Knowledge sharing in context: the inuence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing

Bart van den Hooff and Jan A. de Ridder

Bart van den Hooff is an Assistant Professor of organizational communication at the University of Amsterdam's Department of Communication, and a Researcher at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected]). Jan A. de Ridder is a Senior Associate Professor of organizational communication at the University of Amsterdam's Department of Communication and a Researcher at the Amsterdam School of Communications Research ([email protected]).

Abstract Determining which factors promote or impede the sharing of knowledge within groups and organizations constitutes an important area of research. This paper focuses on three such inuences: ``organizational commitment,'' ``organizational communication,'' and the use of a specic instrument of communication computer-mediated communication (CMC). Two processes of knowledge sharing are distinguished: donating and collecting. A number of hypotheses are presented concerning the inuence of commitment, climate and CMC on these processes. These hypotheses were tested in six case studies. The results suggest that commitment to the organization positively inuences knowledge donating, and is in turn positively inuenced by CMC use. Communication climate is found to be a key variable: a constructive communication climate was found to positively inuence knowledge donating, knowledge collecting and affective commitment. Finally, a relationship was found that was not hypothesized: knowledge collecting inuences knowledge donating in a positive sense the more knowledge a person collects, the more he or she is willing to also donate knowledge to others. Based on these results, a number of theoretical and practical implications are discussed, and suggestions for further research are presented. Keywords Knowledge management, Organizations, Communication management

Introduction
In today's knowledge-intensive economy, an organization's available knowledge is becoming an increasingly important resource. In the ``resource-based'' view of the rm, knowledge is considered to be the most strategically important resource (e.g. Conner and Prahalad, 1996; Grant, 1996; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Pettigrew and Whip, 1993). The effective management of this resource is, consequently, one of the most important challenges facing today's organizations (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Drucker, 1993; Hansen et al., 1999). The sharing of knowledge between individuals and departments in the organization is considered to be a crucial process here (O'Dell and Grayson, 1998; Osterloh and Frey, 2000). Only when individual and group knowledge are translated to organizational knowledge can the organization start to effectively manage this resource. Therefore, determining which factors promote or impede the sharing of knowledge within groups and organizations constitutes an important area of research. In this paper, we focus on two such inuences, ``organizational commitment'' and ``organizational communication.'' Here, ``organizational commitment'' is understood to refer to the affective commitment of organizational members to their organization, whereas

DOI 10.1108/13673270410567675 VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004, pp. 117-130, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 117

``organizational communication'' refers to both the communication climate of the organization as a whole (both intensity and experienced quality of organizational communication) and the use of different instruments for communication. In the latter dimension, we specically focus on the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC). Our central research question is: What is the inuence of commitment to the organization, communication climate and the use of CMC on knowledge sharing? In order to provide an answer to this research question, we divided it into the following subquestions: J What different knowledge sharing processes can be distinguished? J What is the relationship between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing? J What is the relationship between communication climate and knowledge sharing? J What is the relationship between CMC use and knowledge sharing? J What is the relationship between communication climate, CMC use and commitment? These sub-questions will be answered in consecutive order in the theoretical section of this paper. First we will analyze knowledge sharing processes in some detail, and subsequently, we will discuss the inuence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on these processes. Based on these theories, we will present a theoretical model. This model was tested on the basis of ve case studies in which a ``knowledge management scan'' was conducted measuring all relevant variables. Based on these empirical results, we will present an empirical model and our conclusions, reecting on the theories discussed before.

Theory and hypotheses

Knowledge sharing processes In our theoretical discussion, we rst focus on the process of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is the process where individuals mutually exchange their (implicit and explicit) knowledge and jointly create new knowledge. As discussed before, this process is essential in translating individual knowledge to organizational knowledge. Our denition of knowledge sharing implies that every knowledge sharing process consists of both bringing (or ``donating'') knowledge and getting (or ``collecting'' knowledge), in line with a number of other authors. Ardichvili et al. (2003) for instance, note that knowledge sharing consists of both the supply of new knowledge and the demand for new knowledge. Weggeman (2000) distinguishes between a ``knowledge source'' and a ``knowledge receiver'' in knowledge sharing processes, and Oldenkamp (2001) discusses how knowledge sharing involves both a ``knowledge carrier'' and a ``knowledge requester.'' We combine these perspectives in labeling the two central processes as follows: (1) knowledge donating, communicating to others what one's personal intellectual capital is; and (2) knowledge collecting, consulting colleagues in order to get them to share their intellectual capital. So, both processes we distinguish are active processes either actively communicating to others what one knows, or actively consulting others in order to learn what they know. Both processes have a different nature, and can be expected to be inuenced by different factors. Research concerning the factors affecting knowledge sharing has identied a number of different variables, from ``hard'' issues such as technologies and tools (Hlupic et al., 2002) to ``soft'' issues such as motivations (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Hall, 2001; Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003), organizational climate and communication climate (Moffett et al., 2003; Van den Hooff and De Ridder, 2003; Zarraga and Garca-Falcon, 2003) and culture (Hlupic et al., 2002; Boer et al., 2002). Organizational or ethnic cultures, for instance, can inuence the extent to which and the way in which knowledge is shared (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Ford and Chan, 2002; Smith and McKeen, 2002).

PAGE 118

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

In line with Hlupic et al. (2002) and Moffett et al. (2003), we consider both ``hard'' and ``soft'' issues in our explanation of knowledge sharing. The ``hard'' issue under study here is the use of computer-mediated communication for knowledge sharing, and the ``soft'' issue is the relationship between the individual and the organization or department he or she works for. The latter issue is discussed in the next section, as we explore the relationship between commitment and knowledge sharing. So, in our further analysis of the factors affecting knowledge sharing, we will focus on the relationship between such factors on the one hand, and both knowledge donating and collecting on the other. Organizational commitment and knowledge sharing Having distinguished knowledge donating and collecting as the substance of knowledge sharing, we now focus on the relationship between organizational commitment and these processes. As pointed out in the previous paragraphs, the motivations and effects related to both knowledge donating and collecting can be expected to be quite different. In discussing these motivations, we here focus on the role of organizational commitment. Before further exploring this relationship, however, we rst have to dene what we understand organizational commitment to be. Mowday et al. (1982, 1979) and Steers (1977) have laid the foundations for an extensive body of research into organizational commitment. Mowday et al. dene organizational commitment as ``the relative strength of an individual's identication with, and involvement in a particular organization'' (Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226). Studies concerning this subject have identied various dimensions of organizational commitment (Mowday et al., 1982; Reichers, 1985; Salancik, 1977). A useful distinction between different forms of commitment is presented by Meyer and Allen (1997) who distinguish three different kinds of commitment: (1) affective commitment, which is related to identication and involvement with the organization, a feeling of emotional attachment to that organization affective commitment leads to a feeling of wanting to continue employment in the organization; (2) continuance commitment is created by high costs associated with leaving the organization (``Prot associated with continued participation and a `cost' associated with leaving'' (Kanter, 1968, p. 504)), and creates a feeling of needing to continue employment; and (3) normative commitment is related to a feeling of obligation towards the organization, and creates a feeling that one ought to continue employment. As Meyer and Allen (1997) argue that affective commitment is positively related to individuals' willingness to commit extra effort to their work, this is the kind of commitment that can be expected to be related to willingness to donate and receive knowledge. As Hall (2001) argues, people are more willing to share their knowledge if they are convinced that doing so is useful if they have the feeling that they share their knowledge in an environment where doing so is appreciated and where their knowledge will actually be used. Hinds and Pfeffer (in press) sum up motivational factors affecting knowledge sharing, one of which is the relationship between the individual and the organization. An individual who is more committed to the organization, and has more trust in both management and coworkers, is more likely to be willing to share their knowledge. This latter conclusion is also drawn by Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001), who state that ``greater commitment may engender beliefs that the organization has rights to the information and knowledge one has created or acquired'' (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001, p. 156). All in all, it is to be expected that affective commitment to the organization creates positive conditions for both knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. Various authors have specically investigated the relationship between commitment and knowledge sharing (for instance: Hislop, 2002; Kelloway and Barling, 2000; Scarbrough, 1999; Smith and McKeen, 2002). Kelloway and Barling (2000) for instance, report a number of empirical studies that conrm that affective commitment is a predictor of performance, and is based on a reciprocal relationship wherein the individual offers his or her talents to the

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 119

knowledge `` The motivations and effects related to both be quite donating and collecting can be expected to different. ''
organization in exchange for the rewards of organizational membership. Based on these studies, they present a model in which affective commitment is positively related to knowledge work. Smith and McKeen (2002) state that commitment to the organization is an important part of a knowledge sharing culture. Based on such literature, we propose a positive relationship between organizational commitment on the one hand, and the willingness to donate and collect knowledge on the other. All in all, this literature leads us to expect that affective commitment to the organization positively inuences the extent to which people share their knowledge. As commitment inuences both the willingness to contribute to that organization (i.e. donate knowledge) and the extent to which others' activities are known and perceived to be relevant (i.e. collect knowledge) the rst hypothesis is: H1. An organizational member's affective commitment to the organization positively inuences the extent to which he or she both (a) donates and (b) collects knowledge. Communication climate and knowledge sharing The next question addressed here concerns the inuence of communication on knowledge sharing. As knowledge sharing is, of course, a form of communication, this variable can be expected to be of signicant inuence here. Putnam and Cheney (1985) dene ``communication climate'' as ``the atmosphere in an organization regarding accepted communication behavior.'' Key factors in the communication climate include horizontal information ow (Crino and White, 1981), openness, vertical information ow, and reliability of information (Dennis, 1974). A distinction can be made between supportive and defensive communication climates (Larsen and Folgero, 1993), where a supportive communication climate is characterized by open exchange of information, accessibility of coworkers, conrming and cooperative interactions and an overall culture of sharing knowledge. Ali et al. (2002) conclude that the generation, distribution and continual existence of organizational knowledge depends on such a communication climate. Based on this description of communication climate it is to be expected that such a constructive communication climate will positively inuence knowledge sharing both in terms of donating and receiving: H2. A constructive communication climate positively inuences the extent to which members of an organization both (a) donate and (b) collect knowledge. The use of CMC and knowledge sharing The next question to be answered concerns the role of CMC in knowledge sharing. CMC offers unique opportunities to overcome barriers of space and time (Hammer and Mangurian, 1997; Dimmick et al., 2000), but offers only limited opportunities for truly ``social'' communication rich in social cues (Daft and Lengel, 1984, 1986; Kiesler et al., 1984). The inuence of CMC on knowledge sharing has been the subject of much research, and the empirical ndings on its contributions are mixed (Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003; Huysman and De Wit, 2002; Moffett et al., 2003), although in situations where ``common know how'' exists it can be most valuable (Brown and Duguid, 2001). On the other hand, CMC has a number of characteristics, such as anonymity (Postmes et al., 1998), lack of social cues (Kiesler et al., 1984) and absence of status differences (Weisband and Schneider, 1995), which have potentially interesting consequences for knowledge sharing. As status differences are frequently considered to be signicant barriers for knowledge sharing (Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003), CMC's inuence on knowledge sharing could be positive as well.

PAGE 120

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

Such characteristics of computer-mediated communication can lead to forms of social interaction that strongly differ from face to face interactions without being less social or personal by denition. Walther (1996) even claims that such characteristics of ICT can lead to more personal communication, to stronger identication with the group and thus to more collective behavior. Postmes (1997) found that CMC can enhance social identication within groups. These are all conditions that positively inuence the willingness to both donate and receive knowledge (Mackie and Goethals, 1987; Tyler and Kramer, 1996; Hinds and Pfeffer, 2003). In our hypothesis, we adhere to this positive view of CMC and knowledge sharing. Our expectation is that the specic characteristics of CMC described above will create a communication environment in which donating and collecting knowledge are positively inuenced: H3. The use of CMC has a positive inuence on organizational members' willingness to both (a) donate and (b) collect knowledge. Commitment, communication climate and CMC The concepts of affective commitment to the organization, communication climate and CMC use can also be expected to be mutually related. For instance, theory indicates that the amount of information people receive about their working environment, and the degree to which they can actively participate in communication with other members of their organization, is positively related to their commitment to the organization (Eisenberg et al., 1983; Huff et al., 1986; Kiesler, 1971; Salancik, 1977). A considerable body of research indicates that information and communication are important antecedents of commitment (Foy, 1994; Katz and Kahn, 1972; Meyer and Allen, 1997; Postmes et al., 2001; Tanis and Postmes, 2001). Guzley (1992) argues that the more favorably perceived the organization's communication climate is, the higher will the levels of organizational commitment be: employees will demonstrate a strong belief in and acceptance of the organization's goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization. Based on this, we also expect: H4. A constructive communication climate positively inuences affective commitment to the organization. Building on the concepts and relationships leading to the previous hypothesis, we also answer the question of how CMC use is related to commitment to the organization. As CMC is generally expected to lower barriers for communication (Dimmick et al., 2000; Sproull and Kiesler, 1991), we also propose that such lower barriers lead to more communication in organizations. As we have just argued that communication leads to higher commitment, CMC use can be expected to positively inuence affective communication. Furthermore, it was argued before that CMC use can enhance social identication. As Tanis and Postmes (2001) argue, social identication is closely related to affective commitment which is another argument why CMC use can be expected to positively inuence affective commitment: H5. The use of CMC has a positive inuence on organizational members' affective commitment to the organization. All in all, our theoretical framework leads to the model shown in Figure 1. In the following sections, we will discuss how this model was tested, and what the results of this empirical testing were.

Method
Sample Five Dutch organizations were examined: a technical service organization, an education related service organization, a governmental department, a nancial service organization and a consultancy rm. In the education related service organization we made a distinction between two rather independent units. Therefore, we actually examine six different cases. In return for their cooperation, the organizations each received a report on the quality of their knowledge management. Within each case a random sample was selected. The selected employees lled

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 121

Figure 1 Theoretical model

in a short questionnaire. In total, 444 respondents took part in the research. For the analyses reported in this article we only used data from 417 respondents (see Table I). The data from respondents were left out if answers to relevant questions were lacking. One remark concerning the organizations studied here: these are all Dutch organizations. A considerable body of literature addresses the inuence of organizational and national cultures on knowledge sharing (e.g. Boer et al., 2002; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hlupic et al., 2002; Smith and McKeen, 2002). It is important to note that differences in national or ethnic cultures were not included in our empirical research since all organizations are from the same country. Measurement For knowledge donating and knowledge collecting, we use items of a knowledge management scan tested and used in a number of organizations (Van den Hooff et al., 2003). The scale for knowledge donating and the scale for knowledge collecting are both homogeneous ( = 0.85 and  = 0.77 respectively). The items used are presented in Table II. For communication climate we use a scale of our scan as well. This scale was found to be just homogeneous ( = 0.61). A high score on this scale signies a constructive communication climate. Commitment was measured with ve (translated) items of the OCQ scale (Porter et al., 1974; Mowday et al., 1979), which are useful in measuring affective commitment. This set of items has already proved its worth in producing a reliable scale in a number of research projects to date. The scale is also homogeneous in this case ( = 0.83). To get information about the use of CMC respondents were asked to indicate on a ve-point scale the extent to which they use e-mail (the only CMC tool used in all organizations). Finally, all variables used in the analysis have been recoded to get a range from 1 to 5.

Table I Description of sample

2 Case Number of employees Questionnaires sent/received/used Response rate 1 80 80/40/34 50.00% a 192 192/89/89 46.35% b 410 410/101/98 24.63% 3 177 177/60/59 33.90% 4 189 189/109/99 57.67% 5 116 116/45/38 38.79%

PAGE 122

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

Table II Knowledge donating and knowledge collecting: scales and items

Factor loadings Donating Donating ( = 0.85) When I've learned something new, I see to it that colleagues in my department can learn it as well I share the information I have with colleagues within my department I share my skills with colleagues within my department When I've learned something new, I see to it that colleagues outside of my department can learn it as well I share the information I have with colleagues outside of my department I share my skills with colleagues outside of my department Collecting ( = 0.78) Colleagues within my department tell me what they know, when I ask them about it. Colleagues within my department tell me what their skills are, when I ask them about it Colleagues outside of my department tell me what they know, when I ask them about it. Colleagues outiside of my department tell me what their skills are, when I ask them about it 0.069 0.011 0.171 0.239 0.814 0.823 0.664 0.687 0.621 0.652 0.677 0.833 0.804 0.841 0.272 0.293 0.260 0.085 0.005 0.051 Collecting

Analysis The analysis strategy followed here can be considered to be an embedded case study (Yin, 1989). The respondents from ve different organizations are considered as a sample of one case. Statistical techniques are used to examine the causal mechanisms on an individual level of analysis. On the organizational level there is no statistical generalization possible, of course. The theoretical model will be tested with AMOS (version 4; Arbuckle and Wothke, 1994; see for methodology regarding structural equation modeling e.g.: Saris and Stronkhorst, 1984; Bentler and Chou 1987). The strategy used to examine the tenability of the hypotheses has some methodological shortcomings. There may be doubts about the decision to consider the six organizational units as one case. The advantage is that there is more variation in the variables involved. However, although the organizations are rather comparable (service organizations with rather welleducated employees), there may still be organization related phenomena that disturb the analyses and distort the results. Therefore, a multiple group analysis in which each organization is considered as one group has been performed as well.

Results
In this section the variables are rst discussed using some descriptives and the mutual correlations. Next the tenability of the hypotheses is examined as summarized in the model given in Figure 1. Knowledge donating and collecting and the use of communication tools A rst analysis shows that the intensity of knowledge donating and collecting is rather high in the examined organizations (average is 4.02 and 3.25 respectively on a ve-point scale). Further analysis (ANOVA-analysis) shows that the differences between organizations are signicant (for donating, F (5, 411) = 9.73, p < 0.01 and collecting, F (5, 411) = 4,95, p < 0.01). Organizational affective commitment and the communication climate also score rather high (average is 3.59 and 4.27 respectively on a ve-points scale). The differences between organizations

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 123

are signicant too (for commitment, F (5, 411) = 11.68, p < 0.01 and communication climate, F (5, 411) = 3.76, p < 0.01). CMC appears to work very well in the examined organizations (the averaged use is 4.41 on a ve-point scale) however, differences between organizations are still signicant (F (5, 411) = 5.98, p < 0.01). Testing the model An AMOS analysis has been done to test the separate hypotheses in their mutual connections (see Table III for the correlation matrices of the variables involved). The starting model is the theoretical model shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the standardized regression coefcients next to the arrows. This starting model does not t. The value of the 2 ( 2 (1) = 6.55; p = 0.010; NFI = 0.999) makes clear that the model cannot replicate the empirical correlation matrix correctly. The removal of the insignicant coefcient creates a just tting model ( 2 (4) = 9.09; p = 0.059; NFI = 0.999). However, the

Table III Means, standard deviations and correlations

Mean 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Knowledge donating Knowledge collecting Commitment Communication climate CMC use 3.25 4.02 3.59 4.27 4.64 SD 0.75 0.67 0.74 0.52 0.70 1 2 3 4

0.22 0.21 0.31 0.01

0.11 0.36 0.09

0.27 0.18

0.07

Figure 2 Path estimates of the models: the hypothesized model

Notes: Fit of the model: Chi-square = 6.551 (df = 1; p = 0.010); NFI = 0.999. All path coefcients are signicant (p < 0.001), except for the paths: between CMC use and knowledge donating and knowledge collecting; and between commitment and knowledge collecting. Values beside arrows are the standardized parameter estimates. The values of R 2 (explained variance) are in bold and italic. Correlations between exogenous variables are allowed

PAGE 124

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

modication indices show that this model left still partly unexplained the correlation between the two knowledge sharing variables: knowledge collecting and donating. Therefore, we added a direct effect from knowledge donating to knowledge collecting in the model. This addition implies an improvement ( 2 (5) = 2.83; p = 0.42; NFI = 1.000). Figure 3 shows the path diagram and the standardized regression coefcients of this last model. The model explains about 13 percent of the variance in knowledge donating and 13 percent of the variance in knowledge collecting. Multi group analysis The six different organizational units make up one case in the analyses discussed above. Therefore, any organization related phenomena that may disturb the analysis are ignored. Using the AMOS facilities to perform multi group analysis, the seriousness of this problem has been examined. The starting point is the same path diagram in each organization, assuming that every effect is the same in each organization. That model does not t ( 2 (46) = 104.79; p = 0.00; NFI = 0.987). Examination of the modication indices shows that allowing differences in parameter values for some organizations is required to get an acceptable reproduction of the empirical correlations ( 2 (41) = 55.21; p = 0.083; NFI = 0.993). The separate estimations of some parameter values show some remarkable results. In one of the organizations the effect of CMC use on commitment (a rather strong positive effect in the model presented in Figure 3) was not signicant and tends to be negative. A possible explanation could be that successful CMC tools may replace the use of richer media such as face-to-face and therefore may result in less commitment. Contrary to the results of the general model presented in Figure 3, rather strong effects of commitment to knowledge collecting were found in two cases: one positive and one negative effect. In the consultancy rm, the effect is negative. A possible explanation could be that employees who feel a strong commitment do not want to bother their colleagues. Generally speaking, however, the results of the multi group analysis do not harm the general conclusion about the tenability of the hypotheses.

Figure 3 Path estimates of the models: the revised model

Notes: Fit of the model: Chi-square = 2.834 (df = 3; p = 0.418); NFI = 1.000. All path coefcients are signicant (p< 0.001)

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 125

`` A constructive communication climate in an organization is a central condition for successful knowledge sharing. ''
Conclusion In conclusion the presented analyses support a considerable number of our hypotheses. First of all, commitment to the organization is indeed found to be of inuence on knowledge sharing on knowledge donating, more specically, supporting H.1a. This is in line with the ideas presented before, which relate affective commitment to an enhanced willingness to contribute to the organization's functioning and performance in this case, contribute one's intellectual capital. Knowledge collecting, contrary to H.1b, was not found to be inuenced by commitment. Multi group analysis shows that this relationship might be complex and that the organizational context can have both a positive and negative effect on this process. Second, communication climate was found to be a crucial variable in explaining knowledge sharing. Supporting H.2a, H.2b and H.4, respectively, a constructive communication climate was found to positively inuence knowledge donating, knowledge collecting and affective commitment. CMC use was not found to inuence either knowledge collecting or knowledge donating in a direct way but this inuence was found in an indirect way, via commitment. CMC use, supporting H.5, was found to positively inuence commitment which, in turn, positively inuences knowledge donating. So, these results indicate that CMC indeed has a number of characteristics that make it an antecedent of organizational commitment, and that such organizational commitment is, in turn, an antecedent for knowledge sharing. Finally, a relationship which was not hypothesized but which is very interesting, emerges from this model: knowledge collecting inuences knowledge donating in a positive sense the more knowledge a person collects, the more he or she is willing to also donate knowledge to others. The benets of knowledge sharing for an individual manifest themselves most strongly through successful knowledge collection. These results suggest that such manifest benets are a condition for a person's willingness to invest more to donate their intellectual capital in order to enable others to realize such benets as well.

Discussion
In this paper, we explored the inuence of commitment to the organization, communication climate and the use of computer-mediated communication on knowledge sharing. Our results suggest that both commitment and communication climate are key variables in explaining knowledge sharing, and that CMC use also has a positive inuence on this process (through commitment). Furthermore, the distinction between the processes of knowledge donating and knowledge collecting, respectively, turns out to be a relevant one. The antecedents of both processes are not entirely similar (commitment, for instance, inuences knowledge donating but not collecting), and they are also interrelated: knowledge collecting can be seen as a condition for knowledge donating. Theoretical implications The implications for theory are, rst of all, that the distinction between knowledge donating and knowledge collecting is an important distinction, which should receive more attention in theories about knowledge sharing. Second, affective commitment is indeed an important determinant of knowledge sharing, specically of knowledge donating. Our results point towards a constructive communication climate in an organization as a central condition for successful knowledge sharing. The inuence of this variable on knowledge sharing turns out to be much more complicated for knowledge donating than for knowledge collecting. Where communication climate exerts a relatively strong direct inuence on willingness to collect

PAGE 126

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

knowledge, the inuence of climate on knowledge donating is a sum of direct and indirect relationships. Our analyses have laid bare the intricate relationships between the concepts of communication climate and affective commitment, and knowledge sharing processes. Finally, CMC use was also found to be a positive inuence on commitment, lending support to theories that explain how the lack of social cues in CMC can create positive conditions for affective commitment. It is important, however, to realize that these relationships may become somewhat more complicated as successful CMC tools may replace the use of richer media such as face-to-face which, despite the fact that a lack of social cues can work positively on these variables, may result in a less rich social climate in the organization, and through that, in less affective commitment. Further research A number of questions have been left unanswered by our analyses. First of all, the variables of commitment and communication climate are rather ``general'' variables on the organizational level. A question that warrants further study is whether variables that are more directly related to the knowledge process itself inuence knowledge donating and collecting. It can be expected, for instance, that an individual's awareness of knowledge needs within the organization (a variable also measured in our knowledge management scan) inuences the extent to which he or she is willing to donate and receive knowledge. Knowing what others need to know, for instance, can be expected to positively inuence willingness to donate knowledge. Having a good picture of one's own information needs, on the other hand, can positively inuence collecting knowledge. So, future research should focus on this variable of awareness of knowledge needs, and other variables that are more directly related to the knowledge process. Such awareness could also be expected to be related to both commitment and communication climate, so it could well be that this is an important mediating variable in these relationships. Second, we focused exclusively on the role CMC plays in knowledge sharing. CMC, however, constitutes only one kind of instrument used for knowledge processes, next to face-to-face communication, information systems, libraries, HRM instruments etc. In order to justly determine the relative importance of CMC in explaining knowledge sharing, these other instruments should be included in the analysis as well. So, future research should measure a broad range of knowledge management instruments. Based on such measurements, it should also be possible to determine to what degree CMC comes to replace ``richer'' instruments and to determine what the inuence of such replacement could be on commitment, communication climate and knowledge sharing. Finally, we have briey referred to the possible inuence of organizational and ethnic culture on knowledge sharing. Since our conceptualization of communication climate is somewhat related to such cultural dimensions, a very interesting avenue of research would be to conduct similar studies in organizations from different ethnic cultures, so that the inuence of such cultures on both communication climate and knowledge sharing can be analyzed as well.

References
Ali, I.M., Pascoe, C. and Warne, L. (2002), ``Interactions of organizational culture and collaboration in working and learning'', Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 60-8. Arbuckle, J.L. and Wothke, W. (1994), ``Amos 4.0 User's Guide'', SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL. Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), ``Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-77. Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C. (1987), ``Practical issues in structural modelling'', Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 16, pp. 78-117. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2001), ``Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective'', Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 198-213. Conner, K.R. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), ``A resource-based theory of the rm: knowledge versus opportunism'', Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 477-501. Crino, M.D. and White, M. (1981), ``Satisfaction in communication: an examination of the Downs-Hazen measure'', Psychological Reports, Vol. 49, pp. 831-8.

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 127

Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1984), ``Information richness: a new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design'', in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, JAI Press, Homewood, IL, pp. 191-233. Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), ``Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design'', Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 554-69. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge; How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Dennis, H.S. (1974), ``A theoretical and empirical study of managerial communication climate in complex organizations'', doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IA. Dimmick, J., Kline, S. and Stafford, L. (2000), ``The gratication niches of personal e-mail and the telephone'', Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 227-48. De Wit, D. and Huysman, M.H. (2000), ``De januskop van kennismanagement'' (The janus head of knowledge management), and Nieuwe Media in Perspectief (NewMedia in Perspective), Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 34-41. Drucker, P. (1993), The Post-Capitalist Society, Butterworth-Heineman, Oxford. Eisenberg, E., Monge, P.R. and Miller, K.L. (1983), ``Involvement in communication networks as a predictor of organizational commitment'', Human Communication Research, Vol. 10, pp. 179-201. Ford, D. and Chan, Y. (2002), ``Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural setting: a case-study'', working paper WP 02-09, Queen's Management Research Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, Kingston, Canada, available at: http://business.queensu.ca/kbe/docs/wp_02-09.pdf, accessed January 2004. Foy, N. (1994), Empowering People at Work, Gower, Aldershot. Grant, R.M. (1996), ``Toward a knowledge-based view of the rm'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-22. Guzley, M. (1992), ``Organizational climate and communication climate: predictors of commitment to the organization'', Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 379-402. Hall, H. (2001), ``Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets'', Journal of Information Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 139-46. Hammer, M. and Mangurian, G.E. (1987), ``The changing value of communications technology'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 66-77. Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ``What's your strategy for managing knowledge?'', Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 106-16. Hinds, P. and Pfeffer, J. (2003), ``Why organizations don't `know what they know': cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise'', in Ackerman, M., Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (Eds), Beyond Knowledge Management: Sharing Expertise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Hislop, D. (2002), ``Managing knowledge and the problem of commitment'', Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, ALBA, Athens. Huff, C., Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1989), ``Computer communication and organizational commitment: tracing the relationship in a city government'', Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 16, pp. 1371-91. Hlupic, V., Pouloudi, A. and Rzevski, G. (2002), ``Towards an integrated approach to knowledge management: `hard,' `soft' and `abstract' issues'', Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 90-102. Huysman, M.H. and de Wit, D. (2002), Knowledge Sharing in Practice, Kluwer Academics, Dordrecht. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2001), ``Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise'', Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 151-83. Kanter, R.M. (1968), ``Commitment and social organization: a study of mechanisms in utopian communities'', American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, pp. 499-517. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1972), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Kelloway, E.K and Barling, J. (2000), ``Knowledge work as organizational behavior'', Framework paper 0003, Queen's Management Research Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, Kingston, Canada, available at: www.business.queensu.ca/kbe, accessed October 2002.

PAGE 128

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

Kiesler, C.A. (1971), The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief, Academic Press, New York, NY. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T.W. (1984), ``Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication'', American Psychologist, Vol. 39, pp. 1123-34. Larsen, S. and Folgero, I.S. (1993), ``Supportive and defensive communication'', International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 22-5. Mackie, D.M. and Goethals, G.R. (1987), ``Individual and group goals'', in Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Group Processes: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 144-66. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Moffett, S., McAdam, R. and Parkinson, S. (2003), ``An empirical analysis of knowledge management applications'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 626. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), ``The measurement of organizational commitment'', Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-47. Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), ``Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 242-66. O'Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), ``If only we knew what we know: identication and transfer of internal best practices'', California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 154-74. Oldenkamp, J.H. (2001), Succesvol Overdragen van Kennis (Successful Knowledge Transfer), Lemma BV, Utrecht. Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), ``Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms'', Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-50. Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1993), Managing Change for Competitive Success, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), ``Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 603-9. Postmes, T.T. (1997), Social Inuence in Computer-Mediated Groups, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. Postmes, T.T., Spears, R. and Lea, M. (1998), ``Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication'', Communication Research, Vol. 25, pp. 689-715. Postmes, T.T., Tanis, M. and De Wit, B. (2001), ``Communication and commitment in organizations: a social identity approach'', Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 227-46. Reichers, A.E. (1985), ``A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 597-616. Salancik, G.E. (1977), ``Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief'', in Staw, B. and Salancik, G.E. (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, St Clair, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-54. Saris, W.E. and Stronkhorst, L.H. (1984), Causal Modeling in Non-Experimental Research: An Introduction to the LISREL Approach, Sociometric Research Foundation, Amsterdam. Scarbrough, H. (1999), ``Knowledge as work: conicts in the management of knowledge workers'', Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 5-16. Smith, H.A. and McKeen, J.D. (2002), ``Instilling a knowledge-sharing culture'', Proceedings of the third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, ALBA, Athens. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1991), Connections; New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Steers, R.M. (1977), ``Antecendents and outcomes of organizational commitment'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 46-56. Tanis, M. and Postmes, T. (2001), ``Horizontal and vertical communication and commitment: a social identity approach'', paper presented at the 51st Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC, May 24-28, 2001.

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

PAGE 129

Trevino, L.K., Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1990), ``Understanding manager's media choices: a symbolic interactionist perspective'', in Fulk, J. and Steineld, C.W. (Eds), Organizations and Communication Technology, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 71-94. Tyler, T.R. and Kramer, R.M. (Eds) (1996), ``Whither trust?", Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-15. Van den Hooff, B. and De Ridder, J. (2003), ``The context of knowledge sharing'', paper presented at the annual Conference of the ICA, Organizational Communication Division, San Diego, CA, May 2003. Van den Hooff, B., Vijvers, J. and De Ridder, J. (2002), ``Knowing what to manage: the development and application of a knowledge management scan'', Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, ALBA, Athens. Van der Rijt, P.G.A. (2002), Precious Knowledge, Amsterdam School of Communications Research, Amsterdam. Walther, J.B. (1996), ``Computer-mediated communication; impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction'', Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-43. Weggeman, M. (2000), Kennismanagement: de praktijk (Knowledge Management: Practice), Scriptum Management, Schiedam. Weisband, S.P., Schneider, S.K., and Connolly, T. (1995), ``Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 1124-51. Zarraga, C. & Garca-Falcon, J.M. (2003), ``Factors favoring knowledge management in work teams'', Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 81-96.

PAGE 130

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 8 NO. 6 2004