Chapter 6: Similarity Perform Similarity Transformations 6.7.
The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups
description
Transcript of The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups
![Page 1: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups
Enno Siemsen University of IllinoisAleda V. Roth Clemson UniversitySridhar Balasubramanian University of North Carolina
![Page 2: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Agenda
I. Introduction
II. Theory
III. Empirical Test
IV. Conclusion
![Page 3: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Specialists vs. Generalists
Specialists are
-Focused
-Experienced
-Innovative
-Informed
Generalists are
Flexible-
More Motivated-
Innovative-
Skinner (1978)
Argote (1999)
For example:
Hopp and van Oyen (2004)
Hackman and Oldham (1980)
Schilling et al. (2003)
For example:
Schultz et al. (2003)
![Page 4: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Agile Production Systems
• Workforce Flexibility(Hopp and van Oyen 2004)
• Knowledge Transfer and Learning(Roth et al. 1994; Schroeder at al. 2002; Ferdows 2006)
![Page 5: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Research Question
• Key Construct: Competence Similarity“The ability of an employee to perform the tasks of a coworker”
• Research Question:“Does competence similarity enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing within a dyad?”
![Page 6: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Uniqueness Theory
Snyder and Fromkin (1980); Maslow (1962)
Performance Feedback Theory
Feistinger (1954)
Theoretical Model
Motivation to Share
Competition(-)
Competence Similarity
(+)
Social Interdep. Theory
Deutsch (1949)
![Page 7: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Theoretical Model
Motivation to Share
Competition
Help Linkage
(-)
(+)Competence Similarity
(+)
(+)
Worksharing Systems
Buzacott (2004); Hopp and van Oyen (2004)
Job Design
Kiggundu (1981)
Self Efficacy
Gist and Mitchell (1992)
![Page 8: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Theoretical Model
Motivation to Share
Competition
Help Linkage
(-)
(+)
Workgroup Identification
Competence Similarity
OutcomeLinkage
(+)
(+)
(+)
(-)
(+)
Diversity in Workgroups
Northcraft et al. (1995)
Social Identity Theory
Henessy and West (1999)
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
Hogg et al. (2005)
![Page 9: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Theoretical Model
Motivation to Share
Competition
Help Linkage
(-)
(+)
Workgroup Identification
Competence Similarity
OutcomeLinkage
(+)
(+)
(+)
(-)
(-)
(+)
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Brewer and Weber (1994)
![Page 10: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Data Collection
• Survey Based Research
• Knowledge Sharing Incident
• Auxiliary Network Data
• Four Different Sites– Design Engineers (Pilot, N=130)– IT Specialists (N=58)– Line Workers (N=101)– Assembly Technicians (N=31)
![Page 11: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Knowledge SharingVertical vs. Horizontal Flow
Vertical Knowledge Sharing
Workgroup
Management
Horizontal (within Group)Knowledge Sharing
Focus of this Research!
Workgroup
Horizontal (between Group)Knowledge Sharing
![Page 12: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Tribal Knowledge
• Work-related knowledge, mostly generated from the experience of employees engaged in organizational tasks involving their daily work. (adapted from Dixon 2000)
"Design ideas for creating a system which would force more project requirement documentation before software engineers could begin programming."
"I discovered that if pallets of product were turned a certain way, more product could be put on the railcars."
"When building an engine, our day shift has a flow which allows us to get further on building the engine."
![Page 13: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Empirical Analysis
• Reliability/Validity• Multiple Imputation• Tobit Models
– Hypothesized Relationships– Direct Effects– Square Terms– Control Variables
• Company• Age, Gender, Education• Tenure, Management
Responsibility• Group Leadership, Group Pay• Total Compensation, Paid per Hour
• Robustness Tests
![Page 14: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Empirical Results
* Indicates significance at .1 level** Indicates significance at .05 level*** Indicates significance at .01 level
Motivation to Share
Competition
Help Linkage
-.26***
.44***
Workgroup Identification
Competence Similarity
OutcomeLinkage .03
.13*
-.19/-.20**
-.08
-.58***
.57***
![Page 15: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Empirical Results(for low-friendship relationships)
* Indicates significance at .1 level** Indicates significance at .05 level*** Indicates significance at .01 level
Motivation to Share
Competition
Help Linkage
-.26***
.44***
Workgroup Identification
Competence Similarity
OutcomeLinkage .03
.12*
-.21*-.20*
-.34**
-.50***
.57***
War
ning
Explo
rato
ry R
esul
ts
![Page 16: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Empirical Results
Friendship=-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Competence Similarity
Co
mp
etit
ion
ID=-1.5
ID=0
ID=1.5
Friendship=0
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-2 -1.6 -1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8
Competence Similarity
Co
mp
etit
ion
iID=-1.5
ID=0
ID=1.5
![Page 17: The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070410/5681456c550346895db23d86/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
INFORMS 2006
Conclusion
• Competence similarity generally seems to have a positive impact on cooperative behaviors like knowledge sharing.
• Only for low levels of friendship, competence similarity may trigger a need for uniqueness and performance comparisons that lead to competition.