Human Resource Management, JulyAugust 2009, Vol. 48, No. 4, Pp.

571 589
2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20298
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING
MOTIVATION
MARYL NE GAGN
In this article, I present a model of knowledge-sharing motivation based on
a combination of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and self-determina-
tion theory (SDT), along with a review of research supporting the model and
suggestions for future research and methodologies to study knowledge-
sharing behavior. I also give suggestions for designing ve important hu-
man resource management (HRM) practices, including stafng, job design,
performance and compensation systems, managerial styles, and training.
2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: knowledge sharing, work motivation, theory of planned
behavior, self-determination theory
O
rganizations competitive advan-
tage increasingly depends on
effective knowledge manage-
ment and organizational learn-
ing (Riege, 2005). Successfully
implementing knowledge management
systems depends on employee behavior
(Park, Ribiere, & Schulte, 2004), especially
on knowledge sharing among employees.
This paper proposes a process model of
knowledge-sharing motivation based on
the combination of two prominent theo-
ries of motivation: the theory of planned
behavior, or TPB (Ajzen, 1991), and self-
determination theory, or SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000). Previous models of
knowledge-sharing motivation discuss mo-
tivation only in terms of level or amount.
SDT proposes that motivation varies not
only in terms of level, but also in terms
of quality. Autonomous motivation has
been shown to lead to better behavioral
and attitudinal outcomes than controlled
motivation (Gagn & Deci, 2005). The pro-
posed model therefore builds on previous
knowledge-sharing motivation models by
taking into account the motivation qual-
ity. This new model will likely foster new
research that more precisely predicts
engagement in knowledge-sharing behav-
ior and potentially yields more successful
interventions aimed at increasing knowl-
edge sharing in organizations.
Knowledge Sharing
The study of knowledge in organizations has
included studies on the nature of knowledge
Correspondence to: Marylne Gagn, Associate Professor, Department of Management, GM 503-49,
John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve W., Montreal, Quebec, H3G 1M8,
Phone: 514-848-2424, ext. 2775, Fax: 514-848-4292, E-mail: [email protected]
572 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
and on the process of knowledge sharing
(Ipe, 2003). Knowledge is defined as a fluid
mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, and expert insights (Daven-
port & Prusak, 1998, p. 5). Knowledge shar-
ing is the process of mutually exchanging
knowledge and jointly creating new knowl-
edge (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004); it
implies synergistic collaboration of individu-
als who work toward a common goal (Boland
& Tenkasi, 1995). As I will discuss in greater
length, it is often assumed that knowledge-
sharing behavior shares similarities with
many other voluntary behaviors, such as
helping and prosocial behaviors and organi-
zational citizenship behaviors (Frey, 1993).
For this reason, we need to use a motivation
theory that has proven useful in predicting
such behaviors. As I will review, SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000) has proven to be such a
theory.
Empirical research has identified impor-
tant factors that influence knowledge shar-
ing, including individual factors
(e.g., lack of trust, fear of loss of
power, and lack of social net-
work), organizational factors
(e.g., lack of leadership, lack of
appropriate reward system, and
lack of sharing opportunities),
and technological factors (e.g.,
inappropriate information tech-
nology [IT] systems and lack of
training; Riege, 2005). In addi-
tion, the nature of the knowledge
will influence how easily it can be
shared, and its value will influ-
ence peoples motivation to share (Ipe, 2003).
The ease of sharing also is likely to influence
peoples willingness to share. This is consis-
tent with research on recycling behavior and
IT usage, which has shown that the harder
the task, the more important is the quality of
motivation (Green-Demers, Pelletier, &
Mnard, 1997; Mitchell, Gagn, Beaudry, &
Dyer, 2008). Knowledge value implies that
individuals can use it to obtain status, power,
and rewards. So far, researchers have studied
knowledge-sharing motivation as a function
of reciprocity issues, relationship with the
recipient, and rewards (Ipe, 2003). Reciproc-
ity implies that individuals must see knowl-
edge sharing as personally worthwhile or
important for reaching a valued collective
goal in order to be willing and eager to share
(de Vries, van den Hooff, & de Ridder, 2006).
Focusing on group and long-term outcomes
encourages cooperation (Pruitt & Kimmel,
1977) and knowledge sharing. Other research
has examined whether individuals are more
likely to share knowledge when they can
obtain rewards in return (OReilly & Pondy,
1980). On the one hand, group-based incen-
tives have been shown to encourage sharing
(Gupta & Govindajaran, 2000), but some re-
searchers argue that tangible rewards are in-
sufficient and could even be detrimental to
the motivation to share (McDermott &
ODell, 2001; ODell & Grayson, 1998;
Tissen, Andriessen, & Deprez, 1998).
The motivational factors Ipe (2003) men-
tions to study knowledge sharing mostly fall
under the category of controlled motivation,
which leads to less positive outcomes than
autonomous motivation (Gagn & Deci,
2005). I therefore present a model that fo-
cuses instead on factors likely to increase
autonomous motivation, and I combine
these factors with those of the TPBa theory
that has already proven useful in predicting
knowledge-sharing behavior.
The Theory of Planned Behavior
Because knowledge sharing is an intentional
behavior, we can study it using the TPB in
which intentions are assumed to capture
the motivational factors that influence a be-
havior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). Three factors
influence intentions: (1) attitude toward the
behavior, (2) social norms regarding the
behavior, and (3) beliefs about ones control
over the behavior. Attitude is the degree to
which one evaluates the behavior favorably
or unfavorably. Subjective norm is the
perceived social pressure to perform or not
perform the behavior. Control beliefs are
concerned with having the necessary skills,
resources, and opportunities to engage in a
behavior. They are similar to the concepts of
perceived control, or self-efficacy (Bandura,
1982) and, as we will see, the need for
Researchers
argue that tangible
rewards are
insufficient and
could even be
detrimental to the
motivation to share.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 573
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The three
predictors of intention account on average
for 50 percent of the variance in intention,
and intention accounts for an average of 26
percent of the variance in behavior (Ajzen,
1991).
Researchers have used the Theory of Rea-
soned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), from
which the TPB was developed, to study
knowledge-sharing behavior (e.g., Bock &
Kim, 2002; Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005;
Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). Recent empirical
findings also give credence to the usefulness
of the TPB for studying knowledge-sharing
behavior in organizations. I will present
these findings along with the model. For ex-
ample, Chiu, Hsu, and Wang (2006) found
that reciprocity norms were positively re-
lated to knowledge-sharing behavior in a
virtual community of practice.
Self-Determination Theory
Ajzen (1991) assumed that intentions are
the motivational factors that influence be-
havior. He argued that the stronger a per-
sons intention, the higher the likelihood
that he or she will perform the behavior.
However, research shows this is not always
the case: The type of motivation to engage
in a particular action, or peoples reasons for
engaging in it, also affect its performance
(Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Taking these rea-
sons into account is likely to add to the
prediction of knowledge-sharing behavior.
For this reason, the model of knowledge-
sharing motivation combines SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000) with the TPB to predict
knowledge sharing.
SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) provides a
multidimensional framework with two
second-orderlevel types of motivation.
Autonomous motivation means engaging in an
activity volitionallyfor example, pursuing
an activity out of interest and because it is
enjoyable (intrinsic motivation), and pursu-
ing it because it is personally meaningful and
fits ones value system (identified regulation).
Controlled motivation means engaging in an
activity out of pressure that can come from
outside sources, such as promised rewards and
threats of punishment (external regulation),
or inside sources, such as when ones self-
esteem is contingent upon successfully com-
pleting a task (introjected regulation).
As mentioned, knowledge-sharing re-
search thus far has mostly concentrated on
controlled motivation (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2002)namely, reciprocity, improving ones
reputation, doing the right thing, and posi-
tive feelings. However, research shows au-
tonomous motivation leads to
more positive behavioral out-
comes than controlled motiva-
tion (Gagn & Deci, 2005), such
as better performance on com-
plex and creative tasks (Amabile,
1982; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brack-
field, 1990; Grolnick & Ryan,
1987; McGraw & McCullers,
1979), active information seeking
(Koestner & Losier, 2002), and
goal attainment (Sheldon &
Elliot, 1998). Because knowledge-
sharing behavior is likely to be
motivated in a way similar to
helping and prosocial behavior,
which are difficult to motivate
through rewards and pressure
(Frey, 1993), it may be particu-
larly important to focus on
increasing autonomous motiva-
tion. Indeed, research shows that
attempting to motivate helping
behavior with the use of tangible
rewards decreases such behavior
(Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, May-
Plumlee, & Christopher, 1989;
Kunda & Schwartz, 1983; Wright,
George, Farnsworth, & McMahan,
1993). Similarly, research shows
that incentives for goal attain-
ment decrease engagement in organizational
citizenship behavior (Wright et al., 1993).
Moreover, autonomous motivation is supe-
rior to controlled motivation when it comes
to motivating the performance and reten-
tion of volunteer workers (Gagn, 2003;
Millette & Gagn, 2008) and recycling
behavior (Green-Demers et al., 1997).
Most telling is a recent study by Poortvliet,
Janssen, Van Yperen, and Van de Vliert (2007)
Ajzen argued that
the stronger a
persons intention,
the higher the
likelihood that he or
she will perform the
behavior. However,
research shows
this is not always
the case: The
type of motivation
to engage in a
particular action,
or peoples reasons
for engaging in
it, also affect its
performance.
574 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
that shows that people who hold performance
goals (similar to extrinsic motivation) are less
likely to exchange information with partners
than people who hold mastery goals (similar to
intrinsic motivation). They argue that mastery
goals trigger a reciprocity orientation that
facilitates sharing, which is similar to social
exchange (Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, & Barksdale,
2006), while performance goals trigger an
exploitation orientation that hinders sharing
but facilitates efficient information use.
These results speak to the importance of
considering reasons for sharing knowledge as
an important predictor of sharing behavior.
We could hypothesize that intrinsically moti-
vated people will want to share knowledge
simply out of their passion for
their work and as an expression of
themselves (similar to eagerness,
as proposed by de Vries et al.,
2006). Although this will likely
lead to a high quantity of sharing,
it may not necessarily lead to the
most useful knowledge sharing
and could even waste others time.
We could also hypothesize that
people with identified motives
will share knowledge to help oth-
ers with their work or help their
group achieve valued goals, which,
in principle, would lead to more
efficient sharing behavior. People
with introjected motives may
share to show off their knowledge
and boost their self-esteem, in
which case the information shared may not
be useful to others. Finally, forcing people to
share knowledge through the promise of a
reward or a threat of punishment may result
in the bare minimum of sharing required,
which may be insufficient to the recipient.
Therefore, the type of motivation for knowl-
edge sharing may have deep consequences
not only for the quantity of sharing, but also
for the quality and usefulness of the shared
information.
SDT also proposes that adopting either
controlled or autonomous motivation de-
pends on satisfying basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
SDT defines needs as essential nutriments for
optimal human development and integrity
(Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). A
need is basic when satisfying it promotes
psychological health and when thwarting it
undermines it. Because the three needs are
basic to all individuals, SDT does not focus
on individual differences in need strength
but on satisfying them in a given context
(Gagn & Deci, 2005). On the basis of SDT
and the TPB, I present a model of knowl-
edge-sharing motivation that incorporates
quality of motivation, need satisfaction, and
human resource management (HRM) prac-
tices that are likely to affect variables in the
model.
The Model of Knowledge-Sharing
Motivation
I propose a model that uses both the TPB and
SDT constructs to predict intentions to share
knowledge and actual sharing behavior in
organizations. This model is compatible with
previous models of knowledge sharing, such
as Kelloway and Barlings (2000) model of
knowledge use in organizations and Gotts-
chalg and Zollos (2007) interest alignment
model. The major differences lie in concep-
tualizing motivation, which is now multidi-
mensional, and in including psychological
factors that influence the quality of motiva-
tion. The model I present explains in-depth
how and why specific HRM practices will
influence peoples engagement in knowl-
edge-sharing behavior and thus provides
concrete advice to practitioners and organi-
zations.
Consistently with SDT, the model in
Figure 1 proposes that autonomous motiva-
tion predicts knowledge-sharing intention,
which in turn predicts knowledge-sharing
behavior. Consistently with the TPB,
attitudes and norms toward knowledge shar-
ing also predict intentions. Autonomous
motivation predicts attitudes; the rationale is
that peoples attitudes toward sharing will
become more positive when they internalize
the value of sharing knowledge. Satisfying
the need for competence replaces control
beliefs, and the needs for autonomy and re-
latedness are added. Finally, norms moderate
Sharing motivation
is expected to
moderate the
intention-behavior
link; thus, greater
autonomous
motivation (in
relation to controlled
motivation) should
strengthen this link.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 575
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
the link between need satisfaction and au-
tonomous motivation toward sharing knowl-
edge; thus, positive sharing norms should
strengthen this link. Moreover, sharing moti-
vation is expected to moderate the inten-
tion-behavior link; thus, greater autonomous
motivation (in relation to controlled motiva-
tion) should strengthen this link. The model
also includes HRM practices likely to affect
knowledge management. I evaluated these
practices in terms of their potential to affect
psychological variables in the modelthat
is, need satisfaction, attitudes, and norms. I
chose these practices based on existing SDT
research and from the practices Cabrera and
Cabrera (2002, 2005) and Hislop (2002) sug-
gest, including staffing, job design, perfor-
mance appraisal and compensation systems,
managerial styles, and training.
Hypothesis 1: Need satisfaction will be posi-
tively related to autonomous motivation to share
knowledge.
When people feel competent, autono-
mous, and related to others with whom
they have opportunities to share knowl-
edge, I expect they will value and enjoy
sharing their knowledge more (that is, they
will adopt identified and/or intrinsic moti-
vation toward sharing, or autonomous
motivation). Research shows that work-
related need satisfaction was related to
greater psychological work engagement and
well-being and to better performance evalu-
ations (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Deci
et al., 2001). Breaugh (1985) found that
feeling autonomous in ones job increased
job involvement and quality of perfor-
mance, which is consistent with Sheldon
and Elliots (1998) finding that autonomous
motivation predicts greater effort and more
goal attainment. Roca and Gagn (2008)
found that need satisfaction was positively
related to intention to use an e-learning
system.
In the knowledge-sharing literature,
many studies found results that are compat-
ible with the notion that autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness are important. Bock
and Kim (2002) found that expectations to
improve work relationships (relatedness) and
to make a significant contribution to organi-
zational performance (competence) were
positively related to sharing attitudes, inten-
tions, and behavior. Park et al. (2004) found
that a culture that encourages teamwork,
employee support, and autonomy encour-
ages knowledge sharing, while a culture that
is demanding of employees and rule oriented
discourages knowledge sharing. Lin (2007a)
found that participative decision making
(which influences autonomy) was positively
related to knowledge sharing, while Quigley,
Tesluk, Locke, and Bartol (2007) found that
trust increased the effects of individual self-
efficacy on knowledge transfer.
Social exchange theory has most often
explained the effects found for trust and
other relational variables, which I attribute
to satisfying the relatedness need (Shore
et al., 2006). Kuvaas (2008) recently showed
FIGURE 1. The Model of Knowledge-Sharing Motivation
576 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
that a social exchange mindset was posi-
tively related to, while an economic ex-
change mindset was negatively related to,
employees intrinsic motivation. Moreover,
intrinsic motivation completely mediated
the positive relationship between social ex-
change and work effort and work quality,
and partly mediated the relationship be-
tween social exchange and organizational
citizenship behavior. Therefore, autono-
mous motivation is likely to explain why
relatedness or a social exchange mindset is
so important to behaviors like knowledge
sharing.
Hypothesis 2: Autonomous motivation will be
positively related to intention to share.
Based on SDT, I expect that autonomous
motivation to share will increase intentions
to share, and that autonomous motivation
will mediate the link between need satisfac-
tion and intention to share. Very few stud-
ies have examined this hypothesis. Mitchell
et al. (2008) found that autonomous moti-
vation toward using a new information
technology was related to using more ad-
vanced system features. Consistently with
this study, Osterloh and Frey (2000) sug-
gested that intrinsic motivation is especially
important when sharing tacit knowledge,
which is more difficult to share than ex-
plicit knowledge. Lin (2007b) found a posi-
tive link between knowledge sharing and
affective organizational commitment, which
develops at least in part through autono-
mous work motivation (Gagn, Chemolli,
Forest, & Koestner, 2009). Most recently,
Malhotra, Galleta, and Kirsch (2008) found
that autonomous motivation to use a Web-
based educational platform was positively
related to positive attitudes toward it and
greater intentions to use it, whereas con-
trolled motivation was negatively related to
these variables.
Research on the motivation to engage in
prosocial and helping behavior also offers
some initial evidence for this hypothesis.
For example, Cabrera and Cabrera (2002)
compared the knowledge-sharing situation
to a public goods dilemma in which indi-
viduals must decide whether to contribute
to a pool of resources (e.g., an agricultural
field or a fishery) that is freely available to
them, taking into consideration both per-
sonal gains and costs. Their framework does
not consider the quality of peoples motives
to share or not share their resources, as they
use an expectancy-value framework to ex-
plain motivational considerations in
predicting peoples knowledge-sharing be-
havior. These considerations include
efficacy beliefs and instrumentality consid-
erations (What do I gain and lose from
doing it?), which can be calculative or ex-
change based (Shore et al., 2006) and thus
closer to the concept of controlled motiva-
tion. Sheldon and McGregor (2000) found
that people who held extrinsic motives har-
vested more in a commons dilemma game
than people who held intrinsic motives.
Moreover, groups with a greater proportion
of people who held extrinsic motives did
not harvest as much because the commons
was depleted more quickly. If we can com-
pare a knowledge-sharing situation to a
public goods dilemma, we can then assume
that quality of motivation will affect will-
ingness to share knowledge. Frey (1993)
provides further evidence to support this
argument; he reviewed research on the ef-
fectiveness of incentive and sanction
systems on behaviors like environmental
conservation and giving blood and con-
cluded that the use of rewards (an extrinsic
motivator) can have negative effects on
ethical and prosocial behavior. Moreover,
Wang (2004) found when people were asked
to share information with a colleague with
whom they were competing for a promo-
tion, they were less likely to share informa-
tion with this person than if they were not
competing with him or her.
Hypothesis 3: Autonomous motivation will be
positively related to having positive attitudes to-
ward knowledge sharing.
I expect that being motivated to share
out of interest or personal meaning will
lead to having more positive attitudes to-
ward sharing knowledge. Internalization
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 577
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
would play an important role in creating
these positive attitudes. If peoples psycho-
logical needs are satisfied at work, they are
more likely to internalize activities the orga-
nization values; this leads to more autono-
mous motivation for these activities. In the
case of sharing, this autonomous motiva-
tion (i.e., considering sharing to be impor-
tant in reaching organizational goals or
finding an interest in sharing ones knowl-
edge) will lead to developing positive
attitudes toward sharing. As mentioned,
Malhotra et al. (2008) found that autono-
mous motivation was related to positive at-
titudes toward a Web-based educational
platform. Bock and Kim (2002) found that
expecting to increase relatedness and com-
petence (through sharing ones knowledge)
led to more positive attitudes toward shar-
ing. We can easily argue that autonomous
motivation could mediate this link.
Hypothesis 4: Autonomous motivation will mod-
erate the relationship between intention and be-
havior.
A spin-off of SDT, self-concordance the-
ory (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998), proposes that
goals pursued for autonomous reasons are
more likely to be reached and offer personal
satisfaction than goals pursued for con-
trolled reasons. I therefore expect that when
a person is autonomously motivated to
share knowledge, not only will the inten-
tion increase, but it will lead to better goal
regulation (e.g., Muraven, Rosman, & Gagn,
2007), which will increase the link between
intention and behavior. As argued, the type
of motivation to share knowledge can lead
to qualitatively different sharing behavior.
Thus, an intrinsically motivated person may
passionately and spontaneously share his or
her knowledge with others, whether or not
it is requested, whereas a person high on
identified regulation may willingly share
when he or she deems it necessary and use-
ful. This may lead to differentially useful
knowledge sharing but overall quantita-
tively higher sharing. In contrast, a person
high on introjected regulation may share
when it gives him or her an opportunity to
boost his or her image (similar to impression
management; Rioux & Penner, 2001), and a
person high on external regulation may
only engage in minimally sanctioned shar-
ing, which may lead to less useful and to
quantitatively less sharing. This is consistent
with Bolinos (1999) argument that organi-
zational citizenship behavior motivated by
impression management will be less useful
to the organization than behavior motivated
by altruism. Indeed, Rioux and Penner (2001)
subsequently showed that impression man-
agement motives were less related to super-
visor and peer reports of organizational citi-
zenship behaviors than prosocial motives.
Providing preliminary support for this
proposition, Chatzisarantis, Frederick, Biddle,
Hagger, and Smith (2007) found that
although the TPB variables predicted inten-
tions to engage and actual engage-
ment in a physical activity, the
degree of autonomous versus con-
trolled motivation behind these
intentions added to the predic-
tion of actual engagement in
physical activity beyond the TPB
variables. Chatzisarantis and Hag-
ger (2007) also found that degree
of mindfulness augmented the
relation between intention and
behavior toward physical activity.
Mindfulness is defined as en-
hanced awareness of ones own
emotions, behavior, and environ-
ment; it has been positively re-
lated to autonomous motivation (Brown &
Ryan, 2003).
Hypothesis 5: Attitudes toward knowledge shar-
ing will be positively related to intention to
share.
Based on the TPB, I expect that having
positive attitudes about sharing knowledge
will be related to greater intention to share.
Chiu et al. (2006) found positive relation-
ships between outcome expectations and
knowledge-sharing behavior. Bock and Kim
(2002) and Bock et al. (2005) found positive
relationships between positive attitudes and
sharing intentions and behavior.
I expect that being
motivated to share
out of interest or
personal meaning
will lead to having
more positive
attitudes toward
sharing knowledge.
578 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Hypothesis 6: Sharing norms will be positively
related to intention to share.
Based on the TPB, I expect that positive
sharing norms will be related to greater in-
tention to share. Brown and Duguid (1991)
and Chiu et al. (2006) found that sharing
norms were positively related to knowledge-
sharing behavior in communities of practice.
Kelloway and Barling (2000) made a similar
prediction by arguing a positive link between
opportunities to share (which include a cul-
ture that encourages knowledge use) and
knowledge use.
Hypothesis 7: Sharing norms will moderate the
relationship of need satisfaction and autono-
mous motivation.
Having psychological needs satisfied at
work does not guarantee that employees will
internalize values conducive to knowledge
sharing. They are only more likely to inter-
nalize whatever norm the organization pro-
motes. Therefore, the combination of norms
conducive to knowledge sharing with high
need satisfaction will lead to greater autono-
mous motivation to share knowledge. In
other words, sharing norms will qualify or
moderate the effect of need satisfaction on
autonomous motivation to share knowledge.
This is where HRM practices come into play;
they will influence either or both need satis-
faction and the development of sharing
norms. I say either or both because one prac-
tice may provide need satisfaction, and
another practice may encourage the develop-
ment of sharing norms. If they are combined,
they can together lead to developing autono-
mous motivation to share knowledge. At the
same time, other practices may provide need
satisfaction and encourage developing shar-
ing norms.
HRM Practices that Affect the
Knowledge-Sharing Motivation
Model
Riege (2005) argued there are organizational
barriers to knowledge sharing, such as the
lack of leadership, lack of appropriate reward
system, and lack of sharing opportunities.
Based on Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) and on
Kelloway and Barling (2000), I propose five
important predictors of attitudes, need satis-
faction, and sharing norms: staffing, job
design, performance appraisal and compen-
sation systems, managerial styles, and train-
ing. These can be developed and managed in
ways that will influence knowledge-sharing
behavior in organizations.
Hypothesis 8a: Stafng decisions that take into
account the t of the incumbents values to the
organizational values will be positively related to
selecting incumbents who have positive sharing
attitudes.
Hypothesis 8b: Stafng decisions that take into
account the t of the incumbents values to the
organizational values will moderate the effect of
the HRM practices on need satisfaction, so that
the better the t, the greater the relationship be-
tween HRM practices and need satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8c: Stafng decisions that take into
account the t of the incumbents values to
the organizational values will moderate the
effect of HRM practices on developing sharing
norms, so that the greater the t, the greater
the relationship between HRM practices and
sharing norms.
Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) proposed
that staffing procedures that consider per-
son-environment fit to ensure congruence of
individual and organizational values and
goals will facilitate sharing among employ-
ees. When an organization that values knowl-
edge sharing selects employees who share
this value, it will end up with employees
who have a positive attitude about sharing
to start with. In addition, if we assume that
organizational values will drive the develop-
ment of HRM practices, and we hire people
who share these values, the likelihood that
HRM practices will fulfill employees needs
will be higher. They are more likely to use
competencies they may have developed out
of their own personal values; they are more
likely to find similarities between the
self and the organization, which enhance
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 579
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
feelings of relatedness; and they are more
likely to internalize the values HRM practices
promote, which enhance feelings of auton-
omy. Therefore, I can expect that staffing
decisions based on value fit will enhance the
relationship between HRM practices and
need satisfaction. Finally, if the organization
values knowledge sharing and promotes it
through HRM practices, and the organiza-
tion bases hiring on value fit, it is more likely
that employees will develop sharing norms
through these HRM practices. In other words,
staffing based on value fit will enhance the
relation between HRM practices and sharing
norms.
Hypothesis 9a: Motivating job design will be pos-
itively related to need satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9b: Motivating job design will be pos-
itively related to developing sharing behavior.
Although I assume that adequate job de-
sign, just like adequate technologies, may
have a direct impact on facilitating knowl-
edge sharing, job design is also likely to affect
knowledge-sharing behavior through its ef-
fect on work motivation. In other words, job
designs that positively influence the three
psychological needs of autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness are likely to have an
indirect positive influence on knowledge-
sharing motivation (without forgetting the
moderating influence of sharing norms on
the relationship between need satisfaction
and motivation). I conceptualize a motivat-
ing job design along the lines of Job Charac-
teristics Theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1980),
which recommends that workers use a vari-
ety of tasks and skills, do an entire piece of
work from beginning to end, have direct con-
tact with those their work affects, have some
decision-making power, and receive perfor-
mance feedback. Researchers have related
these characteristics to feelings of empower-
ment (Gagn, Sencal, & Koestner, 1997;
Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), which is similar
to need satisfaction. Thus, structuring work
to promote employee autonomy, relation-
ships, and the use of ones full competencies
will likely have positive effects on autono-
mous motivation and work outcomes
(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; van Knippenberg
& van Schie, 2000; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, &
Clegg, 1986).
Moreover, a motivating job design or the
use of autonomous work groups could influ-
ence the development of norms about shar-
ing knowledge. Because such design usually
enhances interdependence and often uses
teamwork, it implies greater communication
between coworkers and greater opportunities
and need to share knowledge in order to ac-
complish organizational goals. Kelloway and
Barling (2000) indeed argued that job design
can influence workers ability, motivation,
and opportunities to use knowledge. They
also proposed that opportunities for social
interactions, such as communities of prac-
tice, can facilitate sharing behavior. Rosen,
Furst, and Blackburn (2007) also identified
several barriers to knowledge sharing in vir-
tual teams that could be resolved by better
team-based work design that increases social
interactions among team members. (Arrang-
ing these interactions virtually would require
some thought and appropriate technolo-
gies.)
Hypothesis 10a: Performance appraisal systems
that focus on employee development as opposed
to employee evaluation will be positively related
to need satisfaction.
Hypothesis 10b: Performance appraisal systems
that include knowledge sharing as one perform-
ance criterion will be positively related to sharing
norms.
Hypothesis 10c: Certain characteristics of com-
pensation systems will be positively related to
need satisfaction.
Hypothesis 10d: Certain characteristics of com-
pensation systems will be positively related to
sharing norms.
Performance appraisal systems that in-
clude an assessment of knowledge-sharing
behaviors, feedback on performing such be-
havior, and appropriate reward for the behav-
ior (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005) should enhance
580 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
knowledge-sharing behavior by satisfying the
three needs and promoting sharing norms.
Positive feedback will enhance feelings of
competence; communicating such feedback
will improve relationship quality with the
manager, thus satisfying relatedness. Open
discussions of the performance assessment
and a participative method for setting im-
provement goals will also improve feelings of
autonomy. Finally, performance appraisal in-
terviews offer a great opportunity for a man-
ager to communicate that the organization
values knowledge sharing, thus
enhancing the development of
sharing norms.
Although Cabrera and Cabrera
(2005) stress the importance of
developmental rather than evalu-
ative performance appraisals and
the use of noncontrolling rewards,
this is not formally embedded in
their model. In contrast, my pro-
posed model considers that the
form of the performance appraisal
and the type of reward system
may influence need satisfaction
and autonomous motivation. SDT
offers specific advice about how to
appraise and reward behavior.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)
conducted a meta-analysis of 128
laboratory studies on the effects
of rewards on intrinsic motiva-
tion. They found that verbal re-
wards (i.e., positive feedback) have
a positive influence on intrinsic
motivation. However, they found
that tangible rewards (e.g., money)
that people perceive as control-
ling (i.e., they decrease feelings of
autonomy) and that do not provide much
information about ones competence are det-
rimental to intrinsic motivation. Indeed, a
laboratory study by Ryan, Mims, and Koest-
ner (1983) found that positive feedback was
superior to tangible rewards that conveyed
competence for enhancing intrinsic motiva-
tion. Therefore, recognition is more likely to
encourage knowledge sharing than monetary
or other tangible rewards. The knowledge-
sharing literature offers similar arguments
that tangible rewards have often been deemed
insufficient and possibly detrimental to the
motivation to share (McDermott & ODell,
2001; ODell & Grayson, 1998; Tissen et al.,
1998). Kelloway and Barling (2000) argued
that rewards can either enhance or detract
from knowledge use in organizations; Bock
and Kim (2002) and Bock et al. (2005) found
that rewards expected for sharing ones
knowledge were negatively related to atti-
tudes toward knowledge sharing. Kelloway
and Barling (2000) instead favor skill-based
pay structures that are competitive enough to
attract and retain knowledgeable workers and
equitable. Moreover, they advocate pay struc-
tures that are not too salient so that they do
not detract from promoting the internaliza-
tion of sharing norms. This is also consistent
with exchange theory (Shore et al., 2006),
which argues that a social exchange mindset
is more conducive to knowledge sharing than
an economic exchange mindset (Lucas &
Ogilvie, 2006).
To better apply SDT-based findings to
compensation systems, which are more com-
plex than simple rewards given in a labora-
tory study, Gagn and Forest (2008) have
proposed that the monetary value of the re-
ward, its perceived equity, the ratio of vari-
able versus fixed portions of the reward, what
the variable part is contingent on, and the
number of people whose performance deter-
mines the size of the reward will affect work
motivation through their effect on satisfying
need. Therefore, compensation systems that
promote feelings of competence, autonomy,
and relatedness will likely lead to greater au-
tonomous motivation, while systems that
thwart these needs will likely promote con-
trolled motivation. Gagn and Forests (2008)
advice is compatible with Bartol and Srivas-
tavas (2002) recommendations, including
the use of group-based rewards to foster
cooperation and the use of intrinsic rewards
and recognition to foster feelings of compe-
tence. Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) also favor
the use of group-based rewards, such as gain
sharing or profit sharing to increase the coop-
eration necessary for knowledge sharing.
Knowledge-sharing research that has ex-
amined the effects of rewards focused mostly
Performance
appraisal systems
that include an
assessment of
knowledge-sharing
behaviors, feedback
on performing
such behavior,
and appropriate
reward for the
behavior (Cabrera
& Cabrera, 2005)
should enhance
knowledge-sharing
behavior.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 581
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
on group rewards and fairness issues. Research
on the effects of individual and group rewards
on knowledge-sharing behavior has not
yielded clear conclusions. For example, Hsu,
Ju, Yen, and Chang (2007) found that per-
sonal outcomes (such as recognition, making
friends, and reciprocated sharing) were more
highly related to knowledge-sharing behavior
than to community outcomes (achieving the
virtual communitys goals, enriching the
knowledge base). On the other hand, research
shows that group incentives have a greater
positive impact on knowledge sharing than
individual incentives do, and this effect is
stronger when sharing norms are strong
(Gupta & Govindajaran, 2000; Quigley et al.,
2007). Chiu et al. (2006) found that only
group outcome expectations had a positive
effect on sharing. By taking into account the
other factors Gagn and Forest (2008) pro-
posed, we may be able to discover better ways
to reward knowledge-sharing behavior.
Fairness is another important factor
affecting knowledge sharing (Cabrera &
Cabrera, 2005). Lin (2007b) found that proce-
dural and distributive justice perceptions were
positively related to tacit knowledge-sharing
behavior. Bock et al. (2005) also found that
fairness contributes to a positive organiza-
tional climate, which has a positive effect on
intentions to share knowledge. Fairness also
affects autonomous work motivation. Gagn,
Brub, and Donia (2007) found both proce-
dural and distributive justice were positively
related to autonomous work motivation, and
need satisfaction mediated these effects. Be-
cause the Gagn and Forest (2008) model of
compensation also takes fairness issues into
account, it may be a useful guide in studying
the effects of compensation systems on knowl-
edge-sharing behavior.
Hypothesis 11a: Motivating managerial styles
will be positively related to need satisfaction.
Hypothesis 11b: Managers who promote knowl-
edge sharing among their subordinates will
enhance organizational norms about sharing.
Managerial style is the interactional styles
managers use with their subordinates. In
SDT, managerial style is defined as the psy-
chological need supportlabeled autonomy
supportmanagers give employees. In man-
agement research, managerial style has been
studied mostly under the rubric of leader-
ship. Both the SDT literature on autonomy
support and the leadership literature argue
that interaction styles are an important lever
of motivation. Managerial autonomy support
is a collection of managerial behaviors proven
to influence need satisfaction at work (Deci,
Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Deci et al., 2001).
These behaviors include understanding and
acknowledging subordinates perspectives,
encouraging self-initiation, minimizing pres-
sures and controls, and providing relevant
information. Autonomy support
satisfies the three psychological
needs by using minimal pressure
(avoiding the use of evaluation,
deadlines, surveillance, and tan-
gible rewards) and providing a
rationale for requests, choice, de-
cision-making power, and oppor-
tunities for initiative. Providing
information and resources, train-
ing, optimal challenges and goals,
and constructive feedback support
competence. Increased interac-
tions, supporting cooperation, sharing infor-
mation and experiences, and acknowledging
feelings support relatedness.
Gagn and Deci (2005) proposed that
people tend to internalize and integrate the
regulation of a socially valued activity when
it is encouraged through an autonomy-
supportive social context. In other words,
autonomous motivation for the target activ-
ity or domain will increase. A laboratory
study by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone
(1994) found that acknowledging others
perspectives, providing meaningful ratio-
nales, and minimizing controls influenced
internalizing the value for a boring target-
detection task. Moreover, supported partici-
pants reported greater enjoyment of the
boring activity and spent more time engag-
ing in the activity than nonsupported
participants. Deci et al. (1989) showed that
training managers who maximized subordi-
nates opportunities for initiative, provided
Recognition is more
likely to encourage
knowledge sharing
than monetary
or other tangible
rewards.
582 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
informational feedback, and acknowledged
subordinates perspectives improved subor-
dinates attitudes and trust in the corpora-
tion. Since trust is an important lever of
knowledge sharing (Hsu et al., 2007), we
can expect that such managerial behavior
fosters knowledge sharing. Blais and Brire
(1992) found that managerial support
enhanced subordinates autonomous moti-
vation and, in turn, the quality of the sub-
ordinates performance. Lynch, Plant, and
Ryan (2005) found that when a state-run
psychiatric hospital introduced a new pro-
gram for handling patients, staff members
who perceived greater support from their
supervisors showed greater autonomous
motivation for implementing the program
than those who experienced their supervi-
sors as more controlling.
Researchers have found that transforma-
tional leadership, defined as influencing oth-
ers through inspiration and vision (Bass &
Riggio, 2006), engenders trust in the leader
and between followers (Deluga, 1995; Hoyt
& Blascovitch, 2003; Pillai, Schriesheim, &
Williams, 1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moor-
man, & Fetter, 1990). Numerous writings
have argued that trust is an essential ingredi-
ent for knowledge sharing (Cabrera &
Cabrera, 2005; Kelloway & Barling, 2000;
Riege, 2005). Transformational leadership
also enhances team cohesion and feeling re-
lated to others, which leads followers to
commit to a common cause (Bass & Riggio,
2006) and, I argue, raises motivation to share
knowledge in order to reach this common
goal (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Transformational
leadership consists of four clusters of
behavior: idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and in-
dividualized consideration. These behaviors
are not only likely to satisfy followers needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
(Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), but
may foster value internalization, or the adop-
tion of sharing norms, which is essential to
knowledge-sharing behavior (Despres &
Hiltrop, 1995). Bono and Judge (2003)
indeed found that transformational leader-
ship influences autonomous work motiva-
tion. Leaders have a unique opportunity to
encourage the development of sharing norms
by articulating them, acting as a role model
by sharing their own knowledge, and help-
ing subordinates synthesize incoming infor-
mation and articulate a common goal that
will facilitate knowledge creation (Nonaka,
von Krogh, & Voelpel, 2006; ONeill & Adya,
2007; Rosen et al., 2007). Indeed, Connelly
and Kelloway (2003) found positive relations
between management support and what
they call a knowledge-sharing culture (i.e.,
norms). Leadership and having a shared
vision have both been found to be positively
related to knowledge sharing in work teams
(Chiu et al., 2006; Srivastava, Bartol, &
Locke, 2006).
Hypothesis 12: Training will positively affect
sharing norms and enhance need satisfaction.
Training offers a great opportunity for
an organization to communicate and create
norms about sharing behavior. The simple
fact of having training opportunities influ-
ences task performance, organizational citi-
zenship behavior, and turnover intentions,
which can be explained through increased
intrinsic motivation (Dysvik & Kuvaas,
2008). With regard to knowledge sharing,
training content can include teaching
communication skills, and teaching what
knowledge to share and how to share it.
How the organization conducts training
also matters a great deal. Like managers,
trainers need to support employees psycho-
logical needs if internalization is to take
place. This is a well-known fact in sport psy-
chology in which many studies have shown
that supportive coaching styles influence
athletes motivation (Hollembeak &
Amorose, 2005; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Black and Deci (2000) demonstrated that
organic chemistry instructors who were
autonomy supportive to college students
saw an increase in their autonomous
motivation toward chemistry and an
increase in grades. Trainers, like leaders,
are in a unique position to promote sharing
norms. Therefore, the recommendations
for managerial styles hold for trainers as
well.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 583
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Discussion
I proposed a model of knowledge-sharing
motivation based on the TPB and SDT. Add-
ing SDT allows us to account for motivation
quality, which is likely to enhance the pre-
diction of knowledge-sharing behavior.
Moreover, the different types of motivation
in SDT can help predict the quantity and the
usefulness of the shared knowledge. Finally,
SDT can offer practical advice about how to
develop and design HRM practices that will
promote autonomous motivation to share
knowledge. By proposing that satisfying
three psychological needs is the key to pro-
moting autonomous motivation, one can
design or redesign HRM practices to fulfill
those needs. This model predicts that five
HRM practicesstaffing, job design, perfor-
mance appraisal and compensation systems,
managerial styles, and trainingwill influ-
ence attitudes, need satisfaction, and sharing
norms.
This model has practical implications for
designing these five practices. If staffing pro-
cedures focus on selecting people whose
values are congruent with the organizations
values, and if the organization values knowl-
edge sharing, the organization is more likely
to select people with a positive attitude
about sharing their knowledge. The other
major impact of staffing based on value fit is
to enhance the impact of other HRM prac-
tices on knowledge-sharing behavior. Job
design can not only create opportunities to
exchange knowledge, but also motivate it.
Following Hackman and Oldhams (1980)
recommendations and the more recent ver-
sion by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006),
which takes into consideration the knowl-
edge characteristics of work, which include
job complexity, information processing,
problem solving, and specialization, can
help organizations foster knowledge ex-
change. Incorporating the measurement of
knowledge-sharing behavior or indicators of
successful knowledge transfer into perfor-
mance appraisals can enhance sharing
norms. But such performance appraisals
must also have a developmental rather than
an evaluative focus, because developmental
appraisals have been shown to enhance in-
trinsic motivation and performance (Kuvaas,
2007), while evaluative appraisals have been
shown to decrease motivation and creativity
(Amabile, 1979). Designing effective com-
pensation systems to encourage knowledge
sharing will require more research, but mod-
els such as the Gagn and Forest (2008)
model may help test different options with
a deeper understanding of their
effects on employee motivation
and behavior. It is possible to
train managers to be more trans-
formational in order to foster
sharing norms and fulfill em-
ployees basic psychological
needs, as leadership training has
proven successful in affecting
employee attitudes and perfor-
mance (Barling, Weber, & Kello-
way, 1996; Deci et al., 1989; Dvir,
Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002).
Finally, employee training that
promotes sharing norms and
shows how to do it well will
likely have a positive impact on
knowledge-sharing behavior.
Although this model only fo-
cuses on motivational processes affecting
knowledge-sharing behavior, other variables
can also influence knowledge sharing, such
as the larger organizational culture or the
creation of shared mental models (Cabrera &
Cabrera, 2005). It is also possible for HRM
practices to interact with one another in af-
fecting knowledge-sharing behavior. For ex-
ample, Gagn and Forest (2008) predicted
that leadership styles and the way leaders
communicate information about compensa-
tion systems will influence the compensation
systems impact on employee motivation.
Leadership has been shown in other research
to influence the way people perceive the de-
sign of their job, which in turn influences
employees intrinsic motivation (Piccolo &
Colquitt, 2006). Other research has also
shown that job design can buffer against abu-
sive leadership and protect employees against
emotional exhaustion (Wu, Hu, Lin, & Hsu,
2008). One could therefore add moderating
effects between HRM practices in the model.
By proposing that
satisfying three
psychological
needs is the key
to promoting
autonomous
motivation, one can
design or redesign
HRM practices to
fulfill those needs.
584 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
One could also add more variables to this
motivational model. For example, the rela-
tionship between HRM practices and knowl-
edge sharing could be moderated by the
stages of knowledge creation that Nonaka et
al. (2006) propose, including socialization,
externalization, combination, and internal-
ization. Individual difference variables may
also influence some factors in this model,
such as tolerance for ambiguity, openness to
experience, or extroversion (Costa & McCrae,
1985; Norton, 1975).
It is surprising that most of the empiri-
cal research on knowledge sharing has used
case study or qualitative methodologies,
and many only use anecdotal evidence (His-
lop, 2002). Future research should develop
quantitative methods to test existing
models of knowledge-sharing behavior, in-
cluding the present one. There are several
ways to test the model of knowledge-
sharing motivation. Organizational surveys
are convenient but not very powerful ways
to test hypotheses. Nonetheless, scales can
be developed to assess subjective norms,
attitudes, and control beliefs, as well as
behavioral intentions to share knowledge,
following the guidelines of the TPB (Ajzen,
1991). A continuum measure of motivation
to share knowledge based on SDT could also
be developed (Deci & Ryan, 2000). One can
measure actual knowledge-sharing behavior
using self-reports of sharing frequency
(e.g., How many times did you share your
knowledge in the past six months?), as well
as reports from other people (e.g., managers
and peers). One can also use diary studies or
a daily reconstruction method (Kahneman,
Krueger, Schkade, Schwartz, & Stone, 2004)
to ask employees to rate the frequency of
sharing behavior every working day for a
specific period of time (e.g., four weeks).
This technique would allow examining
the effects of daily work events and daily
need satisfaction on discrete acts of sharing,
similar to what Gagn, Ryan, and Bargmann
(2003) did with gymnasts. One could also
use network analysis and knowledge
mapping techniques to examine who shares
with whom, and whether the shared knowl-
edge is usefulwhich would allow for
examining factors like trust or quality of
relationships on willingness to share.
Finally, one could take advantage of the
increasingly popular wikis, open-source
communities, and communities of practice
that facilitate sharing in order to study
factors that motivate people to share their
knowledge on such platforms. For example,
Patterson, Gellatly, Arazy, and Jang (2007)
found that wikis that were evaluated as high
on the five core job characteristics (Hack-
man & Oldham, 1980) had participants
with higher autonomous motivation to use
the wiki and produced higher-quality con-
tributions. Chiu et al. (2006) similarly found
that among many factors, network ties were
positively related to quantity and quality of
knowledge sharing in a virtual community
of practice.
It is my hope that this new model of
knowledge-sharing motivation, the suggested
HRM practices, and the suggested research
methods will inspire scholars and practi-
tioners alike to dig deeper into this very
important area of inquiry.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Brd Kuvaas
and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful
ideas.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 585
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding at-
titudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluations
on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 37(2), 221233.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity:
A consensual assessment technique. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 9971013.
Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackeld, S. C. (1990).
Social inuences on creativity: Evaluation, coac-
tion, and surveillance. Creativity Research Journal,
3(1), 621.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic
need satisfaction: A motivational basis of perform-
ance and well-being in two work settings. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 20452068.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efcacy mechanism in human
agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122147.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects
of transformational leadership training on attitu-
dinal and nancial outcomes: A eld experiment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 827832.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging
knowledge sharing: The role of organizational re-
ward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organiza-
tional Studies, 9(1), 6476.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational
leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instruc-
tors autonomy support and students autonomous
motivation on learning organic chemistry: A
self-determination theory perspective. Science
Education, 84(6), 740756.
Blais, M. R., & Brire, N. M. (1992). On the media-
tional role of feelings of self-determination in the
workplace: Further evidence and generalization.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Quebec at
Montreal.
Bock, G.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths
of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about
knowledge sharing. Information Resources
Management Journal, 15(2), 1421.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N.
(2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowl-
edge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic
motivators, social-psychological forces, and organi-
zational climate. MIS Quartely, 29(1), 87111.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective
making and perspective taking in communities of
knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350383.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression
management: Good soldiers or good actors?
Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 8298.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at
work: Understanding the motivational effects of
transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 554571.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work
autonomy. Human Relations, 38(6), 551570.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of in-
formation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benets of
being present: Mindfulness and its role in psy-
chological well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(4), 822848.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-
sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5),
687710.
MARYLNE GAGN is associate professor of management at the John Molson School
of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. She obtained her Ph.D. in social
psychology from the University of Rochester. Her research currently focuses on the
effects of reward systems, leadership styles, and job design on work motivation, and
the effects of motivation on worker self-regulation, engagement, and well-being, as well
as on employee and organizational performance. She has received many research
awards, has published in many organizational behavior and psychology journals, and
participates on many journal editorial boards.
586 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering
knowledge sharing through people management
practices. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 16(5), 720735.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Frederick, C., Biddle, S. J. H.,
Hagger, M. S., & Smith, B. (2007). Inuences of
volitional and forced intentions on physical activity
and effort within the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(6), 699709.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2007).
Mindfulness and the intention-behavior
relationship within the theory of planned behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5),
663676.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006).
Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of social capital
and social cognitive theories. Decision Support
Systems, 42(3), 18721888.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors
of employees perceptions of knowledge sharing
culture. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 24(5/6), 294301.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Manual for the
NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychologi-
cal Assessment Resources.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge:
How organizations manage what they know.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989).
Self-determination in a work organization. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580590.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R.
(1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of
Personality, 62(1), 119142.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A
meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and
why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11(4), 227268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagn, M., Leone, D. R.,
Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfac-
tion, motivation, and well-being in the work organiza-
tions of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930942.
Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the
supervisor and subordinate organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Military Psychology, 7(1), 116.
Despres, C., & Hiltrop, J. M. (1995). Human resource
management in the knowledge age: Current
practice and perspectives on the future. Employee
Relations, 17(1), 923.
de Vries, R. E., van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A.
(2006). Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of
team communication styles, job satisfaction, and
performance beliefs. Communication Research,
33(2), 115135.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002).
Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: A eld experiment.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735744.
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2008). The relationship
between perceived training opportunities, work
motivation and employee outcomes. Interna-
tional Journal of Training and Development, 12(3),
138157.
Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., &
Christopher, F. S. (1989). Effects of rewards on
childrens prosocial motivation: A socialization
study. Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 509515.
Frey, B. S. (1993). Motivation as a limit to pricing.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(4), 635664.
Gagn, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support
and autonomy orientation in the engagement of
prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3),
199223.
Gagn, M., Brub, N. & Donia, M. (2007, April). Rela-
tionships between different forms of organizational
justice and different motivational orientations.
Poster presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New York.
Gagn, M., Chemolli, E., Forest, J., & Koestner, R.
(2009). The temporal relations between work
motivation and organizational commitment.
Psychologica Belgica, 48(2/3), 219241.
Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination
theory and work motivation. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior, 26(4), 331363.
Gagn, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensa-
tion systems through the lens of self-determination
theory: Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian
Psychology, 49(3), 225232.
Gagn, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003).
Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the
motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 15(4), 372390.
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 587
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Gagn, M., Sencal, C., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal
job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and
intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14),
12221240.
Gottschalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment
and competitive advantage. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 32(2), 418437.
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Mnard, S. (1997).
The impact of behavioural difculty on the saliency
of the association between self-determined moti-
vation and environmental behaviours. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 29(3), 157166.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in
childrens learning: An experimental and individual
difference investigation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52(5), 890898.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindajaran, V. (2000). Knowledge
managements social dimension: Lessons from
Nucor Steel. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1),
7181.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work
redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource manage-
ment and knowledge management via commit-
ment. Employee Relations, 25(2), 182202.
Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived
coaching behaviors and college athletes intrinsic
motivation: A test of self-determination theory.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 2036.
Hoyt, C. L., & Blascovich, J. (2003). Transformational
and transactional leadership in virtual and physi-
cal environments. Small Group Research, 34(6),
678715.
Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007).
Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communi-
ties: The relationship between trust, self-efcacy,
and outcome expectations. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153169.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A
conceptual framework. HRM Development Review,
2(4), 337359.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwartz,
N., & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method for char-
acterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruc-
tion method. Science, 306(5702), 17761780.
Kelloway, E. K., & Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work
as organizational behavior. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 2(3), 287304.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing
three ways of being internally motivated: A closer
look at introjection, identication, and intrinsic
motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Hand-
book of self-determination research (pp. 101121).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kunda, Z., & Schwartz, S. H. (1983). Undermining
intrinsic moral motivation: External reward and
self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45(4), 763771.
Kuvaas, B. (2007). Different relationships between per-
ceptions of developmental performance appraisal
and work performance. Personnel Review, 36(3),
378397.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). Social and economic exchange
perceptions and intrinsic motivation among knowl-
edge workers. Unpublished manuscript, Norwe-
gian School of Management, Oslo.
Lin, C.-P. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling
knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a
moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457475.
Lin, C.-P. (2007b). To share or not to share: Modeling
tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators, and ante-
cedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411428.
Lucas, L. M., & Ogilvie, D. T. (2006). Things are not
always what they seem: How reputations, culture,
and incentives inuence knowledge transfer. Learn-
ing Organization, 13(1), 721.
Lynch, M. F., Jr., Plant, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2005).
Psychological needs and threat to safety: Implica-
tions for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital
for youth. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 36(4), 415425.
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-
athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883904.
Malhotra, Y., Galleta, D. F., & Kirsch, L. J. (2008). How
endogenous motivation inuences user intentions:
Beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic
user motivations. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 25(1), 267299.
McDermott, R., & ODell, C. (2001). Overcoming
culture barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(1), 7685.
McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a
detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on break-
ing a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 15(3), 285294.
Millette, V., & Gagn, M. (2008). Designing volunteers
tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and
performance: The impact of job characteristics on
the outcomes of volunteer involvement. Motivation
and Emotion, 32(1), 1122.
588 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, JULYAUGUST 2009
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
Mitchell, J. I., Gagn, M., Beaudry, A., & Dyer, L.
(2008). The moderating effect of motivation on the
relationship between attitude and IT usage.
Unpublished manuscript, Concordia University,
Montreal.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The
work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing
and validating a comprehensive measure for
assessing job design and the nature of work.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6),
13211339.
Muraven, M., Rosman, H., & Gagn, M. (2007). Lack of
autonomy and self-control: Performance contin-
gent rewards lead to greater depletion. Motivation
and Emotion, 31(4), 322330.
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organi-
zational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary
paths and future advances. Organization Studies,
27(8), 11791208.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity toler-
ance. Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6),
607619.
ODell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew
what we know: Identication and transfer of inter-
nal best practices. California Management Review,
40(3), 154174.
ONeill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing
and the psychological contract. Journal of Manage-
rial Psychology, 22(4), 411436.
OReilly, C., & Pondy, L. (1980). Organizational commu-
nication. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior
(pp. 119149). Columbus, OH: Grid.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowl-
edge transfer, and organizational forms. Organiza-
tion Science, 11(5), 538550.
Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. D. (2004). Critical
attributes of organizational culture that promote
knowledge management technology implementa-
tion success. Journal of Knowledge Management,
8(3), 106117.
Patterson, R., Gellatly, I., Arazy, O., & Jang, S. (2007).
The effects of wiki characteristics on performance
quality: The role of user motivations. Proceedings
of the Workshop on Information Technologies and
Systems, 17.
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational
leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of
core job characteristics. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(2), 327340.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C. A., & Williams, E. S. (1999).
Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A
two-sample study. Journal of Management, 25(6),
897933.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., &
Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leadership be-
haviors and their effects on followers trust in the
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107142.
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van
de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and inter-
personal behavior: How mastery and performance
goals shape information exchange. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 14351447.
Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of
experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and sug-
gestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 28(1), 363392.
Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M.
(2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivation-
al mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and
performance. Organization, 18(1), 7188.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing bar-
riers managers must consider. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 9(1), 1835.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of
organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),
13061314.
Roca, J. C., & Gagn, M. (2008). Understanding e-
learning continuance intention in the workplace: A
self-determination theory perspective. Computers
in Human Behavior, 24(4), 15961604.
Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcom-
ing barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), 259273.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 6878.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation
of reward contingency and interpersonal context to
intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cogni-
tive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(4), 736750.
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E.
L. (1996). All goals were not created equal: An
organismic perspective on the nature of goals and
their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition
and motivation to behavior (pp. 726). New York:
Guilford Press.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The
motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A
A MODEL OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING MOTIVATION 589
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
self-concept based theory. Organization Science,
4(4), 577594.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal
goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and
controlling goals on effort and attainment. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546557.
Sheldon, K. M., & McGregor, H. A. (2000). Extrinsic
value orientation and the tragedy of the com-
mons. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 383411.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K.
(2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct
development and validation. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 36(4), 837867.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006).
Empowering leadership in management teams: Ef-
fects on knowledge sharing, efcacy, and perform-
ance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6),
12391251.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive el-
ements of empowerment: An interpretive model
of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 15(4), 666681.
Tissen, R., Andriessen, D., & Deprez, L. F. (1998). Value-
based knowledge management: Creating the 21st
century company: Knowledge intensive, people
rich. Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman.
van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowl-
edge sharing in context: The inuence of organi-
zational commitment, communication climate,
and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117130.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci
and correlates of organizational identication. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73(2), 137147.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg C. W.
(1986). Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A
long-term eld experiment. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 29(2), 280304.
Wang, C.-C. (2004). The inuence of ethical and self-
interest concerns on knowledge sharing intentions
among managers: An empirical study. International
Journal of Management, 21(3), 370381.
Wright, P. M., George, J. M., Farnsworth, S. R., &
McMahan, G. C. (1993). Productivity and extra-role
behavior: The effects of goals and incentives on
spontaneous helping. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 78(3), 374381.
Wu., T.-Y., Hu, C., Lin, J.-H., & Hsu, Y.-W. (2008, August).
Poor leadership and job stress: The moderating
effects of coworker support and job characteristics.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Acad-
emy of Management, Anaheim, CA.