When Credible Sources Share Complex Knowledge

It is generally believed that the credibility of the source contributes to the effectiveness of the transfer of knowledge. This belief, that could be traced back to Aristotle’s seminal observation that the opinions of “good men” have more impact on other men’s behavior, has received clear empirical support. Few cautionary notes exist in the management literature. Likewise, feeble discord can be detected in the field of communication studies, where occasional warnings are thinly supported by evidence. We argue that whether or not credibility contributes to the effectiveness of the transfer depends on how deeply what is being transferred is understood. We focus on situations where the transfer is primarily an effort to reproduce the results of a successful working example or template of a complex practice. We show that in the case of a causally ambiguous template, i.e., when there is irreducible uncertainty about the workings of the exemplary practice, a credible source might not contribute to the effectiveness of the transfer. At the core of our argument is the notion of accuracy. We back empirically and theoretically the notion that a transfer is generally more effective when it is structured around an initial effort to replicate the template accurately. Our analysis then shows that, under conditions of causal ambiguity, the credibility of the source is not associated with the accuracy and hence the effectiveness of the transfer. We rely on primary data collected through a two-step survey of 122 transfers of organizational practices within eight firms.