Organizational and knowledge management related antecedents of knowledge use: the moderating effect of ambiguity tolerance

To leverage their knowledge resources, many organizations deploy knowledge management systems (KMS), which contain at their core a knowledge repository. Successful use of the knowledge/repository depends largely on knowledge workers who must contribute to the knowledge base as well as use those knowledge objects. We develop and validate an empirical model that explains mechanisms required to reduce knowledge gaps in a firm or business unit, through knowledge contribution and use or reuse. Using the theory of planned behavior and its derivative the technology acceptance model, we find that a feature rich user friendly KMS combined with extrinsic rewards (or incentives) and knowledge self-efficacy are critical to KM success. Tolerance of ambiguity (a personal trait) is a key influence in the causal relationship between incentives and knowledge gaps as well as knowledge self-efficacy and knowledge gaps. The main findings of this study are (1) for ambiguity intolerant individuals, incentives and self-efficacy are as important as the KMS as motivators for knowledge sharing and use, (2) for this group, it is necessary to stress the importance of KM as a means of social persuasion in building knowledge self-efficacy, (3) for the ambiguity tolerant, incentives are not required, and self efficacy is self-determined i.e., KM champions are not required to highlight the importance of KM; in fact the technology (KMS) is all important, a finding that negates conventional wisdom that technology is merely an enabler. In summary, a one-size fits all mindset is not effective, a firm must carefully consider the ambiguity tolerance levels of employees before forging ahead with KM efforts. This becomes all the more important to practitioners because of the recently highlighted differences in ambiguity tolerance between “Millennials” and” Generation Xers”. In addition to theory testing in KM, this research also informs KM practice.

[1]  Ping Wang,et al.  Chasing the Hottest IT: Effects of Information Technology Fashion on Organizations , 2010, MIS Q..

[2]  T. Davenport,et al.  Building Successful Knowledge Management Projects , 1997 .

[3]  Michael J. Gallivan,et al.  Examining IT professionals' adaptation to technological change: the influence of gender and personal attributes , 2004, DATB.

[4]  M. Bauer.  Exchange And Power In Social Life , 2016 .

[5]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Research Note - Knowledge Exploration and Exploitation: The Impacts of Psychological Climate and Knowledge Management System Access , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  John P. Murray.  Adding Value to the Information Technology Function , 2001, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[7]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[8]  E. Frenkel-Brunswik,et al.  Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. , 1949, Psychological issues.

[9]  Nalaji S. Chakravarthy,et al.  Managing the strategy process : a framework for a multibusiness firm / Balaji S. Chakravarthy, Peter Lorange , 1991 .

[10]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Net-Enabled Business Value , 2004, MIS Q..

[11]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Profiting from Knowledge Management: The Impact of Time and Experience , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[12]  S. Budner.  Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. , 1962, Journal of personality.

[13]  T. Davenport,et al.  The Mysterious Art and Science of Knowledge-Worker Performance , 2002 .

[14]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2005, MIS Q..

[15]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation , 2005, MIS Q..

[16]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  A Longitudinal Investigation of Personal Computers in Homes: Adoption Determinants and Emerging Challenges , 2001, MIS Q..

[17]  J. J. Po-An Hsieh,et al.  ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University , 2016 .

[18]  Suryanarayanan Ravindran,et al.  Usefulness, incentives and knowledge management , 2009, J. Knowl. Manag..

[19]  Jr. A. P. Mac Donald,et al.  Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance: Reliability and Validity , 1970 .

[20]  David F. Larcker,et al.  Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics: , 1981 .

[21]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Factors, and Organizational Climate , 2005, MIS Q..

[22]  I. Ajzen.  Attitudes, Traits, and Actions: Dispositional Prediction of Behavior in Personality and Social Psychology , 1987 .

[23]  William R. King,et al.  Antecedents of Knowledge Transfer from Consultants to Clients in Enterprise System Implementations , 2005, MIS Q..

[24]  Sanghee Yeo.  Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. , 2010, Korean journal of medical education.

[25]  J. Nunnally.  Psychometric Theory (2nd ed), New York: McGraw-Hill. , 1978 .

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[27]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward A Theory of Knowledge Reuse : Types of Knowledge Reuse Situations and Factors in Reuse Success , 2022 .

[28]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[29]  I. Ajzen.  The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[30]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[31]  Michael E. Roloff.  Interpersonal Communication: The Social Exchange Approach , 1982 .

[32]  J. Beckmann,et al.  Action control : from cognition to behavior , 1985 .

[33]  S. Borgatti,et al.  A General Theory of Network Governance: Exchange Conditions and Social Mechanisms , 1997 .

[34]  John W. Mullins,et al.  Situational strength – A framework for understanding the role of individuals in initiating proactive strategic change , 1999 .

[35]  Uday R. Kulkarni,et al.  A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[36]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  Barbara H Wixom,et al.  A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience , 1995 .

[39]  Mun Y. Yi,et al.  Understanding the Role of Individual Innovativeness in the Acceptance of IT-Based Innovations: Comparative Analyses of Models and Measures , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[40]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  Examining the Strategic Alignment and Implementation Success of a KMS: A Subculture-Based Multilevel Analysis , 2011, Inf. Syst. Res..

[41]  John Wesley Lowery,et al.  Student affairs for a new generation , 2004 .

[42]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Special Issue on: Knowledge Management in Asia Understanding Seeking from Electronic Knowledge Repositories: , 2022 .

[43]  Arun Rai,et al.  A Structural Model for CASE Adoption Behavior , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[44]  I. Ajzen.  Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. , 2002 .

[45]  Albert H. Segars,et al.  Knowledge Management: An Organizational Capabilities Perspective , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[46]  L. Argote,et al.  KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER: A BASIS FOR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IN FIRMS , 2000 .

[47]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy. I: V. S. Ramachandran (red.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (vol. s. ). New York: Academic Press. , 1994 .

[48]  Terri Gullickson,et al.  Encyclopedia of human behavior , 1995 .

[49]  A. Kakabadse,et al.  Knowledge management: strategic change capacity or the attempted routinization of professionals? , 2002 .

[50]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[51]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[52]  Lee Sproull,et al.  What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[53]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical study: Special Topic Section on Knowledge Management in Asia , 2005 .

[54]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[55]  Mani R. Subramani,et al.  Situated Learning and the Situated Knowledge Web: Exploring the Ground Beneath Knowledge Management , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[56]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[57]  D. Teece.  Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets , 1998 .

[58]  Liam Fahey,et al.  Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management , 2000 .

[59]  Icek Ajzen,et al.  From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior , 1985 .

[60]  David J. Paper,et al.  User Acceptance of Voice Recognition Technology: An Empirical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2007, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[61]  A. Bandura.  Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory , 1985 .

[62]  P. Kollock.  The Emergence of Exchange Structures: An Experimental Study of Uncertainty, Commitment, and Trust , 1994, American Journal of Sociology.

[63]  Heeseok Lee,et al.  The Impact of Information Technology and Transactive Memory Systems on Knowledge Sharing, Application, and Team Performance: A Field Study , 2010, MIS Q..

[64]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[65]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management , 2002 .

[66]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  A Longitudinal Model of Continued IS Use: An Integrative View of Four Mechanisms Underlying Postadoption Phenomena , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[67]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[68]  Valerie K. Spitler.  Learning to Use IT in the Workplace: Mechanisms and Masters , 2005, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[69]  Shu Han,et al.  Changing the Competitive Landscape: Continuous Innovation Through IT-Enabled Knowledge Capabilities , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..