in organizations,
individuals tend to rely more on informal relationships for communication.
Culture of the Work Environment

The factors described above are important to understanding the manner
in which knowledge is shared between individuals. However, all of these
factors are influenced by the culture of the work environment—the culture
of the subunit and/or the culture of the organization at large. Organizational
culture is increasingly being recognized as a major barrier to effective
knowledge creation, sharing, and use (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Leonard-
Barton, 1995; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). Organizations are essentially cul-
tural entities (Cook & Yanow, 1993), and therefore, regardless of what orga-
nizations do to manage knowledge, the influences of the organization’s cul-
ture are much stronger (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001).
Schein (1985) defined culture as a “pattern of basic assumptions” (p. 9)
that is developed by a group as they grapple with and develop solutions to
everyday problems. When these assumptions work well enough to be con-
sidered valid, they are taught to new members as the appropriate way to
approach these problems. Schein further added that a key part of every cul-
ture is a set of assumptions about how to determine or discover what is real
and “how members of a group take an action, how they determine what is rel-
evant information, and when they have enough of it, to determine whether to
act and what to do” (p. 89). Culture is therefore reflected in the values,
norms, and practices of the organization, where values are manifested in
norms that in turn shape specific practices (De Long & Fahey, 2000).
De Long and Fahey (2000) identified certain aspects of organizational
culture that influence knowledge sharing—culture shapes assumptions
about which knowledge is important, it controls the relationships between
the different levels of knowledge (organizational, group, and individual),
and it creates the context for social interaction. It is also culture that deter-
mines the norms regarding the distribution of knowledge between an orga-
nization and the individuals in it (Staples & Jarvenpaa, 2001). Norms and
practices that advocate individual ownership of knowledge severely impede
the process of knowledge sharing within the organization, as the “organiza-
tional culture orients the mindset and action of every employee” (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995, p. 167). Culture suggests what to do and what not to do
regarding knowledge processing and communication in organizations
(Davenport, 1997). An important component of culture in organizations is
corporate vision (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1995).
Gold et al. (2001) pointed to the fact that a corporate vision not only pro-

vides a sense of purpose to the organization but also helps to create a system
of organizational values. Organizational values that influence knowledge
sharing include the creation of a sense of involvement and contribution
among employees (O’Dell & Grayson, 1998), the types of knowledge that
are valued (Leonard-Barton, 1995), and knowledge-related values such as
trust and openness (Eisenberg & Riley, 2001; von Krogh, 1998).
An organization’s culture also shapes the perceptions and behaviors of its
employees (De Long & Fahey, 2000), and one way it does this is by estab-
lishing the context for social interactions within the organization (Gold
et al., 2001; Trice & Beyer, 1993). According to De Long and Fahey (2000),
the impact of culture on the context for social interaction can be assessed
along three dimensions—vertical interactions (interactions with senior
management), horizontal interactions (interactions with individuals at the
same level in the organization), and special behaviors that promote knowl-
edge sharing and use (sharing, teaching, and dealing with mistakes).
Cultures are not homogenous across an organization (McDermott &
O’Dell, 2001). Within organizations, there are also subcultures that are
characterized by a distinct set of values, norms and practices, often resulting
in their members valuing knowledge differently from other groups within
the same organization (Pentland, 1995). Subcultures and their influence on
knowledge sharing add even more complexity to determining those prac-
tices and norms that create the right environment to facilitate the sharing of
knowledge.
Figure 1 represents the factors identified from the literature that influ-
ence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals in organiza-
tions.
Relationship Between the Factors

That Influence Knowledge Sharing
The four factors that have been identified are significant by themselves
but do not exert their influence on knowledge sharing in isolation. The
nature of knowledge, the motivation to share, the opportunities to share, and
the culture of the work environment are all interconnected, with each factor
influencing the other in a nonlinear fashion. Figure 2 represents a model of
knowledge sharing between individuals in organizations that emerged from
the review of literature. The model presents the four factors and illustrates
the relationship between them.
The model indicates that the first three factors—nature of knowledge,
motivation to share, and opportunities to share—are embedded within the
culture of the work environment, be it the culture of the organization or the
subculture within the specific work area. Culture has an influence on the
other three factors in that the culture of the organization dictates to a fairly

Tacit & explicit knowledge

Internal factors
Value of knowledge
Power
Reciprocity
External factors
Relationship with recipient
Rewards for sharing Nature of
Knowledge Purposive learning channels
Relational learning channels
Knowledge
Sharing
Motivation Opportunities
to Share to Share
Culture of work environment
FIGURE 1: Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in

Organizations
Individual
Culture
Nature of
Knowledge
Knowledge
Sharing
Motivation
to Share Opportunities to
Share
Culture Culture
Individual Individual
FIGURE 2: A Model of Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in Organizations

large extent how and what knowledge is valued, what kinds of relationships
and rewards it encourages in relation to knowledge sharing, and the formal
and informal opportunities that individuals have to share knowledge.
The following is one illustration of the interdependence between the fac-
tors indicated in the model. Individuals may not be inclined to share knowl-
edge easily if the value attributed to such knowledge is very high. However,
if there are sufficient incentives (both internal and external), then individu-
als may be motivated to share that knowledge. On the other hand, if there is
motivation to share knowledge but the opportunities to share are insufficient
or if the culture of the organization attributes power to those who are per-
ceived to possess certain knowledge, then the motivation by itself may not
result in real knowledge sharing.
All the factors identified in this model do not exert the same amount of
influence on knowledge sharing in all organizational settings. The relative
importance of each of these factors is influenced by the business objectives
of the organization, its structure, business practices and policies, reward
systems, and culture. The absence of one or more of these factors in an orga-
nization does not preclude all knowledge sharing. A certain amount of
knowledge is shared between individuals all the time, under any circum-
stance in organizations. However, the model of knowledge sharing pre-
sented here proposes that the four factors are strongly interrelated with each
other and if each of these factors is favorable to knowledge sharing, together
they create the ideal environment for knowledge sharing between individu-
als within the organization.
Implications for Research

With the increasing importance of the people perspective of knowledge in
organizations, there exist many opportunities for researchers in the area of
human resource development to advance the understanding of knowledge and
knowledge sharing. The survey of literature that led to the creation of the model
of knowledge sharing presented in this article suggests opportunities for
research that fall into the following two broad categories:
• research related to the nature of knowledge in organizations and

• research related to the knowledge-sharing process and factors that influence this
process.
According to Bhatt (1998), the study of knowledge in organizations is still a

relatively new area for research and lacks a coherent theoretical foundation. The
difficulty in finding meaningful definitions and classifications of knowledge
that apply in all settings presents a significant challenge to researchers in this
area. The following proposition captures a dilemma that tests both researchers
and practitioners alike:

Proposition 1: The nature of knowledge in organizations is complex and varies

across different levels and functions in the organization. For an organization to be
successful in managing its knowledge, there needs to be a common understanding
of what constitutes knowledge across the organization.
The fact that there is as yet no shared understanding of what constitutes

knowledge in the context of organizations raises some questions for future
research in this area. How should researchers define knowledge for empirical
studies? Are the distinctions between knowledge and information worthy of
research attention?
The second category of research opportunities focuses on advancing the
understanding of knowledge-sharing processes within organizations. The fol-
lowing propositions are derived from the model presented in this article:
Proposition 2: The four factors critical to knowledge sharing between individuals

in organizations are the nature of knowledge, the motivation to share, opportuni-
ties for sharing, and the culture of the work environment.
Proposition 3: All four factors are interrelated and if each of them is favorable,
together they create an optimal environment for knowledge sharing within an
organization.
Future research could also contribute to clarifying what we know about each
of the factors that are identified in the model as influencing knowledge sharing.
Proposition 4: Knowledge is perceived and valued differently by individuals at

different levels and across different functions in organizations. The differences in
the way knowledge is identified and valued have an impact on the way knowledge
is shared among individuals.
Proposition 5: Motivation to share knowledge is determined by a combination of

internal and external factors. An ideal combination of these factors results in high
motivation among individuals to share what they know with others.
Proposition 6: Opportunities to share knowledge within organizations can be both

relational and formal in nature. A balanced combination of relational and formal
learning channels is critical to effective knowledge sharing.
Proposition 7: Culture of the work environment is the most critical factor that
influences knowledge sharing within organizations. The culture of the organiza-
tion and subcultures within the organization have a significant influence on the
other three factors.
With the rapid advances being made in the field of practice related to
knowledge management, there is a significant gap between research and prac-
tice in this area (Grover & Davenport, 2001). The increasing sophistication in
technology-based knowledge management systems call attention to one area
where more research is needed. Existing literature suggests that individuals are
more likely to share knowledge with others through informal interactions than

through the use of formal systems. Scholars with a human resource orienta-
tion need to partner with technologists to identify how formal and informal
knowledge-sharing processes may be combined to effectively facilitate knowl-
edge sharing in organizations. Research could also recommend how formal
means of knowledge sharing such as training programs can be redesigned to
both share knowledge effectively as well as help individuals develop “ways of
knowing that make use of knowledge in new, innovative, and more productive
ways” (Cook & Brown, 1999, p. 398).
In-depth investigative methods such as case studies and ethnographies
could be used to discover the nuances of the knowledge-sharing process
within specific organizational settings. Such studies would also be able to
identify factors that motivate and inhibit knowledge-sharing behavior
within the contexts chosen for the study. Subsequent research could then be
done to verify whether these factors apply across organizations, using meth-
ods that allow results to be generalized to larger populations. New research
in this area may also be able to identify emerging factors that influence the
knowledge-sharing process that have not been documented in the literature
thus far.
Conclusion
It is clear that knowledge sharing in organizations is a complex process
that is value laden and driven by power equations within the organization.
Knowledge in organizations is dynamic in nature and is dependent on social
relationships between individuals for its creation, sharing, and use. More
knowledge is shared informally than through formal channels, and much of
the process is dependent on the culture of the work environment. This article
has presented a model that describes knowledge sharing between individu-
als, identifying factors that have a significant influence on the knowledge-
sharing process and illustrating the relationship between these factors.
References
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 12-19.
Alvesson, M. (1993). Management of knowledge-intensive companies. New York: Walter de Gruyer.
Alvesson, M. (1995). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with
ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997-1015.
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2001). Odd couple: Making sense of the curious concept of knowl-
edge management. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 995-1018.
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 2322-2380.
Armbrecht, F. M. R., Jr., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., & Farris, G. F. (2001). Knowledge man-
agement in research and development. Research Technology Management, 44(2), 28-48.
Argyris, C. (1990). Integrating the individual and the organization. London: Transaction Publishing.

Barnlund, D. C., & Harland, C. (1963). Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication
networks. Sociometry, 26, 466-479.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-77.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contin-
gency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-55.
Bhatt, G. D. (1998). Managing knowledge through people. Knowledge and Process Management,
5(3), 165-171.
Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpreta-
tion. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021-1046.
Blackler, F., Crump, N., & McDonald, S. (1998). Knowledge, organizations and competition. In
G. von Krogh, J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and
measuring knowledge (pp. 67-86). London: Sage.
Boland, R. J. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communities
of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a
unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Brown, R. B., & Woodland, M. J. (1999). Managing knowledge wisely: A case study in organiza-
tional behavior. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(2), 175-198.
Carter, R. M. (1972). Communications in organizations: A guide to information sources. Detroit:
Gale Research.
Chakravarthy, B., Zaheer, A., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A field
study. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Strategic Management Resource Center.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of elec-
tronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119-135.
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between orga-
nizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Studies, 10(4), 381-400.
Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390.
Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information ecology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management proj-
ects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Davenport, T. H., Eccles, R. G., & Prusak, L. (1992, Fall). Information politics. Sloan Management
Review, pp. 53-65.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies,
14(3), 375-394.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.
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.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18, 215-233.
Eisenberg, E. M., & Riley, P. (2001). Organizational culture. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.),
The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 291-322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Empson, L. (2001). Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge trans-
fer in mergers between professional service firms. Human Relations, 54(7), 839-862.

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The
dimension of quality management. Strategic Management Journal, 15 (Special Issue), 91-112.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational per-
spective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development Inter-
national, 4(1), 27-46.
Granovetter, M. S. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria & R. Eccles
(Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Grover, V., & Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a
research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 5-21.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management’s social dimension: Lessons
from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71-80.
Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: Motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Infor-
mation Science, 27(3), 139-146.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Hickins, M. (1999). Xerox shares its knowledge. Management Review, 88(8), 40-45.
Huber, G. (1982). Organizational information systems: Determinants of their performance and
behavior. Management Science, 28(2), 138-155.
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organiza-
tion Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Huemer, L., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Knowledge and the concept of trust. In G. von Krogh,
J. Roos, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and measuring knowl-
edge (pp.123-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jones, P., & Jordan, J. (1998). Knowledge orientations and team effectiveness. International Journal
of Technology Management, 16, 152-161.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication
of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Social uncertainty and collective paranoia in knowledge communities: Think-
ing and acting in the shadow of doubt. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.),
Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 163-194). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krone, K. J., Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (1987). Communication theory and organizational com-
munication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 18-
40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lam, A. (1997). Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problem of collaboration and knowledge
transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 18(6), 973-996.
Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated
framework. Organization Studies, 21(3), 487-513.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the source of innova-
tion. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lessard, D. R., & Zaheer, S. (1996). Breaking the silos: Distributed knowledge and strategic
responses to volatile exchange rates. Strategic Management Journal, 17(7), 513-543.
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization’s knowledge management
strategy. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), 37-40.
Lowendahl, B. R., Revang, O., & Fosstenlokken, S. M. (2001). Knowledge and value creation in pro-
fessional service firms: A framework for analysis. Human Relations, 54(7), 911-931.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver: Knowledge man-
agement. California Management Review, 41(4), 103-117.

McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimen-
tal test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396-1426.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advan-
tage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Nidumolu, S. R., Subramani, M., & Aldrich, A. (2001). Situated learning and the situated knowledge
web: Exploring the ground beneath knowledge management. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 18(1), 115-150.
Nonaka, I. (1994). The dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies cre-
ate the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know. New York: Free Press.
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal inter-
ventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13(4), 370-386.
O’Reilly, C. (1978). The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A
laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations, 31, 173-193.
O’Reilly, C., & Pondy, L. (1980). Organizational communication. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational
behavior. Columbus, OH: Grid.
Orr, J. E. (1990). Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a service culture.
In D. S. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society (pp. 169-
189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge management in practice: An exploratory case study.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(3), 359-374.
Pemberton, M. J. (1998). Knowledge management (KM) and the epistemic tradition. Records Man-
agement Quarterly, 32(3), 58-62.
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology
of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technology,
5(1), 1-21.
Pfeffer, J. (1980). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. Academy of Management
Executive, 10, 7-27.
Read, W. M. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 15, 3-15.
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and commu-
nication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,
12(4), 429-443.
Roos, J., & von Krogh, G. (1992). Figuring out your competence configuration. European Manage-
ment Journal, 10(4), 422-444.
Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM
effect. Sociometry, 33(3), 253-263.
Rulke, D. L., & Zaheer, S. (2000). Shared and unshared transactive knowledge in complex organiza-
tions: An exploratory study. In Z. Shapira & T. Lant (Eds.), Organizational cognition: Computa-
tion and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schultz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge
flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 125-
134.
Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management
Journal, 17, 5-9.

Staples, S. D., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of

information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 151-183.
Stenmark, D. (2001). Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 17(3), 9-24.
Stevenson, W. B., & Gilly, M. C. (1991). Information processing and problem solving: The migra-
tion of problems through formal positions and networks of ties. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 34(4), 918-928.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday
Currency.
Tissen, R., Andriesson, D., & Deprez, L. F. (1998). Value-based knowledge management: Creating
st
the 21 century company: Knowledge intensive, people rich. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley
Longman.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Truran, W. R. (1998). Pathways for knowledge: How companies learn through people. Engineering
Management Journal, 10(4), 15-20.
Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Management
Studies, 38(7), 973-993.
von Hippel, E. (1994). “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for inno-
vation. Management Science, 40, 429-430.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133-153.
Venzin, M., von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1998). Future research into knowledge management. In G. R.
von Krogh, R. Johan, & D. Kleine (Eds.), Knowing in firms: Understanding, managing and mea-
suring Knowledge (pp. 26-66). London: Sage.
Weiss, L. (1999). Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professional ser-
vice. Organization Development Journal, 17(4), 61-72.
Zand, D. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229-
239.
Minu Ipe recently completed a Ph.D. specializing in human resource develop-

ment from the University of Minnesota. She has been involved with both the
technology and people aspects of knowledge management for several years,
first as an HRD manager and then as a student and researcher. Her interests
include knowledge mapping, knowledge processes within and across teams,
cross-cultural issues related to knowledge management, and organizational
learning.


00b6 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

00b6 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Human Resource Development Review

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework

The online version of this article can be found at:

Academy of Human Resource Development

Email Alerts: http://hrd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Citations (this article cites 42 articles hosted on the

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations:

Knowledge is now being seen as the most important strategic resource in

Keywords: knowledge; knowledge sharing; knowledge transfer; knowl-

In recent years, the concept of knowledge in organizations has become

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 2, No. 4 December 2003 337-359

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

The purpose of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of the

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

The terms information and knowledge are often used interchangeably in

Individual Knowledge in Organizations

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Lam (2000) defined individual knowledge as “that part of an organiza-

Knowledge Sharing in Organizations

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

does not relinquish ownership of the knowledge; instead, it results in joint

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

tion, and the process of sharing may result in knowledge acquisition by

Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Tacit and explicit knowledge. The dominant classification of knowledge in

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Value of knowledge. Knowledge is increasingly perceived as being com-

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

A negative aspect of reciprocity is the fear of exploitation, which was

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

to encourage knowledge sharing through the first three mechanisms,

Opportunities to share knowledge in organizations can be both formal

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

located in complex, collaborative practices involving informal networks

Culture of the Work Environment

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Relationship Between the Factors

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Tacit & explicit knowledge

Relational learning channels

Culture of work environment

FIGURE 1: Factors That Influence Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in

FIGURE 2: A Model of Knowledge Sharing Between Individuals in Organizations

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Implications for Research

• research related to the nature of knowledge in organizations and

According to Bhatt (1998), the study of knowledge in organizations is still a

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Proposition 1: The nature of knowledge in organizations is complex and varies

The fact that there is as yet no shared understanding of what constitutes

Proposition 2: The four factors critical to knowledge sharing between individuals

Proposition 4: Knowledge is perceived and valued differently by individuals at

Proposition 5: Motivation to share knowledge is determined by a combination of

Proposition 6: Opportunities to share knowledge within organizations can be both

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008

Downloaded from http://hrd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 16, 2008