The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 106 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: a meta‐analysis and critique
Abstract
Purpose: Knowledge is the most important component of sustainable organizational growth and economic performance. This meta‐analysis aims to summarize the determinants of individuals' knowledge sharing (KS) intentions and behaviors in organizations. Design/methodology/approach: The authors organize the knowledge sharing antecedents investigated in 46 studies (n≈10,487, median n=172) into three categories, i.e. knowledge sharer intention and attitude (four variables); rewards for KS (three variables); and organizational culture (nine variables). Findings: Variables in all three antecedent categories positively contribute to KS intentions and behaviors; high between‐study variability exists, and the fail‐safe n statistic suggests the observed effects are robust against a “file drawer” (missing study) bias. Moderator results suggest that motivating KS is easier in collectivist, as opposed to individualist, cultures. Research limitations/implications: In most of the studies included in this meta‐analysis, participants volunteered to share knowledge with researchers. Hence, an important threat to validity in the existing research is a potential “cooperation bias” in which participants likely overestimate their willingness to share knowledge. Future KS research should investigate the dark underbelly of knowledge activities in organizations, including investigations of knowledge hoarding, withholding of knowledge to gain personal advantage, and “contributing” worthless information to gain (through gaming) personal payoffs. Originality/value: The meta‐analysis results herein contribute to the KS literature by identifying the determinants of KS, and an important potential limitation of much existing KS research.
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
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
(2008) · Biostatistics and Microbiology: A Survival Manual · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-77282-0_6 · Cited by 17,371
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
(1976) · Cited by 10,423
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250961 · Cited by 10,176
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
Cited by
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
Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su9020205 · Cited by 334
Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis of main and moderating effects
Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, T. P., Froese, F. J., & Malik, A. (2019) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-01-2019-0029 · Cited by 283
Applying artificial intelligence technique to predict knowledge hiding behavior
Abubakar, A. M., Behravesh, E., Rezapouraghdam, H., & Yildiz, S. B. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.006 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-03-29
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 250-277
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2043106103
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 106
- FWCI
- 64.62
- 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: Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: a meta‐analysis and critique. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/13673271311315204
- The paper
- Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: a meta‐analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315204
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.