BACKGROUND LITERATURE ATTITUDE (BOCK & KIM, 2002; RYU, HEE HO,...

2. Background literature

attitude (Bock & Kim, 2002; Ryu, Hee Ho,

& Han, 2003), and Foss and Pedersen’s

Knowledge sharing can be defined as the

(2002) study of the source’s innate ability

process of capturing knowledge, or

to share. Although a number of studies

moving knowledge from a source unit to a

have concentrated on exploring factors

recipient unit. Knowledge transfer is

that may influence the recipients of the

regard as more than this, as it also

shared knowledge (Simonin, 1999;

involves knowledge re-use, or the actual

Szulanski, 1996), some still consider that

use of the shared knowledge by the

ISSN 1479-4411 1 ©Academic Conferences Ltd

Reference this paper as:

recipient (Alvai & Leidner, 2001).

attitude is how effectively the knowledge

has been articulated by the source

Successful knowledge transfer implicitly

(Cummings & Teng, 2003). Bircham

requires successful knowledge sharing, as

“without sharing, it is almost impossible for

(2003) suggests that the structure of the

questions asked of source individuals and

knowledge to be transferred to other

person(s)” (Syed-Ikhasa & Rowland, 2004,

therefore the corresponding response

structure may affect knowledge

p.96). This could imply that there is a

articulation.

requirement to first understand the factors

that influence successful sharing before

Research into the effect of question

probing into knowledge transfer. However,

wording generally resides in the polling

much of the empirical research undertaken

and survey research field, however many

to date relates to knowledge transfer,

of the findings are applicable to knowledge

which possibly is a result of organisations

and researchers placing greater

sharing. For instance, when a person is

asked to share their knowledge will an

significance on the actual use of

open-ended question produce more depth

knowledge, such as new innovation, best

of knowledge than a closed question?

practice etc., rather than how knowledge is

shared.

According to findings by Dohrenwend

(1965) no, open-ended questions do not

produce more depth in response. This

Notwithstanding this, empirical research

may not seem rationale to many; surely

into knowledge sharing has been

undertaken from a number of perspectives

their can be more depth provided in a

response if the respondent is not

including organisations sharing knowledge

constrained to categories and rather given

with each other (Hansen, 2002; Lane &

the ability to respond in an open manner?

Lubatkin, 1998) and inter-business unit

sharing (Tsai, 2002). In addition, factors

However, the objective of the questions,

for example are they part of a survey,

that may influence the source individual to

share their knowledge have also been

together with the type of responses sought

after by the individual asking may

studied (see Bock & Kim, 2002; Ryu et al.,

influence what structure of question

2003; Szulanski, 1996). Some consider

produces more depth. According to

however, that the recipient and factors that

Sudman and Bradburn (1982), the way a

may impact on them have been, for the

question is asked does influence the

most part neglected (Dixon, 2002). This is

response. In addition, the tone of a

an interesting point, since one of the

consequences of sharing knowledge is the

question - whether it is worded in a

new insight and generation of knowledge

negative, positive or neutral manner - has

also been found to influence response

gained by the recipient. Further, if a

depth and the generation of ideas

recipient senses value in the shared

knowledge (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000),

(Brennan, 1997). Brennan (1996) also

or relevance of the knowledge to their

found that a greater number of ideas were

shared by participants when more space

decision-making requirements (Schulz,