The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining‐factor model
Abstract
We introduce and empirically test a theoretical metamodel that explains knowledge‐sharing behavior among employees. Building on the well‐established motivation–opportunity–ability (MOA) framework, we posit that knowledge sharing among employees is a function of their MOA to do so. Existing literature suggests that the interaction among motivation, opportunity, and ability drives knowledge‐sharing behavior. In contrast, we specify a new model in which the “bottleneck” or constraining factor among the MOA variables determines the degree of knowledge sharing that occurs. This constraining‐factor model (CFM) fits the data better than the traditional multiplicative model and reveals a new, qualitatively different portrait of knowledge sharing that resolves some of the puzzles in the previous literature. The CFM provides macro‐level insights with respect to how operations managers can improve employee knowledge sharing by focusing on the bottleneck MOA variable. As a result, the CFM can help set strategic directions of related policies. The model emphasizes that, counter to conventional wisdom, the MOA variables should not be addressed independently, but rather in a dynamic and coordinated way.
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
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151312 · Cited by 109,314
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
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
The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · Cited by 18,010
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,442
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,277
The Knowledge-Creating Company
Nonaka, I. (1998) · The Economic Impact of Knowledge · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-7009-8.50016-1 · Cited by 14,619
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Hammer, T. H., Anderson, J., Gurdon, M., Jick, T., Petit, A., Stern, R., Schwartz, H., Vardi, Y., & Dunnette, M. D. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391755 · Cited by 11,945
(1964) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,439
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- 10.5465/amr.2002.5922314 · doi:10.5465/amr.2002.5922314 · Paper page
- Aeppel T., 2002, On factory floors, top workers hide secrets to success, The Wall Street Journal, 1, 1
- 10.1177/014920639902500302 · doi:10.1177/014920639902500302 · Paper page
- 10.5465/amr.1982.4285240 · doi:10.5465/amr.1982.4285240 · Paper page
- Chase R.B., 2004, Production and Operations Management: Manufacturing and Services
- Cummings L.L., 1973, Performance in Organizations
- DeVellis R.F., 1991, Scale Development
- Dixon N.M., 2000, Common Knowledge
- 10.2307/3172650 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5465/amr.1992.4279530 · doi:10.5465/amr.1992.4279530 · Paper page
- Goldratt E.M., 1999, Theory of Constraints
- Hopp W., 2000, Factory Physics
- Latham G.P., 2006, Work Motivation
- Lawshe C.H., 1945, Eight ways to check the value of a training program, Factory Management and Maintenance, 103, 117
- Nunally J.C., 1967, Psychometric Theory
- Roth A.V., 2008, Handbook of Metrics for Research in Operations Management
- 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.532 · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.532
- 10.1509/jmkg.68.2.101.27792 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.2.101.27792
Cited by
Wilhelm, M. M., Blome, C., Bhakoo, V., & Paulraj, A. (2016) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.11.001 · Cited by 539
Mobile marketing: A synthesis and prognosis
Shankar, V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2009) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.02.002 · Cited by 484
Self-citationBos‐Nehles, A. C., Van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Kees Looise, J. (2013) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21578 · Cited by 401
Deconstructing AMO framework: a systematic review
Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Martinez Tomas, J. (2016) · Intangible Capital · doi:10.3926/ic.838 · Cited by 283
Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.12084 · Cited by 268
Metadata
- Authors
- Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Operations Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-09-19
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 426-445
- ISSN
- 0272-6963 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-1317
- OpenAlex
- W1986873195
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 84
- FWCI
- 31.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Funders
- Juran Center
- SAP AG
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining‐factor model. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jom.2007.09.001
- The paper
- Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2008). How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining‐factor model. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.09.001
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.
