Jos

Exploring the Influence of Ownership on Knowledge Sharing Page 1

Exploring the Influence of Ownership On Knowledge Sharing in the Workplace

Abstract

The importance of knowledge to the firms competitive advantage is an acknowledged fact in todays

economic climate. A significant proportion of the firms collective wisdom comes from her

employees and a growing number of researchers have alluded to the importance of ownership

perceptions in influencing employee attitudes and behaviour for knowledge sharing in the workplace.

In this exploratory study, we examine the relationship between employee ownership perceptions and

their willingness to share their knowledge assets, both tangible and intangible. In conjunction, the

influence of the work environment on fostering employee ownership beliefs is also examined.

Perceptions of the organizations rights to knowledge created by the employee (organisational

ownership) were found to encourage knowledge sharing. On the other hand, perceptions of the

individuals rights to knowledge he/she creates (individual ownership) were found to discourage

knowledge sharing. Employees perceive the ownership of different knowledge assets differently, with

codified knowledge assets more likely to be perceived as the organisations property. Tacit knowledge

assets were perceived equally as both organisational and individual property. The influence of the

work environment on employee ownership perceptions differed according to the knowledge type

(codified or tacit). The ownership perceptions of codified knowledge assets were influenced by work

environmental variables of an institutional nature (i.e. reward, performance evaluation, organisational

procedures and the presence of knowledge sharing norms). Ownership perceptions of tacit knowledge

assets on the other hand, were largely influenced by work environment variables of a relational nature

(i.e. co-worker relationship quality and supervisor relationship quality).

Keywords: organisational knowledge, ownership, knowledge sharing, knowledge management


Introduction

Organisational knowledge has been described by theorists and practitioners alike as the key

competence of the enterprise. It is defined as stocks of expertise that the organisation possesses and

capitalizes on much in the same way as they would capitalize on their physical assets such as

machinery (Starbuck 1992). Furthermore, organizational knowledge is described as comprising the

firms collective wisdom which is inimitable, scarce, path dependent and hence unique and profitable

as a strategic asset (Cabrera and Cabrera 2005).

In order to benefit the organisation, knowledge is a resource which should be shared amongst

those that will make profitable use of it. However, the case in majority of organisations is that vital

strategic and operational information is locked away in the heads of key staff or is expressed in

explicit form and stored in personal hard drives, filing cabinets or other related storage media (Dilnutt

2002). It is apparent across industry that knowledge has become key organizational currency and

hence is too valuable for most managers to just give away (Davenport et al. 1992). The raison dtre

for this is rooted in the fact that knowledge is generated and controlled by the individual. The

employee is the source of much knowledge in the organisation. Through their experience in their

hiring organisations employees generate, discover and assimilate knowledge. Some of this knowledge

is distributed to groups and individuals elsewhere in the organisation, but much of it remains in the

control of the individual worker who initially created and acquired it (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001).

Herein the conflict lies, even though organisational knowledge constitutes a strategic corporate asset,

it is controlled at the level of the individual employee.

However, we observe a different picture in practice whereby the firm is solely recognised and

accredited with the ownership of its knowledge assets (Assudani 2005; Walsh and Unqson 1991).

Corporate law stipulates the firms shareholders as the owners of its core assets; its employees treated

as property and recorded as costs (Manville and Ober 2003). Thus, it is the general observation that

ownership rights are granted to the firm rather than its employees who are the actual providers of

intellectual capital. This is apparent in the legal instruments of copyright, trademark, trade secret and

patent which could be deployed to reinforce and protect the firms control rights to the intellectual

assets created by its employees.

The issue of control lies at the heart of driving effective knowledge exchange. The evident

disparity between recognition given to control at organisational level in contrast to that at the

individual level provides an insight into the shortcomings of current practice in motivating employees

to share their best knowledge. Ownership perceptions of employees regarding their knowledge assets

are proposed to influence their attitudes towards its sharing. Exploring employee perceptions towards

their organisations stake to the knowledge they create therefore provides an instrument for devising

incentives for encouraging knowledge sharing in the workplace. A clear understanding of ownership


issues provides a template for understanding the organisational contexts that are favourable to

knowledge sharing. Thus, we argue that creating favourable organisational contexts for knowledge

exchange begins with recognising the roles that both organisational ownership and individual

ownership perceptions play in motivating knowledge sharing between employees. Hence it follows

that critical to the building of the firms knowledge is the management of employee ownership

perceptions regarding the knowledge they create or apply as part of their work.

This paper explores the ownership perceptions of employees towards the knowledge they have

created or acquired. On the one hand, we explore employee perceptions of their organisations

ownership rights to knowledge they have created or acquired in the workplace (termed organisational

ownership perceptions). On the other, we explore employee perceptions of their individual rights to

knowledge they have created or acquired in the workplace (termed individual ownership perceptions).

The influence of the work environment on fostering employee organisational and individual

ownership perceptions is also explored. In this vein we seek to determine the work environment

factors which help determine whether an employee perceives the knowledge they create or have

acquired to be owned by the organisation or indeed as a personal asset. In so doing, we explore the

influence of organisational and individual ownership perceptions on knowledge sharing. Following

(Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001), we refer to explicit knowledge, that which is

tangible and expressed in formal systematic language (e.g. report or software program) as knowledge

product. Conversely, we refer to tacit knowledge, that which is intangible, less formal and embodied

in human memory, experience or skill (e.g. ability to write a computer program) as expertise.

The Proposed Model

Property rights theorists argue that the concession of ownership is achieved via economic or social

exchange. As a result, knowledge sharing based on both social and economic exchange are

characterised by the expectation of a future return. However, whilst economic exchange is

characterised by the expectation of a tangible benefit (e.g. monetary reward, promotion or education

opportunity) social exchange entails unspecified obligations in which the exact nature of the expected

return is undefined (Bock and Kim 2002; Weissenberg 1971). Researchers base their theories of

knowledge sharing on the social exchange model with participants engaging in knowledge exchanges

to maintain future relationships, the balance of power and image (Cabrera and Cabrera 2002; Constant

et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). In addition, researchers have tried to apply economic

exchange views by emphasizing incentive systems for motivating knowledge sharing (Bock and Kim

2002; Hall 2001, 2002). This is illustrated in the use of benefits such as increased pay or bonuses in

the form of cash or stock options to encourage employees to share their knowledge. Exchange

theories operate on a self interest paradigm in which employees act out only to maintain and enhance

their outcomes and hence do not explain knowledge sharing as voluntary co-operation which goes


beyond the call of duty wherein individuals exert effort, energy, and initiative to the best of their

abilities on behalf of the organisation even at a personal cost. It is argued that even in situations of

personal cost, the employee can act for the organizational good rather than in self interest. This pro-

social dimension in which employees work to maintain organisational well being rather than

individual interests is an important foundation for exploring knowledge sharing in the workplace.

By its very nature, knowledge sharing can be described as voluntary behaviour which cannot be

fully stipulated by contract or formal reward package. This is due to the intangible nature of

knowledge and the fact that its sharing cannot be monitored or supervised and as such knowledge

sharing is discretionary in nature. It then becomes apparent that the use of rewards to stimulate

knowledge sharing has its limitations (Hall 2001, 2002). So how does the organisation induce

knowledge sharing that goes beyond self interest? According to (Kim and Mauborgne 1998), the

exercise of fairness induces voluntary co-operation among organizational members. There is

substantial evidence that fairness is an important dimension affecting employees actions and

reactions (Masterson et al. 2000; Moorman 1991; Niehoff and Moorman 1993). Studies on fairness

have challenged the view of economic man motivated only by concerns of rational gain (Kollock

1998). Perceptions of fairness influence the general perception of the extent to which the organisation

values the employee which in turn prompts him/her to reciprocate by performing pro-social

behaviours that benefit the firm. The employees perception of how an organisation values him or her

may be vital for determining if any attitudes or behaviours benefiting the organisation emerge from

the social-exchange relationship (Moorman et al. 1998). Thus we assert that if employees perceive

that key elements in their work environment are fair, they will be likely to reciprocate by adopting

pro-social attitudes and performing pro-social behaviours that benefit their firm.

Whilst the economic and social exchange theories present knowledge sharing as motivated by

self interest, it is also categorised as pro-social behaviour in which employees share their knowledge

to further organisational rather than personal well being. The ability to tap into the voluntary aspect of

knowledge sharing which goes beyond outcome driven self interest is critical to motivating quality

knowledge exchange in the firm. We posit that employee ownership perceptions have a role to play in

explaining knowledge sharing as a pro-social attitude. We advocate that employee fairness

perceptions of their work environment play a role in fostering their ownership perceptions which in

turn influences their willingness to share their knowledge.

Based on the principles presented above, the proposed model comprises of ten variables which

form the tenets for our knowledge ownership model as illustrated in Figure 1. The overarching model

proposition is as follows: ownership perceptions are the underlying mechanism through which the

work environment influences knowledge sharing. To test this proposition, we determine the influence

of employee ownership perceptions as predictors of knowledge sharing. This is coupled with

establishing the influence of the work environment variables as predictors of employee ownership

perceptions.


Figure 1: The Proposed Model for Organisational Knowledge Ownership

We adopt a linear approach to investigating the influence of ownership through the work environment

on knowledge sharing following similar previous studies (Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples

2001). As a result, this study is focused solely on identifying direct relationships between the

proposed model variables. The exploratory nature of this study coupled with the extensive number of

work environment variables investigated meant that a linear study was the most pragmatic way to

approach this initial attempt to clarify the influences of the work environment on employee ownership

perceptions and subsequently on knowledge sharing. In so doing we set out to isolate the most salient

model variables. Even though we do expect to observe indirect effects, hence pointing to the circular

model as an alternative method for inferential analysis, due to the aforementioned reasons, the linear

approach was considered as suitable in fulfilling the aims for this study. The model variables and the

resulting hypotheses are described in the following sections.

Organisational vs Individual Ownership

Organisational ownership of knowledge is the belief that the organisation owns the knowledge of its

employees. The employees knowledge is not his/hers to withhold selfishly but must be used for the

wider benefit of the firm. This belief is rooted in the norm that the organisation owns the labour of its

employees (Constant et al. 1994). The presumption that work outcomes belong to the organization is

proposed to cause the individual to infer that the knowledge ownership rights belongs to the firm.

Thus it is argued that knowledge outcomes of work such as an idea, process, invention, software

application or document that the employee creates or acquires at work or utilising the firms resources

belongs to the employer and is not in the remit of the employee to withhold.


Past work has shown that employees are more likely to perceive knowledge products as

organizational possessions (Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). This is explained by

the fact that knowledge products are discernible and as such are tangible work outcomes. Individual

ownership of knowledge is the belief that the individual owns the knowledge he/she creates. This

belief stems from a sense of possession in which the individual feels that knowledge he/she creates is

his/hers. The concept of individual ownership is rooted in work by theorists on psychological

ownership whereby an individual develops possessive feelings for a tangible or intangible object (Van

Dyne and Pierce 2004; Wang et al. 2006). Thus individual ownership can be further described as the

state in which employees experience feelings of possessiveness and of being psychologically tied to

the knowledge they create.

Theorists posit that the psychological state of ownership is linked to self concept perceptions.

As such, feelings of ownership cause the individual to view their possession as part of themselves. As

a result, there is an investment of self in the possessed object which results in the individual seeing

themselves and their effort in the objects existence. This leads to the widely held argument that

individuals communicate their identity through their possessions (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004; Wang

et al. 2006). In past studies, expertise was perceived less as an organizational possession than a

knowledge product. This can be explained by the fact that tacit unlike codified knowledge is less

discernible and ambiguous. It can be further explained by the finding that people do not view tacit

knowledge as a product or commodity; rather they view it as part of themselves (Constant et al. 1994).

The study by (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001) confirms that the sharing of tacit knowledge is related to

self esteem and self identity. In this paper, they find that sharing expertise directly reflects on self

identity and self worth, having direct implications for the expression of the possessors identity and

value. Sharing expertise then becomes an expression of self providing personal benefits such as

heightened self esteem, pride, efficacy, more respect from others, a better reputation, reduced

alienation and stronger feelings of commitment. Based on the discussion above, we propose the

following hypotheses:

H1: An individual associates organizational ownership more with knowledge products than

individual ownership. H2: An individual associates individual ownership more with expertise than organisational

ownership

Propensity to Share Knowledge Propensity to share knowledge can be defined as the tendency of an individual to divulge his/her

knowledge under any given circumstance. It is classified as a pro-social attitude which captures the

general inclination of employees to make every effort to maintain the wellbeing of other organization

members and the organization rather than just themselves (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). It goes above


and beyond the contractual and job requirements, is voluntary in nature, is not directly or explicitly

rewarded and contributes positively to the organizations well being.

We expect that an employees propensity to share to be influenced by the perceived ownership

structure in place. Perceptions of organisational ownership are expected to engender greater tendency

to share knowledge. (Constant et al. 1994) argue that organisational ownership beliefs cause a

transformation of motivation whereby employees share their knowledge for the firms benefit rather

than as subject to the individuals preference. The work by (Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and

Staples 2001) confirm that organisational ownership beliefs encourage attitudes favouring sharing of

knowledge products such as a computer program.

Theorists propose that feelings of individual ownership foster a sense of responsibility towards

the possession by the owner (Van Dyne and Pierce 2004; Wang et al. 2006). As a result, owners

protect and defend their ownership rights through a variety of means including through controlling

and limiting access by others. Feelings of individual ownership are purported to have negative effects

in which individuals focus on enhancing their ownership at the expense of others (Wang et al. 2006).

This focus on self interest is theorised to impede support for sharing. As a result, we propose that

individual ownership inhibits tendency to share because it works to protect self interest rather than the

general organisational well being. Based on the discussion above, we propose the following

hypothesis (in two parts):

H3a: Organisational ownership of knowledge is positively associated with propensity to share

knowledge products and expertise. H3b: Individual ownership of knowledge is negatively associated with propensity to share

knowledge products and expertise.

Reward An employer-offered reward is anything that will influence an employee to behave in a manner that

will benefit the organisation (Henderson 1988). Rewards employed by organisations fall into two

categories; compensation rewards that are tangible (i.e. remuneration) and non-compensation

rewards that are intangible (i.e. recognition).

Compensation rewards are those rewards that the organization pays for and provides to the

employee in (1) money and in (2) goods and services that are considered desirable by the employee

(Henderson 1988). The total compensation is made up of base compensation (the fixed pay), pay

incentives (e.g. bonuses and profit sharing), benefits (e.g. health insurance, holidays) and perquisites

or perks (e.g. company car, gym membership) (Gomez-Mejia 1995). Typically, these rewards

constitute payment for labour performed for the firm. Non-compensation rewards are non-utilitarian

rewards that satisfy an employees intellectual, psychological, emotional and social demands

(Henderson 1988). They are most commonly present in the form of recognition and promotion.


The reward system is an unequivocal statement of the organizations values and beliefs (Folger

and Konovsky 1989). As such depending upon the kinds and amounts of rewards they receive, people

make decisions relative to the organizations they want to work for, the intellectual and physical effort

they will expend, the responsibilities they will accept and the whether or not they will remain with the

organisation (Henderson 1988).

The fairness perceptions of rewards refer to distributive justice because it is linked to the degree

to which rewards are allocated in an equitable manner (Niehoff and Moorman 1993). Based on the

concept of reciprocation, if employees feel they are fairly recompensed by their employers, they will

tend to reward this behaviour by demonstrating organisational ownership beliefs. The confidence in

the firms underlying motive of value and respect is likely to foster trust in the employer-employee

relationship. As a result, employees are likely to accede to their organisation, ownership of their

personal knowledge in the belief they will not be exploited. Conversely, when employees experience

reward inequity, they are likely to guard against further exploitation by demonstrating individual

ownership beliefs. The lack of trust in the employer-employee relationship is likely to create the

impulse to protect self-interest rather than the overall organizational well-being. Based on the

discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis (in two parts):

H4a: An employees organisational ownership perceptions are positively associated with the

remuneration / recognition received at work. H4b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated with the

remuneration / recognition received at work. Work Nature

Work organizations provide individuals with opportunities to meet their personal needs and

aspirations (Henderson 1988). It is important to ensure that the work content fits with the employees

personal needs for variety, interest, control, and tasks which are meaningful and important (Mumford

1972). These relate to the unique human need for achievement and in attaining this, experiencing

psychological growth. A job that covers the above characteristics provides internal rewards which the

employee can reciprocate by exhibiting organisational ownership beliefs which benefit the firm.

Conversely, if the nature of the work is deemed by the employee as limited in responsibility, rigid in

specification, low in feedback, unimportant, and imbued with considerable routine, then the human

needs for growth remain unfulfilled. As a result the employee may perceive job inequity due to the

inability to obtain the personal value being sought in his/her work. The affected employee may

attempt to resolve this tension by holding individual ownership beliefs concerning personal

knowledge assets. Based on the discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis (in two parts):


nature of his/her work.


H5b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated with the nature of his/her work.

Performance Evaluation Performance evaluation can be described as the periodical and formal assessment of employee

performance. Performance evaluations are a key part of the reward system. A key aspect of reward

systems involves not only the what of rewards but also the how (Kerr and Slocum Jr. 1987).

Performance evaluations constitute the latter and can be described as the process by which reward

decisions are made. The conduct of performance evaluations plays a role in reflecting organizational

values (Moorman et al. 1998). As such, employees evaluate their organisations based on the values

reflected and base their knowledge exchange decisions on reflected values. Fair performance

evaluations can indicate that an appraiser respects the dignity of an appraisee, hence treating them

with respect and concern (Kim and Mauborgne 1998). These form symbolic outcomes of the firm

regardless of the tangible outcomes. The symbolic outcomes of respect and dignity may act as an

incentive to employees to hold organisational ownership beliefs. As a result employees may repay the

organisation by demonstrating pro-social attitudes which culminates in actions benefiting the

organisation.

Conversely, unfair performance evaluations may communicate that the firm undervalues the

employee. To guard against the sense of exploitation this creates, the employee is more likely to

perceive individual ownership of personal knowledge assets. Based on the discussion above, we

propose the following hypothesis (in two parts):

H6a: An employees organisational ownership perceptions are positively associated with his/her

performance evaluation. H6b: An employees self ownership perceptions are negatively associated with performance

evaluation.

Organizational Procedures Organizational procedures encompass the methods which guide organisational decision making as

well as their implementation. Elements of fairness are judged as the degree to which formal

procedures increase employee voice in decisions and decrease bias and errors in organisational

decision making (Niehoff and Moorman 1993). Fair organisational procedures signal that the

employer values their employees, in particular that their concerns and points of view are paid

attention to. This surmounts to the sense of being treated with respect and dignity. As a result, fair

organizational procedures may play a role in signalling to employees that they can contribute in a

discretionary fashion without being vulnerable to exploitation. Employees may seek to reciprocate

this sense of fairness through the demonstration of pro-social attitudes targeted at maintaining the


organisations wellbeing. As a result, employees may reciprocate fair organisational procedures by

demonstrating organisational ownership attitudes towards their knowledge assets.

Conversely, unfair formal procedures signal a disregard of personal well being to employees

and may trigger self protection attitudes which protect against exploitation. This defensive capability

acts to protect self interest and may be revealed in the demonstration of individual ownership beliefs

towards personal knowledge assets. Based on the discussion above, we propose the following

hypothesis (in two parts):

H7a: An employees organizational ownership perceptions are positively associated with the

organizational procedures of their employing firm. H7b: An employees self ownership perceptions are negatively associated with the organizational

procedures of their employing firm. Knowledge Sharing Norms

The role that norms play in shaping employee attitudes towards organisational knowledge resources is

acknowledged in literature (Gold et al. 2001; Mehta 2007). Norms consist of shared beliefs that guide

group behaviour as well as the interpretation of the actions of group members (McDermott and O'Dell

2001). Thus norms specify socially expected behaviour and may be encountered as simple precepts

such as play hard, work hard, be a good team member, challenge status quo etc. Perpetuating the

belief that knowledge sharing is correct and expected workplace behaviour is a widely

recommended knowledge management practice (Bosua and Scheepers 2007; Mehta 2007).

In its role shaping the pro-social behaviour of knowledge sharing, we expect that knowledge

sharing norms encourage organisational ownership attitudes. This is because irrespective of personal

costs knowledge sharing norms are expected to guide the employee towards considering

organizational well-being above self interest. Conversely, we expect that the absence of knowledge

sharing norms encourage individual ownership attitudes. This is because their absences reflects the

existence of individualistic practices and as such indicate a competitive culture. Such competitive

climates reinforce individual effort at the expense of co-operation and as a result perpetuate the need

to preserve self interest rather than organizational well being. Based on the discussion above, we

propose the following hypothesis (in two parts):

H8a: An employees organisational ownership beliefs are positively associated with the presence

of knowledge sharing norms. H8b: An employees individual ownership beliefs are negatively associated with the presence of

knowledge sharing norms. SuperiorSubordinate Relationship

Actions indicating positive regard for employees attributable to the supervisor purportedly create

feelings of obligation that serve to increase pro-social behaviour (Settoon et al. 1996). The leader-


member exchange (LMX) model has been used to conceptually describe the superior-subordinate

relationship (Wayne and Green 1993). The LMX model suggests that a type of exchange develops

between a supervisor and a subordinate, ranging from low to high quality. In addition the theory

contends that a supervisor will develop different quality exchange relationships with each of his or her

subordinates which remain relatively stable over time. High quality LMX relationships involve

mutual exchanges that go beyond those fundamental to the employment contract. Hence high quality

LMX seems to be characterized by high levels of trust, interaction, support and formal/informal

rewards (Sherony and Green 2002).

We propose that in high quality superior-subordinate relationships, employees tend to

reciprocate helpful behaviours of superiors by demonstrating organisational ownership attitudes

towards their knowledge assets. Conversely, low quality superior-subordinate relationships

characterised by low levels of support and trust creates a sense of inequity which employees attempt

to resolve by demonstrating individual ownership attitudes towards their knowledge assets. Based on

the discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis (in two parts):


quality of his/her supervisor relationship. H9b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated with the quality

of his/her supervisor relationship.

Co-Worker Relationship Previous research has reported that good co-worker relations are positively associated with employee

work attitudes (Seers 1989; Sherony and Green 2002). Trust, respect and obligation have been

stipulated as the key components of quality relationships (Uhl-Bien et al. 2000). Past research on

small groups and teams make it clear that relationships among team members can affect how those

members feel about their team and their jobs (Seers 1989; Sherony and Green 2002). The higher the

quality of co-worker relationships, the more likely peers enlists the help of each other in the hope that

provided assistance will be reciprocated in the future. Any provided assistance creates obligations to

reciprocate which the employee fulfils by demonstrating pro-social attitudes targeted at maintaining

the well being of colleagues rather than self interest. As a result, employees in good quality co-worker

relationships are likely to hold organisational ownership beliefs towards their knowledge assets in

their endeavour to maintain organizational well-being.

Conversely, the lower the qualities of co-worker relationships, the more likely peers act in self

interest rather than for the organisational well being and thus, demonstrate individual ownership

attitudes towards personal knowledge assets. The competitive climate that such relationships create,

foster individualistic tendencies where employees focus on furthering self at the expense of


organizational well-being. Based on the discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis (in

two parts):


quality of his / her co-worker relationships. H10b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated with the quality

of his/her co-worker relationships.

The Study

A questionnaire based study was conducted to quantitatively test the proposed model and its

associated hypotheses. This study targeted knowledge workers in public, not for profit and private

sector organisations with varied job types. Because the premise under analysis is the knowledge

ownership attitudes of employees, our focus is the employee who uses knowledge as part of his/her

job. In total, three hundred ninety seven (397) employees from a variety of organisations including

universities, private training providers, management consultancies, telecoms, professional regulatory

bodies, international aid bodies, media, marketing, local councils, banks, construction, oil and gas,

and healthcare submitted completed questionnaires. Questionnaire items were designed to capture and

measure the proposed model constructs. In addition, effort was made to re-use relevant questionnaire

items that have been employed and validated in previous studies (Folger and Konovsky 1989; Graen

et al. 1982; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001; Moorman 1991; Niehoff and Moorman 1993; Price and

Mueller 1986; Seers and Graen 1984; Sims Jr. et al. 1976). This was done in an effort to enhance the

reliability and validity of constructs. As much as possible in order to limit neutral responses, we

encouraged respondents to give decided rather than undecided responses through the use of forced-

choice scales. Furthermore, a pilot survey using twenty-five administrative staff at the University of

Manchester was conducted in order to test the questionnaire usability.

Two scenarios were used in the questionnaires to measure organisational ownership, individual

ownership and propensity to share: knowledge products and expertise in the workplace. Embedded in

the scenarios was the Contrastive Vignette Technique (CVT) to counteract the effect of social

desirability in participant response. CVT is an indirect structured methodology for the measurement

of social attitudes and it has been shown to overcome the difficulties in directly assessing social

attitudes (Burstin et al. 1980). It has been shown to be a useful technique for eliciting complex social

judgements on subjects which are sensitive or are difficult to observe in the field (Robertson and

Anderson 1993). The CVT technique relies on presenting specific scenarios to respondents via short

stories or vignettes and the respondents are asked to judge the actions taken by actors in the story. The

CVT technique has been applied successfully in previous knowledge sharing studies (Constant et al.

1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001).


To test the level of organisational and individual ownership associated with knowledge

products and expertise, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test

compares two conditions (in our analysis, organisational ownership versus individual ownership)

when the same participants take part in each condition. It works by comparing the differences

between scores in the two conditions being evaluated (Field 2005). To assess the direct relationships

between ownership, propensity to share and work environment variables, correlation analysis and

multiple regression analysis were applied. Correlation measures the linear relationship between two

variables (Field 2005). It is denoted by the correlation coefficient r, and ranges from -1 to +1, the

closer this value is to 0, the weaker the relationship between the variables. Multiple regression is a

powerful statistical tool that tells us the predictive power of variables. It does this by assessing the

contribution of each predictor (independent) variables to explaining the outcome (dependent) variable.

This technique was applied to identify the statistically significant predictor variables in the proposed

model and its associated hypotheses.

A key premise of this study is the assertion that ownership perceptions shaped by the work

environment influence knowledge sharing. This assertion implies that ownership perceptions underpin

the proposed relationship between the work environment and knowledge sharing. In other words,

mediation analysis was conducted to test the intervening effect of ownership perceptions on the

relationship between work environment and knowledge sharing. Mediation analysis was carried out

according to the procedure set out by (Baron and Kenny 1986), which states that the demonstration of

mediation requires three regressions to be estimated:

1. the mediator, ownership perceptions must be predictable from the independent variables (work

environment)

2. the dependent variable (sharing) may be predictable from the independent variables (work environment)

3. The dependent variable (sharing) must be predictable from the combined independent variables and mediator (ownership perceptions)

If mediation is occurring, the mediator (ownership perceptions) will be significant in the third

equation.

Despite efforts to attain good design, the methodology employed is not without its limitations.

In the first instance this study made use of a number of new variables. A number of the hypothesised

relationships were revealed to be not significant. This lack of significance may be due to the inclusion

of a large number of variables in the model as the multiple regression technique works better with

fewer variables. Furthermore, the use of the CVT technique is limited by its own weaknesses. In

particular it may be argued that presenting respondents with hypothetical scenarios which they may

have never encountered, elicits responses that may be different to actual behaviour exhibited in the

workplace should those scenarios arise. Even though the use of the CVT technique was employed to


eliminate social desirability bias in our responses, we have no way of measuring if any bias still

existed. This study has been based on investigating perceptions rather than actual behaviour. Because

of the intangibility of knowledge itself and the sensitivity of the constructs measured it would have

been virtually impossible to conduct a study investigating actual behaviour in a field setting.

Analysis of the Hypotheses

The results of the hypothesis testing reported in the following, are separated into three sections. The

first section discusses hypotheses H1 and H2 that examine the differences in the way employees

associate ownership rights to their knowledge products and expertise. The second section discusses

hypotheses H3a and H3b that examine the influence of employee ownership perceptions on

knowledge sharing. The third section discusses the hypotheses that examine the influence of work

environment variables on shaping employee organisational and individual ownership perceptions.

Organisational vs Individual Ownership Hypotheses H1 and H2 discussed in this section examine how employees associate ownership

perceptions to their knowledge products and expertise.

Hypothesis H1: An individual associates organizational ownership more with knowledge

products than individual ownership was fully supported by the analysis. Wilcoxons signed-rank test

produced significant results for hypothesis H1. More specifically, for knowledge products,

perceptions of organisational ownership were significantly higher (mean score = 3.4) than perceptions

of self ownership (mean score = 2.3), (z = -11.328, p < .001, r = -.57).

Hypothesis H2: An individual associates individual ownership more with expertise than

organisational ownership was not supported by our analysis. Wilcoxons signed-rank test produced

non-significant results for the hypothesis H2. Contrary to the proposed hypothesis, for expertise, there

is no significant difference between perceptions of organisational (mean score = 2.9) and self

ownership (mean score = 2.9). (z = -.522, p = .602).

Ownership and Sharing Hypotheses H3a and H3b discussed in this section examine the relationship between employee

ownership perceptions and their propensity to share their knowledge. Hypothesis H3a: Organisational

ownership is positively associated with propensity to share knowledge products and expertise was

fully supported by our analysis for both knowledge types. Organisational ownership was revealed to

have a mediating influence on the sharing of both knowledge products and expertise. So not only are

organisational ownership perceptions revealed to be significant predictors of the willingness to share,

they play a role in the transformation of motivation whereby people weigh the social good of sharing

more strongly than the cost of reciprocating in self interest to a previously unhelpful colleague. The


occurrence of mediation in both the knowledge product and expertise sharing scenarios can be

observed in the fact that organisational ownership, the mediator is significant in the combined

regressions (see Table 1, Table 2, Table 5 and Table 6).

Hypothesis H3b: Individual ownership is negatively associated with propensity to share

knowledge products and expertise was fully supported by our analysis for both knowledge types (see

Table 2). As a result, we have evidence showing that stronger perceptions of individual ownership are

associated with a weaker inclination to share knowledge products or expertise. Like organisational

ownership, individual ownership perceptions were shown to have a mediating influence on propensity

to share knowledge. However unlike its counterpart, self ownership perceptions were shown to have a

negative effect on sharing, in which employees weigh the personal cost of sharing heavier than the

overall organisational benefit in responding to a previously unhelpful colleagues request for

knowledge. Mediation analysis revealed the occurrence of mediation for both knowledge products and

expertise as individual ownership, the mediator, was significant in the combined regressions. The

regressions also show the emergence of individual ownership as a significant predictor of knowledge

product and expertise sharing (see Table 3 and Table 4).


Variables Regression Equation1

(Predictors of Organisational Ownership)

Regression Equation2 (Predictors of Propensity to share)

Regression Equation3 (Combined Work Environment Variables and Organisational Ownership as predictors of Propensity to Share)

R2 Standardised Beta



Performance Evaluation .109 .251** .028 .181* .00 .099NS Organisational Procedures .023 .172* .00 .088NS .00 .071NS Work Nature .00 .117NS .00 .079NS .00 .073NS Knowledge Sharing Norms .00 -.100 NS .00 -.022NS .00 -.001NS Supervisor Relationship .00 -.42NS .00 -.054NS .00 .012NS Co-worker Relationship .00 .051NS .088 .225** .051 .233** Remuneration .00 -.075NS .00 .040NS .00 .071 NS Recognition .00 -.143NS .00 .065NS .00 .116NS Organisational Ownership .126 .305** R2 .132 .116 .177 Adjusted R2 .123 .106 .169 F 14.470** 12.440** 20.476** ** p is significant at 0.01 level *p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 1: Role of Organisational Ownership in Sharing Knowledge Products

Variables Regression Equation1 (Predictors of Organisational Ownership)


Regression Equation3 (Combined Work Environment Variables and Organisational Ownership as predictors of Propensity to share)




Co-worker Relationship .067 .224** .062 .249** .020 .148* Organisational Procedures .022 .181* .00 .009NS .00 .063NS Work Nature .00 -.015NS .00 .055NS .00 .039NS Knowledge Sharing Norms .00 .052NS .00 .088NS .00 .076NS Supervisor Relationship .00 .023NS .00 .053NS .00 .053NS Performance Evaluation .00 .019NS .00 .009NS .00 -.010NS Remuneration .00 -.102NS .00 -.013NS .00 .038NS Recognition .00 -.057NS .00 .093NS .00 .127 NS Organisational Ownership .183 .390** R2 .118 .062 .204 Adjusted R2 .104 .057 .195 F 8.433** 12.596** 24.311** ** p is significant at 0.01 level *p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 2: Role of Organisational Ownership in Sharing Expertise


Variables Regression Equation1

(Predictors of Individual Ownership)


Regression Equation3 (Combined Work Environment Variables and Individual Ownership as predictors of Propensity to share)




Knowledge Sharing Norms .056 -.173* .00 -.022NS .00 -.087NS Remuneration .020 -.155* .00 .040NS .00 -.021NS Work Nature .00 .036NS .00 .079NS .00 .115NS Performance Evaluation .00 .014NS .028 .181* .065 .181* Supervisor Relationship .00 .007NS .00 -.054NS .00 -.084NS Co-worker Relationship .00 -.068NS .088 .225** .027 .181* Organisational Procedures .00 -.037NS .00 .088NS .00 .060NS Recognition .00 -.027NS .00 .065NS .00 .010NS Individual Ownership .102 -.284** R2 .076 .116 .194 Adjusted R2 .066 .106 .181 F 7.684** 12.440** 14.984** ** p is significant at 0.01 level *p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 3: Role of Individual Ownership in Sharing Knowledge Products Variables Regression Equation1

(Predictors of Individual Ownership)


Regression Equation3 (Combined Work Environment Variables and Individual Ownership as predictors of Propensity to share)




Supervisor Relationship .043 -.256** .00 .053NS .00 .035NS Performance Evaluation .026 .313** .00 .009 NS .00 .056NS Work Nature .00 .104NS .00 .055NS .00 .090NS Remuneration .00 .001NS .00 -.013NS .00 -.077NS Knowledge Sharing Norms .00 -.084NS .00 .088NS .00 .059NS Co-worker Relationship .00 -.036NS .062 .249** .059 .242** Organisational Procedures .00 -.017NS .00 .125NS .00 .133NS Recognition .00 .001NS .00 .093NS .00 .082NS Individual Ownership .047 -.215** R2 .069 .062 .106 Adjusted R2 .059 .057 .097 F 6.991** 12.596** 11.225** ** p is significant at 0.01 level *p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 4: Role of Individual Ownership in Sharing Expertise


** p is significant at 0.01 level * p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 5: Zero-order Correlations: Ownership of Knowledge Products

Variables 1 2 3 1. Organisational Ownership 2. Self Ownership -.288** 3. Propensity to Share .333** -.225** 4. Remuneration -.016NS -.025NS .083NS 5. Recognition .089NS -.076NS .205** 6. Work Nature .187** .012NS .073NS 7. Performance Evaluation .181** .104NS .110NS 8. Organisational Procedures .184** -.053NS .161** 9. Supervisor Relationship .083NS -.062NS .096* 10. Co-worker Relationship .186** -.073NS .173** 11. Knowledge Sharing Norms .136** -.165** .143** ** p is significant at 0.01 level * p is significant at 0.05 level NS p is not significant

Table 6: Zero-order Correlations: Ownership of Expertise

Organisational Ownership and the Work Environment This section discusses the results of the hypotheses testing that examine the influence of identified

work environment variables on shaping employee organisational ownership perceptions. Three of the

proposed hypotheses in this category (namely, H6a, H7a and H10a) support a direct relationship

between work environment variables and organisational ownership. These hypotheses relate to the

influence of performance evaluation, organisational procedures and co-worker relationship on

organisational ownership perceptions of knowledge.

Hypothesis H6a: An employees organisational ownership perceptions are positively associated

with his/her performance evaluation was fully supported by our analysis for knowledge products

only. Correlation and regression analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between

performance evaluation and organisational ownership of knowledge products. Thus, we have evidence

to show that the fairer performance evaluations are directly linked to stronger organisational

Variables 1 2 3 1. Organisational Ownership 2. Individual Ownership -.341** 3. Propensity to Share .384** -.323** 4. Remuneration .062NS -.190** .161** 5. Recognition .067NS -.169** .152** 6. Work Nature .158** -.028NS .139** 7. Performance Evaluation .268** -.095NS .181** 8. Organisational Procedures .162** -.141** .173** 9. Supervisor Relationship .102* -.111* .137** 10. Co-worker Relationship .085NS -.096* .147** 11. Knowledge Sharing Norms .082NS -.245** .074NS


ownership perceptions of knowledge products. For expertise, zero order correlation analysis alone

produced significant results, revealing only an indirect relationship between the conduct of

performance evaluations and employee organisational ownership perceptions.

Hypothesis H7a: An employees organizational ownership perceptions are positively associated

with the organizational procedures of their employing firm was fully supported in our analysis for

both knowledge types. Correlation and regression analysis revealed fair organizational procedures as

significant predictors of organisational ownership perceptions for both knowledge products and

expertise. Employees who perceived their organisations as having fair organisational procedures were

more likely to hold beliefs of organisational ownership of their knowledge products and their

expertise.

Hypothesis H10a: An employees organisational ownership perceptions are positively

associated with the quality of his / her co-worker relationships was fully supported by our analysis for

expertise only. The hypothesised relationship was fully supported with by correlation and regression

analysis which produced significant results. Employees who rated their relationships with their

colleagues highly were more likely to hold organisational ownership beliefs regarding their expertise.

For knowledge products on the other hand, the same statistical analysis produced non significant

results. As a result, we have no evidence that higher quality co-worker relationships are associated

with stronger ownership beliefs regarding knowledge products.

Individual Ownership and the Work Environment Just as employee organisational ownership beliefs were posited to be shaped by work environment

components, we also propose their influencing effect on individual ownership beliefs. Three of the

proposed hypotheses (namely, H4b, H8b and H9b) reveal a direct influence of work environment

variables on employee individual ownership perceptions. These hypotheses relate to the influence of

remuneration, knowledge sharing norms and supervisor relationship quality on employee individual

ownership perceptions.

Hypothesis H4b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated

with the remuneration received at work was fully supported by our analysis for knowledge products

alone. Correlation and regression analysis produced significant results supporting the negative

association between remuneration and employee individual ownership perceptions regarding their

knowledge products. Employees who perceived their remuneration package as unfair were more

likely to hold individual ownership beliefs regarding the knowledge products they produced as part of

their work. For expertise on the other hand, the same statistical analysis produced non-significant

results. Thus we have no evidence of the above observed negative association between remuneration

and employee individual ownership beliefs regarding their expertise.


Hypothesis H8b: An employees individual ownership beliefs are negatively associated with the

presence of knowledge sharing norms was fully supported by our analysis for knowledge products

only. Correlation and regression analysis revealed significant results for the hypothesised negative

association between employee individual ownership beliefs regarding their knowledge products and

the presence of knowledge sharing norms. We have evidence showing that weaker perceptions of

knowledge sharing norms are directly associated with stronger individual ownership perceptions of

knowledge products. For expertise on the other hand, zero-order correlation alone revealed significant

results pointing to an indirect relationship between employee self ownership beliefs regarding their

expertise and the presence of knowledge sharing norms.

Hypothesis H9b: An employees individual ownership perceptions are negatively associated

with the quality of his/her supervisor relationship was fully supported by our analysis for expertise

alone. Supervisor relationship quality was revealed as a significant predictor of individual ownership

beliefs regarding expertise. Employees that reported having lower quality supervisor relationships

were more likely to hold stronger self ownership perceptions regarding their expertise. For knowledge

products, zero-order correlation analysis alone produced significant results indicating an indirect

association between supervisor relationship quality and individual ownership beliefs held by

employees about their knowledge products.

Discussion

The emergence of ownership as a precursor to knowledge sharing is a key thread of this study. The

significance of its contribution is evident in the finding that it mediates the effect of the work

environment variables on employee sharing attitudes. So not only is ownership a significant predictor,

it is an underlying influence on the effect of the work environment on employee knowledge sharing

attitudes. The finding that different perceptions of ownership have unique implications for knowledge

sharing has serious ramifications for theory and practice. Whilst organisational ownership perceptions

were revealed to have a positive influence thereby encouraging knowledge sharing, individual

ownership perceptions were revealed to have a negative effect, inhibiting knowledge sharing. In

keeping with the findings of (Constant et al. 1994), we have evidence that the belief that the

organisation owns work outcomes encourages the willingness to share knowledge to such an extent

that it overcomes the influence of self-interest in reciprocating negative behaviour by a previously

unhelpful colleague. On the other hand, we have evidence that individual ownership beliefs

discourages the willingness to share through its focus on self interest and so results in the use of

knowledge (being withheld) as a ware for reciprocation of past negative behaviour. This finding is in

keeping with management literature focussed on the self interest notion regarding knowledge, with

individuals being attributed with hoarding rather than sharing their knowledge for fear of losing


status, power or distinctive competence (Davenport et al. 1992; Orlikowski 1992). Literature is replete

with arguments of knowledge being observed as a means of control and defence.

Our findings reveal interesting differences in the way employees associate ownership rights to

their knowledge based on the knowledge type. Our findings provide evidence that individuals

associate stronger perceptions of organisational ownership to knowledge products they created in

comparison to their individual ownership perceptions. Interestingly our studies reveal that there is no

significant difference between the levels of organisational and individual ownership employees

associate with their expertise. In other words, employees associate equal levels of organisational and

individual ownership to their expertise.

The main premise of this work has been the assertion that the work environment shapes

employee ownership perceptions which consequently influences knowledge sharing. This assertion

has been supported by our findings which reveal that indeed employee organisational and individual

ownership perceptions shaped by the work environment drive knowledge sharing. We observe stark

contrasts in the type of work variables that influence employee ownership perceptions of the different

knowledge types.

For knowledge products, ownership perceptions were revealed to be directly influenced by

work environment variables of a structural nature: performance evaluation, organisational procedures,

remuneration and knowledge sharing norms. Organisational ownership perceptions were directly

influenced by performance evaluation and organizational procedures. Fair performance evaluation and

organisational procedures work by encouraging organisational ownership perceptions and as a result

encourage knowledge sharing. Individual ownership perceptions were influenced by a different set of

structural variables: remuneration and knowledge sharing norms. Fair remuneration and the presence

of knowledge sharing norms work by discouraging self ownership perceptions and as a result

influence stronger knowledge sharing inclinations.

For expertise, ownership perceptions were directly influenced by work environment variables

of a dual nature, relational and structural: co-worker relationship, supervisor relationship and

organisational procedures. Organisational ownership perceptions were shaped directly by co-worker

relationship and organisational procedures. Individual ownership perceptions on the other hand were

directly shaped as predicted by supervisor relationship quality.

From our study, we infer that high quality co-worker relationships and fair organisational

procedures have the effect of strengthening organisational ownership perceptions which consequently

leads to stronger sharing inclinations. On the other hand, high quality supervisor relationships have

the effect of weakening individual ownership perceptions which consequently leads to stronger

sharing inclinations. The variables recognition and work nature failed to emerge from the analysis as

significant predictors and hence do not have a direct influence on shaping ownership perceptions.

However, correlation analysis reveals an indirect effect which constitutes an important finding as it

indicates the possibility of chain effects. As such work nature and recognition may affect the other


significant work variables (e.g. co-worker relationship) which consequently influence ownership

perceptions. Performance evaluation was revealed to have contrary effects to that hypothesised on the

individual ownership perceptions of expertise. In fact our findings show that fair performance

evaluations encourage self ownership perceptions regarding expertise. This is a surprising result and

raises important questions that require further investigation.

Implications

The emergence of ownership as a key influence on the tendency to share or not share knowledge

highlights the need for organisational approaches that effectively manage employee ownership

perceptions.

The modern firm operates a private ownership structure centred on the perceived need to

protect and further the economic interests of the firm. The problem with this perspective is that

knowledge is then viewed as merely an organisational commodity to be exploited, rather than as a

private good with personal benefits to organisational members. Our findings reveal a different picture

with employees perceiving their knowledge assets as owned by both themselves and their employing

firms. The study by (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001) also alludes to this sense of joint ownership of

knowledge assets in the workplace. The translation of this joint ownership to practice begins with the

acknowledgement of self ownership of knowledge assets in firm theory. The semi-commons property

model may present a vehicle for this transformation of current legal and regulatory perspective. The

semi-commons property model (Heverly 2003) acknowledges the private and public attributes of

knowledge. It acknowledges the existence of knowledge as a private asset without undermining its

value as a public asset. As such, it recognises the interaction between private and common uses of

knowledge such that their coexistence achieves greater benefits than would be achieved under a

primarily private or common ownership scheme (Heverly 2003; Lipinski and Britz 2000). There is a

growing consensus on the dual properties of knowledge as both a public and a private good. In fact,

knowledge is described as a hybrid product which can be used to achieve public good whilst serving

private interests (Raban and Rafaeli 2007). The semi-commons property model presents an alternative

framework that accommodates the dual properties of knowledge as a public and private good.

The contrasting influence of organisational and individual ownership perceptions on knowledge

sharing adds a further dimension to current thinking. The finding that beliefs in organisational

ownership encouraged whereas individual ownership perceptions discouraged knowledge sharing has

important implications for current knowledge management theory. Past work has pointed to self

interest as the main driver for sharing knowledge. In his seminal study, (Constant et al. 1994) posit

that the sharing of expertise is motivated by self interest. Researchers go as far as pointing to

privatisation of knowledge as an enhancer of its sharing (Raban and Rafaeli 2007). In the first

instance, our findings show that organisational ownership perceptions also extend to expertise.


Employees do harbour beliefs about their organisations owning their expertise. The study by

(Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001) is confirmatory of this premise. Secondly it highlights the negative role

self interest sometimes plays in knowledge sharing through its action to preserve and maintain

individual benefits at the expense of overall organisational good. Even though it is important to

acknowledge the presence of individual ownership beliefs to further understand interventions that

foster knowledge sharing, it is equally important that focus on self interest is balanced with the pro-

social obligations inferred by organisational ownership. Our findings reveal that a preoccupation on

the self interest notion is associated with reciprocal behaviour which may have negative implications

for knowledge sharing whereby employees reciprocate past unsupportive colleagues by withholding

knowledge.

Knowledge management theorists posit that organizational culture determines the ownership of

knowledge and hence its flow through the firm (Mehta 2007). Past work has recommended that firms

manage their ownership issues through their organizational culture (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001).

However, organisational culture has proved to be a pervasive phenomenon, difficult to define or

manage (Kerr and Slocum Jr. 1987). Nonetheless organizational culture is powerful in reflecting

values and beliefs which go on to influence employee behaviour (Kerr and Slocum Jr. 1987).

The work environment provides a medium through which organisational culture can be

influenced as it plays a role in shaping the values, beliefs and attitudes of organisational members.

The specific variables at work are to a large extent defined and hence provide a measurable way in

which knowledge ownership issues can be managed. Our findings reveal that the effective

management of work variables can steer the ownership perceptions associated with employee

knowledge assets.

The finding that each knowledge type is perceived differently impacts the work conditions that

shape ownership perceptions. As such we infer that differing strategies need to be applied for

encouraging organisational ownership perceptions or reducing the focus on the self ownership

perceptions of different knowledge types. Whereas, organisational and self ownership perceptions

regarding knowledge products were influenced predominantly by the firms institutional properties,

those regarding expertise was leaned more towards the relational components.

The fact that the sharing of knowledge products is heavily influenced by the firms institutional

characteristics is confirmatory of the finding that employees are likely to perceive their organisations

as owning their knowledge products. In the past practitioners have focussed on the widely held

perception of work products as being property of the firm and as a result recommended interventions

that focus on the firms legal rights to employee knowledge products. Examples include the use of

policies that state the firms rights to employee work and the use of patent disclosures (Constant et al.

1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). However our findings reveal that encouraging the sharing of work

products is not as simple as making a case for the firms legal stance. In actual fact such sharing is

motivated by a heightened sense of organisational ownership which is shaped by the presence of fair


decision making procedures and performance evaluations. Conversely, such sharing is also motivated

by a weakened sense of self ownership which is shaped by fair remuneration and the presence of

knowledge sharing norms.

Whereas employees may share their work products because of their employing organisations

right to their labour, the sharing of expertise is not bound by such legal obligations. Past theorists

argue that its ambiguous nature and its embodiment in the individual employee renders employees to

perceive its ownership as individual rather than organisational. While it is true that employees tend to

associate individual ownership to their expertise, our findings show us that this does not conflict with

their perceptions of organisational ownership.

Because people view expertise as part of themselves its direct association with their identity

and value impacts the way ownership perceptions towards it are shaped. Its value to its holder as an

individual asset links its sharing to social transactions which are based on a foundation of mutual

trust. It is due to this reason that the relational element of the work environment plays a crucial role in

motivating expertise sharing. The presence of good quality co-worker and supervisor relationships

foster an environment of mutual trust in which employees share their expertise motivated by the

expectation that their contributions will be reciprocated.

Organisations need to take note of the importance of the work environment to knowledge

sharing through its influence on employee ownership perceptions. As (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001)

recommend, organisations need to do more to foster work environments in which individuals attach

high levels of organisational ownership to their knowledge assets. It is equally important that whilst

acknowledging individual ownership of knowledge assets, a co-operative work environment is

fostered in which the focus is on collaboration rather than individualism and as employees are

encouraged to attach low levels of individual ownership to their knowledge assets. This entails

ensuring the presence of fair organisational procedures, the conduct of fair employee appraisals,

knowledge sharing norms and a fair compensation package. Organisations need to do all they can to

encourage supportive co-worker and supervisor-subordinate relationships which have been shown to

be essential for the flow of expertise through the firm.

The importance of fair organisational procedures on shaping organisational ownership

perceptions for both knowledge products and expertise was highlighted by the study. Thus it is of

paramount importance that organizations ensure that the procedures for defining decision making

processes are fair. As such, formal procedures should be consistent, suppress bias, rely on accurate

information, open to correction, recognise the concerns of all recipients and founded on prevailing

moral and ethical standards (Greenberg 1990; Tepper 2000). Employee involvement and participation

in organisational decision making can influence fairness perceptions by acknowledging and allaying

the concerns of employees and in so doing engender perceptions of organisational ownership. There is

evidence to suggest that employees working in organizations with strategies that encourage managers

and employees to meet regularly, discuss problems and issues, and work out solutions appear to be


more inclined to become involved in efforts that improve the operating efficiency of the enterprise

(Gollan and Davis 1999).

The pivotal role played by performance evaluations in shaping organisational ownership

perceptions towards knowledge products is particularly note worthy. As a result, organisations need to

take steps to ensure that performance appraisals are fair in their conduct and in the treatment of the

employee at the hands of the appraiser. Involving employees in the setting of performance objectives

strengthens employee perceptions of their appraisals as fair (Kavanagh et al. 2007). Ensuring high

quality 2-way communication during the appraisal process in which employee concerns are also

respected, dealt with and provided with feedback on their job performance also strengthens employee

perceptions about the fairness of the appraisal process (Kavanagh et al. 2007). The use of consistent

appraisal procedures is essential in engendering the perceptions of fairness. As a result, organisations

should adopt appraisal techniques with consistent procedures such as Management by Objectives

(MbOs) and Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Fenwick and De Cieri 1996; Nankervis and Compton

2006). Supervisors can also be trained in the practices that enhance the perceived fairness of the

performance appraisals they conduct. Such practices include interviewing, feedback and coaching

techniques (Nankervis and Compton 2006).

High quality supervisor-subordinate relationships may be engendered by egalitarian

organisational structures. There is evidence that the maintenance of sharp status distinctions between

levels may be incompatible with the social support provided to subordinates (Marcus and House

1973). The supportive capability of employees in supervisory positions may also be strengthened by

training. Supportive behaviour can also be encouraged through the appraisal process by evaluating

supervisors on their efforts towards creating and maintaining good quality supervisor-subordinate

relations.

The recruitment and selection process can serve as a powerful instrument in providing an

environment that breeds supportive co-worker relations. Good quality co-worker relations are more

likely to be found between employees who share similar opinions and values which in turn reinforces

and strengthens network ties (Lin 2006). This begins with the building of a taskforce with common

core values as strong relationships are more likely where individuals share the same opinions and

values. This includes ensuring a close organization-employee fit by ensuring that the recruitment

process is geared towards the selection of individuals whose values are closely aligned with those of

the hiring firm. This results in a taskforce of employees with a uniform vision and consequently

higher levels of attachment to the firm. Staffing has been postulated as an instrument for encouraging

knowledge sharing as predicted by (Cabrera and Cabrera 2005).

Supportive co-worker relations may also be affected by work designs that encourage task

interdependence. Such work designs in which employees tasks are interrelated may encourage a co-

operative rather than competitive work orientation amongst team members.


Conclusions and Further Work

Todays economy driven by rapid technological change and increasingly characterised by

globalisation due to national and international deregulation has seen the emergence of intangible

assets; knowledge, skill and experience as the firms source of competitive advantage. In contrast to

the traditional factors of production based on tangibles: land, labour and capital, organisations are

increasingly dependent on the skills and expertise of their employees for sustained competitiveness.

However, harnessing and exploiting the knowledge of employees remains a challenge that is yet to be

resolved. Unlike the industrial age, the source of value in todays economy; knowledge lies in the

control of the employee. Motivating employees to volunteer their knowledge remains a prime concern

for organizations today.

This study is contributing to the body of science by unearthing key parallels as well as

differences to past work. In particular, this study re-examines findings from previous research in

which employees were found to perceive their knowledge assets differently depending on type

(Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). Whereas knowledge products were strongly

perceived as organisational possessions, expertise was strongly perceived as personal possessions.

However previous work is further enriched by our finding that employees also perceive their expertise

as belonging to the organisation. Unlike knowledge products, individuals are comfortable in

perceiving their expertise as both personal and organisational possessions. The finding that

organisational ownership perceptions motivate the sharing of knowledge products was also

confirmatory of previous research (Constant et al. 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001). Our finding

that organisational ownership perceptions motivate the sharing of expertise contradicts some previous

findings (Constant et al. 1994) and confirms others (Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001).

The findings of this study also confirm previous research which asserts the positive influence of

rewards, albeit limited on motivating knowledge sharing (Hall 2001, 2002; Jarvenpaa and Staples

2001). Our study sheds further light on the mechanism by which rewards influence knowledge sharing

through the action of employee self ownership perceptions.

More importantly, our study highlights the negative influence that individual ownership

perceptions have on knowledge sharing which contradicts previous findings which allude to a positive

one by virtue of the positive association between individual and organisational ownership (Jarvenpaa

and Staples 2001). This finding, however controversial it may be, was consistently supported by our

data and should be subject of further investigation to unravel possible far reaching implications to

theory and practice.

Furthermore, the deeper insight that this study offers into the influence of ownership

perceptions shaped by organisational variables on knowledge sharing has important implications for

practical reasons. In the following, a number of practical recommendations are stated on the different

ways employers can effectively manage employee ownership perceptions in order to motivate


knowledge sharing. First and foremost, organisations need to acknowledge the fact that irrespective of

their contractual obligations, employees perceive a personal stake in the knowledge they create. The

acknowledgement of individual ownership rights rather than just presuming organisational property

rights are a powerful way to engage the employees voluntary will to cooperate and share their

expertise. This can be achieved through the use of joint ownership clauses in contracts which confer

ownership to the employee while at the same time assigning a nonexclusive, nonassignable and

royalty-free license to use employee knowledge based work outcomes, whether explicit such as

software programs or less discernible such as the delivery of technical assistance.

Organisations should stipulate the onus for knowledge sharing in their mission statements and

corporate values. Knowledge sharing should be interwoven in the fabric of the organisation top level

down and should not be seen as an adjunct activity. Management plays a key role in driving messages

through the organisation by exemplary behaviour. As such, any knowledge sharing drive could begin

with managers being the good example of knowledge sharing activity. This can be implemented by

hosting regular question and answer sessions with executive members and senior management. This

can be conducted electronically through podcasts or video blogs put on the corporate intranet. The

designation of knowledge champions, senior management staff members with the responsibility of

raising awareness of the knowledge sharing mandate is also recommended.

Employers could structure compensation packages (monetary and non monetary) that fairly

reward employee work outputs with specific attention paid to knowledge based outcomes. The

performance appraisal presents an opportunity for employers to recognise the knowledge

contributions of employees. Whilst it is impossible to monitor employee knowledge sharing, the

performance appraisal provides an avenue for both the employee and the appraiser to discuss the

employees knowledge sharing capability and ways in which it can be demonstrated. As a result,

knowledge sharing capability is incorporated into career goals, reinforcing that it is expected and

normal organisational behaviour. Thus we recommend that employers implement fair performance

evaluation procedures that also incorporate the appraisal of employee knowledge sharing.

The importance of high quality employee relations in fostering employee ownership

perceptions beneficial to the organisation was highlighted in this study. Recruitment has a key role to

play in building a workforce committed to promoting organisational interests above self interest. This

begins with the recruitment of employees who are similar in their views on pro-social or citizenship

behaviour. Thus, as well as recruiting based on job specific criteria, employer could include selection

criteria that assess capability to act in organisational rather than self interest. This can be implemented

by incorporating questions that elicit from the applicant examples of situations where they have

conducted pro-social actions on behalf of a previous employer. This can also include questions on

past demonstration of knowledge sharing.

This work can be further extended by investigating the influence of ownership perceptions on

information systems development. Software development in industry is observed as a collaborative


effort with different stakeholder types interacting with the sole aim of delivering a product that meets

their specific requirements. Since ownership affects attitudes towards target, it is envisaged that such

a study will provide much needed insight on the conduct of successful information systems

development projects. Investigating the link between ownership and user acceptance has important

implications for the way software is designed, constructed, tested and delivered to customers.

With the advances in technology, we are observing that software development is becoming

increasingly global in nature with geographically distributed cross functional teams, multiple partners,

remote vendors and off-shore customers.

The physical, psychological and temporal separation of team members presents unique

challenges to software development. The boundaries between the individuals and the organisations

rights to knowledge assets are less clear due to physical separation of team members. The absence of

physical interaction between team members may also have implications on how ownership

perceptions of team members, especially in regards to expertise may be influenced.

Further work is required to address the questions: How can organisational ownership

perceptions towards knowledge assets be encouraged in such distributed environments? Does the

separation of team members in such distributed environment heighten individuality at the expense of

collaborative effort? The influence of ownership on collaborative effort presents an avenue in which

global software development efforts may be enriched.


References

Journal Article

Assudani, R.H. 2005. Catching the chameleon: understanding the elusive term" knowledge".

Journal of Knowledge Management 9(2) 31-44.

Baron, R.M., D.A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

personality and social psychology 51(6) 1173-1182.

Bock, G.W., Y. Kim. 2002. Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes

about knowledge sharing. Information resources management journal 15(2) 14-21.

Bosua, R., R. Scheepers. 2007. Towards a model to explain knowledge sharing in complex

organizational environments. Knowledge management research & practice 5(2) 93-109.

Burstin, K., E.B. Doughtie, A. Raphaeli. 1980. Contrastive Vignette Technique: An indirect

Methodology Designed to Address Reactive Social Attitude Measurement 1. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology 10(2) 147-165.

Cabrera, A., E.F. Cabrera. 2002. Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization studies 23(5)

687-710.

Cabrera, E.F., A. Cabrera. 2005. Fostering knowledge sharing through people management

practices. The international journal of human resource management 16(5) 720.

Constant, D., S. Kiesler, L. Sproull. 1994. What's mine s ours, or is it? A study of attitudes

about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5(4) 400-421.

Davenport, T.H., R.G. Eccles, L. Prusak. 1992. Information Politics. Sloan Management

Review 34(1) 53-63.

Dilnutt, R. 2002. Knowledge management in practice Three contemporary case studies.

International journal of accounting information systems 3(2) 75.

Fenwick, M., H. De Cieri. 1996. Building an integrated approach to performance management

using Critical Incident Technique. Asia Pacific journal of human resources 33(3) 76-91.

Folger, R., M. Konovsky. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to

Jos

Documents

Transcript of Jos