The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters
Abstract
Job design is one of the most frequently researched practices in the Human Resource Management (HRM) literature, and knowledge sharing has become an important and heavily researched managerial practice. The links between these practices, however, have received little attention in the literature. We argue that job design matters to knowledge sharing for motivational reasons. Specifically, jobs contain characteristics that stimulate different kinds of motivation toward knowledge sharing, which have different effects on individual knowledge sharing behavior. We develop six hypotheses that unfold these ideas and test them on the basis of individual‐level data collected within a single firm. The hypotheses are tested in a LISREL model that confirms that job characteristics, such as autonomy, task identity, and feedback, determine different motivations to share knowledge, which in turn predict employees' knowledge sharing behaviors. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939 · cited 3×
“advantage (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Kogut and Zander, 1992; Argote and Ingram, 2000).”
BackgroundExploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766 · cited 2×
“Important theories of work motivation approach it as a unitary concept that solely varies in strength but not in kind (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2002; Vroom, 1964).”
BackgroundDevelopment of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · cited 1×
“Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm (e.g., Deci et al., 1999; Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984).”
InfluentialHiggins, E. T. (1997) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280 · Cited by 6,775
Cited by
Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 · Cited by 3,199
Testing a continuum structure of self-determined motivation: A meta-analysis.
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000125 · Cited by 447
Lee, S., Han, S.-H. (., Park, S. H., & Chai, D. S. (2026) · European Journal of Training and Development · doi:10.1108/ejtd-12-2024-0175 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M.
- Venue
- Human Resource Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 871-893
- ISSN
- 0090-4848 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-050X
- OpenAlex
- W2039022103
- Cited by
- 472
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 54.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
