The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis of main and moderating effects
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing and the moderating effects of individual demographics, organizational context and cultural context in that relationship. Design/methodology/approach: This study conducted a meta-analysis of 44 studies involving 14,023 participants to examine the direct and moderating effects of motivation on knowledge sharing. Findings: Results revealed that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors were associated with higher levels of knowledge sharing, while the effect was stronger for intrinsic motivation. Moreover, results revealed that substantial variance was explained by moderating variables. Further investigation revealed that individual characteristics (age, gender), organizational context (organizational setting vs. open system, IT infrastructure) and cultural context (collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, performance orientation, power distance) moderated the motivation and knowledge sharing relationship. Research limitations/implications: As a meta-analysis, this study is confined to variables that have been frequently analyzed in prior research. Future research could further increase our understanding of different types of knowledge sharing and various boundary conditions. Practical implications: Organizations should provide customized incentive systems to specific target groups to align motivation and knowledge sharing. Multinational organizations may consider different motivation schemes across countries to better suit cultural differences. Originality/value: Despite a growing number of studies highlighting the important role of motivation in predicting knowledge sharing, the evidence is mixed. Based on a meta-analysis, this study identified true relationships and identified moderating effects that help explain prior mixed results.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation
(1997) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(97)80234-x · Cited by 13,156
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace 1
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148669 · Cited by 4,333
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148667 · Cited by 3,904
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. A. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.5555/2017245.2017249 · Cited by 3,530
Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., Duan, L., Almaliach, A., Ang, S., Arnadottir, J., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1197754 · Cited by 3,252
Hofstede, G. (1980) · International Studies of Management & Organization · doi:10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300 · Cited by 3,178
Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001 · Cited by 2,953
Metadata
- Authors
- Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, T. P., Froese, F. J., & Malik, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Knowledge Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2019-06-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 998-1016
- ISSN
- 1367-3270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2950700373
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 80
- FWCI
- 17.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis of main and moderating effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/jkm-01-2019-0029
- The paper
- Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, T. P., Froese, F. J., & Malik, A. (2019). Motivation and knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis of main and moderating effects. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-01-2019-0029
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.