The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use
Abstract
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. 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.
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
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809 · cited 1×
“…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).”
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
Affect and Cognition Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations
McAllister, D. J. (1995) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256727 · Cited by 7,346
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809 · cited 1×
“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.”
BackgroundLewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578601 · Cited by 4,163
Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation
Blackler, F. (1995) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069501600605 · Cited by 2,498
Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism
Adler, P. S. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117 · Cited by 1,512
Cited by
Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance
Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017 · Cited by 1,123
Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study
Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2015) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.011 · Cited by 537
A systematic review of knowledge management and knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges
Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744 · Cited by 361
Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review
A.F. Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2013) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-12-2012-0381 · Cited by 323
Digital technology driven knowledge sharing for job performance
Deng, H., Duan, S. X., & Wibowo, S. (2023) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2021-0637 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Holste, J. S., & Fields, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2010-02-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 128-140
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078034555
- Cited by
- 789
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 96.64
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673271011015615
- The paper
- Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
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.