Who's Really Sharing? Effects of Social and Expert Status on Knowledge Exchange Within Groups

This study investigated the effects of social status and perceived expertise on the emphasis of unique and shared knowledge within functionally heterogeneous groups. While perceived expertise did not increase the individual's emphasis of their own unique knowledge, perceived experts were more likely than nonexperts to emphasize shared knowledge and other member's unique knowledge contributions. Additionally, socially isolated members participated more in discussions and emphasized more of their unique knowledge than did socially connected members. While unique knowledge contributions increased the positive perception of social isolates, similar unique knowledge contributions decreased the positive perception of socially connected members. Finally, socially connected group members gave greater attention to the unique knowledge contributions of the socially isolated member than to the contributions of their socially connected other, but more favorably evaluated members to whom they were more favorably connected than those to whom they were not. We discuss the implications of our findings for managing knowledge exchange within diverse groups.

[1]  R. Hastie,et al.  The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. , 1993 .

[2]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule , 1984 .

[3]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Group Composition and Decision Making: How Member Familiarity and Information Distribution Affect Process and Performance , 1996 .

[4]  Stephen Worchel,et al.  Emphasizing the Social Nature of Groups in a Developmental Framework , 1996 .

[5]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. , 1993 .

[6]  Donn Byrne,et al.  The Ubiquitous Relationship: Attitude Similarity and Attraction , 1971 .

[7]  D. Gruenfeld,et al.  What Newcomers See and What Oldtimers Say: Discontinuities in Knowledge Exchange , 1999 .

[8]  Janet A. Sniezek,et al.  Perceived Expertise and Its Effect on Confidence , 1994 .

[9]  Norman Miller,et al.  Cross‐cutting category membership with role assignment: A means of reducing intergroup bias , 1993 .

[10]  Dave Cliff,et al.  Creatures: Entertainment Software Agents with Artificial Life , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[11]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Computer simulation as a research tool: The DISCUSS model of group decision making , 1988 .

[12]  Deborah H. Gruenfeld,et al.  Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. , 2004 .

[13]  J. Levine,et al.  Shared Cognition in-Organizations: The Management of Knowledge , 1999 .

[14]  P. Kim.  When What You KnowCanHurt You: A Study of Experiential Effects on Group Discussion and Performance , 1997 .

[15]  M. Hogg,et al.  Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. , 1989 .

[16]  R. Moreland,et al.  Group Versus Individual Training and Group Performance: The Mediating Role of Transactive Memory , 1995 .

[17]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Separating individual and group effects , 1985 .

[18]  Clifford E. Brown,et al.  The relationship of social power to visual displays of dominance between men and women. , 1988 .

[19]  G. M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Mutual enhancement: Toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information , 1999 .

[20]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  The Bias Toward Discussing Shared Information , 2000, Commun. Res..

[21]  Delia S. Saenz,et al.  Memory deficits and memory surfeits: differential cognitive consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Group Categorization and Attribution of Belief Similarity , 1979 .

[23]  Itesh Sachdev,et al.  Status differenttals and intergroup behaviour , 1987 .

[24]  D. Krackhardt,et al.  Bringing the Individual Back in: A Structural Analysis of the Internal Market for Reputation in Organizations , 1994 .

[25]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Information Sampling in Decision-Making Groups , 1998 .

[26]  H. Tajfel.  Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology , 1981 .

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

[28]  Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt,et al.  Cognitive Flexibility, Communication Strategy, and Integrative Complexity in Groups: Public versus Private Reactions to Majority and Minority Status , 1998 .

[29]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Management of information in small groups. , 1996 .

[30]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[31]  J. R. French,et al.  The bases of social power. , 1959 .

[32]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Social Ostracism by Coworkers: Does Rejection Lead to Loafing or Compensation? , 1997 .

[33]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert Roles and Information Exchange during Discussion: The Importance of Knowing Who Knows What , 1995 .

[34]  Norbert Vanbeselaere,et al.  The effects of dichotomous and crossed social categorizations upon intergroup discrimination , 1987 .

[35]  R. Moreland,et al.  Exploring the Performance Benefits of Group Training: Transactive Memory or Improved Communication? , 2000 .

[36]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Perceived persuasiveness as a function of response style: Multi‐issue consistency over time , 1978 .

[37]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups : Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams , 1996 .

[38]  A. Alkire,et al.  Information exchange and accuracy of verbal communication under social power conditions. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  A. Hollingshead.  Communication, Learning, and Retrieval in Transactive Memory Systems☆☆☆ , 1998 .

[40]  Paul V. Martorana,et al.  What Do Groups Learn from Their Worldliest Members? Direct and Indirect Influence in Dynamic Teams , 2000 .

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

[42]  M. Brewer,et al.  Ingroup bias as a function of task characteristics , 1978 .

[43]  Masanori Takezawa,et al.  Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence : An illustration in a group decision-making context , 1997 .

[44]  G. Stasser,et al.  Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  Erich Kirchler,et al.  The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change , 1986 .

[46]  I. Katz,et al.  Effects of white authoritarianism in biracial work groups. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[47]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling Unshared Information: The Benefits of Knowing How Access to Information Is Distributed among Group Members , 2000 .

[48]  Rebecca A. Henry,et al.  Improving Group Judgment Accuracy: Information Sharing and Determining the Best Member , 1995 .

[49]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  G. Stasser,et al.  Information sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person groups. , 1989 .

[51]  E. Goffman.  Behavior in public places : notes on the social organization of gatherings , 1964 .

[52]  R. Tindale,et al.  ‘Social Sharedness’ as a Unifying Theme for Information Processing in Groups , 2000 .

[53]  Parks,et al.  Discussion and Decision: The Interrelationship between Initial Preference Distribution and Group Discussion Content. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[54]  G. Stasser,et al.  Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. , 1992 .

[55]  G. Littlepage,et al.  Effects of Task Experience and Group Experience on Group Performance, Member Ability, and Recognition of Expertise , 1997 .

[56]  K. Michele Kacmar,et al.  Impression Management by Association: Construction and Validation of a Scale , 2001 .

[57]  K. W. Phillips,et al.  The Effects of Categorically Based Expectations on Minority Influence: The Importance of Congruence , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[58]  H. Ibarra.  Race, Opportunity, And Diversity Of Social Circles In Managerial Networks , 1995 .

[59]  Jessica Lipnack,et al.  The TeamNet Factor: Bringing the Power of Boundary Crossing Into the Heart of Your Business , 1993 .

[60]  Margaret A. Neale,et al.  Tick tock-That’s the clock isn’t it: The relationship between time pressure and the confirmation bias , 2004 .

[61]  P. Bliese.  Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. , 2000 .