Journal of Knowledge Management

Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use

J. Scott Holste Dail Fields

Article information:
To cite this document:
J. Scott Holste Dail Fields, (2010),"Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 128 140
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Downloaded on: 16 February 2015, At: 00:31 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 81 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6160 times since 2010*

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Gian Casimir, Karen Lee, Mark Loon, (2012),"Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 740-753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
Visvalingam Suppiah, Manjit Singh Sandhu, (2011),"Organisational culture's influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 Iss 3 pp. 462-477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111137439
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed, (2007),"Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
critical success factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp. 22-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 273599 []

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.

Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use

J. Scott Holste and Dail Fields

Abstract

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Purpose This study aims to explore the impact of affect-based and cognition-based trust of
co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge.
Design/methodology/approach The relationships were examined through data provided by a
sample of 202 professionals and managers in world headquarters of an international organization.

J. Scott Holste is Director,

Global Research
Department, Office of
Overseas Operations,
International Mission Board,
Richmond, Virginia, USA.
Dail Fields is a Professor in
the School of Global
Leadership and
Entrepreneurship, Regent
University, Virginia Beach,
Virginia, USA.

Findings The levels of both types of trust influence the extent to which staff members are willing to share
and use tacit knowledge. Affect-based trust has a significantly greater effect on the willingness to share
tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust plays a greater role in willingness to use tacit knowledge.
Research limitations/implications The data are cross-sectional and were also collected in one
organization. Future studies should consider longitudinal designs across multiple organizations.
Alternatively, archival information could be used to measure actual tacit knowledge sharing and use
among co-workers.
Practical implications The results indicate that both distinct types of trust are involved in decisions
affecting transfer and use of tacit knowledge. This suggests that knowledge management efforts may
need to include a finer grained view of the nature of the social networks impacting the knowledge
transfer and management process.
Originality/value Previous studies have not examined the differential effects of both affect-based and
cognition-based trust on employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.
Keywords Trust, Knowledge management
Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Received 15 September 2008

Revised 22 January 2009
Accepted 9 March 2009

PAGE 128

There is broad recognition that effective management of knowledge is essential to the

success of modern firms. Organizational leaders have reacted to this need by spending
nearly a trillion dollars annually to analyze, store, and retrieve knowledge (Lohr, 2002).
However, investments in technology primarily affect an organizations ability to accumulate
and recall knowledge that has been made explicit through codification or writing in the form
of documents, reports, white papers, catalogues, presentations, patents, formulas, etc.
Other knowledge in organizations is tacit in nature. This knowledge is highly personal and
difficult if not impossible to reduce to writing. If expressed at all, it frequently takes the
form of analogies, metaphors, stories, or personal strategies that reveal insight into the how
and why underlying an employees approach to tasks or problems (Blackler, 1995;
Blumentritt and Johnston, 1999; Choo, 1998, 2000; Collins, 1993; Narasimha, 2000; Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995; Zack, 1999a, b). In some professional organizations, much of the most
useful knowledge may be tacit in nature. Although critical to organizational decisions, tacit
knowledge is difficult to measure and has been infrequently studied (Brockmann and
Anthony, 1998). While technology may facilitate the storage of explicit knowledge, tacit
knowledge resides only in the minds of people and its availability and use depends upon
individual decisions and relationships (Cross and Baird, 2000; Fahey and Prusak, 1998;
Hinds and Pfeffer, 2001; Lucas, 2005).

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010, pp. 128-140, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673271011015615

The willingness of organizational members to share and use tacit knowledge may depend on
the extent that co-workers are trusted recipients and sources (Adler, 2002; De Long and Fahey,
2000; Gruber, 2000; Locke, 1999; Lucas, 2005; McAllister, 1995; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Scott, 2000; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). For example, Lucas (2005) found that interpersonal trust
between co-workers and reputation of co-workers had separate effects on employee
experiences in transferring knowledge within an organization. In a related study, Smedlund
(2008) has suggested that tacit knowledge transfer (sharing and use) is facilitated by a social
network within organizations characterized by ties based both on interpersonal relationships
and long-standing working relationships where reciprocity among co-workers is the norm.
Some previous studies have found that trust has a multi-faceted nature (Dasgupta, 1988;
Dasgupta and Serageldin, 2000; Lane, 1998; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Lewis and Weigert,
1985; McAllister, 1995). McAllister (1995) developed and tested empirically the
distinctiveness of two forms of trust:
1. affect-based trust, which is grounded in mutual care and concern between workers; and

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

2. cognition-based trust, which is grounded in co-worker reliability and competence.

Previous studies have examined the effects of alternative types of trust on general
knowledge transfer (Lucas, 2005) and organizational citizenship behaviors (McAllister,
1995). However, none has examined the differential effects of both affect-based and
cognition-based trust on employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge (Adler,
2002; Johannessen et al., 2001; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gruber, 2000; Locke, 1999).
This study adds to the literature about and practical understanding of the knowledge
transfer process by exploring the effects of both affect-based and cognition-based trust on
the willingness of employees to share and use tacit knowledge. By identifying and clarifying
the relationships among the different types of trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use, this
study endeavors to provide organizational leaders with empirically based information that is
helpful in facilitating the transfer and exchange of tacit knowledge among professional
employees (Smedlund, 2008).

Theoretical development
Explicit and tacit knowledge
In their review, Raub and Ruling (2001) have noted that the bulk of knowledge management
literature is concerned primarily with the role of information technology. Cook and Brown
(1999) have voiced specific concerns about information technologys preoccupation with
knowledge as an object to be possessed. Managers must also address the processes and
structures that encourage individuals and groups to share and use organizational
knowledge (Cross and Baird, 2000). Indeed, the preoccupation of organizations with
information technology for managing explicit knowledge may have led to neglect of the more
important and challenging task of facilitating the sharing and use of tacit forms of knowledge
(Johannessen et al., 2001).
Explicit knowledge is easily articulated or reduced to writing, is often impersonal and formal
in nature, and frequently takes the form of documents, reports, white papers, catalogues,
presentations, patents, formulas, etc. (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998;
Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Teece, 2001; Zack,
1999b). In contrast, tacit knowledge (e.g. abilities, developed skills, experience,
undocumented processes, gut-feelings, etc.) is highly personal and difficult to reduce
to writing. Tacit knowledge is rooted in an individuals experience and values (Nonaka and
Konno, 1998). This type of knowledge may play an important role in the strategic planning
performance of managers and professional staff (Bennett, 1998; Blattberg and Hoch, 1990;
Brockmann and Anthony, 1998).
Table I describes some specific characteristics of both explicit and tacit knowledge.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 129

Table I Descriptions and characteristics of explicit and tacit knowledge

Citation

Explicit knowledge

Athanassiou and Nigh (2000)

Choo (2000)

Clarke and Rollo (2001)

Davenport and Grover (2001)

Products, patents, code, databases, technical

drawings, tools, prototypes, audiovisuals,
operating procedures
Codified, formal, systematic, reports, manuals,
documents
Easily codified

Epstein (2000)

Data, instructions, simple factual information,

work progress, status

Haldin-Herrgard (2000)

Handbooks, lectures, databases, textbooks,

manuals, newsletters
Know-what, know-why, know-how, copyrights,
patents, trademarks

Meso and Smith (2000)

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Scott (2000)

Smith (2001)

Academic, know-what, print or electronic media,

manuals, mathematical expressions, copyrights,
patents

Wong and Radcliffe (2000)

Documents, blueprints, manuals, patents

Zack (1999b)

Mathematical formulas, training manuals,

product literature, computer software

Tacit knowledge
Transfer depends on the credibility of the
transferer and is most effectively achieved
through face-to-face interaction
Learned through observation and imitation;
shared through analogies, metaphors, and
stories
Experimental, intuitive, communicated through
face-to-face collaboration
Primarily transferred through direct interaction
between individuals
Big picture issues, company
information/rumors/gossip, needs, new ideas,
insight, intuition, problems, concerns, issues
Intuition, rule-of-thumb, gut feeling, personal
skill
Mental models, beliefs, persuasions, care-why
Transferred through face-to-face interaction,
observation, imitation, practice,
shared-experiences based on trust
Practical, action-oriented, know-how, resembles
intuition, mental models, values, beliefs,
perceptions, insights, assumptions. Exchanged
through knowledge fairs, learning communities,
study missions, tours, advisory boards, job
rotation
Rules-of-thumb, tricks of the trade, heuristics,
estimation and envisioning capability, physical
maneuvering, efficiency enhancing, image
formation and recognition, and handling of
human relationships
Shared through highly interactive conversation,
storytelling, shared experience

Tacit knowledge sharing and use

Face-to-face interaction often is the primary method for transferring tacit knowledge (Nonaka
and Takeuchi, 1995; Spender and Grant, 1996; Sweeney, 1996; Teece, 2000; Teece et al.,
1997). The levels of risk and uncertainty that are associated with tacit knowledge transfer are
reduced by trusting relationships (Foos et al., 2006). Some transfers of tacit knowledge are
formal, resulting from training events, or conferences, while others are more informal, resulting
from interdepartmental task forces, informal social networks and employee interactions
(Marquardt, 1996). Key to both formal and informal tacit knowledge transfer is the willingness
and capacity of individuals to share what they know and to use what they learn (Foos et al.,
2006; ODell et al., 1998; Szulanski, 1995, 1996). Barriers may arise that limit the transfer of
tacit knowledge (Lucas, 2005). These include coworker willingness to share and/or use tacit
knowledge, limited awareness of the tacit knowledge an individual possesses, difficulty in
expressing tacit knowledge that is tied to mental and/or physical action, and difficulty of
applying context-specific tacit knowledge in other contexts (Argote, 1999; Fahey and Prusak,
1998; Nidumolu et al., 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stenmark, 2000, 2002).
Sharing tacit knowledge may involve risks to an individual, such as loss of competitive
advantage over peers (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Stenmark, 2000, 2002). Likewise, use
of tacit knowledge may involve risks to an individual, such as a source providing incomplete
or having a questionable track record. In light of these risks, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)
developed a theoretical model linking trust and knowledge exchange, suggesting that trust
may be a multidimensional construct that includes distinct cognitive and affect/relationship
based components. Affect-based trust is grounded in relationships where the parties have

PAGE 130 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

care and concern for each other, value the intrinsic virtue of such relationships, and believe
that these sentiments are reciprocated (McAllister, 1995; Pennings and Woiceshyn, 1987).
On the other hand, cognition-based trust is based on another persons perceived
competence and reliability (McAllister, 1995).
Lucas (2005) found that both interpersonal trust and reputation of knowledge recipients and
sources explained variance in employee knowledge transfer. In this study, Lucas did not
distinguish between explicit and tacit knowledge, but the interpersonal trust measure used
is similar in nature to affect-based trust, while reputation is akin to cognition-based trust. The
empirical research of McAllister (1995) demonstrated that affect-based and
cognition-based trust each are distinct forms of interpersonal trust and were both related
to extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors directed at other individuals in an
organization. Thus both affect-based trust and cognition- based trust may contribute to
explanation of employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

H1.

Both affect-based and cognition-based trust in a co-worker will have positive

relationships with the willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.

Previous studies have shown that as individuals grow closer in their personal relationship to
one another, they are increasingly motivated to act in ways that benefit the other (Brann and
Foddy, 1988; Epstein, 2000; Fukuyama, 1995; Messick et al., 1983; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995; Organ, 1990). Several studies have highlighted the importance of trust developed
through close personal relationships. For example, Hansen (1999) found that in new product
development projects, strong personal ties were necessary for the transfer of tacit knowledge
between work units. Epstein (2000) found that individuals who were friends were more likely to
exchange personal and complex knowledge through face-to-face communication. These
previous studies suggest that willingness to share tacit organizational knowledge with another
co-worker is likely to be heavily influenced by affect-based connections. People often learn
tacit knowledge through close observation and interaction with someone who already
possesses that knowledge, as an apprentice learns his trade from a master craftsman.
As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) found in their study of Japanese companies, personal
relationships developed in the context of organizational retreats often resulted in the sharing
of tacit knowledge. In a separate study, Epstein (2000) found that personal relationships had
the greatest impact on the sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals. Foos et al. (2006)
also found that interpersonal trust among project team members was a significant predictor
of tacit knowledge transfer. These previous findings highlight the importance of affect-based
trust and led to our second study hypothesis:
H2.

Affect-based trust of a coworker will have a larger influence than cognition-based

trust on an employees willingness to share tacit knowledge.

A willingness to use tacit knowledge is likely based on an employees understanding of the

accuracy and validity of the knowledge (Auster and Choo, 1994; Choo, 1998; Szulanski,
1995, 1996). As Lucas (2005) points out, successful knowledge transfer depends on
individual willingness to change the way things are done and risk the possibility of failure.
Employees must perceive there are positive benefits from using tacit knowledge. Studies of
persuasion and influence suggest that an expert and trustworthy source is more likely to
influence a recipient (Perloff, 1993; Szulanski, 1995). Other studies suggest that limitations in
transfer of tacit knowledge may result from the lack of perceived reliability of the source or
recipient (Arrow, 1974). When a source of knowledge is not perceived as trustworthy, his/her
advice and knowledge may be more openly challenged and resisted (Szulanski, 1995).
Other studies have found that before tacit knowledge is used by other employees, the
source must have a solid reputation within the organization (Foos et al., 2006; Lucas, 2005).
These studies taken together suggest that employees must be relatively certain that tacit
knowledge sources will provide all the relevant information, will deliver what is expected, and
are perceived in the organization as possessing worthwhile knowledge. Thus, use of tacit
knowledge will depend more heavily on cognition-based trust.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 131

H3.

Cognition-based trust of a coworker will have a larger influence than affect-based

trust on an employees willingness to use tacit knowledge.

Methods
Sample
The sample for this study consisted of managerial and professional staff in headquarters of an
international non-profit organization that supports the work of missionaries working around the
world. The organizations managers and professional staff operate in functional areas common
to most organizations (e.g. strategic planning, research, accounting, human resources,
information technology, public relations, etc.). These employees regularly have needs to share
and use tacit knowledge in the course of performing their jobs. Of the 263 managers and
professional staff in the organization, 202 provided data for this study, a response rate of 76.81
percent. There were no significant difference between the members of the sample and the
total members of the sampling frame in age, gender, and average tenure. The sampling frame
and our sample both contained 70 percent professional staff and 30 percent managers.
Measures
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Dependent variables. Lacking previously tested and validated measures for willingness to
share and use tacit knowledge, two four-item measures were developed based on the
literature. For each of these measures the survey asks the respondent to indicate his/her
agreement to a particular statement on a seven-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree,
2 disagree, 3 slightly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 5 slightlyagree,
6 agree, 7 strongly agree) for each item. The items used and their sources are:
1. Willingness to share tacit organizational knowledge:
B

If requested to do so, I would allow this individual to spend significant time observing
and collaborating with me in order for him/her to better understand and learn from my
work (Choo, 2000; Clarke and Rollo, 2001; Davenport and Grover, 2001; Scott, 2000).

I would willingly share with this person rules of thumb, tricks of the trade, and other
insights into the work of my office and that of the organization I have learned
(Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Wong and Radcliffe, 2000).

I would willingly share my new ideas with this individual (Epstein, 2000).

I would willingly share with this individual the latest organizational rumors, if
significant (Epstein, 2000).

2. Willingness to use tacit organizational knowledge:

B

If relevant to my work, I would welcome the opportunity to spend significant time

observing and collaborating with this individual in order for me to better understand
and learn from his/her work (Choo, 2000; Clarke and Rollo, 2001; Davenport and
Grover, 2001; Scott, 2000).

If relevant to my work, I would welcome and use any rules of thumb, tricks of the
trade, and other insights he/she has learned (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Wong and
Radcliffe, 2000).

I would eagerly receive and consider any new ideas this individual might have
(Epstein, 2000).

I would tend to believe organizational rumors shared by this individual and would use
such knowledge as appropriate (Epstein, 2000).

Cronbachs a for the scale measuring willingness to share tacit knowledge was 0.85, while
for the scale measuring willingness to use tacit knowledge it was 0.84.
Independent variables. Measures developed and tested by McAllister (1995) were used to
assess affect and cognition-based trust. Affect-based trust was measured using McAllisters
five-item scale (a 0:93). Example items for affect-based trust include: I can talk freely to

PAGE 132 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

this person about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen and
I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional involvements in our
working relationship. Cognition-based trust is measured using McAllisters (1995) six-item
survey (a 0:93). Example items include: I can rely on this person not to make my job more
difficult through careless work and Most people, even those who arent close friends of this
individual, trust and respect him/her as a co-worker.
Control variables. Some studies (Strauss and Howe, 1993; Tulgan, 1995) have suggested that
younger workers are more individualistic and less trusting of others than older workers This
suggests that age might affect a workers willingness to share or use tacit knowledge. Carroll
(2002) found that same-sex friendships between women are more trusting than those between
men. Consequently, women may be more willing than men to share and use tacit knowledge
from colleagues. An employees tenure with an organization might reduce the tendency to use
tacit knowledge obtained from co-workers and increase the tendency to share such
knowledge. Thus, respondent age, gender and tenure were controlled in our analyses.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Procedure
The Senior Vice President of the organization sent a letter to all managers and professional
staff, informing them of the nature of the study and encouraging their participation. These
personnel were then contacted via e-mail and asked to complete an online survey. The
survey software assigns a unique ID to each addressee that ensures each respondent
completes only one survey. This also enabled us to follow up with non-respondents.
It is possible that the relationship of an individuals trust of a coworker and the willingness to
share or use tacit knowledge with/from that person may differ depending on the nature of the
personal interactions between the two co-workers (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). For example,
the relationship between affect-based and cognition-based trust and the willingness to
share and use of tacit knowledge could be quite different for a co-worker with whom a
respondent has agreeable personal interactions than for one with whom personal
interactions are difficult. In an effort to obtain information about the role of affect-based
and cognition-based trust across a full range of coworker relationships, two responses to our
questionnaire were obtained from each respondent. One response was for co-workers with
whom the respondents works well and one for co-workers that the respondent does not work
with well. Previous studies have asked respondents to provide responses for a co-worker
with whom they work well and a co-worker with whom they do not work well and both types of
responses have been averaged in the study sample (McAllister, 1995; Tsui and Gutek,
1984). Following this approach, the two responses were averaged for analysis.

Results
In order to investigate the discriminant validity of our measures, confirmatory factor analyses
were used to compare the fit of a four factor model (willingness to share tacit knowledge,
willingness to use tacit knowledge, affect-based trust, cognition-based trust) with alternative
three-factor models (one combining the trust variables, the other combining the willingness to
share and use variables), a two-factor model, and a one-factor model. The model with four
distinct factors had the best fit with the data, suggesting that our dependent and independent
variables are empirically distinct. The results of this confirmatory analysis are shown in Table II.
To further evaluate the construct validity of our measures for willingness to share and use
tacit knowledge, follow-up data were collected from a sub-sample of 19 of the original
respondents. Respondents were asked to:
B

rate their willingness to share and use tacit knowledge with a selected co-worker using
our measures;

indicate the extent to which each had actually shared tacit with the co-worker; and

indicate the extent to which each had actually used tacit knowledge provided by the
co-worker.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 133

Table II Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the independent and dependent variables
x 2 (df)

Alternative models
Four constructse
Three constructs (combining affect-based trust
and cognition-based trust)
Three constructs (combining willingness to share
and willingness to use tacit knowledge)
Two constructs (combined trust measures and
combined willingness measures)
One construct

Dx 2 (df)

RMSEAa

GFIb

NFIc

CFId

0.06

0.95

0.90

0.95

241.84

(146)**

278.38

(149)**

36.56

(3)**

0.07

0.94

0.87

0.93

289.14

(149)**

47.32

(3)**

0.07

0.94

0.87

0.93

309.95
369.92

(151)**
(152)**

68.11
128.08

(5)**
(6)**

0.07
0.08

0.93
0.92

0.86
0.83

0.92
0.89

Notes: aRoot mean squared error of approximation; bgoodness of fit index; cnormed fit index; dcomparative fit index; eaffect-based trust,
cognitive-based trust, willingness to share tacit knowledge, willingness to use tacit knowledge

The correlation between the willingness to share tacit knowledge and the extent to which
tacit knowledge was actually shared was 0.69 (p , 0:05). The correlation between
willingness to use tacit knowledge and the extent to which tacit knowledge was received and
used was 0.78 (p , 0:01).
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

The correlations among the study variables are shown in Table III.
The only correlations that exceed 0.50 in Table II are between two dependent variables
suggesting that multicollinearity of the independent variables is unlikely to bias parameter
estimates developed in the multivariate regression analysis (Pedhazur, 1973).
The study hypotheses were tested using hierarchical moderated multivariate regression.
These regression models are presented in Table IV.
In Table IV, the coefficients for both affect-based and cognition-based trust are positive and
significant in both the regression model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge and
the model predicting willingness to use tacit knowledge. These results support H1. In the
model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge, the coefficient for affect-based trust
is significantly larger than the coefficient for cognition-based trust (t 3:88, p , 0:01) in the
regression model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge. This supports H2. In the
regression model predicting willingness to use tacit knowledge the coefficient for
cognition-based trust is significantly larger than the coefficient for affect-based trust
(t 1:78, p , 0:05, one-tailed test). This result supports H3.

Discussion
This study focused on exploring the relationship between both affect-based and
cognition-based trust and the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit
knowledge within an organization. Our multivariate regression analyses show that both
affect-based and cognition-based trust are positively related to a workers willingness to
share and use tacit knowledge. Affect-based trust has a greater influence on willingness to
Table III Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (n 202)
Variables

Mean

SD

1. Willingness to share tacit knowledge

2. Willingness to use tacit knowledge
3. Affect-based trust
4. Cognition-based trust
5. Gendera
6. Age
7. Tenure

5.30
5.37
4.43
5.11
1.40
45.6
13.7

0.73
0.73
0.65
0.69
0.49
9.52
8.89

0.75
0.49
0.34
0.02
0.06
20.06

0.39
0.46
0.07
0.06
20.07

0.40
0.01
0.07
20.02

20.05
0.08
20.01

0.06
0.16

0.57

Notes: Correlations larger than 0.14 are significant at p , 0:05; correlations larger than 0.18 are significant at p , 0:01. Coded 1 male
and 2 female

PAGE 134 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Table IV Regression models predicting tacit knowledge sharing and use (n 202)
Tacit knowledge sharing
b
b
(SE)

Variables
Gender
Age
Tenure
DR 2
Cognition-based trust
Affect-based trust
DR 2
Total R 2

0.05
0.01
20.01
0.02
0.19
0.50
0.25**
0.27**

(0.10)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.08)*
(0.08)**

0.03
0.06
20.09
0.17*
0.41**

Tacit knowledge use

(SE)
b

0.15
0.01
20.01
0.03
0.39
0.26
0.25**
0.28**

(0.09)
(0.01)
(0.01)

0.10
0.07
20.12

(0.07)**
(0.08)**

0.37**
0.23**

Notes: *p , 0:05; **p , 0:01

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

share tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust has a larger influence on willingness to
use tacit knowledge.
Taken together, these results suggest that both warm personal relationships most likely
developed through face-to face interactions and solid respect for another workers professional
capability is required for the sharing of tacit knowledge. Affect-based and cognition-based
trust together accounted for approximately 25 percent of the variance in willingness to share
tacit knowledge As ONeill and Adya (2007) have pointed out, professionals may tend to view
themselves as relatively autonomous, with as much or more commitment to their occupation as
to their organization. The store of tacit knowledge these workers have accumulated may be
considered a valuable asset that will be shared primarily with others with whom a good
personal relationship exists and whose reputation for solid professional performance is
established. The need for both types of trust seems to be important, suggesting that a good
personal relationship alone may not predict tacit knowledge exchange. Willingness to share
tacit knowledge also requires some confidence that the knowledge will be appropriately and
professionally used. However, the quality of the personal relationship with a co-worker has the
most significant effect on willingness to share tacit knowledge, suggesting that unless
affect-based trust of another co-worker is present, little tacit knowledge sharing may occur
regardless of how competent the possible recipient may be.
Both affect-based and cognition-based trusts are also needed for a professional employee to
be willing to use tacit knowledge. The perceived competence and professionalism of the
source of the tacit knowledge is a more critical determinant of willingness to use such
knowledge. The use of tacit knowledge may present a somewhat larger risk to a professional
employee than the act of sharing such knowledge. If a worker chooses to use and apply tacit
knowledge provided by another, and the results are not as positive as expected, the recipient
may need to present a responsible explanation to organizational management. Thus, the
recipient of tacit knowledge must be confident about the consensus concerning the
professional competence of the knowledge source. An employee may make decisions about
his/her personal liking for a co-worker in relative isolation because it is not considered important
for others to approve of ones friends. However, judgments about a peers professional
competence and contribution to the organization may require consensus views to be
considered valid. While cognition-based trust has substantial influence on the willingness to
use tacit knowledge, affect-based trust also must be present. A critical requirement for effective
use of tacit knowledge is receipt of complete information, a process that is likely facilitated by a
positive personal relationship with and trust of the source of the tacit knowledge.

Practical implications
The effective management of tacit knowledge the unwritten memory of the firm is
essential to the success of modern firms. Tacit knowledge is not readily captured or stored
by information technology systems. Increasing investment in information technology will not
translate into better transfer and use or tacit knowledge because individuals decide whether
they will share tacit knowledge and individuals decide whether they will use tacit knowledge.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 135

Our results suggest that tacit knowledge sharing and use depends on the formation of both
affect-based and cognition-based trust among co-workers. This suggests that any
diagnosis of organizational knowledge exchange processes should carefully consider the
types and levels of trust between employees. If sharing and use of tacit information is
important within an organization, leaders may be well served to make investments that help
develop these types of trust among coworkers. Both types of trust may be increased through
frequent direct engagement of co-workers in collaborative processes especially situations
that illustrate interdependency and provide opportunity for workers to demonstrate
individual competency (Dietz, 2004; McAllister, 1995). For example, co-worker affect-based
and cognition-based trust might be fostered by collaborative experiences involving
interdependent projects similar to those presented to competitors on the popular television
show The Apprentice without the fear of hearing Youre fired.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

The results also suggest that it may be important to understand the source of the levels of
affect-based trust. That is, if workers tend to make judgments about co-workers based
primarily on social categorization using surface attributes, increased frequency of interaction
among these co-workers may positively alter trust levels. In some cases, a co-worker who
appears different may turn out to be more similar in underlying values, attitudes, and
competencies. However, if a co-worker is not trusted because of demonstrated differences in
competence or values, increased interaction may further decrease both affect-based and
cognition-based trust. McAlister (1995) also found that higher levels of affiliative behavior
(taking a personal interest, passing on information, helping another with tasks) increased
affect-based trust among professional peers. Managerial actions and practices that
encourage and perhaps measure these types of collaborative behaviors may be worthwhile
investments that lead to greater levels of sharing and use of tacit knowledge within
organizations. However, McAllisters (1995) data also suggested that cognitive-based trust
significantly affected the level of affect-based trust among peers. Thus managers may be
advised to focus on identifying and remedying job performance weaknesses of professional
staff. Heading off such weaknesses through training, on-the-job instruction, and development
experiences seems likely to pay off in greater levels of trust among co-workers and more
extensive sharing and use of tacit knowledge.

Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research

While our results are framed in terms of the influences of cognition and affect-based trust on
the willingness to share tacit knowledge with co-workers, it is also possible that causal
direction runs in the opposite direction. That is, our data are cross-sectional. So it possible
that the affect-based and cognition-based trust measured in this study had developed
because tacit knowledge had been shared and/or used by co-workers. Although empirical
evidence (confirmatory analysis and the Harmon one-factor test) suggests that the
relationships among the variables are unlikely to be primarily the result of common method,
and that the constructs are distinct, confidence in the relationship among the constructs will
be further enhanced by future studies that make use of multiple methods to obtain data.
Future studies should consider longitudinal designs that will make it possible to understand
better the causal ordering among alternative trust types and willingness to share and use
tacit knowledge. Alternately, archival information could be used in future efforts to measure
actual knowledge receipt and use among co-workers.
This study is also limited in that it surveyed management and professional staff in only one
organization. Future research should explore the relationships among affect-based and
cognition-based trust and tacit knowledge transfer in other organizational contexts to better
understand possible effects of cultural norms within organizations. It is possible that
professionals working in other types of organizations, especially for-profit companies, might
weight affect- and cognition-based trust differently in making decisions to share and use
tacit knowledge. Similarly, professionals working in task environments with different degrees
of interdependence (e.g. military, security, etc.) might place emphasis on different aspects
of trust.

PAGE 136 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Affect-based trust has a greater influence on willingness to

share tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust has a larger
influence on willingness to use tacit knowledge.
It should also be recognized that professionals providing data for this study worked in an
international headquarters where some critical trust-building interactions occurred in
face-to-face meetings. Workers in regional of branch offices may have to rely more on
virtual communication and thus may place different emphasis on each form of trust in
determining their willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Finally, although ethnicity was
not measured within our sample, observation by the researchers suggested more members
were native to the USA. In a group comprised of different cultural groups affect and
cognition-based trust may play different roles in determining cross-cultural willingness to
share and use tacit knowledge. Future studies should examine the relationship of affect-based
and cognition-based trust on organizations of different size where opportunities for personal
interaction differ. Future research could also explore how the impetus for a specific knowledge
exchange opportunity affects a persons willingness to engage in such exchange. For
example, an individual may be willing to respond to a request from another for knowledge of
how a task should be done. Yet, that same individual might be less willing to take the initiative
to share the knowledge independent of such a request. Such reticence may be problematic in
that employees may not know who in the organization has the knowledge they need.

References
Adler, P.S. (2002), Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism,
in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational
Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 100-31.
Argote, L. (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer
Academic, Boston, MA.
Arrow, K. (1974), The Limits of Organization, Norton, New York, NY.
Athanassiou, N. and Nigh, D. (2000), Internationalization, tacit knowledge and the top management
teams of MNCs, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 471-87.
Auster, E. and Choo, C.W. (1994), CEOs, information, and decision making: scanning the environment
for strategic advantage, Library Trends, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 206-26.
Bennett, R.H. III (1998), The importance of tacit knowledge in strategic deliberations and decisions,
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 589-97.
Blackler, F. (1995), Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation,
Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46.
Blattberg, R. and Hoch, S. (1990), Database models and managerial intuition: 50% model 50%
intuition, Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 887-99.
Blumentritt, R. and Johnston, R. (1999), Towards a strategy for knowledge management, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Brann, P. and Foddy, M. (1988), Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating resource, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 31, pp. 615-30.
Brockmann, E.N. and Anthony, W.P. (1998), The influence of tacit knowledge and collective mind on
strategic planning, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 204-22.
Carroll, M.N. (2002), Gender Differences in Trust and Loyalty within Single Sex Friendships, Loyola
University, New Orleans, LA.
Choo, C.W. (1998), The Knowing Organization: How Organizations use Information to Construct
Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 137

Choo, C.W. (2000), Working with knowledge: how information professionals manage what they know,
Library Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 395-403.
Clarke, T. and Rollo, C. (2001), Corporate initiatives in knowledge management, Education Training,
Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 206-14.
Collins, H. (1993), The structure of knowledge, Social Research, Vol. 60, pp. 95-116.
Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999), Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between
organizational knowledge and organizational knowing, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 381-400.
Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), Technology is not enough: improving performance by building
organizational memory, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 69-78.
Dasgupta, P. (Ed.) (1988), Trust as a Commodity, Blackwell, Oxford.
Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (2000), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, The World Bank,
Washington, DC.
Davenport, T.H. and Grover, V. (2001), General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a
research agenda, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Dietz, G. (2004), Partnership and the development of trust in British workplaces, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Epstein, L.D. (2000), Sharing knowledge in organizations: how people use media to communicate,
unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), The 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief attitude, intention, and behaviour, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 421-35.
Foos, T., Schum, G. and Rothenburg, S. (2006), Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge
disconnect, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-18.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Gruber, H.G. (2000), Does organizational culture affect the sharing of knowledge? The case of a
department in a high-technology company, unpublished dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa.
Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-65.
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.
Hinds, P.J. and Pfeffer, J. (2001), Why Organizations Dont Know What They Know: Cognitive and
Motivational Factors Affecting the Transfer of Expertise, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B. (2001), Mismanagement of tacit knowledge:
the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Lane, C. (1998), Theories and Issues in the Study of Trust, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998), The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 112-32.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships,
in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 967-84.
Locke, E.A. (1999), Some reservations about social capital, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 8-9.

PAGE 138 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Lohr, S. (2002), Gazing into 2003: economy intrudes on dreams of new services, The New York Times,
December 30, p. 3.
Lucas, L. (2005), The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 87-101.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59.
Marquardt, M. (1996), Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum
Improvement and Global Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Meso, P. and Smith, R. (2000), A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management
systems, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 224-34.
Messick, D.M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M.B., Kramer, R.M., Zemke, P.E. and Lui, L. (1983), Individual
adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 294-309.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Narasimha, S. (2000), Organizational knowledge, human resource management, and sustained

competitive advantage: toward a framework, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123-35.
Nidumolu, S., Subramani, M. and Aldrich, A. (2001), Situated learning and the situated knowledge web:
exploring the ground beneath knowledge management, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 115-50.
Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation,
California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (2001), Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and Evolutionary
Dimensions of Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Nonaka, I. and Teece, D.J. (2001), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization,
Sage Publications, London.
ODell, C.S., Grayson, C.J. and Essaides, N. (1998), If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of
Internal Knowledge and Best Practice, The Free Press, New York, NY.
ONeill, B. and Adya, M. (2007), Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-36.
Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 43-72.
Pedhazur, E. (1973), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
Fort Worth, TX.
Pennings, J.M. and Woiceshyn, J. (1987), A typology of organizational control and its metaphors,
in Bacharach, S.B. and Mitchell, S.M. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 75-104.
Perloff, R.M. (1993), The Dynamics of Persuasion, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ.
Raub, S. and Ruling, C.C. (2001), The knowledge management tussle: speech communities and
rhetorical strategies in the development of knowledge management, Journal of Information Technology,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 113-30.
Scott, J. (2000), Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 81-113.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 139

Smedlund, A. (2008), The knowledge system of a firm: social capital for explicit, tacit and potential
knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 63-77.
Smith, E.A. (2001), The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-21.
Spender, J.C. and Grant, R.M. (1996), Knowledge and the firm: overview, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, special issue, Winter, pp. 5-9.
Stenmark, D. (2000), Leveraging tacit organisational knowledge, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 9-24.
Stenmark, D. (2002), Sharing tacit knowledge: a case study at Volvo, in Barnes, S. (Ed.), Knowledge
Management Systems: Theory and Practice, Thomson Learning, London.
Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1993), 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Sweeney, G. (1996), Learning efficiency, technological change and economic progress, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 5-27.
Szulanski, G. (1995), Unpacking stickiness: an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best
practices in the firm, Academy of Management Journal, Best Papers Proceedings, Vol. 38, special
issue, pp. 437-41.

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 27-43.
Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions,
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Schuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76.
Tsui, A. and Gutek, B. (1984), A role-set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective
relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 619-35.
Tulgan, B. (1995), Managing Generation X, Merritt Publishing, Santa Monica, CA.
Wong, W. and Radcliffe, D. (2000), The tacit nature of design knowledge, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 493-512.
Zack, M.H. (1999a), Knowledge and Strategy, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Zack, M.H. (1999b), Managing codified knowledge, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 45-58.

Further reading
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Parks, B.M., Henager, C.D. and Scamahorn, S.D. (1996), Trust and reactions to messages of intent in
social dilemmas, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 40, pp. 134-51.
Tyler, T.R. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), Whither trust?, Trust in Organizations, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Dail Fields can be contacted at: dailfie@regent.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 140 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Hao-Fan Chumg, Louise Cooke, Jenny Fry, I-Hua Hung. 2015. Factors affecting knowledge sharing in the virtual organisation:
Employees sense of well-being as a mediating effect. Computers in Human Behavior 44, 70-80. [CrossRef]
2. Paavo Ritala, Heidi Olander, Snejina Michailova, Kenneth Husted. 2015. Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative
innovation performance: An empirical study. Technovation 35, 22-31. [CrossRef]
3. Yong Sauk Hau, Byoungsoo Kim, Heeseok Lee. 2014. What drives employees to share their tacit knowledge in practice?.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice . [CrossRef]
4. Yue Zhu, Syed Akhtar. 2014. The mediating effects of cognition-based trust and affect-based trust in transformational
leadership's dual processes: evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25, 2755-2771.
[CrossRef]
5. Muhammad Sabbir Rahman, Bashir Hussain. 2014. The impact of trust, motivation and rewards on knowledge sharing attitudes
among the secondary and higher secondary level students. Library Review 63:8/9, 637-652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Dr Caroline Jackson, Gillian Ragsdell, Allan Jepson. 2014. Knowledge sharing: insights from Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA)
Festival volunteers. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 5:3, 279-296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Roslyn Larkin. 2014. Alternative control methods for exploiting subsidiary knowledge within an MNE: quantity versus quality.
Journal of Knowledge Management 18:6, 1184-1197. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Sayyed Mohsen Allameh, Javad Khazaei Pool, Akbar Jaberi, Farzaneh Mazloomi Soveini. 2014. Developing a model for examining
the effect of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing on organizational performance based on EFQM approach. Journal of Science
and Technology Policy Management 5:3, 265-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Prof. Manlio Del Giudice, Prof. Vincenzo Maggioni, Zhenzhong Ma, Yufang Huang, Jie Wu, Weiwei Dong, Liyun Qi. 2014.
What matters for knowledge sharing in collectivistic cultures? Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Knowledge Management
18:5, 1004-1019. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Minhyung Kang, Yong Sauk Hau. 2014. Multi-level analysis of knowledge transfer: a knowledge recipients perspective. Journal
of Knowledge Management 18:4, 758-776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Dnika J. Travis, Ahyoung Lee, Monica Faulkner, Paula Gerstenblatt, Jessica Boston. 2014. Cultivating a thriving childcare
workforce: a theory-driven qualitative analysis. Community, Work & Family 17, 325-345. [CrossRef]
12. Lynn Godkin. 2014. Mid-Management, Employee Engagement, and the Generation of Reliable Sustainable Corporate Social
Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]
13. Carlos Ferreira Peralta, Maria Francisca Saldanha. 2014. Knowledge-centered culture and knowledge sharing: the moderator role
of trust propensity. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:3, 538-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Zhining Wang, Nianxin Wang, Huigang Liang. 2014. Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm performance. Management
Decision 52:2, 230-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Bejan David Analoui, Sally Sambrook, Clair Hannah Doloriert. 2014. Engaging students in group work to maximise tacit
knowledge sharing and use. The International Journal of Management Education 12, 35-43. [CrossRef]
16. Faizuniah Pangil, Joon Moi Chan. 2014. The mediating effect of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and
virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:1, 92-106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Anna Wiewiora, Glen Murphy, Bambang Trigunarsyah, Kerry Brown. 2014. Interactions Between Organizational
Culture, Trustworthiness, and Mechanisms for Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing. Project Management Journal 45:10.1002/
pmj.2014.45.issue-2, 48-65. [CrossRef]
18. Edward C. S. Ku. 2014. Distributed Fascinating Knowledge Over an Online Travel Community. International Journal of Tourism
Research 16, 33-43. [CrossRef]
19. R. Amir, J. Parvar. 2014. Harnessing Knowledge Management to Improve Organisational Performance. International Journal of
Trade, Economics and Finance 31-38. [CrossRef]
20. Roland K Yeo, Michael J Marquardt. 2013. To share or not to share? Self-perception and knowledge-sharing intent. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice . [CrossRef]
21. Mohamed A.F. Ragab, Amr Arisha. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge
Management 17:6, 873-901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Isabel Rechberg, Jawad Syed. 2013. Ethical issues in knowledge management: conflict of knowledge ownership. Journal of
Knowledge Management 17:6, 828-847. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 00:31 16 February 2015 (PT)

23. Sujin Han, Sora Kang, Jongwon Lee. 2013. The effect of in/out group formation and the tie strength on the knowledge transfer
and performance. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society 14, 4227-4239. [CrossRef]
24. I.M. Nunes, A.M. Eller, M.S. Bispo. 2013. Aprendizagem Organizacional, Organizao de Aprendizagem e Gesto do
Conhecimento: Entre Laos e Ns. Revista Eletrnica Gesto e Servios 4:10.15603/2177-7284/regs.v4n1, 472-488. [CrossRef]
25. Sirous Panahi, Jason Watson, Helen Partridge. 2013. Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools. Journal of Knowledge
Management 17:3, 379-397. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Laila Kle, Agrita Briede, Mris Kavi, Guntis Eberhards, Andris LomanisAdaptation to Floods in Riga, Latvia: Historical
Experience and Change of Approaches 65-81. [CrossRef]
27. Amzad Hossain. 2013. Evolution of Mutual Knowledge-Based Economy in Regional Integration: An Experience from the
Cooperation Council of Arab States of the Gulf. Journal of the Knowledge Economy . [CrossRef]
28. Anna Sankowska. 2013. Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and firm's
innovativeness. The Learning Organization 20:1, 85-100. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Rommel Robertson, Christine Gockel, Elisabeth Brauner. 2012. Trust your teammates or bosses? Differential effects of trust
on transactive memory, job satisfaction, and performance. Employee Relations 35:2, 222-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Zhining Wang, Nianxin Wang. 2012. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications
39, 8899-8908. [CrossRef]
31. Giovanni Schiuma, Vilma Vuori, Jussi Okkonen. 2012. Knowledge sharing motivational factors of using an intraorganizational
social media platform. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:4, 592-603. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Athanasios N. Tsirikas, Kleanthis K. Katsaros, Christos S. Nicolaidis. 2012. Knowledge management, tolerance of ambiguity
and productivity. Employee Relations 34:4, 344-359. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Julia Mueller. 2012. Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management
16:3, 435-447. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Vathsala Wickramasinghe, Ruvini Widyaratne. 2012. Effects of interpersonal trust, team leader support, rewards, and knowledge
sharing mechanisms on knowledge sharing in project teams. VINE 42:2, 214-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. YUSHAN ZHAO, MARILYN LAVIN. 2012. AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN WORKING
RELATIONSHIPS WITH SUPPLIERS IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. International Journal of Innovation
Management 16, 1250013. [CrossRef]
36. LiAn Ho, TsungHsien Kuo, Binshan Lin. 2012. How social identification and trust influence organizational online knowledge
sharing. Internet Research 22:1, 4-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Juani Swart, Philippa Harvey. 2011. Identifying knowledge boundaries: the case of networked projects. Journal of Knowledge
Management 15:5, 703-721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Eric Tsui, Johann Kinghorn, Abel Usoro, Grzegorz Majewski. 2011. Intensive knowledge sharing: Finnish Laurea lab case study.
VINE 41:1, 7-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Michael Stankosky, Francesco A. Calabrese, Kerstin V. Siakas, Elli Georgiadou, Bo Balstrup. 2010. Cultural impacts on
knowledge sharing: empirical data from EU project collaboration. VINE 40:3/4, 376-389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Valerie N. Streets, Debra A. Major, Valerie J. MorgansonBuilding Inclusive IS&T Work Climates for Women and Men 753-761.
[CrossRef]
41. Chantal Philips, Wulystan P. Mtega, Arja Vainio-MattilaKnowledge Sharing between Local Government and Rural Remote
Communities in Tanzania: 195-214. [CrossRef]
42. Mahmood Ghaznavi, Salman Iqbal, Paul ToulsonEmploying Individuals Social Capital to Create Value in the Public Sector
Organisations 272-293. [CrossRef]
43. Grzegorz Majewski, Abel UsoroVirtual Communities of Practice in Immersive Virtual Worlds 347-374. [CrossRef]