The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems
Abstract
This article examines the role of monetary rewards in encouraging knowledge sharing in organizations through four mechanisms of knowledge sharing. We argue that the system of contributing knowledge to databases is the most amenable to rewards contingent on knowledge sharing behaviors because of opportunities for the reward allocator to measure the knowledge sharing behaviors. In the case of formal interactions within or across teams and work units, while rewards could be made partly contingent on knowledge sharing behaviors as in merit pay, rewards based on collective performance are also likely to be effective in creating a feeling of cooperation, ownership, and commitment among employees. In addition, we propose that team-based rewards and company wide incentives (profit sharing, gainsharing, and employee stock options) would be particularly instrumental in enhancing knowledge sharing within teams and across work units, respectively. In the case of knowledge sharing through informal interactions, the key enabling factor is trust between the individual and the organization. In this case, the role of rewards is indirect, that is, procedural and distributive fairness of organizational rewards are important factors in the development of trust. We also consider knowledge sharing in communities of practice and theorize that intrinsic rewards and factors that build expertise and provide recognition are the most appropriate means of fostering feeling of competence. Finally, we discuss the research implications.
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
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809
Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm
Grant, R. M. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171110 · Cited by 16,157
Adams, J. S. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2 · Cited by 10,818
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
Exploring 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
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · cited 3×
“Deci et al. (1999) found that rewards contingent on the completion of a behavior had an overall negative effect on free choice behavior, but no effect on individual’s interest in the task.”
BackgroundThe Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 · Cited by 1,850
Cited by
Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework
Ipe, M. (2003) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484303257985 · Cited by 1,608
A model of knowledge‐sharing motivation
Gagné, M. (2009) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20298 · Cited by 608
Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust
Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.10.005 · Cited by 329
O'Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007) · Journal of Managerial Psychology · doi:10.1108/02683940710745969 · Cited by 173
Eldor, L. (2018) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mux028 · Cited by 159
Waring, J., Marshall, F., Bishop, S., Sahota, O., Walker, M., Currie, G., Fisher, R., & Avery, T. (2014) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr02290 · Cited by 104
Buvik, M. P., & Tvedt, S. D. (2017) · Project Management Journal · doi:10.1177/875697281704800202 · Cited by 99
Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alturki, U., Alamri, M., Bin Saud, M. S., Kamin, Y. B., Aljeraiwi, A. A., & Alhamed, O. A. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2906668 · Cited by 96
Understanding resource sharing in C2C platforms: The role of picture humanization
Teubner, T., Adam, M. T. P., Camacho, S., & Hassanein, K. (2014) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/2.1.3578.0167 · Cited by 40
Reychav, I., & Te’eni, D. (2009) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.009 · Cited by 37
Azeem, M., Aziz, S., Shahid, J., Hayat, A., Ahmed, M., & Khan, M. I. (2022) · International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing · doi:10.1108/ijphm-09-2020-0083 · Cited by 17
Gross, N., & Kluge, A. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/1555343414540656 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-08
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-76
- ISSN
- 1548-0518 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-7089
- OpenAlex
- W2016230462
- Cited by
- 1,521
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 29.21
- 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.
