Discussion Posts – 200 Words Each Question – APA Format – 100% Original Work

Each answer to questions should be at least 200 words, with at least 2 references and written in APA format. Requires 100% original work – Turnitin or similar requested

File attached for assignment but will also need login information to text book once handshake is made, this will be provided with link, username and password.

· Review Park & Kim (2015) or select one literature review article you want to review. Summarize advantages and disadvantages of the article in terms of research problem and literature review, and suggest how to improve the quality of a research problem and literature review.

· A research has a theory about the relationships among organizational culture, leadership, and workplace learning. Write a research hypothesis, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis.

European Journal of Training and Development

Revisiting knowledge sharing from the organizational change perspective

Sunyoung Park Eun-Jee Kim

Article information:
To cite this document:
Sunyoung Park Eun-Jee Kim , (2015),”Revisiting knowledge sharing from the organizational change
perspective”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 39 Iss 9 pp. 769 – 7

Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2015-0042

Downloaded on: 11 December 2015, At: 17:37 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 191 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 33 times since 2015*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:260117 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.

D
ow

nl
oa

de
d

by
L

ou
is

ia
na

S
ta

te
U

ni
ve

rs
it

y
A

t
17

:3
7

11
D

ec
em

be
r

(
P

T
)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2015-0042

Revisiting knowledge

sharing

from the organizational change

perspective
Sunyoung Park

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA, and

Eun-Jee Kim
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST),

Daejeon, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to identify how knowledge sharing literature has discussed
task, structure, technology and people as elements of organizational change and to examine the
interactions between the four elements of knowledge sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – The research questions guiding the study are: How do
organizational change elements influence knowledge sharing? and What are the critical elements of
organizational change in relation to knowledge sharing? Based on Leavitt’s (1965) organizational
change model, 133 articles published between 2000 and 2012 from 13 journals were reviewed and
analyzed.
Findings – The total number of articles covering task, structure, technology and people in knowledge
sharing was 49, 79, 49 and 97, respectively. Of all references, 97 articles (72 per cent) discussed the
important aspects of people, and 79 articles (59 per cent) emphasized the influential role of
organizational structure in knowledge sharing. The highest frequency of interactions (48 articles) was
the interaction between structure and people (Interaction 5).
Research limitations/implications – To capture broader phenomena on knowledge sharing in
organizational change, multiple data sources and a variety of journals with a longer timeframe should
be collected and a more comprehensive review should be conducted. All perspectives of organizational
change were not applied to this study. Theoretically, this study attempted to illuminate how knowledge
sharing has been explored through the lens of four elements in organizational change and the
interactions between the elements. This study attempted to expand the use of Leavitt’s (1965) model by
applying interactive relationships among the elements to knowledge sharing.
Practical implications – The findings can advance strategic and managerial practice by informing
the planning and development of knowledge sharing associated with change in organizations. A key
question is how to identify the major component of change which will trigger the other changes in the
current architecture of knowledge sharing in their organizations. This study suggests that elements of
structure and people, when organization face either planned or unplanned change, are critical for
successful knowledge sharing by making the interactive connections with other components of change.
Originality/value – The contributions of this study are that it provides an integrative review in
selected journals of knowledge sharing in terms of organizational change. By examining how
knowledge sharing studies have addressed the four change factors and multi component changes, this
study explains one change in knowledge sharing leads to multi-component changes. Additional
contribution is that it makes connections between knowledge sharing and organizational change.

Keywords Technology, People, Knowledge sharing, Organizational change, Structure, Task

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

Revisiting
knowledge

sharing

769

Received 13 June 2015
Revised 30 September 2015

Accepted 4 October 2015

European Journal of Training and
Development

Vol. 39 No. 9, 2015
pp. 769-

797

DOI 10.1108/EJTD-06-2015-0042

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r

20
15

(
P
T
)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06-2015-0042

Change is an ongoing and never-ending process of organizational life. To achieve and
maintain an organization’s competitive advantage, great and small changes must
continuously occur in the organization. Given that knowledge is a critical resource for
organizations’ innovation and competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Kogut and Zander,
1996), scholars and practitioners have attempted to uncover the constructs related to
knowledge in organizations. Particularly considering that successful knowledge
sharing is an important driving force in knowledge creation (Kang et al., 2010),
organizations strive to understand the dynamics and mechanisms of knowledge sharing
in a changing environment.

A large body of literature on knowledge sharing already exists (Grover and
Davenport, 2001; Wang et al., 2014). With an emphasis on the importance of knowledge
sharing for sustainable competitive advantage, scholars have addressed particular
aspects of changes in organizations including the role of networks and information
systems (Birkinshaw et al., 2002; Hansen, 2002; Powell et al., 1996), the impact of task
structures (Lam, 2000; Tsai, 2002) or strategic changes such as incentive systems
(Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Szulanski and Jensen, 2006).

Research on organizational change has attempted to show the challenges inherent in
both planned and unplanned changes, but it has not accounted systematically for how
components of organizational change affect its adoption in organizations (Battilana and
Casciaro, 2012), particularly with knowledge sharing. Given that all organizational
changes are not equivalent, organizational change may converge with or diverge from
an organizational status quo (Amis et al., 2004). However, the literature on
organizational change is fragmented, not systematically accounted for the institutional
environment in which organizations are embedded, thus hindering an integrated view of
organization change. Thus, the existing literature that provides insights into the
relationship between organizational changes and knowledge sharing remains
theoretically and empirically under-researched, at least compared to the number of
studies concerning knowledge taxonomies and processes. In other words, the effects of
organizational change on knowledge sharing have not been sufficiently explored
despite the theoretical and practical importance of the effects. Therefore, by
demonstrating that the components of organizational change and its dynamic
relationship with knowledge sharing, the current study attempts to analyze the
relationships of organizational change with knowledge sharing on the extent of
organizational boundaries in the extant literature. In this study, we sought to answer the
following research questions that focus on the relationship among organizational
change contexts and knowledge sharing:

RQ1. How do organizational change elements influence knowledge sharing?

RQ2. What are the critical elements of organizational change in relation to
knowledge sharing?

To respond to this question, an integrative literature review was conducted to compare,
select, and synthesize the findings.

This study provides both theoretical and practical information about knowledge
sharing and organizational change. By examining the link between elements of
organizational change and knowledge sharing, organizations may facilitate the
processes to varying degrees by providing interventions and strategies for
organizational effectiveness. Specifically, we explored the most frequently studied

EJTD
39,9

770

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

variables of organizational changes in the context of knowledge sharing: task, structure,
technology and people. In this regard, the purpose of this study was to identify how
knowledge sharing literature has discussed task, structure, technology and people as
elements of organizational change and to examine the interactions between the elements
of knowledge sharing.

Literature review
In this section, we provide the definitions of organizational change for this study, review
the literature about organizational change and knowledge sharing and explain the
conceptual framework based on Leavitt’s (1965) organizational change model.

Organizational change
Researchers define organizational change in various ways according to their
perspectives. Some definitions have focused on the features of organizational change.
For example, organizational change is “an empirical observation of difference in form,
quality, or state over time in an organizational entity” (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995,
p. 512). Another definition states that organizational change is “more broadly focused
and can apply to any kind of change, including technical and managerial innovations,
organization decline, or the evolution of a system over time” (Cummings and Worley,
2005, p. 4).

Other definitions of organizational change have emphasized the components of
organizations. For example, Nadler and Tushman (1989, p. 195) suggested that
organizational change:

[…] may involve one or more elements of the organizational system, or it may involve a
realignment of the whole system, affecting all of the key elements – strategy, work, people, and
formal and informal processes and structures.

Cawsey et al. (2011, p. 2) viewed organizational change as:

[…] planned alterations of organizational components to improve the effectiveness of the
organization. Organizational components are the organizational mission, and vision, strategy,
goals, structure, processes or systems, technology, and people in an organization.

There are different models that explain organizational change: Leavitt’s (1965)
organizational change model; Weisbord’s (1976) six-box model; Nadler and
Tushman’s (1977) congruence model; Tichy’s (1983) technical, political and cultural
(TPC) framework; and Sastry’s (1997) model of punctuated organizational change.
These models have emphasized critical elements and process influencing
organizational change. For instance, Weisbord (1976) emphasized six components
(organizational purpose, structure, rewards, helpful mechanism, relationships and
leadership) to understand formal and informal aspects of organizational change.
Nadler and Tushman (1977) developed a framework to explain interactions and
dynamics between an organization and its external environment through inputs,
strategy, transformational process, feedback and outputs. Tichy (1983) argued
technical, political and cultural systems should be aligned with organizational
components (mission, task, network, people and process) for effective organizational
change to occur.

Considering the purpose of this study, we paid more attention to the organizational
component oriented definitions. We regarded organizational change as an

771

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

organization-wide transformation influenced by components or interactions among key
components of organizations which reflect the complex nature of organizational
systems. In this regard, we adopted Leavitt’s (1965) model as a framework for our
analysis because his model embraces critical factors affecting organizational change
mentioned in other models; presents the roles of tasks, structures, technology and people
in organizational change in an integrative manner; and suggests that these four
components need to be aligned for change to be successful, and his idea is a good match
for our perspectives.

Conceptual framework
Leavitt’s (1965) organizational change model was selected as a conceptual framework to
understand and analyze the articles that have explored knowledge sharing in
organizational change contexts. Leavitt (1965) identified four elements (task, structure,
technology and people) to explain how to make organizational change more effective.
Task refers to organizational services, products, mission and other works to accomplish
organizational purposes, while structure includes both organizational structure (e.g.
hierarchy and control) and operational structure (e.g. policy, reward and management)
(Leavitt et al., 1973). Technology provides the tools and means that enable employees to
conduct their tasks and people refers to employees and organizational members (Leavitt
et al., 1973). The four elements interact and mutually work with each other (Figure 1). We
added “Interactions 1-6” to the labels of Leavitt’s original model to emphasize the
interactive relationships between the elements. Interaction 1 refers to the interactions
between task and structure, Interaction 2 refers to the interactions between task and
people, and Interaction 3 refers to interactions between technology and people.
Interaction 4 explains the interactions between structure and technology,

Interaction 5

explains the interactions between structure and people, and Interaction 6 explains the
interactions between task and technology. For example, if the technology changes in an
organization, the other three components adjust to maximize the impact of the
technology change (e.g. new technology adoption and innovation). Interactions 1-6 were
used to explain multi-component changes influencing knowledge sharing in the
findings.

Structure

People

TechnologyTask

Interaction 1

Interaction 2 Interaction 3

Interaction 4

Interaction 5

Interaction 6

Note: Interactions 1- 6 to the labels of Leavitt’s
original model was added

Figure 1.
Leavitt’s
organizational
change model

EJTD
39,9

772

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Organizational change and knowledge sharing
The knowledge literature is concerned with different types of knowledge processes (e.g.
using, sharing, integrating and creating knowledge) in various contexts (e.g. intra/
inter-organization, intra/inter-unit and inter-employee) (Foss et al., 2009). Given the
purpose of the current study, focusing on the examination of the intersection points of
the knowledge sharing and organizational change literature, we limit our review,
discussion and recommendations to knowledge sharing in the context of organizational
change. In doing so, we analyzed how each of the classic organizational change elements
relates to the concepts of knowledge sharing by building on the classic organization
theory literature and more recent advances in knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is
viewed here as the provision or receipt of task information, feedback and know-how to
help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, or develop new ideas,
products or procedures (Cummings, 2004; Frank et al., 2015; Hansen, 1999; Pulakos et al.,
2003). Knowledge sharing can occur through communications and networking with
other experts, or documenting, organizing and capturing knowledge for others
(Cummings, 2004; Pulakos et al., 2003; Sousa et al., 2015).

Based on Leavitt’s (1965) model proposing that four factors of organizational
change – task, structure, technology, and people – are interrelated and must be
reasonably congruent for the organization to bring about change (Lyytinen et al., 1988),
we reviewed these elements to the extent to which knowledge sharing activities are
performed in a variety of organizational change settings.

Among the four elements of the organizational change model, a task includes
organizational services, products, mission and others which are supposed to be
performed based on an organization’s purposes, as well as its characteristics such as
interdependency, complexity and significance. Other features of tasks such as size, type
and ambiguity have been found to have relationships with knowledge sharing activities
in organizations. For example, researchers have demonstrated a positive relationship
between the characteristics of a task and the amount of information processing (Daft
and Lengel, 1986; Wang and Ko, 2012). In workplaces where tasks are increasingly
complex, employees need to solicit and obtain critical knowledge which helps them
accomplish complicated tasks. Task complexity encourages employees and teams to
share knowledge to enhance performance and accomplish goals (Wang and Ko, 2012).
On the other hand, if task complexity is lower, it is likely to solicit more pro-social
behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000) such as knowledge providing. In addition, given the
task of new product development, task interdependency and knowledge complexity
revealed an important interacting effect on knowledge sharing in some studies (Smith
et al., 2005; Wang and Ko, 2012). Thus, task infrastructure, as one of the elements of
organizational change, can be postulated to influence knowledge sharing.

In Leavitt’s (1965) model, structure which includes organizational structure (e.g.
hierarchy and centralization) and operational structure (e.g. policy, reward and
management) has been noted to have a significant effect on the extent of organizational
knowledge activities (Gold et al., 2001; Hall, 2001; Hall and Goody, 2007). In particular, in
times of organizational change such as mergers and acquisitions or intra-unit
collaborations, the structural infrastructure is more likely to serve either as an enabler or
disabler of knowledge sharing. For example, coordination mechanisms based on
centralization and formalization are less appropriate for knowledge sharing than
mechanisms that are based on decentralization and low formalization (Chen and Huang,

773

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

2007). Because these types of coordination formally determine which and how much
information and knowledge should be exchanged (Egelhoff, 1991; Nidumolu, 1996),
both, in general, are considered to be negatively related to knowledge sharing.

Researchers have shown that knowledge sharing may be facilitated by having a less
centralized organizational structure (Kim and Lee, 2006), creating a work environment
that encourages interaction among employees such as through the use of open
workspaces (Jones, 2005) and the use of fluid job descriptions and job rotation (Kubo
et al., 2001). However, a recent study reported that expected relationships such as the
negative effects of centralization or the positive effects of lower formalization and their
impact on inter-unit knowledge sharing were not found (Willem and Buelens, 2009).
The mixed results of the structural impacts on knowledge sharing imply that the
organization-specific context in which the coordination is applied influences the
potential of this coordination for knowledge sharing. In addition, knowledge sharing
occurs in a dynamic context where other organizational factors and elements
interactively influence one another.

A technology includes access to comprehensive information and a communication
system that supports knowledge activities (Gold et al., 2001). Teece (2001, p. 130) notes
that a “combination of IT and co-aligned organizational processes can significantly
enhance learning and competitive advantage”. Access to relevant information
technology and higher levels of technology use would be expected to contribute to a
higher level of knowledge activity within the organization. Markus (2001) also notes that
knowledge reuse depends, in part, on the availability of information technology and
repositories of knowledge. Although generally taken for granted that information
systems play a role as a vital part of the infrastructure that enables organizations to
cultivate knowledge activities (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Massey et al., 2002), more recent
studies suggest that this is often not the case (Huysman and Wulf, 2006; Wasko and
Faraj, 2005).

Among the four elements of the organizational change model, the people component
can be divided into individual and group levels including personality, motivation, trust
and subjective norms. Among them, trust has been noted as a necessary ingredient in
active knowledge sharing and creation, particularly in times of organizational change
(Argote et al., 2003; Lee and Choi, 2003; Levin et al., 2002; Szulanski et al., 2004). Other
elements reported in the literature include subjective norms and social capital among a
group of people in multinational companies (Tortoriello et al., 2012; Widén-Wulff and
Ginman, 2004).

Although these contextual elements represent distinct constructs, they are not
assumed to be orthogonal. Consistent with Leavitt’s (1965) model, interactions among
the elements are expected. For example, norms encouraging technology use would be
expected to have a positive effect on technology use for knowledge activities (Kelly and
Green, 1998; Venkatesh and Morris, 2000), which, in turn, could result in higher levels of
knowledge sharing activity. Development of an organizational culture that encourages
knowledge management activity might, for example, lead to increased access to
information technologies that support those activities. Similarly, investment in
information technologies that support knowledge management might be accompanied
by concerted efforts to develop an organizational culture and organizational structures
that would encourage its use.

EJTD
39,9

774

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Methods
We conducted a narrative review of the literature rather than a meta-analysis because:

• the wide variety of disciplines contribute to knowledge sharing research;
• our purpose is not to correct error and bias in research finding by using a

meta-analysis; and
• a narrative review is useful for comparing, contrasting and categorizing the

findings of articles than meta-analysis.

To gain a systematic understanding of which organizational change components have
been the focus of attention in the knowledge sharing literature, we included articles in
the review that had been published in 13 top-tier academically refereed journals in
management, organizational behavior, information systems and human resource
development (HRD).

To select appropriate journals in the fields of management and organizational
behavior, we considered the journal lists that were compiled and consistently utilized
and cited in subsequent reviews (Baruch and Holtom, 2008; Foss et al., 2010; Podsakoff
et al., 2002; Werner, 2002). Based on these lists, we selected the following journals:
Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of
Management, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Information Science, MIS
Quarterly, Organization Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes and Strategic Management Journal.

For information systems, we selected Expert Systems with Application and
Information Systems Journal which address knowledge sharing from the system and
technological perspectives. In addition, we included two academic journals with a
strong focus on HRD research and practice in relation to organizational change:
Advances in Developing Human Resources and Human Resource Development
International. These two journals, among representative HRD four journals, are
frequently mentioned in research on HRD trends (Ghosh et al., 2014; Jeung et al., 2011; Jo
et al., 2009; Sun and Wang, 2013). The other two journals, Human Resource Development
Quarterly and Human Resource Development Review, were reviewed, but a search
against key terms did not result in any articles published in the considered period.

We considered articles published between 2000 and 2012 that included the keywords
“knowledge sharing”, “knowledge exchange” and “knowledge transfer”. These terms
are often used interchangeably. Sometimes authors refer to “knowledge transfer” while
including “knowledge sharing” and/or “knowledge exchange” in their discussion (Levin
and Cross, 2004) or treat “knowledge transfer” as the ultimate outcome of the
“knowledge sharing” process (Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Tsai, 2002). Considering the
scope of the study, we limited our review and only included articles that explicitly
addressed the elements and contexts of organizational change. Our search resulted in
133 articles. Researchers independently reviewed the 133 articles in relation to the
elements and interactions of organizational change (Figure 1). In other words, the focus
was on whether the articles considered organizational change elements, conditions of
knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing outcomes, as well as the four interactive
links between these constructs. The framework we adopted, Leavitt’s (1965) model of
organizational change, proposed that the four factors, task, structure, technology and
people, are interrelated and must be aligned to bring about change. We determined what

775

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

primary component of organizational change that the article was focusing on and also
examined the interactive relationships among the four elements of organizational
change in each article. Through the coding process, inter-coder agreements remained in
the 80-85 per cent range. To ensure our claim, raters cross-checked each result, and,
when there was disagreement between the raters, the raters discussed the issues until
consensus was reached.

Findings
Based on the data collected from 133 articles in peer-reviewed journals, we mapped the
literature summarized in Table I to identify to what extent each article examined
knowledge sharing in the context of organizational change and whether four factors
(task, structure, technology and people) in Leavitt’s (1965) model influence knowledge
sharing. Table I summarizes information about each factor and the interactions between
the factors. Among the 133 articles, the articles addressing task, structure, technology
and people in relation to knowledge sharing were 49, 79, 49 and 97, respectively.

Task
Of the 133 articles, 49 articles (37 per cent) named task as an influential factor for
knowledge sharing. Task was found to be the most frequently covered topic in the
articles from the Strategic Management Journal (81 per cent, 18 out of 22 articles). The
Strategic Management Journal seeks to publish research that is relevant to strategic
management with a diverse mix of topics, framing and methods. Of the characteristics
of task in organizational change, the significance and interdependency of tasks were
emphasized when doing complicated tasks. For example, several articles noted that
knowledge sharing is critical to accomplish a specific important task (e.g. new product
development and plan development activity) (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Schulze and
Hoegl, 2006; Smith et al., 2005; Wang and Ko, 2012). Task complexity and task
interdependency (Staples and Webster, 2008; Wang and Ko, 2012) were also found to be
significant to facilitate knowledge sharing. For example, tasks in R&D are complicated
and interdependent among units or teams, making people more active in knowledge
sharing for final outcomes such as resource acquisition and new product development.
Thus, different types, levels and task features appear to play a pivotal role in knowledge
sharing activities in organizations.

Structure
Of the 133 articles, 79 articles (59 per cent) discussed structure in knowledge sharing as
part of organizational structure, policy and management. In the literature, structural
components for enhancing knowledge sharing included organizational structure
characteristics (Argyres and Silverman, 2004; Birkinshaw et al., 2002; Lin, 2008a),
organizational culture and climate (Bennett, 2009; Hall and Goody, 2007; Lin, 2008b;
Smith et al., 2005; Tsai and Cheng, 2010), compensation (Fey and Furu, 2008),
management strategy (Blankenship and Ruona, 2009) and knowledge sharing channels
(Almeida et al., 2002; Owen-Smith and Powell, 2004). For instance, a high level of
complexity and formalization of an organizational structure, centralized
decision-making process and unclear procedure of sharing were found to be barriers to
active knowledge sharing (Ardichivili, 2009; Lin, 2008a, 2008b).

EJTD
39,9

776

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Table I.

Articles on the

elements of
organizational

change in 13
journals, 2000-2012

Task
(T)

Structure
(S)

Technology

(Te)

People
(P)

T-S
(1)

T-P
(2)

Te-P
(3)

S-Te
(4)

S-P
(5)

T-Te
(6)

Academy of Management Journal
Heracleous and Barrett (2001) � � �
Lovelace et al. (2001) �
Malnight (2001) � � �
Sparrowe et al. (2001) � � �
Tasi (2001) � � �
Hansen et al. (2005) � � �
Smith et al. (2005) � � � � � � � � � �
Collins and Smith (2006) � � �
Srivastava et al. (2006) �
Reinholt et al. (2011) � � �
Sub total 1 6 7 6 1 1 4 4 2 1

Academy of Management Review
McEvily et al. (2000) �
Tallman et al. (2004) �
Inkpen and Tsang (2005) �
Nebus (2006) �
Turner and Makhija (2006) � � �
Sub Total 1 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

Advances in Developing Human
Resources
Ardichvili (2002) � � �
Hernandez (2003) � � � � � �
Ardichvili, 2008 � � �
Ahn (2009) � � �
Akdere (2009) � � � � � �
Ardichvili (2009) � � � � � �
Bennett (2009) � � � � � �
Blankenship and Ruona (2009) � � �
Conley and Zheng (2009) � � � � � �
Hung et al. (2009) � � �
Kongpichayanond (2009) � � �
Sub Total 5 9 5 8 4 3 3 3 7 1

Expert Systems with Application
Ryu et al. (2003) �
Du et al. (2007) � � � � � �
Hsu (2008) � � �
Law and Ngai (2008) � � � � � �
Lin (2008a) � � �
Lin (2008b) � � �
Mansingh et al. (2009) � � � � � �
Ting et al. (2010) � � � � � �
Tsai and Cheng (2010) � � �
Hong et al. (2011) � � � � � �
Jeon et al. (2011) � � �

(continued)

777

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Table I.
Task
(T)
Structure
(S)
Technology
(Te)
People
(P)
T-S
(1)
T-P
(2)
Te-P
(3)
S-Te
(4)
S-P
(5)
T-Te
(6)

Lai et al. (2012) � � �
Tseng and Huang (2011) � � �
Mearns (2012) � � � � � �
Wang and Wang (2012) � � � � � �
Sub total 6 11 5 14 3 5 4 3 11 2

Human Resource Development International
Kubo (2001) �
Shelton (2001) �
Clark (2002) � � �
Iles and Yolles (2002) � � �
Pedler (2002) � � � � � �
Iles (2003) �
Keursten and van der Klink
(2003) �
Tillema (2005) � � �
Liu et al. (2006) �
Tillema (2006) � � � � � �
Johnson et al. (2007) � � � � � �
Wiessner (2008) �
Sub total 4 8 2 7 2 3 1 0 4 2

Information Systems Journal
Braganza et al. (2009) �
Yoo et al. (2007) � � � � �
Bélanger and Allport (2008) � � �
Staples and Webster (2008) � � �
Mueller et al. (2011) � �
Sub total 1 1 4 4 0 1 2 1 0 0

Journal of Information Science
Mei et al. (2004) �
Widen-Wulff and Ginman
(2004) �
Willem et al. (2006) � � �
Hall and Goody (2007) � � �
Liao et al. (2007) � � �
Lin (2007) � � �
Choi et al. (2008) � � �
Lin et al. (2009) � � � � � �
Suh and Shin (2010) �
Wang and Ko (2012) � � � � � � � �
Sub total 1 5 4 8 1 1 2 4 4 1

Journal of Information Technology
Hislop (2002) �
Breu and Hemingway (2004) �
Huysman and Wulf (2006) � � �

(continued)
EJTD
39,9

778

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Table I.
Task
(T)
Structure
(S)
Technology
(Te)
People
(P)
T-S
(1)
T-P
(2)
Te-P
(3)
S-Te
(4)
S-P
(5)
T-Te
(6)

Whelan (2007) � � �
Sub total 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

Journal of Management
Fey and Birkinshaw (2005) � � �
Matusik and Heeley, 2005 � � �
Schulze and Hoegl, 2006 � � �
Wang et al. (2008) � �
Wong et al. (2008) � � �
Yang et al. (2008) � � �
Zhang and Baden-Fuller
(2010) � � �
Gong et al. (2012) �
Sub total 5 4 0 6 3 1 0 0 2 0

MIS Quarterly
Majchrzak et al. (2000) � � �
Malhotra et al. (2005) � � � � � �
Markus et al. (2002) � � �
Massey et al. (2002) � � � � � �
Bock et al. (2005) �
Garud and Kumaraswamy
(2005) � � � � � �
Kankanhalli et al. (2005) � � � � � �
Ko et al. (2005) � � �
Wasko and Faraj (2005) � � � � � �
Choi et al. (2010) � � �
Sub total 0 7 9 8 0 0 7 7 5 0

Organization Science
Osterloh and Frey (2000) �
Almeida et al. (2002) �
Birkinshaw et al. (2002) �
Hansen (2002) �
Tsai (2002) � � �
Bechky (2003) �
Owen-Smith and Powell (2004) � � �
Szulanski et al. (2004) �
Levine and Prietula (2012) �
Li et al. (2012) �
Tortoriello et al. (2012) �
Sub total 0 6 1 6 0 0 0 1 1 0

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Argote and Ingram (2000) � � � � � �
Darr and Kurtzberg (2000) � � � � � �
Szulanski (2000) � � � �
Alge et al. (2003) � � � � � �

(continued)

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Technology
Of the 133 articles, 49 articles (37 per cent) covered technology as a tool for knowledge
sharing in terms of how to apply specific technologies to support diverse knowledge
sharing activities. For instance, knowledge management systems (Ardichvili, 2009; Mei
et al., 2004; Ting et al., 2010) and enterprise systems (Choi et al., 2010) have been used as
powerful tools to create environments for knowledge sharing. In addition, diverse types

Table I.
Task
(T)
Structure
(S)
Technology
(Te)
People
(P)
T-S
(1)
T-P
(2)
Te-P
(3)
S-Te
(4)
S-P
(5)
T-Te
(6)

Kane et al. (2005) � � �
Lewis et al. (2007) � � �
van Ginkel and van
Knippenberg (2009) � � �
Steinel et al. (2010) �
Mesmer-Magnus et al. (2011) � � �
Sung and Choi (2012) � � � � � �
Sub total 7 3 3 10 2 7 3 0 3 2

Strategic Management Journal
Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) � � � � � �
Gupta and Govindaraja (2000) � � �
Subramaniam and
Venkatraman (2001) � � �
Yli-Renko et al. (2001) �
Tsang (2002) � � �
Uzzi and Gillespie (2002) � � �
Kotabe et al. (2003) � � � � � �
Spencer (2003) � � � � � �
Almeida and Phene (2004) � � � � � �
Argyres and Silverman (2004) � � � � � �
Feinberg and Gupta (2004) � � �
Oxley and Sampson (2004) � � � � � �
Haas and Hansen (2005) � � �
Tanriverdi and Venkatraman
(2005) � � � � � �
Dyer and Hatch (2006) � � � � � �
Szulanski and Jensen (2006) � � �
Haas and Hansen (2007) � � �
Williams (2007) � � �
Fey and Furu (2008) � � �
Zhao and Anand (2009) � � � � � �
Li et al. (2010) � � � � � �
Zhou and Li (2012) � � � � � �
Sub total 18 16 6 14 13 9 0 6 9 6
Total 49 79 49 97 30 31 27 30 48 15

Notes: T (task), S (structure), Te (technology) and P (people); the numbers in parentheses mean
interactions in Figure 1; for example, T-S (1) is Interaction 1 between task and structure. Te-P (3) refers
to Interaction 3 between technology and people

EJTD
39,9

780

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

of technology have been adopted to support knowledge sharing such as group ware,
Web 2.0 and Wikipedia (Bélanger and Allport, 2008; Breu and Hemingway, 2004;
Majchrzak et al., 2000; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011; Tseng and Huang, 2011).

People
The people factor is the most frequently covered topic in all of the articles (72 per cent, 97
out of 133 articles). In most cases, the researchers discussed the individual and team
characteristics influencing knowledge sharing. For example, motivation is an important
component in enhancing knowledge sharing (Lin, 2007; Osterloh and Frey, 2000;
Reinholt et al., 2011; Steinel et al., 2010). Leadership and trust have also been found to
have a positive influence on knowledge sharing between teams (Srivastava et al., 2006;
Staples and Webster, 2008; Szulanski et al., 2004). Collaboration, decision-making,
proactivity, team creativity and ties were people factors influencing knowledge sharing
(Gong et al., 2012; Mearns, 2012; Sung and Choi, 2012; Tortoriello et al., 2012; van Ginkel
and van Knippenberg, 2009).

We explored how articles about knowledge sharing have covered key factors
influencing organizational change including task, structure, technology and people.
Among 133 articles, 97 articles (72 per cent) discussed the important aspects of people,
and 79 articles (59 per cent) emphasized the influential role of organizational structure,
policy and management in knowledge sharing. Task and technology components were
emphasized in 49 articles. The people element is the most important factor influencing
knowledge sharing for organizational change, followed by structure, task and
technology (Figure 2). This finding indicated that people and structure elements play an
important role in knowledge sharing, which implies the influence of organizational
culture (related to people and organizational structures) on knowledge sharing.

Interactions
In addition to the four elements of the organizational change model (Leavitt, 1965), we
also reviewed the interactive relationships among them based on identified components
in given contexts from each article. As we stated, interactions in this study means
multi-component changes influencing knowledge sharing. For example, if the
technology changes in an organization, the other three components adjust to maximize
the impact of the technology change (e.g. new technology adoption and innovation).

Structure
Technology
People

Task 4949

79
97

Figure 2.
Comparison of total

frequency of the four
components

781

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

Almost 82 per cent of the reviewed articles (110 articles) covered more than two factors,
while only 18 per cent (24 articles) focused on only one factor (e.g. people or structure).
As seen in Figures 1 and 3, the interactions between structure and people (Interaction 5)
showed the highest frequency (48 articles) followed by interactions between task and
people (Interaction 2; 31 articles), between task and structure (Interaction 1; 30 articles)
and between structure and technology (Interaction 4; 30 articles). Interactions between
task and technology (Interaction 6) presented the lowest frequency (15 articles) followed
by interactions between technology and people (Interaction 3; 27 articles). For example,
“27 articles addressed Interaction 3” means that 27 articles emphasized that both
technology and people aspects are influential factors affecting knowledge and the arrow
presenting technology-people relationships works in both directions for knowledge
sharing (Figure 1) .

As seen in Figure 3, interactions between structure and people (Interaction 5) have
been emphasized in knowledge sharing throughout the years. Specifically, among

articles covered, Interactions 5, 17 articles published between 2009 and 2012 have a
largest portion among other interactions. However, interactions between task and
technology (Interaction 6) have not been discussed much, comparing other interactions
in knowledge sharing for organizational change. Again, the findings confirmed the
importance of people and structures in knowledge sharing and implied the role of
organizational culture in knowledge sharing for organizational change.

In addition, journals in this study addressed the relationships between the four
elements and knowledge sharing from their unique perspectives mostly reflecting the
features of each journal. As expected, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes discussed focused on people in knowledge sharing. MIS Quarterly attempted
to cover both technology and people in knowledge sharing, especially in the virtual team
context. However, Expert Systems with Application focused less on technology than we
expected and paid more attention to structure and people. Strategic Management
Journal discussed task, but there has been little discussion about task in Organization
Science and MIS Quarterly.

Change context
Our analysis revealed that of the 133 articles, 83 articles (62 per cent) explicitly
addressed the contexts of organizational change. Given the variety of organizational

0 10 20 30 40 50

Inter 1

Inter 2

Inter 3

Inter 4

Inter 5

Inter 6

2000-2003 2004-2007 2009-2012

15
48

30
Figure 3.
Comparison of
Interactions 1-6

EJTD
39,9

782

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

change, we attempted to differentiate them into several types. The types of
organizational change addressed in the articles were grouped as follows:

• organizational structural change by inter organizational alliances and mergers
and acquisitions;

• strategic changes for innovations;
• research and development initiatives, particularly followed by new product

development; and
• new system and/or technology adoption and implementation.

Among the types of organizational change contexts in our review, technology was the
most frequently covered organizational change topic in the articles (33), followed by
R&D initiatives (21), inter-organizational alliances (16) and strategy innovation (13). In
addition, most of the studies of new technology adoption and implementations were
found to be major trends in articles published in the early 2000s, from 2000 to 2005, while
most articles emphasizing strategic innovations were presented in the late 2000s. In
addition, several organizational change contexts were found to have more than one
change context in nature. For example, when intra-organizational alliances occurred,
then other changes such as strategic changes and system changes followed accordingly.

To cope with and complete the changes in both parties, organizations implemented
organizational restructuring such as re-arranging organizational units and integrating
technological systems accompanied by alterations in the way work was done,
communication patterns, norms of working together and problem-solving processes
including knowledge sharing practices among people. (Almeida et al., 2004; Li et al.,
2012; Oxley and Sampson, 2004).

This finding supports Nadler’s (1981) assertion that major changes require not only
changes in strategy and the nature of the work to be done but also alterations in
structures, people, processes and others. Changes may be prompted by environmental
variations, strategic shifts, the introduction of new technologies, changing employee
characteristics and others. However, changes interact with other elements of
organizations such as the people in them and result in diverse outcomes.

Discussion
This study attempted to increase our understanding of knowledge sharing within the
context of organizational change by reviewing the extant literature based on an
organizational change model including task, structure, technology and people (with a
contingency approach).

First, the findings indicate that people factor is the most salient component for
knowledge sharing followed by the structure factor, among other components of the
organizational change model (Figure 2). For the people element, employees’ proactive
behaviors, relationships and networks with other people, motivation, leadership and
trust play an important role in facilitating and fostering knowledge sharing (Gong et al.,
2012; Hansen, 2002; Reinholt et al., 2011; Szulanski et al., 2004; Tortoriello et al., 2012). In
particular, communication among colleagues, teams and different units is fundamental
to establishing channels and networks for knowledge sharing (Bechky, 2003; Ko et al.,
2005; Mei et al., 2004). These findings are in line with other studies, in that knowledge

783

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

sharing is a process of communication between the parties of knowledge seeking and
providing entities (Cabrera et al., 2006; Wang and Noe, 2010).

Second, the reviewed articles revealed that interactions between structure and people
could have a synergy effect on knowledge sharing. In an organizational change context
(e.g. innovation strategy adoption), structure (top management value) and people
(employee competencies) are positively related to knowledge sharing which improves
organizational performance (Hsu, 2008). Structure-related elements in the articles
emphasized how to create supportive environments and policies for knowledge sharing.
Organizational structure characteristics such as the level of formalization and
centralization were also found to influence systemic work procedures and decision
making that is related to knowledge sharing (Argyres and Silverman, 2004; Lin, 2008a).
Given that structures for knowledge transfers and individual absorptive abilities
contributed to knowledge creation resulting in company knowledge (Matusik and
Heeley, 2005), we assert that people factors (e.g. ability, intention, motivation and trust)
should be considered and structure factors (e.g. organizational system and
management) should be designed to support people factors so that the two factors play
an intertwined role in successful knowledge sharing.

Third, evidence from the research suggests that organizations need to cultivate an
organizational culture that encourages knowledge-sharing practices in times of planned
and unplanned changes in organizations. Given that organizational culture has been
noted as a major factor that determines knowledge sharing practices in the literature
(Park et al., 2004; Wang et al., 2014), we suggest that it is imperative to include
organizational culture as another component of the model of organizational change,
particularly associated with knowledge sharing. As shown in our review, technology
and systems that capture, store and improve access to knowledge should be
accompanied by a favorable environment to support, energize, mobilize and enable
people at all levels to the best utilize the company’s available resources (Evans, 2003). By
implying the positive effects of organizational culture on knowledge sharing that leads
to an improvement in organization performance, these findings draw the attention to
organization theory and are especially concerned with the interplay between the
creation and exchange of knowledge, and how to align the development of
organizational forms with social relationships when knowledge sharing activities take
place.

Finally, the results also reveal the implications for adopting a contingency approach
of organizational change and knowledge sharing. The effects of changes on shaping and
determining knowledge sharing practices in organizations are contingent upon the
types or the degree of interplay of change components. Considering that the types of
organizational changes and their impact on knowledge sharing were found to be
complicated, it is reasonable to take a contingency framework for strategy formulation
and other managerial practices for further studies.

These findings, with the contingency perspective of organizational change, advance
current research on organizational change and knowledge sharing in several ways.
First, the present study contributes to the organizational change literature by showing
that the type to which organizational changes interact with others may have important
implications for the factors that enable knowledge sharing. In doing so, this study
bridges the organizational change and knowledge sharing literature that have tended to
evolve on separate streams. The literature on organizational change has not accounted

EJTD
39,9

784

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

for the knowledge sharing context in which organizations are embedded, and the
knowledge sharing literature has tended to neglect planned and unplanned change
dynamics. By demonstrating that the effect of interaction on change adoption is
contingent on the type to which organizational change initiatives influence the
phenomenon of knowledge sharing, this study paves the way for a new direction in
research on organizational change.

Second, this study attempted to illuminate how knowledge sharing has been
explored through the lens of four elements in organizational change and the interactions
between the elements. By identifying distinctive factors influencing knowledge sharing
based on the model, this study provides fundamental insights to understand the
importance of the four elements in knowledge sharing (particularly the people and
structure elements) and the roles and contribution of knowledge sharing with
organizational change. The approach of this study can be compared with previous
knowledge sharing literature which tended to collectively address an impressive
number of potential organizational antecedents of knowledge sharing. Also, by
examining how knowledge sharing studies have addressed the four change factors and
multi-component changes, this study explains one change in knowledge sharing leads to
multi-component changes.

Third, this study attempted to expand the use of Leavitt’s (1965) model by applying
interactive relationships among the elements to knowledge sharing. Leavitt’s model has
been widely used to explain the relationships between information systems and
organizational change in the fields of information technology and management (Keen,
1981; Lyytinen and Newman, 2008; Markus and Robey, 1988). By comparing previous
research and adopting a contingency perspective, this study demonstrated another
application for Leavitt’s model to emphasize elements and their interactions affecting
knowledge sharing.

In addition to these theoretical contributions, our findings can advance strategic and
managerial practice by informing the planning and development of knowledge sharing
associated with change in organizations. A key question is how to identify the major
component of change which will trigger the other changes in the current architecture of
knowledge sharing in their organizations. Our study suggests that elements of structure
and people, when organization face either planned or unplanned change, are critical for
successful knowledge sharing by making the interactive connections with other
components of change. For example, when organizations plan to promote innovation
and organizational change, practitioners could consider people and structure elements
for knowledge sharing as interventions to prepare for resistance and negative responses
of the planned change. By emphasizing the dynamics and interactions between people
and structures, top management can lead other departments and teams to work together
before proceeding with the change to create a more conducive organizational climate for
supporting employees.

Organizations can also leverage the matching of change components to change
context by categorizing patterns of interactive relationship to recognize the flow of
knowledge sharing in times of organizational changes. By becoming aware of
facilitators of organizational changes such as adopting new technology and
inter-organizational alliances, organizations may be better suited to the type of change
they wish to introduce and thus further facilitating knowledge sharing in their
organizations. For example, when organizations adopt new technologies by introducing

785

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

and promoting best practices of aligning with the work processes and successful
knowledge sharing, organizations can support of creating an adaptive and contingent
culture of knowledge sharing to meet diverse types of changes in organizations.

Limitations and recommendations for future research
This study has several limitations. First, the basis of the current research was 133
articles published between 2000 and 2012 from 13 journals. However, the authors did not
identify the natures and the types of industries of the original research studies when
analyzing the articles (i.e. SMEs, MNCs etc.). To capture broader phenomena on
knowledge sharing in organizational change, multiple data sources and a variety of
journals with a longer timeframe should be collected. Second, the study used Leavitt’s
organizational change model to understand the features of organizational change and
analyze the articles covering knowledge sharing by adopting a contingency approach.
However, this particular model is not exhaustive in identifying the dynamics of
organizational change and its impact on knowledge sharing in diverse organizations.
Accordingly, researchers could adopt different approaches to understand
organizational change (e.g. a critical approach) and explore additional components
influencing change in organizations (e.g. politics and societal change) in future studies.
The articles addressing the four elements and their interactions in organizational
change did not describe exactly what happens when one element changes. Considering
that Leavitt’s model emphasizes the interactions and mutual influence of all four
elements in organizational change, future research should discuss how one changed
element impacts other elements and how these changes influence knowledge sharing.
Also, future studies should identify the types of organizational change in knowledge
sharing and explain how much knowledge sharing contributes to different types of
organizational change.

Third, the nature of knowledge (tacit and explicit) should be considered in an
organizational change context. When people share their knowledge in different contexts,
tacit and explicit knowledge could be identified and explained according to the purposes and
sources. Finally, organizational culture could be included as a critical factor influencing
knowledge sharing in change contexts. By adding an interactive relationship between
culture and other factors (e.g. task, structure, technology and people), a new model for
knowledge sharing could be proposed to explain different dynamics in organizational
change. In addition, quantitative approaches could be adopted to examine the impact of the
four change components on knowledge sharing. Based on reviewing empirical studies, effect
sizes would be discussed to quantify and describe the strength, direction of the relationships
between the four components and knowledge sharing.

The contributions of this study are that it provides an integrative review in selected
journals of knowledge sharing in terms of organizational change. By examining how
knowledge sharing studies have addressed the four change factors and multi-component
changes, this study explains one change in knowledge sharing leads to multi-component
changes. Additional contribution is that it makes connections between knowledge sharing
and organizational change. Knowledge sharing can contribute to problem solving,
development, innovation and improvement of ideas, products or procedures which may
facilitate organizational change (Cummings, 2004). The processes and outcomes of
knowledge sharing are influenced by task, structure, technology, people or different
combinations of them, which are critical factors leading changes.

EJTD
39,9

786

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

References
Ahn, Y., Park, S. and Jung, J. (2009), “A case study on knowledge management of Busan

metropolitan city”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 388-398.
Akdere, M. (2009), “The role of knowledge management in quality management practices:

achieving performance excellence in organizations”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 349-361.

Alge, B.J., Wiethoff, C. and Klein, H.J. (2003), “When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building
experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Almeida, P. and Phene, A. (2004), “Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: the influence of the MNC
and host country on innovation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 847-864.

Almeida, P., Song, J. and Grant, R.M. (2004), “Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An
empirical test of cross-border knowledge building”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 147-161.

Amis, J., Slack, T. and Hinings, C.R. (2004), “The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 15-39.

Ardichvili, A. (2002), “Knowledge management, human resource development, and internet
technology”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 451-463.

Ardichvili, A. (2008), “Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice:
motivators, barriers, and enablers”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 541-554.

Ardichvili, A. and Yoon, S.W. (2009), “Designing integrative knowledge management systems:
theoretical considerations and practical applications”, Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 307-319.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in
firms”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.

Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagan, R. (2003), “Managing knowledge in organizations: an
integrative framework and review of emerging themes”, Management Science, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 571-582.

Argyres, N.S. and Silverman, B.S. (2004), “R&D, organization structure, and the development of
corporate technological knowledge”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 Nos 8/9,
pp. 929-958.

Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008), “Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 1139-1160.

Battilana, J. and Casciaro, T. (2012), “Change agents, networks, and institutions: a contingency
theory of organizational change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 381-398.

Bechky, B.A. (2003), “Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of
understanding on a production floor”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 312-330.

Bélanger, F. and Allport, C.D. (2008), “Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: an
exploratory study”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 101-112.

Bennett, E.E. (2009), “Virtual HRD: the intersection of knowledge management, culture, and
intranets”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 362-374.

Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. and Ridderstråle, J. (2002), “Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the
characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure?”, Organization Science, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 274-289.

787

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.388

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726708094863&isi=000258709600005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famj.2009.0891&isi=000303443700007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.13.2.147.534&isi=000175114000003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F20159558&isi=000220201900002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.14.3.312.15162&isi=000183365400006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F152342202237522

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2575.2007.00252.x&isi=000253424700006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422308319536

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309339724

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fobhd.2000.2893&isi=000086769800011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309338591

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.13.3.274.2778&isi=000175510900005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309337593

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.49.4.571.14424&isi=000182677200016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309338575

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0749-5978%2802%2900524-1&isi=000182437100003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.387&isi=000223115800011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0749-5978%2802%2900524-1&isi=000182437100003

Blankenship, S.S. and Ruona, W.E.A. (2009), “Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures:
potential contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 290-306.

Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Braganza, A., Hackney, R. and Tanudjojo, S. (2009), “Organizational knowledge transfer through
creation, mobilization and diffusion: a case analysis of InTouch within Schlumberger”,
Information Systems Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 499-522.

Breu, K. and Hemingway, C.J. (2004), “Making organisations virtual: the hidden cost of distributed
teams”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 191-202.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), “Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 245-264.

Cawsey, T.F., Deszca, G. and Ingols, C.A. (2011), Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented
Toolkit, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Chen, C.J. and Huang, J.W. (2007), “How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge
management: the social interaction perspective”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 27, pp. 104-118.

Choi, S.Y., Kang, Y.S. and Lee, H. (2008), “The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge
sharing: an exploratory examination”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 742-754.

Choi, S.Y., Lee, H. and Yoo, Y. (2010), “The impact of information technology and transactive
memory systems on k knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: a field
study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 855-870.

Clark, E. and Geppert, M. (2002), “Management learning and knowledge transfer in transforming
societies: approaches, issues and future directions”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 263-277.

Collins, C.J. and 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, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.

Conley, C.A. and Zheng, W. (2009), “Factors critical to knowledge management success”,
Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 334-348.

Cummings, J. (2004), “Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 352-364.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2005), Organizational Change and Development, 8th ed.,
Thomson, Manson, OH.

Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571.

Darr, E.D. and Kurtzberg, T.R.(2000), “An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on
knowledge transfer”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82
No. 1, pp. 28-44.

Du, R., Ai, S. and Ren, Y. (2007), “Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: a
survey in Xi’an, China”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 38-46.

Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2006), “Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge
transfers: creating advantage through network relationships”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 701-719.

EJTD
39,9

788

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2575.2007.00246.x&isi=000268927700004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.21794671&isi=000238370800007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jit.2000018&isi=000224407600004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309338159

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.1030.0134&isi=000220334200006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F09585190500404614&isi=000235279800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.32.5.554&isi=A1986C461400004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijinfomgt.2006.11.001&isi=000245486000004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551507087710&isi=000259309200009

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fobhd.2000.2885&isi=000086769800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2005.11.001&isi=000242836900004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000284086900011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309338578

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000227199900005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.543&isi=000239228400001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860210142137

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.543&isi=000239228400001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860210142137

Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), “Creating and managing a high-performance
knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 345-367.

Egelhoff, W.G. (1991), “Information-processing theory and the multinational enterprise”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 341-367.

Evans, C. (2003), Managing for Knowledge: HR’s Strategic Role, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Amsterdam.

Feinberg, S.E. and Gupta, A.K. (2004), “Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D
responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 Nos 8/9,
pp. 823-845.

Fey, C.F. and Birkinshaw, J. (2005), “External sources of knowledge, governance mode, and R&D
performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 597-621.

Fey, C.F. and Furu, P. (2008), “Top management incentive compensation and knowledge sharing
in multinational corporations”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 12,
pp. 1301-1323.

Foss, N.J., Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2010), “Governing knowledge sharing in organizations:
level of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 455-482.

Frank, K.A., Penuel, W.R. and Krause, A. (2015), “What is a ‘good’ social network for policy
implementation? The flow of know-how for organizational change”, Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 378-402.

Garud, R. and Kumaraswamy, A. (2005), “Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of
knowledge: the case of Infosys Technologies”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 9-33.

Ghosh, R., Kim, M., Kim, S. and Callahan, J.L. (2014), “Examining the dominant, emerging, and
waning themes featured in select HRD publications: is it time to redefine HRD?”, European
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 302-322.

Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Gong, Y., Cheung, S.Y. and Wang, M. (2012), “Unfolding the proactive process for creativity
integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety
perspectives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1611-1633.

Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 109-122.

Grover, V. and Davenport, T.H. (2001), “General perspectives on knowledge management:
fostering a research agenda”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 5-21.

Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge flows within multinational corporations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 473-496.

Haas, M.R. and Hansen, M.T. (2005), “When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of
organizational capabilities in a management consulting company”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-24.

Haas, M.R. and Hansen, M.T. (2007), “Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a
productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 11, pp. 1133-1153.

Hall, H. (2001), “Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets”, Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 139-146.

789

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291097-0266%28200003%2921%3A3%3C345%3A%3AAID-SMJ96%3E3.0.CO%3B2-N&isi=000085900800008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.631&isi=000250389600004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000227199900002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.631&isi=000250389600004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F016555150102700303&isi=000169828600003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEJTD-02-2013-0012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490306&isi=A1991GJ35600001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F016555150102700303&isi=000169828600003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEJTD-02-2013-0012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490306&isi=A1991GJ35600001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000169621900008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.396&isi=000223115800006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206310380250&isi=000306973300008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206304272346&isi=000230783600006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.4250171110&isi=A1996WK18900009

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000169621900002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.712&isi=000261310000003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291097-0266%28200004%2921%3A4%3C473%3A%3AAID-SMJ84%3E3.0.CO%3B2-I&isi=000086386100003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-6486.2009.00870.x&isi=000275334800005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.429&isi=000226033900001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpam.21817&isi=000351222000008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.429&isi=000226033900001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpam.21817&isi=000351222000008

Hall, H. and Goody, M. (2007), “KM, culture and compromise: interventions to promote knowledge
sharing supported by technology in corporate environments”, Journal of Information
Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 181-188.

Hansen, M.T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

Hansen, M.T. (2002), “Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit
companies”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 232-248.

Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001), “Organizational change as discourse: communicative
actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vo. 44 No. 4, pp. 775-778.

Hernandez, M. (2003), “Assessing tacit knowledge transfer and dimensions of a learning
environment in Colombian businesses”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 215-221.

Hislop, D. (2002), “Mission impossible? Communicating and sharing knowledge via information
technology”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-12.

Hong, D., Suh, E. and Koo, C. (2011), “Developing strategies for overcoming barriers to knowledge
sharing based on conversational knowledge management: a case study of a financial
company”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 38 No. 12, pp. 14417-14427.

Hsu, I.C. (2008), “Knowledge sharing practices as a facilitating factor for improving organizational
performance through human capital: a preliminary test”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1316-1326.

Hung, R.Y.Y., Lien, B.Y.H. and McLean, G.N. (2009), “Knowledge management initiatives,
organizational process alignment, social capital, and dynamic capabilities”, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 320-333.

Huysman, M. and Wulf, V. (2006), “IT to support knowledge sharing in communities towards a
social capital analysis”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 21, pp. 40-51.

Iles, P. and Yolles, M. (2002), “Across the great divide: HRD, technology translation, and
knowledge migration in bridging the knowledge gap between SMEs and Universities”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-53.

Iles, P. and Yolles, M. (2003), “International HRD alliances in viable knowledge migration and
development: the Czech academic link project”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 301-324.

Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.

Jeon, S.H., Kim, Y.G. and Koh, J. (2011), “Individual, social, and organizational contexts for active
knowledge sharing in communities of practice”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 38
No. 10, pp. 12423-12431.

Jeung, C.-W., Yoon, H.J., Park, S. and Jo, S.J. (2011), “The contributions of human resource
development research across disciplines: a citation and content analysis”, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 87-109.

Jo, S.J., Jeung, C.W., Park, S. and Yoon, H.J. (2009), “Who is citing whom: citation network analysis
among HRD publications from 1990 to 2007”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 503-537.

Johnson, T.E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D.L., Khalil, M.K. and Huang, X. (2007), “Measuring
sharedness of team-related knowledge: design and validation of a shared mental model
instrument”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 437-454.

Jones, M.C. (2005), “Tacit knowledge sharing during ERP implementation: a multi-site case
study”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 1-23.

EJTD
39,9

790

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2011.04.023&isi=000292169500046

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2011.04.072&isi=000295193400008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fhrdq.20062

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fhrdq.20023

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2007.08.012&isi=000257993700072

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309339908

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506070708&isi=000245923200005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860701723802

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309339908

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506070708&isi=000245923200005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.4018%2Firmj.2005040101

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jit.2000053&isi=000235515400003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2667032&isi=000079452100004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860110007184

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.13.3.232.2771&isi=000175510900003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860210122652

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMR.2005.15281445&isi=000225846000011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422303005002009

Kane, A.A., Argote, L. and Levine, J.M. (2005), “Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel
rotation: effects of social identity and knowledge quality”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 56-71.

Kang, J., Rhee, M. and Kang, K. (2010), “Revisiting knowledge transfer: effects of knowledge
characteristics on organizational effort for knowledge transfer”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 8155-8160.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.Y. and Kwok-Kee, W. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 113-143.

Keen, P.G.W. (1981), “Information systems and organizational change”, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 24-33.

Kelly, G.J. and Green, J. (1998), “The social nature of knowing: toward a sociocultural perspective
on conceptual change and knowledge construction”, in Guzzetti, B and Hynd, C. (Eds),
Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning
in a Complex World, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 145-182.

Keursten, P. and van der Klink, M. (2003), “Enabling knowledge creation: an emerging concept of
knowledge management”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 117-123.

Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), “The impact of organizational context and information technology on
employee knowledge-sharing capabilities”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 3,
pp. 370-385.

Ko, D.G., Kirsch, L.J. and King, W.R. (2005), “Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants
to clients in enterprise system implementations”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-85.

Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning”,
Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.

Kongpichayanond, P. (2009), “Knowledge management for sustained competitive advantage in
mergers and acquisitions”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 375-387.

Kotabe, M., Martin, X. and Domoto, H. (2003), “Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge
transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US and
Japanese automotive industries”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 293-316.

Kubo, I., Saka, A. and Pan, S. (2001), “Behind the scenes of knowledge sharing in a Japanese bank”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 465-485.

Lai, I.K.W., Tam, S.K.T. and Chan, M.F.S. (2012), “Knowledge cloud system for network
collaboration: a case study in medical service industry in China”, Expert Systems with
Application, Vol. 39 No. 15, pp. 12205-12212.

Lam, A. (2000), “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: an integrated
framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 487-513.

Law, C.C.H. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2008), “An empirical study of the effects of knowledge sharing and
learning behaviors on firm performance”, Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 2342-2349.

Leavitt, H.J. (1965), “Applied organizational change in industry: structural, technological and
humanistic approaches”, in March, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand McNally,
Chicago, IL, Vol. 27, pp. 1144-1170.

Leavitt, H.J., Dill, W.R. and Eyring, H.B. (1973), The Organizational World, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, New York, NY.

791

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860010025418

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1145%2F358527.358543&isi=A1981LB63000005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2012.04.057&isi=000306881200038

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860210166988

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0170840600213001&isi=000088800600001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2007.03.004&isi=000253521900012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1540-6210.2006.00595.x&isi=000238116200007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000227199900004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.7.5.502&isi=A1996WA60100004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2004.09.002&isi=000226455300004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1523422309339725

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2010.05.072&isi=000281339900086

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.297&isi=000181672800001

Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.

Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role
of trust in effective knowledge transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11,
pp. 1477-1490.

Levin, D., Lesser, E., Cross, R. and Abrams, L. (2002), “Trust and knowledge sharing: a critical
combination”, IBM Institute for knowledge-based organizations white paper.

Levine, S.S. and Prietula, M.J. (2012), “How knowledge transfer impacts performance: a multilevel
model of benefits and liabilities”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1748-1766.

Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B. and Keller, J. (2007), “Group cognition, membership change,
and performance: investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 159-178.

Li, D., Edend, L., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. and Garrett, R.P. (2012), “Governance in multilateral
R&D alliances”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1191-1210.

Li, J.J., Poppo, L. and Zhou, K.Z. (2010), “Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local
knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 349-370.

Liao, S.H., Fei, W.C. and Chen, C.C. (2007), “Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and
innovation capability: an empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries”,
Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 340-359.

Lin, H.F. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.

Lin, H.F., Lee, H.S. and Wang, D.W. (2009), “Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge
sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 25-44.

Lin, W.B. (2008a), “The exploration factors of affecting knowledge sharing – the case of Taiwan’s
high-tech industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 661-676.

Lin, W.B. (2008b), “The effect of knowledge sharing model”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 1508-1521.

Liu, Y., Pucel, D.J. and Bartlett, K.R. (2006), “Knowledge transfer practices in multinational
corporations in China’s information technology industry ”, Human Resource Development
International, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 529-552.

Lovelace, K. Shapiro, D.L. and Weingart, L.R. (2001), “Maximizing cross-functional new product
teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 779-793.

Lyytinen, K. and Newman, M. (2008), “Explaining information systems change: a punctuated
socio-technical change model”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 589-613.

Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L. and Ropponen, J. (1998), “Attention shaping and software risk: a
categorical analysis of four classical risk management approaches”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 233-255.

Majchrzak, A., Rice, R.E., Malhotra, A., King, N. and Ba, S. (2000), “Technology adaptation: the
case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 569-600.

Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and Sawy, O.A.E. (2005), “Absorptive capacity configurations in supply
chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 145-187.

EJTD
39,9

792

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069415&isi=000170711900011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fejis.2008.50

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.1110.0697&isi=000311328400012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fisre.9.3.233&isi=000076663800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2007.01.005&isi=000247795400001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fisre.9.3.233&isi=000076663800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3250948&isi=000173923600003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.1110.0671&isi=000306637100016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000227199900007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000275386700001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2007.07.038&isi=000257993700011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506070739&isi=000247264900007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2007.01.015&isi=000253238900072

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000183865800007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506068174&isi=000245923200002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860601032635

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.1030.0136&isi=000225126600002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860601032635

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551508091310&isi=000262371700002

Malnight, T.W. (2001), “Emerging structural patterns within multinational corporations: toward
process-based structures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 1187-1210.

Mansingh, G., Osei-Bryson, K.M. and Reichgelt, H. (2008), “Issues in knowledge access, retrieval
and sharing-Case studies in a Caribbean health sector”, Expert Systems with Application,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 2853-2863.

Markus, M.L. (2001), “Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations
and factors in reuse success”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 57-93.

Markus, L. and Robey, D. (1988), “The organizational validity of management information
systems”, Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 203-226.

Markus, M.L., Majchrzak, A. and Gasser, L. (2002), “A design theory for systems that support
emergent knowledge processes”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 179-212.

Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and O’Driscoll, T.M. (2002), “Knowledge management in
pursuit of performance: insights from Nortel Networks”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 269-289.

Matusik, S.F. and Heeley, M.B. (2005), “Absorptive capacity in the software industry: identifying
dimensions that affect knowledge and knowledge creation activities”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 549-572.

Mearns, M. (2012), “Knowing what knowledge to share: collaboration for community, research
and wildlife”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 9892-9898.

McEvily, S.K. Das, S. and McCabe, K. (2000), “Avoiding competence substitution through
knowledge sharing”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 294-311.

Mei, Y.M., Lee, S.T. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2004), “Formulating a communication strategy for
effective knowledge sharing”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 12-22.

Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., DeChurch, L.A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J. and Shuffler, M. (2011),
“A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 214-225.

Mueller, J., Hutter, K., Fueller, J. and Matzler, K. (2011), “Virtual worlds as knowledge management
platform – a practice-perspective”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 479-501.

Nadler, D.A. (1981), “Managing organizational change: an integrative perspective”, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 191-211.

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M. (1977), “A diagnostic model for organizational behavior”, in
Hackman, J.R., Lawler, E.E. III and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Perspectives in Behavior in
Organizations, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 85-100.

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M. (1989), “Organizational frame bending: principle for managing
reorientation”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 194-204.

Nebus, J. (2006), “Building collegial information networks: a theory of advice network generation”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 615-637.

Nidumolu, S.R. (1996), “A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives
on coordination in software-development projects”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 77-113.

Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms”,
Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-550.

Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W.W. (2004), “Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the
effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community”, Organization Science, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 5-21.

793

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F001872678303600301&isi=A1983QK17200001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2575.2010.00366.x&isi=000296066200002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F002188638101700205

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000177791000003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F002188638101700205

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F4132333&isi=000177791000006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAME.1989.4274738

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206304272293&isi=000230783600004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMR.2006.21318921&isi=000238379400008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2012.02.187&isi=000303281800140

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000086497800005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069396&isi=000173263500008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.11.5.538.15204&isi=000165494600005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551504041674&isi=000220549500003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2008.01.031&isi=000262178100029

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000169621900004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.1030.0054&isi=000220015600001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2011.03.002&isi=000291920100007

Oxley, J.E. and Sampson, R.C. (2004), “The scope and governance of international R&D alliances”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 Nos 8/9, pp. 723-749.

Park, H., Ribière, V. and Schulte, W.D. Jr. (2004), “Critical attributes of organizational culture that
promote knowledge management technology implementation success”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 106-117.

Pedler, M. (2002), “Accessing local knowledge: action learning and organizational learning in
Walsall”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 523-540.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.

Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), “Inter organizational collaboration and the
locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 116-145.

Pulakos, E.D., Dorsey, D.W. and Borman, W.C. (2003), “Hiring for knowledge-based competition”,
in Jackson, S.E., Hitt, M.A. and Denisi, A.S. (Eds), Managing Knowledge for Sustained
Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 155-176.

Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003), “Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of
cohesion and range”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 240-267.

Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T. and Foss, N.J. (2011), “Why a central network position isn’t enough: the
role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks”, The Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 6, pp. 1277-1297.

Ryu, S., Ho, S.H. and Han, I. (2003), “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals”,
Expert Systems with Application, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-122.

Sastry, M.A. (1997), “Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 237-275.

Schulze, A. and Hoegl, M. (2006), “Knowledge creation in new product development projects”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 210-236.

Shelton, R. (2001), “Helping a small business owner to share knowledge”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 429-450.

Sparrowe, R.T. Liden, R.C. Wayne, S.J. and Kraimer, M.L. (2001), “Social networks and the
performance of individuals and groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 316-325.

Spencer, J.W. (2003), “Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system:
empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 217-233.

Smith, K.G., Collins, C.J. and Clark, K.D. (2005), “Existing knowledge, knowledge creation
capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms”, The
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 346-357.

Sousa, M.J., Cascais, T. and Rodrigues, J.P. (2015), “Action research study on individual
knowledge use in organizational innovation processes”, in Rocha, A., Correia, A.M.,
Costanzo, S. and Reis, L.P. (Eds), New Contributions in Information Systems and
Technologies, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 75-82.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.

EJTD
39,9

794

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.23478718&isi=000243497600010

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0957-4174%2803%2900011-3&isi=000182636000010

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.391&isi=000223115800002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2006.23478718&isi=000243497600010

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2393920&isi=A1997XQ02800002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F13673270410541079

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206305280102&isi=000236302400002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860110061732

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630002600307&isi=000088751800006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860127226

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2393988&isi=A1996UM25300005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069458&isi=000168240400008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.290&isi=000180929000002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2005.16928421&isi=000229000800010

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3556658&isi=000187529600003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2005.16928421&isi=000229000800010

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-3-319-16528-8_8

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famj.2009.0007&isi=000299021400012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-3-319-16528-8_8

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famj.2009.0007&isi=000299021400012

Staples, D.S. and Webster, J. (2008), “Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and
virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 617-640.

Steinel, W., Utz, S. and Koning, L. (2010), “The good, the bad and the ugly thing to do when sharing
information: revealing, concealing and lying depend on social motivation, distribution and
importance of information”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 85-96.

Subramaniam, M. and Venkatraman, N. (2001), “Determinants of transnational new product
development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas
knowledge”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 359-378.

Suh, A. and Shin, K.S. (2010), “Exploring the effects of online social ties on knowledge sharing: a
comparative analysis of collocated vs dispersed teams”, Journal of Information Science,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-463.

Sun, J. and Wang, G.G. (2013), “How is HRD doing in research and publications? An assessment of
journals by AHRD (2005-2011)”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 37
No. 8, pp. 696-712.

Sung, S.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2012), “Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and
financial performance of organizational teams”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 4-13.

Szulanski, G. (2000), “The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27.

Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. and Jensen, R.J. (2004), “When and how trustworthiness matters:
knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity”, Organization Science,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 600-613.

Szulanski, G. and Jensen, R.J. (2006), “Presumptive adaptation and the effectiveness of knowledge
transfer”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 10, pp. 937-957.

Tallman, S. Jenkins, M., Henry, N. and Pinch, S. (2004), “Knowledge, clusters, and competitive
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 258-271.

Tanriverdi, H. and Venkatraman, N. (2005), “Knowledge relatedness and the performance of
multibusiness firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 97-119.

Tasi, W. (2001), “Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position
and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 996-1004.

Teece, D.J. (2001), “Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and
industrial context”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, pp. 35-54.

Tichy, N.M. (1983), Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political, and Cultural Dynamics,
Wiley, New York, NY.

Tillema, H. (2005), “Collaborative knowledge construction in study teams of professionals”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 81-99.

Tillema, H.H. (2006), “Authenticity in knowledge-productive learning: what drives knowledge
construction in collaborative inquiry?”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 173-190.

Ting, S.L., Kwok, S.K., Tsang, A.H.C. and Lee, W.B. (2010), “CASESIAN: a knowledge-based
system using statistical and experiential perspectives for improving the knowledge sharing
in the medical prescription process”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 7,
pp. 5336-5346.

795

Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1367886042000338263

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.1040.0096&isi=000224279600007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860500523122

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2010.01.023&isi=000277726300072

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.551&isi=000240778800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2575.2007.00244.x&isi=000259945800004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000220575500006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2010.07.001&isi=000283971300002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.435&isi=000226259700001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.163&isi=000167806100004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069443&isi=000171698400006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551510369632&isi=000280703400002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069443&isi=000171698400006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0024-6301%2899%2900117-X&isi=000088261700003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEJTD-03-2013-0031

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2012.01.001&isi=000303185000001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fobhd.2000.2884&isi=000086769800002

Tortoriello, M., Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2012), “Bridging the knowledge gap: the influence of
strong ties, network cohesion, and network range on the transfer of knowledge between
organizational units”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1024-1039.

Tsai, M.T. and Cheng, N.C. (2010), “Programmer perceptions of knowledge-sharing behavior
under social cognitive theory”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12,
pp. 8479-8485.

Tsai, W. (2002), “Social structure of ‘competition’ within a multiunit organization: coordination,
competition, and inter-organizational knowledge sharing”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 179-190.

Tsang, E.W.K. (2002), “Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint
ventures in a transition economy: learning-by-doing and learning myopia”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 835-854.

Tseng, S.M. and Huang, J.S. (2011), “The correlation between Wikipedia and knowledge sharing
on job performance”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 6118-6124.

Turner, K.L. and Makhija, M.V. (2006), “The role of organizational controls in managing
knowledge”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 197-217.

Uzzi, B. and Gillespie, J.J. (2002), “Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks:
embeddedness and the firm’s debt performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23
No. 7, pp. 595-618.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995), “Explaining development and change in organizations”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-540.

van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2009), “Knowledge about the distribution of
information and group decision making: when and why does it work?”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 218-229.

Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-139.

Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.

Wang, S., Noe, R.A. and Wang, Z. (2014), “Motivating knowledge sharing in knowledge
management systems: a quasi-field experiment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 978-1009.

Wang, S., Tong, T.W., Chen, G. and Kim, H. (2008), “Expatriate utilization and foreign direct
investment performance: the mediating role of knowledge transfer”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1181-1206.

Wang, Z. and Wang, N. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert
Systems with Application, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 8899-8908.

Wang, W.T. and Ko, N.Y. (2012), “Knowledge sharing practices of project teams when
encountering changes in project scope: a contingency approach”, Journal of Information
Science, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 423-441.

Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.

Weisbord, M.R. (1976), “Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble with or without a
theory”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 430-447.

Werner, S. (2002), “Recent developments in international management research: a review of 20 top
management journals”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pp. 277-305.

EJTD
39,9

796

D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2012.02.017&isi=000303281800043

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMR.2006.19379631&isi=000234471900012

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2012.02.017&isi=000303281800043

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551512445240&isi=000309578400002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.241&isi=000176246800002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551512445240&isi=000309578400002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000227199900003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F258786&isi=A1995RJ62200003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.1110.0688&isi=000306637100007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F105960117600100405

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.obhdp.2008.10.003&isi=000264655000004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3250981&isi=000087485700006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2010.05.029&isi=000281339900123

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3250981&isi=000087485700006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630202800303&isi=000177143800003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.hrmr.2009.10.001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.13.2.179.536&isi=000175114000005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206311412192&isi=000333815800002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.251&isi=000177493400004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206308328511&isi=000270289800004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.eswa.2010.11.009&isi=000287419900164

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206308328511&isi=000270289800004

Whelan, E. (2007), “Exploring knowledge exchange in electronic networks of practice”, Journal of
Information Technology, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 5-12.

Widén-Wulff, G. and Ginman, M. (2004), “Explaining knowledge sharing in organizations through
the dimensions of social capital”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 448-458.

Wiessner, C.A., Hatcher, T., Chapman, D. and Storberg-Walker, J. (2008), “Creating new learning
at professional conferences: an innovative approach to conference learning, knowledge
construction and programme evaluation”, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 367-383.

Willem, A. and Buelens, M. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: the
impact of organizational structure dimensions”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 151-160.

Willem, A., Buelens, M. and Scarbrough, H. (2006), “The role of inter-unit coordination
mechanisms in knowledge sharing: a case study of a British MNC”, Journal of Information
Science, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 539-561.

Williams, C. (2007), “Transfer in context: Replication and adaptation in knowledge transfer
relationships”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 867-889.

Wong, S.S., Ho, V.T. and Lee, C.H. (2008), “A power perspective to interunit knowledge transfer:
linking knowledge attributes to unit power and the transfer of knowledge”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-150.

Yang, Q., Mudambi, R. and Meyer, K.E. (2008), “Conventional and reverse knowledge flows in
multinational corporations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 882-902.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. and Sapienza, H. J. (2001), “Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and
knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 22 Nos 6/7, pp. 587-613.

Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K. and Heo, D. (2009), “Closing the gap: towards a process model of post-merger
knowledge sharing”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 321-347.

Zhang, J. and Baden-Fuller, C. (2010), “The influence of technological knowledge base and
organizational structure on technology collaboration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 679-704.

Zhao, Z.J. and Anand, J. (2009), “A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: evidence from the
Chinese automotive industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 959-983.

Zhou, K.Z. and Li, C.B. (2012), “How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base,
market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1090-1102.

Corresponding author
Eun-Jee Kim can be contacted at: ejkim1@kaist.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

797
Revisiting
knowledge
sharing
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d
by
L
ou
is
ia
na
S
ta
te
U
ni
ve
rs
it
y
A
t
17
:3
7
11
D
ec
em
be
r
20
15
(
P
T
)

mailto:ejkim1@kaist.ac.kr

mailto:permissions@emeraldinsight.com

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.780&isi=000268687100003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijinfomgt.2008.06.004&isi=000264728500009

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.1959&isi=000306279300006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506067128&isi=000243499800004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.1959&isi=000306279300006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551506067128&isi=000243499800004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.614&isi=000248625600001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206307308912&isi=000252609400006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0149206308321546&isi=000259400700002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.183&isi=000169356000006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jit.2000089&isi=000244750300003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0165551504046997&isi=000224678900006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1365-2575.2007.00248.x&isi=000249825100002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13678860802261488

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000276491600004

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Discussion Posts – 200 Words Each Question – APA Format – 100% Original Work ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now