Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design

• Author: Katrina Hosszu,Bo Zhang,Marylène Gagné,Christine Soo,Amy Wei Tian,Khee Seng Benjamin Ho
• Published date: 01 September 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2364
• Date: 01 September 2019

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The

role of motivating work design

Marylène Gagné

1

|Amy Wei Tian

2

|Christine Soo

3

|Bo Zhang

4

|

Khee Seng Benjamin Ho

5

|Katrina Hosszu

1

1

Future of Work Institute, Curtin University,

Perth, Western Australia, Australia

2

School of Management, Curtin Business

School, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia

3

Management and Organisations Discipline,

University of Western Australia Business

School, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia

4

School of Economics and Management,

Beijing University of Chemical Technology,

Beijing, China

5

Singapore Office, Great Place to Work,

Singapore, Singapore

Correspondence

Marylène Gagné, Future of Work Institute,

Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth,

WA, 6845, Australia.

Email: marylene.gagne@curtin.edu.au

Funding information

National Natural Science Foundation of China,

Grant/Award Number: NSFC71702116; Uni-

versity of Western Australia Business School,

Grant/Award Number: Business School

Research Development Award

Summary

Little research to date has focused on understanding employee motivation to share

and hide knowledge. Using self‐determination theory, we tested the premise that

knowledge sharing and hiding might be differentially motivated and that work design

characteristics might influence the motivation to share knowledge with colleagues. In

a panel survey of Australian knowledge workers and in a Chinese knowledge‐

intensive organization, we asked knowledge workers, using time‐lagged designs,

about perceptions of work design, motivation to share knowledge, and self‐

reported knowledge sharing and hiding behaviors. Results, largely replicated across

both samples, indicated that cognitive job demands and job autonomy were positively

related to future reports of knowledge‐sharing frequency and usefulness via autono-

mous motivation to share knowledge. Unexpectedly, task interdependence was pos-

itively related to the three forms of knowledge hiding (evasive and rationalized hiding,

and playing dumb) via external regulation to share knowledge. Implications for the

design of jobs that motivate knowledge sharing and demotivate knowledge hiding

are discussed.

KEYWORDS

knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, motivation, work design

1|INTRODUCTION

Today's organizations can gain competitive advantage from effective

knowledge management and organizational learning (Collins & Smith,

2006; Riege, 2005) as jobs are becoming more complex and require

problem solving and innovative thinking (Parker, 2014). Knowledge

management in organizations depends heavily on employee behav-

iors, such as how they acquire, store, process, and transmit knowl-

edge within the organization (Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006;

Park, Ribiere, & Schulte, 2004). Empirical studies have demonstrated

that knowledge sharing between employees is related to firm inno-

vation capability (e.g., new product development) across industries

and cultures (Camelo‐Ordaz, García‐Cruz, Sousa‐Ginel, & Valle‐

Cabrera, 2011; Lin, 2007).

Knowledge sharing is the “act of making knowledge available to

others within the organisation”and “involves some conscious action

on the part of the individual who possesses the knowledge”(Ipe,

2003, p. 341). Research has focused on two critical aspects of sharing:

the frequency at which colleagues share knowledge and the quality or

usefulness of the knowledge that is shared (Soo, Devinney, & Midgley,

2004; Swift & Virick, 2013), both of which we take into account in the

current research. Another perspective has enriched our understanding

of knowledge sharing by attempting to better understand why people

hide their knowledge. Knowledge hiding is “an intentional attempt by

an individual to withhold or conceal knowledge that has been

requested by another person”(Connelly, Zweig, Webster, &

Trougakos, 2012, p. 65). Strategies to intentionally hide knowledge

when solicited include being evasive (e.g., saying one will share but

Received: 11 December 2017 Revised: 1 March 2019 Accepted: 4 March 2019

DOI: 10.1002/job.2364

J Organ Behav. 2019;40:783–799. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 783

never doing it), playing dumb (i.e., pretending not to know something),

and rationalizing (e.g., giving a reason for not sharing knowledge;

Connelly et al., 2012), all of which are taken into account in the cur-

rent research. Knowledge hiding is not simply the absence of sharing.

People might not share knowledge because they are not aware of

others' need for the knowledge (Connelly et al., 2012). Intentionally

hiding knowledge, on the other hand, is an active and motivated form

of not sharing as it focuses specifically on instances where the actor is

solicited for his or her knowledge by coworkers.

The literature on knowledge sharing and hiding invariably mentions

the importance of people's motivations in the decision to share or

hide knowledge (Siemsen, Balasubramanian, & Roth, 2007). However,

Connelly et al. (2012) have argued that motivations for sharing and

hiding are likely to be different. The research presented herein verifies

this proposition by examining the different motives behind knowledge

sharing versus knowledge hiding. Based on calls to deepen the study

of knowledge‐sharing motivation, Gagné (2009) proposed a model

based on self‐determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), in

which it was proposed that types of motivation would differentially

relate to personal decisions to share knowledge with colleagues at

work. Connelly et al. (2012) similarly argue that people may have dif-

ferent motives to hide knowledge, while the social dilemma perspec-

tive (which puts people in a situation where they can individually

profit from being selfish, but with community and resource costs)

acknowledges that people may simultaneously hold reasons to share

(e.g., seeing the importance of it for the organization or for colleagues,

or being rewarded for sharing) and not to share (e.g., losing power

through holding unique knowledge; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Cress,

Kimmerle, & Hesse, 2006).

Responding to calls for research on the effect of different motiva-

tions on knowledge sharing (Gagné, 2009) and hiding (Connelly et al.,

2012), we tested whether different reasons (motivations) influence

knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. Furthermore, in the Gagné

(2009) model, it was argued that certain human resource (HR) prac-

tices, such as motivating work design, would influence knowledge‐

sharing motivation. In the research presented herein, we examined

the role of three job characteristics that are hypothesized to be partic-

ularly relevant to knowledge sharing and hiding, namely cognitive job

demands, task interdependence, and job autonomy. These work char-

acteristics are drawn out of the work of Morgeson and Humphrey

(2006) that respectively represent knowledge, social, and task aspects

of work that are likely to have positive effects on knowledge‐sharing

motivation (Gagné, 2009). This research is the first attempt, to our

knowledge, to test this part of the knowledge‐sharing motivation

model proposed by Gagné (2009), and hence provides insight into

how organizations can promote knowledge sharing and discourage

knowledge hiding through motivating work design.

This research aims to contribute to theoretical advancements in

the field of knowledge management by incorporating knowledge from

the motivation and work design literatures and through expanding the

application of SDT and work design theory to the field. Although

knowledge sharing and hiding are often viewed as opposite behaviors,

we emphasize that knowledge sharing and hiding behaviors are

motivated differentially (and mostly uncorrelated). That is, knowledge

sharing and hiding can be relatively independent behaviors that might

be enacted toward different people or toward the same people differ-

ently over time. It also aims to provide practical advice to organiza-

tions and managers by first comparing antecedents of knowledge

sharing and hiding, which can serve as interventions to either promote

more knowledge sharing behaviors (quantity and quality) or alterna-

tively discourage different forms of knowledge hiding. Second, by con-

sidering recent work design theory (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) to

look at work characteristics that are particularly relevant to knowledge

sharing and hiding, and by using SDT to explain how they would influ-

ence knowledge sharing and hiding, this research can potentially assist

organizations to better design jobs that would promote knowledge

exchange. Third, by examining whether knowledge sharing and hiding

are indeed differentially motivated, as was previously suggested but

not tested (Connelly et al., 2012), and by doing so through using the

full breadth of motivational regulations offered in SDT, this research

offers important managerial insights in terms of promoting or

devaluing specific types of motivation that encourage knowledge

sharing and discourage knowledge hiding.

1.1 |Knowledge‐sharing motivation

SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017) proposes different rea-

sons to engage in an activity, such as knowledge sharing, that reflect

the degree of self‐determination in a person. At its core, SDT proposes

intrinsic motivation and different forms of extrinsic motivation that

vary on the extent to which they are autonomously driven. In general,

research shows that the more autonomous forms of motivation yield

better behavioral and well‐being outcomes than less autonomous

forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This motivational framework

has been used in research focusing on different behaviors at different

levels of analysis (Vallerand, 1997), including the motivation for a

whole job (Gagné et al., 2015) to the motivation toward specific work

tasks (Fernet, 2011) and motivation at a daily level (Gagné, Ryan, &

Bargmann, 2003). In the research presented herein, we focused on

the different motivations to share and hide knowledge, a specific

work‐related behavior.

Intrinsic motivation, the most autonomous form of motivation, is

defined as engaging in an activity out of enjoyment and interest.

Because it is associated with high work performance and effort

(Gagné et al., 2015), Gagné (2009) hypothesized that this type of

motivation would yield high frequency of knowledge sharing, as

intrinsically motivated people would tend to spontaneously talk about

their work passionately, even when not solicited. This form of motiva-

tion would yield low levels of knowledge hiding for the same reason.

Identified regulation, an autonomous extrinsic form of motivation,

represents engagement in an activity out of personal meaning and

perceived importance. Because it is also highly related to work perfor-

mance and effort (Gagné et al., 2015), Gagné (2009) suggested that

this type of motivation would also be related to knowledge sharing.

Indeed, if an individual believed that sharing knowledge would

784 GAGNÉ ET AL.