The Impact of Individual Centrality and Helping on Knowledge Sharing: A Study of Fit

Knowledge sharing is crucial to organizational and team success. As the complexity and contextualization of knowledge management systems continue to escalate, employees are increasingly relying on peers for contextualized technical help. Our study focuses on knowledge sharing from the perspective of employees who provide technical help, and whether employees who are central to team communication networks are more likely to share knowledge. Using a goodness-as-fit perspective, we examined knowledge sharing through the information processing capabilities of individual centrality and information processing needs of helping behavior. Our results demonstrated that helping behavior, when coupled with individual centrality, predicted knowledge sharing. We subsequently discuss other outcomes of our analyses and findings, along with the implications and contributions of our study.

[1]  Sharon Swee-Lin Tan,et al.  Contribution Behaviors in Distributed Environments , 2008, MIS Q..

[2]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Anne Beaudry,et al.  Understanding User Responses to Information Technology: A Coping Model of User Adaption , 2005, MIS Q..

[4]  M. Aiken,et al.  The Organic Organization and Innovation , 1971 .

[5]  R. Keller,et al.  Technology-Information Processing Fit and the Performance of R&D Project Groups: A Test of Contingency Theory , 1994 .

[6]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[7]  Ajay Mehra,et al.  The Social Networks of High and Low Self-Monitors: Implications for Workplace Performance , 2001 .

[8]  Daniel J. Brass.  Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. , 1984 .

[9]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research , 1997 .

[10]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  D. Krackhardt.  Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. , 1990 .

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

[13]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance , 1995, MIS Q..

[14]  Robin Teigland,et al.  The provision of online public goods: Examining social structure in an electronic network of practice , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[15]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality: The Effects of , 2022 .

[16]  Dennis F. Galletta,et al.  Individual Centrality and Performance in Virtual R&D Groups: An Empirical Study , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[18]  Chittibabu Govindarajulu.  The status of helpdesk support , 2002, CACM.

[19]  Z. Sasovova,et al.  TO DISLIKE AND TO BE LIKED: SELF-MONITORING, AFFECT-INTENSIVE RELATIONS AND WORK PERFORMANCE. , 2006 .

[20]  K. Klein,et al.  How Do They Get There? An Examination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks , 2004 .

[21]  D. Leidner,et al.  KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN IS RESEARCH , 2002 .

[22]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Investigating user resistance to information systems implementation: a status quo bias perspective , 2009 .

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

[24]  Vallabh Sambamurthy,et al.  Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Information Technolgoy Use: An Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers , 2003, MIS Q..

[25]  M. McLure Wasko,et al.  "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[26]  David Krackhardt,et al.  COMMENT ON BURT AND KNEZ'S THIRD-PARTY EFFECTS ON TRUST , 1996 .

[27]  J. Bunderson.  Team Member Functional Background and Involvement in Management Teams: Direct Effects and the Moderating Role of Power Centralization , 2003 .

[28]  J. Lincoln,et al.  Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks , 1979 .

[29]  John A. Pearce,et al.  Linking technology and structure to enhance group performance. , 1989 .

[30]  Daniel J. Brass.  Structural Relationships, Job Characteristics, and Worker Satisfaction and Performance. , 1981 .

[31]  Robin Teigland,et al.  Knowledge transfer in MNCs: Examining how intrinsic motivations and knowledge sourcing impact individual centrality and performance , 2009 .

[32]  Ilze Zigurs,et al.  A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness , 1998, MIS Q..

[33]  R. Burt.  The contingent value of social capital. , 1997 .

[34]  W A Randolph,et al.  The fit between technology and structure as a predictor of performance in nursing subunits. , 1985, Academy of Management journal. Academy of Management.

[35]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[36]  Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison,et al.  Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Importance of the Employee's Perspective , 1994 .

[37]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Model of Acceptance with Peer Support: A Social Network Perspective to Understand Employees' System Use , 2009, MIS Q..

[38]  Magid Igbaria,et al.  A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Network Structure in Virtual Organizations , 1999 .