University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

(USC Thesis Other)

Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Knowledge Sharing: Valuing Everyone at the Table
by
Stacey Lee Schultz

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Stacey Lee Schultz 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Your Full Name certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Kenneth Yates
Esther C. Kim
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
An organization’s ability to be successful often requires being innovative and embracing
diversity of thought. Increasing knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge hiding are
essential components to achieving innovation and diversity of thought. This study used an
explanatory sequential mixed-methods design to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors that influence knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. Based on both
survey and interview data, strengths and challenges across 23 influences were determined. There
were strengths and challenges across all knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors. Key
strengths were understanding knowledge sharing, self-efficacy, positive emotions toward
innovation and creativity, confidence in knowledge sharing activities, and sending organizational
signals. Key challenges were metacognition, mastery-based goals, perceived equitable
environments, rewards and recognition, and clarity of systems. Various recommendations for
increasing knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge hiding include improving
metacognitive skills, developing a mastery-based culture, increasing culturally responsive
feedback, rewarding knowledge sharing, creating an organized knowledge management system,
and enhancing interdependence.
Keywords: knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, learning organization

v

Dedication
To my family. This would not be possible without you.
To Chris, my husband. Thank you is hardly enough for the weekends and evenings you
supported my studying and writing. Not to mention working side-by-side with me on editing or
helping with my resources. I appreciate your endless partnership.
To Alexandra, Lucas, and Nathaniel, my children. Thank you for your understanding as I
engaged deeply in this learning process and tried to balance our time together. Your humor and
love helped provide welcome breaks. I know we are all looking forward to some increased time
together.
To Lorna and Larry, my mom and dad. Thank you for instilling me with a passion for always
improving, being open to new experiences, and never answering questions, but encouraging me
to seek out answers and ask more questions.
To Steve, my brother. During the program, you passed from our lives. Your endless dedication to
family, community, and your work helped push me through at times when it felt too hard to keep
going. Thank you for being a model of generosity and intention.
To Danny, my brother. You have been gone from our lives for many years now, but getting
stronger and always improving was something I learned alongside you. It pushed me to try things
I never thought I would, like putting my face in water or completing a doctorate. Thank you.

vi
Acknowledgements
Maybe it was the topic, maybe it was the space that was created, maybe it was the people.
Most likely, it was a combination. Without the knowledge sharing of my classmates of Cohort
15, particularly the Sisterhood, reading groups, and close confidants, the program would not
have been as enjoyable or impactful. Thank you, dear friends who supported me in a variety of
ways throughout this process inside and outside of the program!
Without the knowledge sharing of my professors, particularly my chair and committee,
Dr. Tobey, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Yates. Thank you for all of the screen shares, real time feedback
loops, and dialogue that pushed my thinking and practice. A special thanks to Dr. Yates, meeting
on Saturday mornings, on holidays, and the quick bites of continued direction. It helped me
maintain momentum and engagement in the process. To all of you I would like to express my
gratitude!
To the members of the organization I have the privilege of serving as President, thank
you for your patience with me as I took time to focus on my dissertation, your patience when I
relentlessly spoke about my research, and your willingness to collaborate and partner with
implementing and applying the learnings in real time throughout the program. Special thanks to
my visioning partners; this work is worth it because of you. And a special thanks to Frank and
Bob for the unwavering confidence and support.
And thank you to all the organizations and individuals who participated in my study.
Your insights were invaluable and sharing your time with me was greatly appreciated!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Global Organizational Goal ................................................................................................. 2
Stakeholder Group and Performance Goals ........................................................................ 3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 6
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 9
Background of Knowledge-Based Organizations ............................................................... 9
Elements of Organizational Knowledge Sharing and Hiding ........................................... 14
Motivational Factors .......................................................................................................... 20
Organizational Factors That Encourage Community Participation ................................... 26
Summary and Conceptual Framework .............................................................................. 37
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 39
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 39
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 39
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 41
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 41

viii
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 43
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 54
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 55
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 59
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 59
Ethics and Rationale for the Institutional Review Board .................................................. 61
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 62
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 64
Determination of Strengths and Challenges ...................................................................... 70
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes .................................................................... 71
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes ..................................................................... 92
Results and Findings for Organization Factors ............................................................... 140
Summary of Validated Influences ................................................................................... 173
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation ....................................................................... 178
Discussion of the Results and Findings ........................................................................... 178
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences ... 180
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 188
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 208
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 210
References ................................................................................................................................... 213
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 249
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .................................................................................................. 257
Appendix D: Information Study Sheet ........................................................................................ 261
Appendix E: Code Book .............................................................................................................. 263

ix
Appendix F: Sample Evaluation Tool to Be Used Immediately Following the Program
Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 264
Appendix G: Sample Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After the Program
Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 266

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal 3
Table 2: Summary of Knowledge Influences 19
Table 3: Summary of Motivation Influences 25
Table 4: Summary of Organizational Influences 36
Table 5: Data Sources 40
Table 6: Alignment of Knowledge Influences 44
Table 7: Alignment of Motivational Influences 48
Table 8: Alignment of Organizational Influences 51
Table 9: Interview Questions 52
Table 10: Employee Survey Participants Demographics 66
Table 11: Supervisor Survey Participants Demographics 67
Table 12: Interview Participants Demographics 68
Table 13: Factual Knowledge Influence 1 72
Table 14: Factual Knowledge Influence 2 74
Table 15: Conceptual Knowledge Influence 1 78
Table 16: Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 1 80
Table 17: Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 2 81
Table 18: Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 3 81
Table 20: Supervisor Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 2 83
Table 21: Procedural Knowledge Influence 1 86
Table 22: Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1 89
Table 23: Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 2 91
Table 24: Value Influence 1 94
Table 25: Value Influence 1, Question 2 94

xi
Table 26: Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 1 97
Table 27: Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 2 97
Table 28: Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 3 98
Table 29: Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 4 98
Table 30: Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 1 101
Table 31: Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 2 101
Table 32: Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 3 102
Table 33: Positive Emotions Creativity and Innovation Influence 1, Question 1 104
Table 34: Positive Emotions Creativity and Influence 1, Question 2 105
Table 35: Positive Emotions Creativity and Influence 1, Question 3 105
Table 36: Mastery-Based Climate, Question 1 108
Table 37: Mastery-Based Climate, Question 2 109
Table 38: Mastery-Based Climate, Question 1 111
Table 39: Mastery-Based Climate, Question 2 111
Table 40: Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1 114
Table 41: Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2 114
Table 42: Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3 115
Table 43: Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 4 115
Table 44: Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1 117
Table 45: Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2 118
Table 46: Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3 118
Table 47: Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 4 119
Table 48: Employee and Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 2 121
Table 49: Employee Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1 124
Table 50: Employee Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2 124

xii
Table 51: Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1 127
Table 52: Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2 127
Table 53: Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3 128
Table 54: Relationships Motivation 130
Table 55: Relationships Motivation 132
Table 56: Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 1 134
Table 57: Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 2 135
Table 58: Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 3 135
Table 59: Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 1 137
Table 60: Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 2 138
Table 61: Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 3 138
Table 62: Cultural Climate Influence 1, Question 1 141
Table 63: Cultural Climate Influence 1, Question 2 142
Table 64: Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 1 145
Table 65: Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 2 146
Table 66: Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 3 146
Table 67: Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 4 147
Table 68: Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 1 150
Table 69: Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 2 150
Table 70: Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 3 151
Table 71: Cultural Structures Influence 1, Question 1 154
Table 72: Cultural Structures-Influence 1, Question 2 157
Table 73: Cultural Structures-Influence 2, Question 1 160
Table 74: Cultural Structures-Influence 2, Question 2 161
Table 75: Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 1 165

xiii
Table 76: Cultural environment Influence 1, Question 2 165
Table 77: Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 3 166
Table 78: Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 4 166
Table 79: Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 1 169
Table 80: Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 2 170
Table 81: Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 3 170
Table 82: Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 4 171
Table 83: Knowledge Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data 174
Table 84: Motivation Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data 175
Table 85: Organizational Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data 176
Table 86: Quotes 177
Table 87: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 190
Table 88: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 193
Table 89: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 196
Table 90: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. 204
Table 91: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program. 205
Table A1: Knowledge Factors 250
Table A2: Motivational Factors 253
Table A3: Organizational Factors 255
Table A4: Demographics 256
Table B1: Interview Questions 258
Appendix C: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix 260
Table F1: Add Title Here 267
Appendix J: Code Book 265

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Knowledge Hiding Influences and Impact 17
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 38
Appendix I: Sample Organization High-Level Data Report 269
Appendix J: Sample Data Dashboard for Stakeholders: Supervisor 270

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Humans constructing and interacting with knowledge is an age-old practice (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). Studying knowledge in the context of organizations followed research on
organizational learning and learning organizations (Ipe, 2003). A learning organization aims to
recenter the learning to align to a shared vision; it is about the individual engaging in personal
mastery and bringing that mastery, including failure, to the collective to consider how the
organization can grow together (Senge, 1990). The learning organization considers structure; it
aims to create a flatter structure where hierarchy is less dominant or nonexistent (Field, 2019).
For learning organizations to reach their goals, they must promote knowledge sharing and
examine knowledge hiding in their organization. Knowledge hiding is a separate phenomenon
that needs to be addressed.
Many organizations seek to understand and implement practices that promote
organizational learning to become learning organizations. Being a learning organization enables
growth and relevance in the respective industry (Bogilović et al., 2017). Despite an
organization’s efforts to become a learning organization, there are many barriers to people
sharing knowledge in an authentic and free way (Connelly et al., 2012). Knowledge hiding is an
increasing organizational challenge as it breaks down trust, erodes team cohesion, and decreases
performance.
Context and Background of the Problem
Knowledge sharing is instrumental for organizational growth, sustainability, and
innovation; however, organizational structures and leaders often create power dynamics that
promote knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing. In the context of this study, knowledge is
defined as explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be collected and organized
2

(Connelly et al., 2012; Nonaka, 1991), whereas tacit knowledge is gained by experience and
interactions (McIver et al., 2013; Nonaka, 1991). Knowledge sharing is instrumental in
innovation, and a variety of studies have proven it is a mediator not just for organizational
performance but also for individual innovation (Camelo et al., 2011; Mura et al., 2013; Podrug et
al., 2017). In particular, knowledge sharing of tacit knowledge demonstrates growth in
organizational capabilities for innovation (Castaneda & Cuellar, 2020).
This study identified the gaps organizational members have to knowledge sharing and
developed recommendations to allow more fluid sharing of knowledge in organizations. To
promote knowledge sharing, organizations need to build trust and efficacy among participants.
Systems and structures should promote diversity of thought, provide meaningful spaces to share
knowledge, and reward knowledge-sharing behaviors. With supportive leadership and a
supportive environment, equity can be achieved to increase knowledge sharing and reduce power
dynamics. Knowledge sharing allows companies to remain competitive and innovative (Asrar-ul-
Haq & Anwar, 2016). For organizations to successfully develop knowledge-sharing structures,
knowledge hiding is addressed (Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016).
Global Organizational Goal
Organizations aim to remain profitable or operational to reach sustainability and excel in
their industries. By leveraging individual to collective knowledge, organizations can further
leverage opportunities to evolve and grow (Gagné et al., 2019). When organizations struggle to
eliminate knowledge hiding by making a safe space or meaningful work tasks for people,
knowledge sharing does not occur. If knowledge sharing is not happening, organizations will
become stagnant, irrelevant, and inefficient, which can all lead to the end of an organization
3

(Wang & Noe, 2010). Thus, organizations aim to increase their competitiveness and remain
relevant in their industry through knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge hiding.
Stakeholder Group and Performance Goals
This study explored the goals of employees and managers as listed below in Table 1.
Employees and managers are the key stakeholders in developing a knowledge-sharing culture
where knowledge hiding is minimal.

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Performance Goal, and Stakeholder Goal
Organizational mission
To increase knowledge sharing, an organization’s largest asset, to ensure continued relevancy
and innovation.
Organizational performance goal
Increase competitiveness in industry.
Stakeholder goal
Employees
Contribute to an organization where their
knowledge is deemed valuable to be
recognized, grow, and feel included.
Managers
Maintain an organization that cultivates
knowledge sharing and minimizes
knowledge hiding.

4

Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study was a field evaluation using Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation,
and organizational (KMO) gap analysis model to identify gaps and make recommendations for
increasing knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge hiding. The study examined how
collective self-efficacy, spaces for knowledge exchange, valuing diversity of thought, preventing
stereotype threats, motivations, power dynamics, and trust impact knowledge hiding and/or
sharing behaviors in an organization.
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
knowledge hiding and equitable knowledge sharing in organizations?
2. What are the recommendations for organizations to decrease knowledge hiding to
increase knowledge sharing and innovation?
Importance of the Study
Today’s marketplace is highly competitive because it is easy for people to start a
business, but the demand for creative solutions is higher (Kim & Mauborgne, 2015).
Organizations must answer these calls to provide creative solutions to remain in business (Asrar-
ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016). Knowledge is an asset to organizational innovation (Nonaka, 1991).
However, knowledge sharing is not a given in an organization, even if the ingredients for
knowledge sharing are present (Connelly et al., 2012). Enter knowledge hiding: organizations
that do not address knowledge hiding will become obsolete (Ruparel & Choubisa, 2020). It is
important to understand and address knowledge hiding behaviors in an organization (Connelly et
al., 2012). Researchers could not explain the lack of simple correlation between increasing
knowledge sharing environmental factors for organizations and individuals and how this did not
directly decrease knowledge hiding. Knowledge hiding was still creating a barrier to knowledge
5

sharing and organizational learning. In 2012, Connelley et al. developed a tool that was used in
this study to prove the existence of knowledge hiding features separate and distinct from
knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding are from two distinct paradigms
(Connelly & Zweig, 2015).
Knowledge hiding occurs in employee interactions throughout organizations. The issue is
complex since knowledge hiding is not simply mitigated by creating environments conducive to
knowledge sharing (Connelly et al., 2012). Leadership, personal motivation, job design, and
organizational competency in culture are just some areas, and intersections researchers are
exploring to better understand why people hide knowledge. With a deeper understanding of the
problem, organizations will be able to limit knowledge hiding behaviors (Škerlavaj et al., 2018).
Reducing knowledge hiding allows for a free flow of information into the organization (Gagné et
al., 2019). Sharing of knowledge has positive impacts on the individual employee, teams of
coworkers, and ultimately organizations (Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge sharing allows
companies to remain competitive and innovative (Asrar-ul-Haq & Sadia, 2016).
For organizations to successfully develop knowledge-sharing structures, knowledge
hiding needs to be addressed (Asrar-ul-Haq & Sadia, 2016). Organizations will need to address
motivators to increase knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding (Kang, 2016).
Otherwise, as noted by the Herzberg two-factor theory, knowledge hiding will remain an issue.
The Herzberg two-factor theory, originally called motivation-hygiene theory, established
dissatisfaction and satisfaction as not inverse within an organization (Herzberg et al., 1959). This
study provided insights into how different influences impact knowledge hiding/sharing and
recommendations to encourage knowledge sharing to make way for organizational learning.
6

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Defined through the critical/transformative lens, this study was enhanced by the multiple
perspectives and experiences of others through the sociopolitical structures created in
environments, particularly organizations (Romm, 2015). The problem of practice is grounded in
the power dynamics the leaders and structures of an organization create that inhibit or enable
knowledge-sharing behaviors of the people in the organization. This problem of practice
embodies the critical/transformative lens and aims to study how interactions and beliefs dictate
which knowledge is not only shared but also codified in organizations. Organizational culture
impacts people’s behaviors (Schein, 2017). As people interact with their organizational culture
and teams, they build perceptions of their ability and the group’s ability to reach their goals.
Knowledge structures are predicated on knowledge identified as important to White men (Tuck
& Yang, 2014). This inherently creates barriers to how people share knowledge, discourages self
and team efficacy in sharing knowledge, and minimizes psychological safety (Patton & Bondi,
2015). This is explained by Bandura’s social cognitive theory principles of modeling and
efficacy. In his research, Bandura examined the role of individuals in the learner’s environment.
Learners will observe others in the environment and model their behaviors after what they see
(Bandura, 1986, as cited in Bandura, 2011). When leaders demonstrate and model knowledge-
sharing behaviors, it creates cognitive trust and signals to members in the organization to share
knowledge (Zhu et al., 2013).
To understand the dynamics in the organization that promote knowledge sharing, this
study utilized the mixed-methods approach through a gap analysis lens. Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis examines the gaps in KMO factors related to knowledge sharing and knowledge
hiding. The mixed-methods approach provides the opportunity to use the strengths of both
7

qualitative and quantitative methods to build a deeper understanding of my research problem
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study explored KMO gaps in knowledge sharing, including
knowledge hiding. Creating a safe environment where people feel a shared sense of value and
purpose is complex. Examining the problem through various lenses will surface data and
information in a way that one method could not. The explanatory sequential design involves
collecting quantitative data and then qualitative data to build on the information collected during
the quantitative phase (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To follow this design, a survey and
interviews were conducted.
The survey asked questions to surface KMO gaps in knowledge hiding and knowledge
sharing. The interview provided space for people to share more information. The qualitative data
were triangulated from the convergence process: the surveys and interviews. Member checks
were conducted with those who participated in the interviews to review the information
synthesized.
Definitions
Diversity of thought is defined by the lived experience and knowledge everyone uniquely
offers (Diaz-Uda et al., 2013).
Equity is defined as all members in the organization being treated fairly and having
access to information and resources (Molefi et al., 2021).
Innovation is defined by creating a new product or process or developing improvement
on product or process in this paper (Taylor, 2015).
Knowledge is defined as explicit and tacit knowledge in this paper. Explicit knowledge
can be collected and organized (Connelly et al., 2012); tacit knowledge is gained by experience
and interactions (McIver et al., 2013).
8

Knowledge-based organizations are organizations that produce, sell, or rely on
knowledge to inform processes, spaces, purpose, and opportunity (Zack, 2003).
Knowledge hiding is employees pretending not to have knowledge, being indirect with
sharing knowledge, or convincing themselves they should not share their knowledge (Connelly
et al., 2012).
Knowledge sharing is the knowledge that employees share into an organization.
Knowledge sharing allows organizations to leverage their human capital assets (Wang & Noe,
2010).
Trust can be defined as affective trust (having a connection to someone) or cognitive trust
(shared experiences between people; McAllister, 1995).
Organization of the Dissertation
There are five chapters in this dissertation. To begin, Chapter One provides an
introduction to the purpose and problem addressed throughout the study. Chapter Two provides a
literature review of knowledge hiding and the organizational factors that encourage knowledge
hiding. The methodology and data analysis of the study is found in Chapter Three. Chapter Four
examines the results of the study and the connection to the problem. Lastly, Chapter Five
discusses options for solutions to the problem.

9

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review is presented in four parts. The first part focuses on the background
of knowledge-based organizations and learning organizations. The second part explores the
elements of organizational knowledge sharing and hiding that occurs within organizations. The
third part of the review focuses on some motivational factors that promote knowledge sharing
and deemphasize knowledge hiding. A summary of the motivational factors is at the end of the
motivation section. The last section examines organizational culture, and a summary of
organizational factors is at the end of the section.
Background of Knowledge-Based Organizations
This study included knowledge-based organizations across industries. Previously,
knowledge-based organizations were limited to those that produced or relied heavily on
knowledge; however, this is a misunderstanding of the high value and asset of knowledge an
organization holds. Organizations across industries recognize the need for ensuring process, tacit,
and explicit knowledge is captured and applied (Zack, 2003). In fact, without building and
growing knowledge, it is difficult for organizations to remain relevant and competitive in today’s
economy (Bogilović et al., 2017). How and what organizations do with knowledge differentiates
them from others (Singh, 2019). This study examined how knowledge-based organizations miss
the mark on creating knowledge and ensuring organizational learning and innovation. As stated
in Chapter One, the study examined the need to address knowledge hiding needs, as it is a barrier
to knowledge sharing, the most valuable knowledge feature for innovation and growth.
Researchers were curious about the barriers to learning and innovation despite all the attention,
efforts, and energy toward knowledge sharing. This curiosity led to the discovery of knowledge
hiding (Connelly et al., 2012). Both knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding will be discussed
10

in the context of the learning organization amid various organizational factors throughout this
review.
Learning Organization
Research and popular books commonly study organizational change and transformation
(Bolman & Deal, 2017). Developing, maintaining, and evolving organizations to sustain change
and remain relevant is an ongoing challenge that many organizations fail (Burke, 2018; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2001). Learning organization is one model that offers suggestions on
ensuring organizational success through new ways of managing and leading (Kezar, 2001).
Learning organizations began to define themselves in the late 1960s in Argyris and Schön’s
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Rebelo & Adelino, 2008; Senge,
1990). The premise of the organizations is to shift managerial focus and create less hierarchy in
organizations (Grey, 2017):
In the 1980s, there appeared what can be dubbed a “holy war against bureaucracy.”
Management scholars held an unusual consensus that bureaucracy, as a predominant
organizational form, failed to meet the requirements of the ever-changing business
environment, and it should be replaced by more organic, flatter and less hierarchical or
team-based organizational structures. A general assertion is that once bureaucracy is
removed, good things will supposedly result. Senge’s (1990) theory of learning
organization captures the spirit of this movement, because the theory highlights the
importance of communication, teams, and removing hierarchy in organizations, and
therefore helps a company “gain a unique source of competitive advantage.” (p. 178)
11

Senge’s (1990) thesis is a recipe for organizational structure, but not a recipe for learning.
Learning organizations focus on shared vision and systems thinking through team learning,
shifting mental models, and personal mastery. Senge further defined these elements:
● Systems thinking as: “a body of knowledge and tools … to make the full patterns
clearer, and to help us see how to change them effectively” (p. 7).
● Personal mastery: “the discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal
vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience” (p. 7).
● Mental models: “ability to unearth our internal picture of the world, to bring them to
the surface and hold them religiously to scrutiny” (p. 8).
● Shared vision: with a shared vision “people excel and learn, not because they are told
to, but because they want to” (p. 9).
● Team learning: “team learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the
fundamental learning unit” (p. 10).
There is a continued examination of each of these disciplines in research. The element
that stands out as a differentiator is systems thinking (Caldwell, 2012). Systems thinking creates
an opportunity for teams to approach complex problems in manageable ways (Rebelo et al.,
2020). A systems thinking approach allows teams and individuals to examine problems from
multiple perspectives and angles (Filstad & Gottschalk, 2011). Approaching problems with
systems thinking provides the team a pathway toward a shared solution or goal efforts (Yeo,
2005). To support teams in building systems thinking skills, Senge advocates for shared
language across a team to facilitate important dialogues and conversations on the problems at
hand (Senge, 1990).
12

Organizational learning is defined in the context of how individuals transfer knowledge into
tasks and experiences that others can also benefit from (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011;
Bandura, 1997; Edmondson et al., 2003; Weber & Camerer, 2003). In this framework,
individuals and the process encourage learning and changes in behaviors (Argyris & Schon,
1978; Huber, 1991). Furthering this thinking, Senge (1990) added the use of systems thinking to
support the evolution of mental models and personal mastery that furthers organizational
learning and creates the learning organization. Senge argued that learning organizations refocus
the center of control. In creating individual empowerment through personal mastery, the learning
organization becomes a community of learners collectively seeking a shared vision (Senge et al.,
2012). While team energy and shared direction of continuous learning are important to
decentralizing power in an organization, the individual member must commit to continued
learning. This allows individuals to bring their awareness and discover patterns and opportunities
for improvement in the organization at a systemic level (Senge, 1990).
Through the years, research on learning organizations has been segmented into four
areas: learning at work, climate for learning, organizational learning, and learning structure
(Edmondson & Moingeon, 1998). While these elements have been segmented, they point to
elements that, when present, allow for learning. Learning at work can also be seen in research as
team-building. Teams learn together and continuously build capabilities toward a shared goal or
objective (Watkins & Marsick, 1993). With shared goals, teams have interdependence on each
other to complete tasks (Rebelo et al., 2020). In addition to the connections on task, team
members affect each other through their relationships (Lourenço & Dimas, 2011). Trust becomes
a key component in the exchange of knowledge, learning, and trying new things teams are
willing to do to complete tasks (Edmondson, 1999; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).
13

Organizational culture or climate for learning is at the core of how an organization
interacts (Schein, 2017). Scholars in this field note that rewards and recognition for learning will
communicate to employees the importance of learning (Garvin et al., 2008; Rebelo et al., 2020).
These researchers align with decentralizing decision making to support increased learning and
free flow of knowledge. Leaders can provide a climate that encourages important dialogue
necessary for addressing complex problems (Schein, 2017; Senge, 1990). Within the team
climate and discussions, leaders can help minimize defensiveness that can be a barrier to candid
conversations (Dong et al., 2017; van der Haar et al., 2017). Later in the chapter, collective
efficacy and trust are further explored, creating an opportunity for individuals to learn at the team
level (Bandura, 1977; Senge, 1990; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). These elements further address
ways to create a learning climate (Ortega et al., 2010; Rebelo & Adelino, 2008). Learning
structure research points to the support of more fluid decision making that allows for more power
to employees and less hierarchy (Marquardt et al., 1994).
Relevance and critique of learning organizations is top of mind, as the seminal The Fifth
Discipline was published just over 30 years ago (Reese, 2020). Learning is complex, sharing
knowledge is complex, and some major critiques of learning organizations do not address the
learning complexity (Hsu, 2013; Avelino et al., 2019; Pedler & Hsu, 2014; Pedler & Burgoyne,
2017). Scholars argue that learning organizations, in fact, perpetuate power dynamics in
organizations. Learning organizations are sometimes criticized as an answer to a shift in
managerial structure and process. Pedler and Burgoyne (2017) claim, “there is not much
evidence, beyond a few cases, that the learning organization enhances performance” (p. 123).
With this claim at the core of many critiques, others point to the lack of ability to implement
structures and processes that are pivotal to learning organizations, such as systems thinking
14

(Adžić, 2018; Denning, 2011). As scholars look closer at the impact of learning organizations,
they fear learning organizations perpetuate power structures rather than dismantle them (Hsu,
2013; Jørgensen et al., 2019; Pedler & Burgoyne, 2017; Pedler & Hsu, 2014). One such
argument is that the learning organization places managers at the center of organizational culture,
thus exercising uneven control over the workplace environment (Akella, 2008).
While there are wide criticisms, there are also many parallels to the importance and
usefulness of learning organizations and the elements they outline for today’s world (Reese,
S.R., 2020). One parallel is that organizational learning encourages innovation and often
improves business performance (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Learning organizations
encourage team members to share knowledge (Kim et al., 2017). Conditions for knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding occur if organizations commit to being learning organizations and
must be considered if they are to increase performance (Connelly et al., 2015). Organizational
learning in this study examines gaps in knowledge sharing and how knowledge hiding occurs to
limit organizational learning. There are gaps in the literature on the effectiveness of learning
organizations, and there is a call for more empirical research results (Alvesson & Sandberg,
2011; Rebelo et al., 2020).
Elements of Organizational Knowledge Sharing and Hiding
In the KMO model, Clark and Estes (2008) presented the importance of having
knowledge and skills to apply to situations. For this study, understanding what knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding occur on factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive levels
is instrumental in developing an organization that cultivates knowledge sharing. According to
Krathwohl (2002), the different types of knowledge are defined as follows:
● Factual knowledge refers to elements, such as terms.
15

● Conceptual knowledge is how theories contribute to understanding.
● Procedural knowledge is the “how” to do something.
● Metacognitive knowledge is awareness of how someone is using their knowledge.
Building shared knowledge allows teams to reach shared goals (Golden & Gall, 2000).
Factual and Conceptual Knowledge
From learning organizations to knowledge management, building and using knowledge is
not new. Researchers have studied how knowledge is developed, shared, and stored for decades.
Francis Bacon (1597) coined the phrase “knowledge is power” in his writing. Organizations
understand that knowledge translates into organizational performance, growth, and innovation
(Denning, 2011; Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Barry &
Stewart, 1997). The principles of learning organizations, at times, can seem in direct contrast to
supporting the development of innovative ways of thinking (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). This is
further illustrated by how Western and Eastern cultures define knowledge.
Knowledge creation and sharing is an integral part of organizational growth and key in
developing a learning or continuous learning organization (Ipe, 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Wang & Noe, 2010). Two organizational factors that support knowledge sharing are team
climate and leadership (Xue et al., 2011). Understanding how an organization’s factors interact,
including an individual’s impact, and creating environments ripe for knowledge sharing or rife
with knowledge hiding is complex (Ruparel & Choubisa, 2020). For some time, knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding were considered part of the same phenomenon (Connelly et al.,
2012).
Organizational connections to knowledge hiding are deep and complex (Connelly et al.,
2012; Wang & Noe, 2010). Figure 1 demonstrates a model of interconnectedness between
16

multiple influences of knowledge hiding. This figure highlights the different factors explored
throughout this section. These elements are tied to the conceptual framework and the instruments
used in Chapter Three. The elements reviewed in this section include community participation.
Within community participation, trust and efficacy among individuals are analyzed through a
knowledge hiding filter. Building an understanding of how spaces, systems, and rewards create
an unsupportive or supportive environment is audited. The ways in which power dynamics and
leadership encourage knowledge hiding or sharing is discussed. Last is equity. For this study,
equity was examined through the spaces and access that are created for knowledge sharing, as
well as through the lens of stereotype threats that inhibit people from leaning into their
knowledge and sharing it broadly. In addition, this paper explored how the emphasis on diversity
of thoughts creates an environment that embraces diversity and more equitable policies that
follow. This all comes together in the conceptual framework at the end of the chapter.

17

Figure 1
Knowledge Hiding Influences and Impact

Note. From “Knowledge Hiding in Organizations” by C. E. Connelly, D. Zweig, J. Webster, & J.
P. Trougakos, 2012, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), p. 82.

Procedural and Metacognitive Knowledge Factors: Diversity of Thought and Perspective
Taking
Organizations use systems and informal spaces for collecting and creating knowledge
(Grossman & Salas, 2011; Valentine et al., 2019; Witherspoon et al., 2013). Systems, whether
18

high-tech or low-tech, have been synonymous with knowledge sharing in research (Paulin &
Suneson, 2012; Rumanti et al., 2018). Ensuring people know how to engage in the systems and
transfer knowledge is critical (Cavaliere et al., 2015). However, this can be challenging given a
range of barriers, including efficacy and efficiency of “how to” align knowledge transfer to the
systems, such as synatics (Cavaliere et al., 2015; Dee & Leisyte, 2017; Rumanti et al., 2018).
Explicit systems, training, modeling, and feedback are needed to increase knowledge sharing
through the knowledge management systems (Mayer, 2011; Taylor et al., 2005; Wang & Wang,
2012).
In addition to the “how,” individuals need to employ metacognitive and self-regulation
skills to engage in knowledge sharing. Exercising metacognitive skills help people understand
and know when they do not understand knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding (Livingston,
2003). People may demonstrate metacognitive skills for topics in which they are more fluent or
feel well versed, but this is actually memory, not metacognition (Fleming & Lau, 2014). This
makes it difficult to monitor when individuals engage in metacognitive skills (Lai, 2011). In
building self-regulation skills, individuals can monitor their behaviors (Ambrose et al., 2010;
Cho & Shen, 2013). Developing self-regulatory behaviors can lead to success in changing
behaviors (Teixeira et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2008). With self-regulation and increased
metacognition, individuals can increase their knowledge sharing and decrease their knowledge
hiding (Ambrose et al., 2010; Renninger & Hidi, 2015). Knowledge hiding is less likely when
people exercise self-monitoring (Connelly et al., 2012).

19

Table 2
Summary of Knowledge Influences
Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
Stakeholders know what knowledge sharing
within the organization means. (Factual)
Knowledge is defined as explicit and tacit
knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be
collected and organized (Connelly et al.,
2012; Nonaka, 1991), whereas tacit
knowledge is gained by experience and
interactions (McIver et al, 2013; Nonaka,
1991).
Stakeholders know the meaning of knowledge
hiding
Knowing the terms knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding and the differences
between them is important to addressing
both (Connelly et al., 2012).
Stakeholders know the benefits of knowledge
sharing (Conceptual)

Organizations understand that knowledge
translates into organizational performance,
growth, and innovation (Denning, 2011;
Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stewart, 1997).
Sharing of knowledge has positive impacts for
the individual employee, teams of
coworkers, and ultimately for organizations
(Wang & Noe, 2010).
Knowledge sharing of tacit knowledge
demonstrates a growth in organizational
capabilities for innovation (Castaneda &
Cuellar, 2020).
Stakeholders need to feel knowledge hiding
can have a negative impact on their ability
to reach their goals.

Knowledge hiding harms both the
organization and the individual who is
hiding knowledge (Bogilović et al., 2017;
Fong et al., 2018)
Knowledge hiding behavior is
counterproductive to supporting
organizational goals (Serenko & Bontis,
2016).
Stakeholders know how to share information
in the organization.

From learning organizations to knowledge
management, building and using knowledge
in organizations is not a new concept.
However, there are challenges to ensuring
20

Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type
people are able to use systems fluently
(Carlile, 2004; Dee & Leisyte, 2017).
Stakeholders monitor and evaluate their
progress toward knowledge sharing

Self-regulation and metacognition increase the
effectiveness of knowledge sharing
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Cho & Shen, 2013;
Teixeira et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2008;).
Stakeholders monitor and evaluate when they
hide their knowledge

Understanding of the boundary conditions of
this phenomenon, that is, under what
conditions (e.g., individual characteristics
such as self-monitoring, self-efficacy,
professional commitment, and social
norms) knowledge hiding is less likely
(Connelly et al., 2012)

Motivational Factors
Knowledge sharing and hiding have inherently different motivators (Connelly & Zweig,
2015). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are widely studied to understand the impacts on
people’s behavior (Elliot et al., 2018). Intrinsic motivations that encourage knowledge sharing
behaviors include self-efficacy and an attitude of altruism (Chen & Hung, 2010; Lin, 2007;
Osterloh & Frey, 2002). Extrinsic motivations that are considered or influence people to share
their knowledge include collective efficacy and reciprocity (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Osterloh &
Frey, 2000, 2002). There are motivators that can mediate knowledge hiding behaviors, but
knowledge hiding is a complicated phenomenon that is still being studied and understood
(Connelly et al., 2019). One recent study shows that people may wrongly perceive outcomes and
harm caused to the person engaged in knowledge hiding (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). At times,
people even perceive their knowledge hiding as “altruistic” but may not see others’ behaviors as
such (Gordon & Miller, 2000), thus perpetuating the reciprocal loop of continual knowledge
21

hiding (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). In this study, using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO model,
motivational factors were examined to determine “what keeps us going, keeps us moving, and
tells how much effort to spend” toward knowledge sharing (p. 80).
Attitude, Values, and Mastery
People are more likely to engage in something they have a positive attitude about (Elliot
et al., 2018). If people think knowledge sharing is positive, then they will share knowledge
(Bock et al., 2005). In a study on the use of security information systems, researchers found that
employees will engage more deeply with information shared when they have a positive attitude
toward knowledge sharing (Mermoud et al., 2019).
In general, people crave fairness and equity (Fehr & Gächter, 2000). When there is a
sense of inequity, for example, if someone perceives that a colleague is not sharing knowledge
with them, then they will hide their knowledge (Černe et al., 2014). Additionally, employees
expect some sense of “return” on their contributions to share—i.e., mutual benefits (Dong et al.,
2017). Gouldner (1960) defines reciprocity as “each party has rights and duties.” He furthers his
definition to state there is a moral obligation; in organizations, one can see people act on this
obligation through cooperative behaviors. Studies show that cooperative behavior is sought to
create equitable relationships and gain rewards (Mermoud et al., 2019); therefore, seeking
reciprocity to share knowledge can be witnessed in these studies.
Innovation and creativity in the workplace are important to foster organizational
relevance and competitiveness (Černe et al., 2017). Job design and innovative work behavior are
factors to encourage creativity at work. Creativity lends itself to natural knowledge sharing
(Černe et al., 2014); knowledge hiding, however, is a direct threat to creativity (Connelly et al.,
2012). A mastery climate can support creativity and innovation while mediating knowledge
22

hiding (Černe et al., 2014; Hammond et al., 2011). Managers can set up an environment through
“actions and attitudes to innovation” (McGuirk et al., 2015) that further stimulate creativity and
decrease knowledge hiding, as proven in a study conducted by Černe et al. (2017). Their three-
way theoretical framework demonstrates the impact of mastery-based climates. Employees will
hide their knowledge as an asset to complete and outperform teammates in climates where
performance-based goals are stressed (Walter & van der Vegt, 2013). Furthermore, mastery-
goal-based cultures that also provide collective and group-focused feedback support individuals
in feeling recognized (Super et al., 2016).
Efficacy
Another way to leverage knowledge sharing and trust is to build team efficacy (Lin et al.,
2011). There are some strands of research that discuss social media usage to collect and share
knowledge that can mitigate the importance of team efficacy (Omar et al., 2016). Many
organizations use social media as a platform (Leonardi et al., 2013). However, people will only
use social media if they have self-efficacy with how to use the media and understand the value of
their knowledge (Kwahk & Park, 2016).
Organizational culture impacts people’s behaviors (Schein, 2017). As people interact
with their organizational culture and teams, they build perceptions of their ability and the group’s
ability to reach their goals. This is explained by Bandura’s social cognitive theory principles of
modeling and efficacy. Efficacy is a person’s belief in their ability or group’s ability to complete
goals or tasks (Bandura, 1997, as cited in Bandura, 2011). In his research, Bandura also
examined the role of individuals within the learner’s environment. As stated previously, learners
will learn from observing others (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Bandura, 2011). When leaders
23

demonstrate and model knowledge-sharing behaviors, it creates cognitive trust and signals to
organization members to share knowledge (Zhu et al., 2013).
Team efficacy is seen as a mediator to encourage and support knowledge-sharing
behaviors in teams. Chen and Lin (2013) conducted a study to examine the relationship between
team efficacy and knowledge sharing. Their study of 298 participants demonstrated team
efficacy as a mediator of knowledge sharing is greater than other behavioral motivators (Chen &
Lin, 2013). Collective or team efficacy can be leveraged to mediate the impact of leadership on
knowledge sharing (Chou et al., 2013). Researchers Swift and Hwang (2013) established a
positive relationship between cognitive trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning, and
team efficacy. The authors surveyed 157 sales and marketing executives, and the results showed
a strong connection between cognitive trust and organizational learning (Swift & Hwang, 2013).
In a study by Chou et al. (2013), the strength of team efficacy as an indicator of high team
outcomes was evidenced by 46 teams surveyed. Team efficacy was a stronger predictor of
success than trust in a team leader (Chou et al., 2013).
People must also harness self-efficacy around what knowledge to share within a group
(Chen & Hung, 2010; Lin et al., 2011). A study by Chen and Hung (2010) shows that when
people have self-efficacy and trust, they will share and collect knowledge to evolve their own
practice. The higher self-efficacy for knowledge sharing, the more likely team members are to
share knowledge, according to 354 completed questionnaires (Chen & Hung, 2010). Throughout
these studies, researchers tested various organizational factors and behavioral concepts to predict
people’s behaviors. The opportunities to continue examining both broader and more narrow
interceptions of theory, concepts, and practical implications in organizational learning and
knowledge sharing are endless.
24

Equity: Bias and Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat impacts marginalized communities' experience in workplaces because
they fear legitimizing stereotypes (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threats add a layer of
complication to an organization that is meant to act interchangeably to share knowledge and
build personal mastery (Rupcic, 2020). People can feel threats from either bias in performance or
recognition or internal fear (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). At the core of learning organizations is
people’s ability to engage in personal learning (Senge, 1990); however, stereotype threat can
cause people to disengage from both internal and external motivations (Brown et al., 2015;
Walton et al., 2015). This creates a problem in the community and diminishes knowledge
sharing. As people begin to feel disengaged and trust less, they will share less (Wickramasinghe
& Widyaratne, 2012; Yeager et al., 2013). Behaviors can indicate prejudice to other team
members, potentially leading to disengagement and disempowerment (Walton et al., 2015; Koch
et al., 2014).
Due to both bias and stereotype threat, people may not feel fully empowered in an
organization; thus, they may not share knowledge (Rupcic, 2020). Cues people receive from the
organization can communicate stereotype threat, such as providing critical feedback without
indicating belief in the person's ability to achieve (Walton et al., 2015). There are structural and
individual ways this can be addressed within organizations (Casad & Bryant, 2016). For
example, according to Casad and Bryant (2016), tasks or high-profile projects that indicate a
level of competitiveness could discourage a woman from completing the task. This can occur
even if the woman is the most knowledgeable for the task or project (Günther et al., 2010). To
diminish stereotype threat impact on intrapersonal and performance impacts, organizations can
create “identify-safe environments” (Spencer et al., 2016, p. 428). In identity-safe environments,
25

people are more likely to feel a sense of belonging, trust, and efficacy to share their knowledge
(Casad & Bryant, 2016).

Table 3
Summary of Motivation Influences
Assumed motivation influence Motivation type
Stakeholders value knowledge
sharing.

Intrinsic motivations that encourage knowledge sharing
behaviors include self-efficacy and attitude of altruism
(Chen & Hung, 2010; Lin, 2007; Osterloh & Frey, 2002).
Extrinsic motivations that are considered or influence people
to share their knowledge include the rewards associated
with knowledge sharing, collective efficacy, and
reciprocity (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Osterloh & Frey,
2000, 2002).
Stakeholders need to feel
positive about sharing
knowledge
People need to feel sharing knowledge is a positive thing to
share knowledge (Bock et al., 2005).
Stakeholders need to feel
positive about creativity and
innovation
Creativity lends itself to natural knowledge sharing (Černe et
al., 2014); knowledge hiding, however, is a direct threat to
creativity (Connelly et al., 2012).
Managers can set up an environment through “actions and
attitudes to innovation” (McGuirk et al., 2015) that can
further stimulate creativity and decrease knowledge hiding.
Stakeholders need to perceive
mastery-based climates as a
way to decrease knowledge
hiding.
Mastery climate can support creativity and innovation while
mediating knowledge hiding (Hammond et al., 2011;
Černe et al., 2014).
Mastery-goal-based cultures that also provide collective and
group-focused feedback support individuals in feeling
recognized (Super et al., 2016).
When goals are focused on mastery versus performance,
individuals are more likely to share knowledge (Walter &
van der Vegt, 2013).
Stakeholders need to have
confidence in their
knowledge and ability to do
their job.
Stakeholders need to feel confidence in the knowledge they
have to complete the job and team confidence (Bandura,
1997).
26

Assumed motivation influence Motivation type
Stakeholders are confident that
they can share information in
the organization.
People will only use social media if they have self-efficacy
with how to use the media and understand the value of
their knowledge (Kwahk & Park, 2016).
Stakeholders need to have
confidence in their team’s
knowledge and ability to do
their job.
Researchers Swift and Hwang (2013) established a positive
relationship between cognitive trust, knowledge sharing,
organizational learning, and team efficacy.
Relationships are important to
motivating knowledge
sharing and decreasing
knowledge hiding.
There are many barriers to knowledge sharing and
motivations for knowledge hiding when there is a lack of
trust, lack of supportive leadership, and uncomfortable
climate at work (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013).
Stakeholders need to perceive
the environment is
equitable.
Without diversity in organizations, people of color struggle
to be themselves and fully engage in work tasks or
experience a sense of belonging (Chrobot-Mason &
Aramovich, 2013.
Studies show that cooperative behavior is sought to create
equitable relationships and gain rewards (Mermoud et al.,
2019), therefore seeking reciprocity to share knowledge
can be witnessed in these studies.

Organizational Factors That Encourage Community Participation
The culture and climate of the organization communicate what is important to
stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Schein, 2017). As Clark and Estes (2008) noted, “aligning
culture and behavior” is key to meeting organizational goals. Relevant to this study, surfacing
gaps in organizational factors such as trust and psychological safety provides an opportunity to
gain alignment and develop a culture of knowledge sharing.
Supportive Leadership
Leadership is one way to build trust among team members. Leveraging leadership styles
like transformational or ethical leadership, in particular, cultivates a culture of collaboration,
paving the way for knowledge sharing (García-Morales et al., 2012; Men et al., 2020; Park &
27

Kim, 2018). Learners will observe others in the environment and model their own behaviors after
what they see (Bandura, 1986 as cited in Bandura, 2011). Leadership behaviors impact
organizational culture. Peter Senge (1990) stated that, in order for knowledge to flow between
individuals, leaders should co-create knowledge and vision with all organizational members. In
research, co-creator leadership characteristics align with transformational leadership practices,
which often increase knowledge sharing in organizations (Le & Lei, 2018).
Northouse (2019) found that transformational leaders are identified as trustworthy. This
can be demonstrated through leadership characteristics, such as shared vision, values,
transparency, and self-awareness (Northouse, 2019). Furthermore, transformational leaders
model behaviors to encourage growth and learning (Park & Kim, 2018; Swift & Hwang, 2013).
When transformational leaders can support people in understanding individual value, they are
more likely to share knowledge with a team (Dong et al., 2017). During a field study, 973 group
members in 12 Chinese companies were surveyed to determine the impact of transformational
leadership and its impact on collective efficacy and knowledge sharing in organizations (Zhang
et al., 2011). The results of the study show a positive relationship between transformational
leadership behaviors and collective efficacy, which leads to increased knowledge sharing and
creativity among teams.
Flores et al. (2012) established an instrument to measure factors, including
transformational leadership and impact on organizational knowledge building. The researchers
then used the instrument to test the correlation between transformational leadership in
organizational learning processes. In their study, they surveyed 230 participants and found that
transformational leaders strongly influence organizations to build institutionalized memory
through knowledge sharing (Flores et al., 2012). In various studies, transformational leadership
28

qualities allowed for increased trust, which made way for knowledge sharing (Chen et al., 2011;
Choudhary et al., 2013, and, in turn, organizational learning (García-Morales et al., 2012; Park &
Kim, 2018; Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt, 2016). However, even transformational leaders are not
infallible, and some researchers discuss the negative effects of transformational leadership (Dong
et al., 2017).
There is overlap in being a transformational leader (one who shares a vision), a learning
organization, and an ethical one (Smith et al., 2014). Leaders who act and model ethical behavior
encourage knowledge sharing (Men et al., 2020; Stilgoe et al., 2013). Innovation requires
organizations to be responsible for what they are creating and to understand the impact those
innovations have on the internal and external community (Owen et al., 2013; Stilgoe et al., 2013;
von Schomberg, 2013). Ethical organizations also value equity for their internal and external
community (Owen et al., 2013).
Incentives and Rewards
Historically, studies on organizational knowledge were more technically leaning on the
systems used and developed to capture knowledge (Ipe, 2003). In the early 2000s, research
shifted to examine the people involved in the knowledge process (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000).
This shift parallels the theories of organizational learning. Individuals, teams, and processes are
part of the knowledge building that can lead to organizational performance growth (Singh et al.,
2019). Knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding behaviors are motivated differently (Connelly
et al., 2012; Gagné et al., 2019). Thus, it is important to understand both sets of motivators to
remove motivational barriers to ensure the free flow of knowledge in an organization (Casimir et
al., 2012).
29

Individuals hide knowledge to secure their jobs and status. Senior employees are more
likely to engage in knowledge hiding behaviors (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). An analysis of their
research showed that employees believe their knowledge is the impetus for their expertise and
thus hide their knowledge. To keep recognition focused on themselves, employees seek to
maintain ownership of their ideas by not sharing information (Peng, 2013). The researcher
demonstrated the connection between knowledge hiding and knowledge-based ownership theory
through a survey of workers at an IT company in Shanghai, China. In addition, Škerlavaj et al.
(2018) examined how people think of time and knowledge as resources and found that when
tasks are time-pressured, people hide knowledge to protect these resources. The researchers
conducted a study that asked employees to self-report their feelings on time pressure and
knowledge hiding behaviors, which demonstrated a high-level connection between time pressure
and knowledge hiding. Employees hide knowledge to secure their own jobs and place in a
company, further stifling innovation.
If organizational structures reward individuals and not teams, using the Social Dilemma
Theory (SDT) lens creates an understanding of why individuals hide their knowledge (Casimir et
al., 2012). Organizational employees may associate knowledge sharing with a cost to their ability
to protect their self-interests (Casimir et al., 2012). This phenomenon can be understood through
SDT, which states that people choose self-interest over collective needs (Leana & van Buren,
1999). If organizations reward learning behaviors, they can overcome the challenges of members
acting in their self-interest (Garvin, 1993; Garvin et al., 2008; Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994;
Pedler & Aspinwall, 1998). While intrinsic motivation is important for knowledge sharing, it is
not enough to ensure knowledge sharing (Jeon et al., 2011).
30

Incentives and training programs can increase employee motivation and support coaches
in knowledge sharing (Erceg & Suljug, 2016). Limiting incentives to financial rewards, however,
is not enough to create intrinsic motivation and does not always align with what is important to
stakeholders (Erceg & Suljug, 2016; Marsh et al., 2011). To share knowledge, employees must
see the benefits or perceived benefits to them as individuals (Holste & Fields, 2010). Clark
(2003) furthers the notion of rewards to employees by pointing to team-level cooperation,
confidence, and collaboration as a form of non-monetary motivation for results. As previously
stated, there is a multitude of factors that need to be considered and in place within the
organization to ensure knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding.
Employees often note that knowledge sharing is not important, but individual knowledge
is important (Labafi, 2017). People will believe that knowledge is “owned” and can become
territorial of the knowledge they hold (Brown et al., 2013; Pierce & Jussila, 2011; Wang et al.,
2019). When these beliefs are not addressed or discouraged, people will hide their knowledge
(Singh, 2019). A study of 198 workers in banking and insurance organizations in UAE
conducted by Singh (2019) demonstrated a positive relationship between territoriality and
knowledge hiding and a negative impact on work tasks. This study is consistent with other
studies that demonstrate that if a co-worker hides knowledge from someone, that person will
hide knowledge from them as well (Černe et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2019). One of the greatest
motivators of knowledge sharing is trust (Caldwell & Hansen, 2010; Connelly et al., 2012,
Golden & Garjendran, 2019). When people have a relationship and bond, they believe that
knowledge sharing will be reciprocated (Gooderham et al., 2011; Ipe, 2003).
31

Supportive Environment
Knowledge management systems, encouragement of knowledge sharing behaviors, and
effective rewards and motivations must be present for employees to share knowledge (Huang et
al., 2013). Without consideration and all of these elements, knowledge hiding increases. To
complicate matters, knowledge hiding has separate motivations from knowledge sharing.
Spaces and Systems
Knowledge management research followed learning organizations research (Pedler &
Burgoyne, 2017). Knowledge without context can create a potential barrier to using it across an
organization (McIver et al., 2013). The evidence highlights that without an organizational
knowledge-sharing strategy, there is a lack of alignment for the implementation of knowledge
(Milway & Saxton, 2011). This is true even if there are knowledge management systems in
place. “Knowledge management is the creation, archiving, and sharing of valued information,
expertise and insight within and across communities of people and organizations with similar
interests and needs, the goal of which is to build competitive advantage” (Rosenburg, 2007, p.
157).
Knowledge management is the systems or practices an organization uses to gather
knowledge from one employee to make it available to another (Caruso, 2017). The systems
should include ways of gathering tacit knowledge from employees to codify it into explicit
knowledge in systems or on platforms (Martín‐Pérez et al., 2012). Clear spaces with invitation,
motivation, and efficacy are among the few elements knowledge management theory points to as
needing to be present for knowledge sharing to happen (Argote et al., 2003). This is further
supported by research that found that employees will not share their knowledge without spaces
for sharing and providing motivation (Chang et al., 2012; Prieto Paster et al., 2010).
32

If organizations do not provide clear signals, employees will hide their knowledge.
Knowledge hiding harms both the organization and the individual who is hiding knowledge
(Bogilović et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2018). Within an organization, knowledge hiding behavior is
counterproductive to supporting organizational goals (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Employees often
feel that their knowledge creates a sense of ownership and that hiding it helps secure their jobs
and place in a company (Peng, 2013; Škerlavaj et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019). The team at large
is unable to gain, use, or apply new knowledge if employees engage in knowledge hiding (Fong
et al., 2018). In effect, knowledge hiding hinders teams from collaborating to reach goals as
defined by project timelines, budgets, and deliverables (Zhang & Min, 2019).
Trust
Trust needs to be cultivated; it is a cornerstone of an organization’s ability to learn, grow,
and perform (Kramer, 1999; McAllister, 1995; Senge, 2006; Zak, 2017). Trust can be defined as
affective trust, or having a connection to someone, or cognitive trust and shared experiences
between people (McAllister, 1995). Trust has other definitions as well. For example, Kramer
(1999) and Mayer et al. (1995) included an element of vulnerability in establishing trust among
people. When people trust one another, they are more likely to collaborate and share information
(Wickramasinghe & Widyaratne, 2012).
It is important for organizations to cultivate trust to allow for knowledge sharing to
remain competitive and continue to grow (Bogilović et al., 2017). Understanding the construct of
trust, particularly affective trust, will allow us to understand people’s willingness or motivation
to share knowledge within teams and projects (Swift & Harvey, 2011). Developing a learning
organization can be challenging (Schein, 2017). There are many organizational factors that feed
into the organization's climate and create or break trust. Without both cognitive and affective
33

trust, people will not share their knowledge with team members (Choudhary et al., 2013). Even if
people do share their knowledge, people will not act on the knowledge without trust (Ismail &
Yusof, 2010). When trust is present, knowledge transfer and use of knowledge in organizations
are higher (Sankowska, 2013). There is a positive relationship between knowledge transfer and
knowledge creation that allows for more innovation in organizations. This was further supported
in Sankowska’s (2013) study, where organizational trust and knowledge creation was highly
correlated across the 202 surveys received from Polish companies on the Warsaw Stock
Exchange.
In addition to cognitive and affective trust, psychological safety is important for
knowledge sharing. Psychological safety enables people in organizations to take risks, share
knowledge, and learn as an organization and a team (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Researchers
determined psychological safety is an important factor for people collaborating within
organizations (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). While psychological safety is
important to creating an environment of knowledge sharing, a perception of knowledge hiding
will negatively impact psychological safety (Rutten et al., 2016).
Researchers examined the influence of knowledge hiding on perceptions of psychological
safety (Jiang et al., 2019). They conducted two studies; one consisted of over 400 participants
across organizations in the UK and America. The second study included 205 participants across
a few industries in China. In their studies, they discovered that knowledge hiding has a negative
impact on how people perceive psychological safety. This study was unique because it found
knowledge hiding impacts the relationship between colleagues (Černe et al., 2014; Connelly &
Zweig, 2021) in an organization and one’s psychological state of being.
34

Decentralizing Organizational Power: Power Dynamics and Fairness
The dynamics of power are understudied in knowledge management, knowledge sharing,
and knowledge hiding (Heizmann & Olsson, 2015). Throughout this review, transformational
elements support providing power to others and overcoming some of the organizational power
barriers. Knowledge is gained through experience, and in an organization without diverse
opportunities to grow, learn, and develop innovations with diverse knowledge is lost (Guillaume
et al., 2015). In organizations where diversity of knowledge is valued, diversity is not always
celebrated within the organizational climate (Hajro et al., 2017). As mentioned previously, there
are many barriers to knowledge sharing and motivations for knowledge hiding when there is a
lack of trust, a lack of supportive leadership, and an uncomfortable climate at work (Metiu &
Rothbard, 2013).
Systemic norms in the workplace, from policy and deep-rooted discrimination due to race
and gender (Beckwith et al., 2016), create a lack of belonging for historically marginalized
groups (Guillaume et al., 2015). Discrimination and institutionalized racism can be explored
through critical race theory (CRT; Ladson-Billings, 2013). Ladson-Billings (2013) further
explored how CRT declares “race as the normal order of things”. The normal order can be seen
in organizations’ policies and practices that are often established by White men (Beckwith et al.,
2016). In this way, organizations demonstrated embodied cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Also,
CRT asserts that the embodied cultural capital of the systems benefits white people since
organizations embody white priorities, values, and beliefs (Lowe, 2013). Without diversity in
organizations, people of color struggle to be themselves and fully engage in work tasks or
experience a sense of belonging (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013). These factors will
increase knowledge hiding behaviors (Černe et al., 2014; Černe et al., 2017; Kang, 2016). Thus,
35

it is in a company’s best interest to change its policies and practices to honor all voices and their
knowledge (Hajro et al., 2017). In this changing economy, companies will not prosper without
diverse leaders or diverse perspectives (Tastad & Bass, 2020).

36

Table 4
Summary of Organizational Influences
Assumed organizational
influence
Organizational category
Stakeholders need to perceive a
culture of knowledge sharing
in the organization
Aligning culture and behavior” are key to ensuring
organizational goals are met. Relevant to this study,
surfacing gaps of organizational factors such as trust and
psychological safety will provide an opportunity to gain
alignment and develop a culture of knowledge sharing.
Stakeholders need to feel that
the organization is sending
signals that knowledge
sharing is important
If organizations do not provide clear signals, employees will
hide their knowledge. Knowledge hiding harms both the
organization and the individual who is hiding knowledge
(Bogilović et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2018).
Incentives and training programs can increase employee
motivation and support coaches in knowledge sharing
(Erceg & Suljug, 2016).
Stakeholders need to perceive
leaders as modeling
knowledge sharing.
Leveraging leadership styles like transformational or ethical
leadership, in particular, cultivates a culture of
collaboration paving the way for knowledge sharing
(García-Morales et al., 2012; Men et al., 2020; Park &
Kim, 2018).
When transformational leaders are able to support people in
understanding individual value, they are more likely to
share knowledge with a team (Dong et al., 2017).
Stakeholders are more likely to
share knowledge if they think
this behavior will be
personally rewarded.

If organizations reward learning behaviors, they can
overcome the challenges of members acting in their own
self-interest (Garvin, 1993; Garvin et al., 2008; Marquardt
& Reynolds, 1994; Pedler & Aspinwall, 1998).

Stakeholders need to be able to
access a variety of systems
and networks to share their
knowledge.

Knowledge management is the systems or practices an
organization uses to gather knowledge from one
employee to make it available to another (Caruso, 2017).
The systems should include ways of gathering tacit
knowledge from employees to codify it into explicit
knowledge in systems or on platforms (Martín-Pérez et
al., 2012).

37

Summary and Conceptual Framework
In summary, this study aimed to understand the gaps in KMO factors that support
knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding. Within these factors, one can build curiosity
between a learning organization and impact on knowledge hiding and/or sharing that occurs
(Caruso, 2016). This model proposes that external factors that interact with internal factors
encourage shifts (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The interactions with external environments precipitate
improvement of organizational factors or innovation (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Knowledge
sharing allows for innovation and improvement (Belso & Diez, 2018; Ceylan, 2013). Knowledge
will not be shared freely if the focus is solely on knowledge sharing. Knowledge hiding is an
independent construct of knowledge sharing. However, addressing issues and organizational
elements connected to knowledge hiding increases knowledge sharing. This chapter
demonstrated some of the elements organizations must acknowledge and address. The
conceptual framework in Figure 2 outlines the opportunities for organizations. Chapter Three
will discuss the aligned instruments built on the KMO influences to identify gaps in knowledge
hiding and sharing across organizations.

38

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

39

Chapter Three: Methodology
Knowledge sharing is instrumental for organizational growth, sustainability, and
innovation; however, organizational structures and leaders often create power dynamics that
promote knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing. This study identified the gaps organizational
members have to knowledge sharing and developed recommendations to allow more fluid
sharing of knowledge in organizations. To promote knowledge sharing, organizations need to
build trust and efficacy among participants. Systems and structures should promote diversity of
thought, provide meaningful spaces to share knowledge, and reward knowledge-sharing
behaviors. Equity can be achieved with supportive leadership and a supportive environment to
increase knowledge sharing and reduce power dynamics. This chapter will provide insight to the
design of the study. The research questions are presented first, followed by the overview of the
research design, along with the instruments and participants used in the study.
Research Questions
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
knowledge hiding and equitable knowledge sharing in organizations?
2. What are the recommendations for organizations to decrease knowledge hiding to
increase knowledge sharing?
Overview of Design
To understand the organizational dynamics that promote knowledge sharing, this study
utilizes the mixed-methods approach. The mixed-methods approach afforded the opportunity to
use the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative methods to build a deeper understanding of
the research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Exploring organizational factors that include
the complexity of the structures within the organization, the individual dynamics, and group
40

dynamics to create a safe environment where people feel a shared sense of value and purpose is a
complex endeavor. Examining the problem through various lenses will surface data and
information with depth that one method could not (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). The study
used an explanatory sequential design of mixed-methods, consisting of collecting quantitative
data before qualitative data to deepen the understanding of the quantitative results (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). To follow this design, the survey was distributed to employees at various
organizations (Table 5). Interviews were conducted on a subset of survey participants after the
surveys were collected, which provided an opportunity to further explain the information
collected in the surveys (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Credibility was established for the
qualitative data through data triangulation for the surveys and interviews (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended, member checks were conducted after the
qualitative data were analyzed to ensure the participants’ voices were captured accurately.

Table 5
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interview
What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
that influence knowledge hiding and equitable knowledge
hiding in organizations?
X X
What are the recommendations for organizations to decrease
knowledge hiding to increase knowledge sharing?
X X

41

Research Setting
This study was a field study conducted in the New York metro area, and organizations of
a variety of sizes and industries were invited to participate. Conducting a field study to answer
the research questions is relevant because knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding happen in
all organizations (Zack, 2003). The organizations in this study are knowledge-based
organizations, from nonprofit to for-profit, with 50 or more employees. Organizations for this
study were identified through personal networks. The study included seven organizations from
seven different industries.
The Researcher
Through inquiry, I hoped to gain a deeper understanding of what knowledge
organizations value, how knowledge is shared, how it is used to evolve practices, and how to
shift the dynamic of whose knowledge is valued. To begin this journey, I examined the dynamics
between people and how they share or hide knowledge. My positionality in relation to this topic
is connected to power, privilege, and oppression. As a White, upper-middle class person, my
knowledge is often valued and echoed in research. Using the “Intersecting Axes of Privilege,
Domination, and Oppression” by Dell (2014) as adapted from the work of (Diller, 1996, p. 107),
there are parts of my identity and positionality below the axes of domination. For example, as a
woman of Jewish heritage, my voice is not always welcome. Some see me and think I should be
home rather than running a company. Additionally, when I am in meetings, I am often one of the
only women (or the only woman), and I have to fight for my viewpoints to be valued.
My work experiences are grounded in organizations that favor moving towards a learning
organization. My bias toward the value of learning organizations is foundational to this study. It
is the lens I bring to work. In Chapter Two, I try to make space to counter this bias by presenting
42

the critical viewpoints of a learning organization, all of which I think are valid. However, I
believe learning organizations are not truly realized for many reasons. Some of these reasons are
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding conditions. In my roles as a leader and researcher, I
recognize my limited experience and lens. To try to integrate and push my thinking, I work
collaboratively with others from diverse backgrounds to gain perspective and insights.
Decentering my own power to invite others has always been important to me. By questioning my
privilege, I can question the status quo and honor the opportunity to create rich experiences
where everyone has access and an equal voice. I value diverse input, creating collective decision-
makers through transparency of company goals, vision, and progress and providing spaces for all
voices to share their ideas. In these actions and ways of being, I encourage knowledge sharing.
Empowerment, equity, and evolution are values I use to view the world. Critical or
transformative philosophical worldview aligns most closely with my viewpoints. My
positionality informs this through the axis of power I have experienced in my life and a
viewpoint that my perspective is not better or more important than others. The critical, or
transformative, paradigm is centered on giving marginalized voices access to power and decision
making (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Through this paradigm, reshaping how knowledge is
captured and what knowledge is important will provide a much broader platform for all to
participate in.
For knowledge sharing to reach its pinnacle of equity, all people within an organization
need to feel valued. People feeling valued enables the free sharing of knowledge and creates an
inclusive system for knowledge to be collected. When all perspectives are shared, it provides an
opportunity to set goals together, and the nature of the knowledge gathered starts to shift to
support goal attainment. Diverse perspectives decenter the current White-centric knowledge
43

collecting that has led the focus of organizations for centuries (Tuck & Yang, 2014). Using the
critical or transformative paradigm allowed me to examine organizational factors that may be
preventing inclusion and belonging within an organization. Often, these oppressive factors lead
to knowledge hiding, which limits the knowledge organizations can collectively build and stifles
their creativity, innovation, and relevancy (Bogilović et al., 2017).
Data Sources
A survey and an interview were conducted in this study to provide generalizability and
rich context (Morgan, 2014). Table 6 contains the alignment of knowledge influences in the
survey, Table 7 is the alignment of motivational influences in the survey, and Table 8 is the
alignment of organizational factors in the survey. Table 9 is the interview question.
Survey
The survey has 30 closed-ended items aligned to KMO influences to identify the factors
that contribute to knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing. There are additional demographic
questions regarding employees’ years of service to the organization, type of industry, role in an
organization, and basic identification markers, such as gender. This survey was developed using
the literature review in alignment with KMO factors. Appendix A presents the full survey
protocol. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the questions used in the survey and the alignment to KMO
factors.

44

Table 6
Alignment of Knowledge Influences
Knowledge type
influence
Employee assessment Manager assessment
Stakeholders know what
knowledge sharing
within the
organization means.
(Factual)
Which of the following are
components of knowledge sharing
in our organization?
(Check all that apply)

Knowledge people hold from
experience*
How someone does their job*
Knowledge collected and organized*
Sharing information informally*
Sharing information by contributing to
knowledge management systems*
Keeping a personal knowledge journal
Listening to others in meetings
Which of the following
are components of
knowledge sharing in
our organization?
(Check all that apply)

Knowledge people hold
from experience*
How someone does their
job*
Knowledge collected and
organized*
Sharing information
informally*
Sharing information by
contributing to
knowledge management
systems*
Keeping a personal
knowledge journal
Listening to others in
meetings
Stakeholders know the
meaning of
knowledge hiding
Knowledge hiding is:
(Check all that apply)
Lack of knowledge sharing.
Only sharing part of the information
someone asked you to share *
Avoiding sharing knowledge*
Collecting knowledge that may or
may not be shared
Collecting information for yourself
Protecting someone from knowledge
they should not have*
Pretending you do not know
something*
Knowledge hiding is:
(Check all that apply)
Lack of knowledge
sharing.
Only sharing part of the
information someone
asked you to share *
Avoiding sharing
knowledge*
Collecting knowledge
that may or may not be
shared
Collecting information
for yourself
45

Knowledge type
influence
Employee assessment Manager assessment
Protecting someone from
knowledge they should
not have*
Pretending you do not
know something*
Stakeholders know the
benefits of knowledge
sharing (Conceptual).

The benefits of knowledge sharing in
the organization are:
(Check all that apply)

Promotes innovation*
Promotes a diversity of thought*
Enhances work engagement*
Enhances psychological safety*
Contributes to customer satisfaction
Increases media attention
The benefits of knowledge
sharing in the
organization are: (Check
all that apply)

Promotes innovation*
Promotes a diversity of
thought*
Enhances work
engagement*
Enhances psychological
safety*
Contributes to customer
satisfaction
Increases media attention
Stakeholders need to
feel knowledge hiding
can have a negative
impact on their ability to
reach their goals.
For each of the following statements,
please scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree:
Knowledge hiding has a negative
impact on the way you feel about:
Your work
Your team
Your ability to reach your goals

Knowledge hiding has a
negative impact on the:
Team
Work environment
Stakeholders know how
to share information in
the organization.
The following are knowledge sharing
activities in the organization:
(Check all that apply)

Offering to assist others to solve
problems *
Attending a training and actively
sharing insights *
Offering to provide information that
others need to complete their
work. *
The following are
knowledge sharing
activities in the
organization:
(Check all that apply)

Offering to assist others
to solve problems *
Attending a training
and actively sharing
insights *
46

Knowledge type
influence
Employee assessment Manager assessment
Attending meetings where people
share their best practices. *
Adding knowledge to a shared
learning system or knowledge
management system *
Attending a training
Offering to provide
information that
others need to
complete their work.
*
Attending meetings
where people share
their best practices. *
Adding knowledge to a
shared learning
system or knowledge
management system
*
Attending a training
Stakeholders monitor
and evaluate their
progress toward
knowledge sharing.
I monitor and evaluate my progress in
sharing knowledge with others by:
(Check all that apply)

Collecting data on meeting personal
and departmental goals.*
I do not have a way of monitoring
and evaluating my knowledge
sharing
I am aware of the importance of
sharing materials and knowledge
among my team members. *
I have a system for adding relevant
information to the company's
shared learning or knowledge
management system. *

I monitor and evaluate my
progress in sharing
knowledge with others
by:
(Check all that apply)

Collecting data on
meeting personal and
departmental goals.*
I do not have a way of
monitoring and
evaluating my
knowledge sharing
I am aware of the
importance of sharing
materials and
knowledge among
my team members. *
I have a system for
adding relevant
information to the
company's shared
learning or
knowledge
management system.
*

47

Knowledge type
influence
Employee assessment Manager assessment
Stakeholders monitor
and evaluate when
they hide their
knowledge.
I monitor and evaluate when I hide my
knowledge:
(Check all that apply)

I keep track of when someone
asks me for information and I
do not share it. *
I do not have a way of monitoring
and evaluating my knowledge.
I am aware of how many
meetings or trainings I skip.*
I do not attend “optional” learning
or sharing spaces.*

I monitor and evaluate
when I hide my
knowledge:
(Check all that apply)

I keep track of when
someone asks me for
information and I do
not share it.*
I do not have a way of
monitoring and
evaluating my
knowledge.
I am aware of how
many meetings or
trainings I skip.*
I do not attend
“optional” learning or
sharing spaces.*

Note. Asterisk indicates correct responses.

48

Table 7
Alignment of Motivational Influences
Motivational type influence
Employee assessment

For each of the following
statements, please scale
from 1-strongly disagree
to 5-strongly agree:
Manager assessment

For each of the following
statements, please scale from 1-
strongly disagree to 5-strongly
agree:
Stakeholders value
knowledge sharing
(value).
Sharing my knowledge with
others is important to me.
Sharing information is
important for the success
of the organization.
Sharing my knowledge with others
is important to me.
Sharing information is important
for the success of the
organization.
Stakeholders need to
have confidence in
their knowledge and
ability to do their job.
I am successful in my work.
I am confident I can perform
the tasks that the role
demands.
I am confident I know when
to ask for help.
I know what knowledge to
share with people when
they ask for it.
I am confident I can create an
environment that promotes
knowledge sharing.
I understand the need and benefits
of knowledge sharing.
I understand knowledge hiding.
I know how to decrease knowledge
hiding from happening on my
team.
Stakeholders are
confident that they can
share information in
the organization.
Using the scale below, rate
your confidence in
performing the following
right now:
Offering to assist others
to solve problems *
Attending a training and
actively sharing
insights *
Offering to provide
information that others
need to complete their
work. *
Attending meetings
where people share
their best practices. *
Adding knowledge to a
shared learning system
Using the scale below, rate your
confidence in performing the
following right now:
Offering to assist others to
solve problems *
Attending a training and
actively sharing insights *
Offering to provide
information that others need
to complete their work. *
Attending meetings where
people share their best
practices. *
Adding knowledge to a shared
learning system or
knowledge management
system *
Sliding scale from 1 to 10
49

Motivational type influence
or knowledge
management system *
Sliding scale from 1 to
10
Cited: Adapted from
Bandura, 2006
Cited: Adapted from Bandura,
2006
Stakeholders need to
have confidence in
their team’s
knowledge and ability
to do their job.
I believe the current team or
department I work with
can accomplish anything
they set out to do.
I believe my colleagues have
knowledge I need to do
my job.
I believe we have the “right” team
to accomplish the goals of this
unit.
I believe this team has the
knowledge they need to do the
job well.

Stakeholders need to feel
positive about sharing
knowledge
I am comfortable sharing
knowledge with others.
Sharing materials and
knowledge prepare me to
fulfill my work
responsibilities.
I always share my
knowledge at work.
I seek out knowledge and
information.
I believe it is important for
members of the team to share
their knowledge to further the
whole team and not individuals.
I believe creating competition
among team members supports
our ability to achieve their goals.
I value creating a team
atmosphere.

Stakeholders need to feel
positive about
creativity and
innovation
I believe finding new ways
of doing things is
important.
I believe creativity is more
achievable as a team.
You often seek out
information, resources,
and new contacts.
Same
Stakeholders need to
perceive mastery-
based climates as a
way to decrease
knowledge hiding.
When things don’t go right, I
learn from them and keep
going.
I want to do well at work
because it makes me look
good.
I encourage mastery-based goals
for the team.
I encourage performance-based
goals.
Relationships are
important to
motivating knowledge
I maintain close social
relationships with others.
I develop a personal working
relationship with all of my
reportees.
50

Motivational type influence
sharing and decreasing
knowledge hiding.
Stakeholders need to
perceive the
environment is
equitable.
I am valued as a member of
this team.
My voice is heard at
meetings.
My colleagues do not respect
me
I know how to support people from
different backgrounds.
I am aware of how comments
and/or requests can impact
people from diverse
backgrounds.
I can create a space where all
voices can be heard.

Note. Asterisk indicates correct responses.

51

Table 8
Alignment of Organizational Influences
Organizational Influences to decrease knowledge hiding
Employee and managers

For each of the following statements, please
scale from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly
agree:
Stakeholders need to perceive a culture of
knowledge sharing in the organization
There is a culture of knowledge sharing in the
organization.
There is a culture of knowledge hiding in the
organization.
Stakeholders need to feel that the organization
is sending signals that knowledge sharing is
important
At my organization, knowledge sharing is
important.
At my organization, all members share their
knowledge.
Collaboration and teamwork are central to the
work at my organization.
Continuous learning is important at my
organization.
Stakeholders need to perceive leaders as
modeling knowledge sharing.
Leaders at my organization share their
knowledge often.
Leaders do not share information readily.
The vision, values, and goals of my
organization are clearly defined.
Stakeholders are more likely to share
knowledge if they think this behavior will
be personally rewarded.
There are clear incentives for knowledge
sharing.
People are recognized for their knowledge
sharing and the impact of their
contributions.
Stakeholders need to be able to access a
variety of systems and networks to share
their knowledge.
There are a variety of systems for collecting
knowledge.
The systems of knowledge are easily
accessible by all.
Stakeholders need to perceive trust and safety
to share their knowledge.
Members of my organization
are trustworthy.
are reliable.
It is ok to make mistakes at my organization.
It is easy to ask for help at my organization.
52

Organizational Influences to decrease knowledge hiding
Stakeholders need to perceive a sense of
equity and fairness in the organization.
Equity is important at my organization.
All members of the organization are valued.
All members are recognized fairly.
All members are given the same kinds of
opportunities.

Interview
Interviews were conducted after the survey was distributed and responses analyzed to
align with the explanatory sequential design process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
interviews used a semi-structured protocol (Patton, 2002). This allowed me to adjust questions
based on findings in the survey data and information shared in real time. Table 9 contains the
nine interview questions. The interview contains four demographic questions, four questions
aligned to KMO influences that contribute to knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing, and one
open question for participants to add any additional information. The full interview protocol is
found in Appendix B. And Appendix C aligns both the survey items and interview questions to
the theoretical frameworks in the study.

Table 9
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes Key concept addressed
The first set of questions is to gain some
background knowledge on your role
and responsibilities.

Please tell me about your position here. Demographics
Whom do you report to? Does anyone
report to you? If so, how many?
Power dynamics
53

Interview questions Potential probes Key concept addressed

How long have you been associated
with this organization?
Demographics
What are your current responsibilities? Is there knowledge-
specific information
aligned to your current
responsibility?

Power dynamics
This second set of questions will
explore knowledge sharing and
hiding.

Tell me what you think knowledge
sharing is.

How do you share
knowledge? Who is in
the room?
Improving spaces
What do you think knowledge hiding
is?
Do you engage in
knowledge hiding?

Supportive
environment
I'm going to give you a list of tasks. Tell
me how confident you are in doing
them.
Offering to assist others to solve
problems
Attending a training and actively
sharing insights *
Offering to provide information that
others need to complete their work.
Attending meetings where people share
their best practices.
Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management
system *

Community
participation and
efficacy
Describe how your team works together
to share knowledge.
In what ways: systems,
platforms, slack, CoP,
etc.?

Values, structures and
systems
Describe for me how the culture of the
organization supports knowledge
sharing.
How important is
knowledge sharing to
you?
Is there any information
not shared with you?
Structures and systems;
trust
54

Interview questions Potential probes Key concept addressed
In what ways could the
organization improve
knowledge sharing?

Anything else you want to share?

Participants
To gain specific insight into how KMO factors influence knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding, participants were recruited through purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The target population of this study were employees aged 18 or older at various
organizational levels working in knowledge-based organizations. A convenience sampling was
employed for the survey collection within the knowledge-based organizations of employees
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The organizations that participated in the study were categorized
by industry type. I did not have personal relationships with the general population of employees
at these organizations. I sought permission from leaders at the network organizations to conduct
a study to understand what factors influenced knowledge sharing/hiding.
I coordinated employee recruitment through each organization’s leader. All organizations
are based or have a field office in the New York City metropolitan area. Also, due to COVID,
some organizations are now remote. I contacted representatives who are part of my professional
network via email to recruit their organizations. To recruit study participants, the leaders
forwarded an introductory email explaining the purpose of the study and an invitation to the
survey to the members of their organization. The introductory email contained a link to the
Qualtrics website, where the survey was maintained.
55

The survey was distributed to employees at the organizations. Participation in this study
was optional. This created a random sampling from the organization of people who participated
in the study. Through organization-wide engagement, a larger stratification of the data was
possible to potentially identify more patterns (Salkind, 2016). In this survey, volunteers opted
into interviews. Respondents who opted into the interview were asked brief demographic
questions to ensure data were collected from a heterogeneous group of respondents representing
a cross-section of the total population surveyed. There were nine interviewees. Using criteria for
purposeful sampling from Maxwell (2013), the diversity and roles of employees were gathered to
ensure more generalized findings across an organization and to identify further similarities and
differences. For the interview stage of the explanatory design, participants were chosen to further
explain phenomena that surface (Palinkas et al., 2011). The goal is to retain respondents to
interview from each organization type (for-profit/nonprofit). Staying true to the explanatory
sequential design, respondents were identified upon completion of the quantitative design
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Instrumentation
I developed questions on the survey instrument from the literature review. There are 30
questions with a set of demographic questions. Survey questions were peer-reviewed and tested
during the Inquiry II course. The survey’s purpose was to uncover the KMO gaps to achieve
knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding. It includes aspects of trust, systems of
communication, and knowledge hiding connected to the study’s conceptual framework.
For the interview protocol, elements from the interview guide (semi-structured) and
standardized-interview (structured) approach were used (Patton, 2002). The interviews used a
56

semi-structured protocol. There are nine questions in the guide. This provided an opportunity to
explore topics more deeply with respondents.
Data Collection Procedures
This study sought an understanding of the KMO gaps of knowledge sharing or hiding
within organizations across various industries. The organizations that participated have offices
within 100 miles of the New York metro area. However, due to COVID, many of them are
operating remotely. To narrow the focus, a convenience sampling of leaders within the
researcher’s network was used to administer the survey (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Seven
people/leaders in the researcher's network acted as gatekeepers, those who connect personally
with the respondents (Lavrakas, 2008). Of the seven organizations, five of the organizations
needed to retract participation, citing the timing of returning to the office and the Omicron
variant as reasons. Thus, I needed to seek out additional organizations. This led to a delay in data
collection. In the end, seven leaders agreed to send out the survey. Four of the organizations are
for-profit, ranging in industries from pharmaceutical, media/publishing, tech, and finance. Three
of the organizations are non-profit, focusing on health care, mental health, and education. The
survey was sent to 650 people. A total of 110 people began the survey; however, only 76
completed it in its entirety. Of the 76, 17 respondents agreed to participate in the interview. A
subsection of the 17 was invited to participate in the interview. They were selected to represent a
cross-section of for-profit/nonprofit and employees/supervisors. Nine interviews were conducted.
Six participants were from for-profits, and three were from non-profits. Four of the participants
were employees, and five were supervisors.
The gatekeepers sent the email invitation to employees in their organizations to invite
participation. Emails that included the Qualtrics link, nature of the study, privacy, and
57

confidentiality information were sent in mid-November. All who were willing to participate were
included in this phase of the study. The survey was distributed and stored in Qualtrics. Online
distribution provided the safest (during COVID-19), quickest, and most economical way to reach
a large number of employees. The survey was accompanied by an informed consent statement
ensuring that participation was voluntary. The statement provided a brief explanation of the
study and explained the anonymity of survey participants. It also detailed how the data would be
stored on a secure, password-protected hard drive. Participants were asked to acknowledge their
understanding of the informed consent, that they are over the age of 18, and that their
participation was voluntary.
The survey instrument has 30 closed-ended Likert-scale items aligned to KMO influences
to identify the factors contributing to knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing. There are
additional demographic questions regarding employees’ years of service to the organization, type
of industry, role in an organization, and basic identification markers, such as gender.
Identification markers were optional. This survey was developed using the literature review
aligned with KMO factors to knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. Individual participant
data were not collected in the survey. All data were downloaded from Qualtrics and stored on
PI’s password-protected hard drive. All survey data was aggregated to prevent identifying any
individual participant’s responses. The data were stored on PI’s hard drive for 2 years after the
publication of the dissertation, and then the data will be destroyed.
All employees who participated in the quantitative phase of the study were invited to
participate in the qualitative phase. In the survey, respondents were invited to participate in an
interview. When respondents agreed to the interview, another survey opened to collect their
personal data. This was a short 5-question survey to identify interview candidates. The survey
58

questions for this phase asked about years of employment, industry of employment, and their
role at the organization (employee or supervisor). The final questions asked for their name and
email address.
A cross-section of subjects from each group was selected and invited via email to
participate in an interview. The email invitation included the purpose of the study, mode of the
interview (Zoom), length of the interview (60 minutes), recommended guidelines (i.e., quiet
space), and PI contract information. Interviews were scheduled using a Calendly tool to provide
participants with options that aligned best to their availability. A $25 gift card to Amazon was
provided for participating in the interview. Both recordings from Zoom and a transcript from
Otter.ai were used to provide integrity to the qualitative data captured (Weiss, 1994). As
participants entered the Zoom, the platform asked them for recording consent. Then, the
interviews began with a brief introduction, discussion of the purpose, and information on how
answers would be used and confidentiality would be maintained.
Burkholder et al. (2019) advised against software transcription because of the
complications with setting up the technology, but the researcher tested Otter.ai during this
interview protocol. Otter.ai is integrated into Zoom and has a high confidence level of
transcription accuracy. Recording allowed the researcher to be more present in both the
respondent’s verbal and nonverbal communication (Patton, 2002). Recording also created the
opportunity to reflect in the moment on topics raised during the interview. Of course, data
confidentiality was of the utmost importance. During the introduction, participants were
informed that they could leave the interview at any time. Interview questions used a semi-formal
interview guide. At the end of the interview, I thanked the participant and asked to follow up if
clarifications were needed for analysis. Transcripts and video recordings were downloaded to a
59

password-protected hard drive. Interview data were stored on a secure password-protected hard
drive for 2 years after the publication of the dissertation and then destroyed.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Means and standard
deviations of KMO influencers were identified (Salkind, 2016). Cut-off scores were used to
establish the strengths and challenges of each KMO influence across the organizations. Interview
notes and transcriptions were reviewed by hand; then, a priori, open, and axial coding was
applied and aligned to the KMO influencers. In addition, NVivo 12 was used to capture quotes
against the a priori and open codes. Both quantitative and qualitative data were used to create a
fuller picture of KMO influencers on knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing (Castro et al.,
2010). Recommendations against data findings are found in Chapter Five.
Method 1
Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics.
Method 2
Interview notes and transcriptions were reviewed, and a priori, open, and axial codes
were established against the KMO influencers.
Method 3
Leveraging inferential statistics, survey and interview data were used to determine the
strengths and challenges against each KMO influencer.
Validity and Reliability
I used the literature and KMO factors to develop the questions. I conducted a pilot study
to establish consistency and reliability across items (Salkind, 2016). One question was adapted
60

from Bandura’s (2006) work, “Using the scale below, rate your confidence in performing the
following right now.”
As mentioned, gatekeepers through established networks were identified to connect the
purpose of this survey to an underlying purpose of the organization. For example, one
organization wanted to participate in this study because it is building its capacity to knowledge
share and wanted to understand potential challenges. At this company, a connection was made
with the senior leader of learning and development, who distributed the collection of the survey.
The sampling was convenience sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Any employee from
selected organizations was invited to participate; time was a constraint to respondents
participating (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The broad collection allows for more triangulation of
data; this furthers the trustworthiness of the research.
Member checks, triangulation, and being clear with the researcher's positionality were
used to establish credibility and trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To conduct member
checks, respondents were asked to review the data. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
recommended, I tracked comments from respondents during the member checks and used an
action tracker to track adjustments needed. During the data review, I made adjustments based on
input from the participants.
For triangulation, surveys data were merged with the interview data (Maxwell, 2013).
When vast discrepancies were found, I followed up with interviewees to gain further insight. The
analysts independently analyzed the data to identify patterns and themes. Lastly, to develop
integrity, I shared my experience and positionality with readers. To further ensure validity and
reliability, there is an audit trail of the recordings and transcriptions of the interviews.
61

Ethics and Rationale for the Institutional Review Board
Rationale for the Institutional Review Board
In accordance with USC’s code of ethics, each participant in the study was treated with
“respect and dignity” (USC Code of Ethics, 2020).
● Issues related to consent: To secure consent, I solicited permission for surveys and
interviews. Findings from the analyzed data were shared to gain consensus on the
data printed.
● Confidentiality: I excluded the names of participants and organizations from the
study.
● Compensation/incentives: The study was connected to organizational goals, which
provided some natural incentives to some employees.
● Power dynamics/coercion: The investigator did not have a personal or known
working relationship with participants in this study.
● Process: I attended iStar training, worked with the committee chair and other
members to prepare the proposal and followed institutional review board guidelines.
The information sheet for exempt research is in Appendix D.
Underlying Ethics
This problem of practice requires people to examine themselves and the external political
structures. Understanding how to create a shared value of knowledge benefits everyone. People
in power often make the decision that knowledge is important to collect, innovate, evolve, and
rally around to make an impact in societies. Thus, inequities and injustices are rife within all of
our communities.
62

Organizations are communities many people find themselves in, particularly for work.
This study contributes to leaders’ understanding of moving toward a collective community by
increasing knowledge sharing. This will impact the experience people have at work and the
experiences they create for others they serve. It was important to create a trusting environment
for people to share vulnerably. During interviews, I was cognizant of the emotions people
experienced and did not suppress their voices. I checked my positionality and bias as data were
collected and analyzed. Participants were consulted about the findings and assertions from the
data. When a participant clarified to data analysis, changes were made to the information
reported in Chapter Four. Once everything was finalized, results were shared with a voice-over
PowerPoint for everyone to hear and see.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this study include transferability, limited participation, and self-reporting
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Several factors create a challenge with transferability. As many
researchers have remarked, knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding are specific to different
cultural settings. Thus, it will be hard to transfer findings to organizations in other countries or
regions. Also, the size of the sample was small and voluntary, creating a challenge to
generalizability (Creswell, 2014). In the survey and in the interviews, all the information was
self-reported and based on individual perceptions that may or may not be honest (Weiss, 1994).
The study was conducted during a surge in a new COVID variant, which could have limited
participation.
Delimitations are the decisions made by the researcher. One is limiting the target
population to my network. Using convenience sampling within the researcher’s network can
limit the transferability of findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In the survey, most questions
63

had Likert scale responses, meaning responses were more descriptive and could create more
difficulty in interpretation (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). In addition, senior leaders were not
targeted for the study, and document analysis was not used, thus limiting the findings to the
perception of employees and supervisors.

64

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Results and findings represented in this chapter are aligned to the KMO influences that
impact knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding in organizations. This study uses Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis approach to determine the strengths and challenges impacting
organizations’ knowledge-sharing culture. The detailed summary of the results and findings will
be presented and used as the basis of solutions in Chapter Five. Readers may want to skim over
the detailed results and findings to the summary section toward the end of the chapter. The study
found that participants know what knowledge sharing is, how to share knowledge, and value
knowledge sharing. Also, organizations provide signals to their employees regarding how and
why knowledge sharing is important. However, there are still challenges to increasing knowledge
sharing and decreasing knowledge hiding. The highlights of the challenges in the study’s results
and findings are as follows:
● Knowledge of knowledge hiding and metacognition of both knowledge sharing and
hiding are challenges.
● Supervisors do not have self-efficacy in providing feedback and support to decrease
knowledge hiding.
● Knowledge management systems are difficult to navigate, and people do not feel
motivated to share their knowledge of them.
● Employee goals are focused on performance without an equal or any focus on
mastery and learning. Thus, incentives are not aligned with learning behaviors, such
as knowledge sharing. This is one example of the areas of misalignment in
organizational signaling versus behaviors.
65

To conduct the study, 23 influences were identified from the literature review in Chapter
Two. The influences were organized into KMO factors. Quantitative data were collected first,
followed by qualitative data to deepen the understanding of data found during the quantitative
stage. Surveys were released to organizational gatekeepers who sent the email invitation to invite
participation to employees and supervisors in their organization. In the survey, participants were
able to opt into the interview. A cross-section of respondents who opted in were invited to
participate in the interviews.
This study was conducted during COVID-19 at the start of the rise of the controversies of
returning to the office and the rise of the Omicron variant. These factors may have negatively
impacted the participation of organizations in the study. Some organizations rescinded their
participation due to the complications of the environment. For those who completed the survey,
these factors may have impacted their responses. Several interview participants acknowledged
the impact COVID had on their interactions and connectedness with colleagues.
Participating Stakeholders
Stakeholders include employees and supervisors of seven different organizations.
Organizations that participated had offices in the New York region of the country and had at
least 50 employees. The total potential population of respondents was 650. A total of 110 people
began the survey; however, only 76 completed it in its entirety. Table 10 and 11 display
demographic data on the 76 participants. Thus, roughly 12% of the total potential population
completed the survey. Seventeen respondents agreed to participate in the interview. Twelve of
the 17 were chosen. Nine interviews were conducted. Four of the interviewees were employees,
and five participants were supervisors. Below is a brief description of each participant. A
pseudonym for each interviewee was used to protect their privacy and identity. Few explicit
66

details were used due to the potential of identifying participants. Limited demographic data were
required of participants, including years of service at the current organization, type of
organization, and role (employee or supervisor), which can be found in Table 12. There was
optional data aligned to ethnicity and gender collected; however, a small percentage of
respondents completed this data.

Table 10
Employee Survey Participants Demographics
Employee survey participants’ years in service at current organization count (n = 37)
1–5 years 6–10 years* 11–15 years* More than15
years*
Number of years
in service
25 9 2 1
Employee survey type of organization (n = 37)
For-profit Nonprofit
Type of
organization
15 22

*The year ranges were changed to match data collected. The ranges in the survey overlapped.

67

Table 11
Supervisor Survey Participants Demographics
Supervisor survey participants years in service count (n = 39)
1–5 years 6–10 years* 11–15 years* More than15
years*
Number of years
in service
22 10 5 2
Supervisor survey type of organization (n = 39)
For-profit Nonprofit
Type of
organization
21 18

*The year ranges were changed to match data collected. The ranges in the survey overlapped.

68

Table 12
Interview Participants Demographics
Interview participants’ demographics count
Participant Years of service to current
organization
Type of organization
Andie 1–5 years For-profit
Charlie 1–5 years For-profit
Devon 1–5 years Non-profit
Jamie 10–15 years Non-profit
Kai 10–15 years For-profit
Morgan 1–5 years For-profit
Quinn 1–5 years For-profit
Riley 10–15 years For-profit
Terry 1–5 years Non-profit

Andie
Andie is a supervisor who works at a for-profit organization. Andie has worked in their
current organization for 1 to 5 years but has worked in the same industry for over 30 years.
Andie loves the work they do and considers their current organization to be the best they ever
worked in.
Charlie
Charlie is an employee who works in a for-profit organization. Charlie has worked in
their current organization for 1 to 5 years. Charlie also has previous related experience in a
69

different industry. Charlie is an advocate for figuring out how to incentivize collaboration more
effectively.
Devon
Devon is an employee who works in a nonprofit organization. Devon has worked in their
current organization for 1 to 5 years. Devon worked in a related skill-based industry for years
before transitioning to this new industry. Devon believes that encouragement and clear structures
will increase how people share knowledge.
Jamie
Jamie is a supervisor who works in a nonprofit organization. Jamie has worked in their
current organization for 10 to 15 years. In their time at the organization, their role has evolved
several times. Jamie is committed to creating a learning organization that embodies knowledge
sharing yet continually comes up against both organizational and individual challenges to make
it a reality.
Kai
Kai is a supervisor who works in a for-profit organization. Kai has worked in their
current organization for 10 to 15 years. Kai’s role has evolved over time, and the organization
has experienced mergers and acquisitions. Kai discussed that their organization focuses on
building learning for clients; however, the organization struggles to embrace a learning culture
internally.
Morgan
Morgan is a supervisor who works in a for-profit organization. Morgan has worked in
their current organization for 1 to 5 years. Morgan has worked in the same industry for over 20
years, and before that in a related industry. Morgan explored the potential of knowledge-sharing
70

foundations for nonprofits and how they could help provide an intermediary for knowledge to
help flatten inequities.
Quinn
Quinn is an employee who works in a for-profit organization. Quinn has worked in their
current organization for 1 to 5 years. Quinn worked in a related skill-based industry for years
before transitioning to this new industry. Quinn pondered the impact of personalities on
knowledge sharing. Quinn discussed how knowledge sharing can be rewarding for extroverts.
Riley
Riley is a supervisor who works in a for-profit organization. Riley has worked in their
current organization for 10 to 15 years. Riley has not shifted roles or departments much over the
years. Riley valued integrating knowledge sharing to support people to do their job with ease.
Terry
Terry is an employee who works in a nonprofit organization. Terry has worked in their
current organization for 1 to 5 years. Terry worked in a related skill-based industry for years
before transitioning to their current industry. Terry shared a variety of suggestions for improving
a knowledge-sharing culture and decreasing knowledge sharing, including celebrating draft
thinking.
Determination of Strengths and Challenges
In this study, there were two data sources: surveys and interviews. The quantitative data
collected from surveys were used to validate (determine) the strength or challenge of identified
influences. Further information on the survey instrument is in Chapter Three. Since the
percentage of participants was low compared to the potential population in the study, results with
a lower than 80% threshold were determined to be a challenge. Results with an 80% or higher
71

threshold were determined to be a strength. Qualitative data from the interviews were used to
support or refute the survey results related to relative influences.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Knowledge is defined as explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be
collected and organized (Connelly et al., 2012; Nonaka, 1991), whereas tacit knowledge is
gained by experience and interactions (McIver et al., 2013; Nonaka, 1991). A survey and
interview were conducted to build a deeper understanding of assets and needs in regards to
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding within organizations.
Factual Knowledge
There are two survey items related to factual knowledge. One pertains to knowledge
sharing and one to knowledge hiding. There are corresponding open-ended questions for both in
the interview.
Factual Knowledge Influence 1
Stakeholders know what knowledge sharing within the organization means.
Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify components of knowledge sharing
within their organization. There are five correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table
13. For employees, there were no correct responses at the 80% threshold per item nor overall
four out of five correct responses. Similarly, supervisors did not reach the 80% threshold per
item nor overall of four out of five correct responses. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational challenge for employees and supervisors.

72

Table 13
Factual Knowledge Influence 1
Factual knowledge item (n =110)
Employee (n = 52) Supervisor (n = 58)
Percent Count Percent Count
Of the following, choose all that apply to
knowledge sharing in our organization

1 Knowledge people hold from experience* 57.69 30 67.34 39
2 How someone does their job* 38.46 20 58.62 34
3 Knowledge collected and organized* 65.38 34 60.34 35
4 Sharing information informally* 55.77 29 70.69 41
5 Sharing information by contributing to
knowledge management systems*
44.23 23 51.72 30
6 Keeping a personal knowledge journal 7.69 4 12.07 8
7 Listening to others in meetings 65.38 34 60.34 35

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

Interview Findings. Both employees (n = 4) and supervisors (n = 5) were asked, “Tell
me what you think knowledge sharing is.” Three out of four employee participants correctly
indicated that knowledge sharing is between people and is meant to “provide insights” and
“benefit others,” and thus, these responses are strengths. Charlie and Quinn discussed knowledge
sharing as communication of what “you know” to others to benefit their goals. Terry described
how knowledge sharing can benefit others by saying, “We’re able to benefit from all the learning
that’s happening across individual touchpoints through that through the employees to the clients
… to share thinking in support of our common collective vision.”
73

Four of the five supervisors correctly indicated that knowledge sharing is the transferring
of knowledge from one person to another so they can use the knowledge in their work. Thus,
these responses are strengths. Jamie further defined it by naming ways that might occur: “it also
takes a more implicit form of like transferring and sharing knowledge through conversation
through, you know, coaching through one-on-one through shadowing someone doing work.”
Andie and Morgan drew connections to making knowledge available that benefits people in
doing their job.
Summary. Based on the survey data alone, employee and supervisor factual knowledge
of knowledge sharing is a challenge. However, in the interviews, employee and supervisor
participants correctly identified the components of knowledge sharing. Thus, there was a conflict
in the data. More weight is given to interviews in this study because, in the interview space,
participants were able to provide additional details to their understanding of knowledge sharing,
and those details corresponded with the correct answer choices in the survey. Thus, for both
employees and supervisors, knowledge of knowledge sharing is an organizational strength.
Factual Knowledge Influence 2
Stakeholders know the meaning of knowledge hiding.
Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify components of knowledge hiding
within their organization. There are four correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table
14. For this survey question, there were no correct responses for employees at the 80% threshold
per item nor overall of four out of seven responses. Supervisors also did not reach the threshold
per item nor overall of four out of seven responses. A result of interest is that one correct
response, “protecting someone from knowledge they should not have,” was one of the least
74

selected options among both stakeholder groups. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational challenge for both employees and supervisors.

Table 14
Factual Knowledge Influence 2
Factual knowledge item (n = 110)
Employee (n = 52) Supervisor (n = 58)
Percent Count Percent Count
Of the following check all that apply to
knowledge hiding

1 Lack of knowledge sharing 59.62 31 63.79 37
2 Only sharing part of the information
someone asked you to share*
53.85 28 56.90 33
3 Avoiding sharing knowledge* 57.29 30 62.07 36
4 Collecting knowledge that may or may
not be shared
15.38 8 34.48 20
5 Collecting information for yourself 21.15 11 24.14 14
6 Protecting someone from knowledge they
should not have*
15.38 8 27.59 16
7 Pretending you do not know something* 44.23 23 46.55 27

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

75

Interview Findings for Factual Knowledge. Both employee and supervisor participants
were asked, “What do you think knowledge hiding is?” Participants said knowledge hiding
includes intentionality but often quickly added that it might not be intentional.
Two out of four employee participants correctly identified that knowledge hiding is
intentional and has motive. Thus, these responses represent a challenge for employee
participants. One participant who incorrectly defined knowledge hiding said, “knowledge hiding
is like not sharing knowledge or information, either deliberately or unintentionally.” Charlie
defined knowledge hiding correctly and gave examples of motives for knowledge hiding by
saying,
Obviously, information and knowledge that should not be shared due to competitive
intelligence reasons or, you know, business sensitivity reasons. But then there’s certain
types of knowledge that should be shared and often is withheld for, you know, maybe
political motivation.
Terry also defined knowledge hiding correctly and used relevant examples to demonstrate their
understanding.
Two of the five supervisor participants correctly identified that knowledge hiding is
intentional and has motive. Thus, based on the data collected, knowledge of knowledge hiding is
a challenge for supervisor participants. Kai, who correctly defined knowledge hiding, reported
that knowledge hiding is “managing information.” Three supervisor participants who incorrectly
defined knowledge hiding added “unintentional.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor factual
knowledge of knowledge hiding is a challenge.
76

Summary for Factual Knowledge. In the survey and through interviews, participants
were asked to expand on what their understanding of knowledge sharing in the context of an
organizational setting. The results demonstrated that people define and engage with knowledge
sharing and knowledge hiding in a variety of ways. In the survey, the largest consensus among
supervisors was that knowledge sharing in their organization happens informally. For employees,
the greatest consensus was that knowledge is collected and organized within their organization.
In interviews, when participants were asked to tell what they think knowledge sharing is, a theme
of helping others emerged. When participants were asked what they think knowledge hiding is, a
theme that emerged was to protect others. However, when asked on the survey to identify
knowledge hiding behaviors, the choice of “Protecting someone from knowledge they should not
have” was one of the least chosen options among both employees and supervisors. Across
participants, there was some confusion about what is intentional and not intentional aligned to
defining knowledge hiding. Building a clearer understanding of knowledge hiding is an
organizational need. Thus, based on the data for both employee and supervisor participants,
knowledge of knowledge sharing was a strength, and knowledge of knowledge hiding was a
challenge.
Conceptual Knowledge
There are two survey items related to conceptual knowledge. One pertains to the benefits
of knowledge sharing, and one pertains to the negative impact of knowledge hiding. The impact
on knowledge hiding is a multi-part question. There are three parts for employees and two parts
for supervisors. There are no direct interview questions for conceptual knowledge; however,
when participants defined knowledge sharing and hiding, they discussed benefits and impact as
well. Those findings are shared in the interview findings for the corresponding sections.
77

Conceptual Knowledge Influence 1
Stakeholders know the benefits of knowledge sharing.
Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify the benefits of knowledge sharing
within their organization. There are four correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table
15. For employees, there were correct responses at the 80% threshold for the first three items.
Employees did not reach the threshold of 80% for all four correct responses. Similarly,
supervisors did reach the 80% threshold for the first three items, but not for all four out of six
correct responses. While overall, as a group, they did not reach the overall 80% threshold of four
out of six items, they came very close to this threshold. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational strength for employees and supervisors. However, this survey item to understand
how knowledge sharing benefits psychology safety identifies an organizational challenge for
employees and supervisors. It may be the case that the question was ambiguous in the meaning
of psychological safety.

78

Table 15
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 1
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 38) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percent Count Percent Count
The benefits of knowledge sharing in
organizations are: (Check all that
apply.)

1 Promotes innovation* 94.74 36 97.67 42
2 Promotes a diversity of thought* 92.11 35 95.35 41
3 Enhances work engagement* 94.74 36 93.02 40
4 Enhances psychological safety* 63.16 24 76.74 33
5 Contributes to customer satisfaction 60.53 23 74.42 32
6 Increases media attention 7.89 3 11.63 5

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

Interview Findings. There was no direct question related to the benefits of knowledge
sharing for either employees or supervisors. However, when participants defined knowledge
sharing, most discussed the benefits of increased knowledge sharing. All participants named
current knowledge sharing systems like Sharepoint, Teams, or Google docs as a means of
enhancing work engagements and encouraging diversity of thought. Devon mentioned the “Look
for” channel provides a platform for people to engage and share across the organization. Morgan
and Quinn discussed the industry benefits of knowledge sharing across organizations to
innovation and diversity of thought. Both also noted limitations of that due to the competitive
nature of intellectual property.
79

Four out of four employee participants correctly provided examples of the benefits of
knowledge sharing. Terry discussed the benefit of “not reinventing the wheel” in processes and
materials. Charlie and Terry both discussed the richness of knowledge sharing to enhance work-
based practices. In the examples, no one discussed the benefit of psychological safety. Thus, the
overall benefits of knowledge sharing are a strength; however, there is a challenge specific to
how knowledge sharing benefits psychological safety.
The five supervisor participants correctly provided examples of the benefits of
knowledge sharing to work “smarter” and more inclusively across the organization to invite
innovation. Andie touches on innovation by saying, “You know, and thinking about how do we
do it faster, smarter.” Riley identified one way their organization uses a Slack channel to
encourage diversity of thought and engagement. They said, “We have like a new brainstorm
channel that is meant to be an open forum for people to ask anything.” They continue by saying
an idea that gets posted there could be “the one that we do in the story.” Three supervisor
participants discussed knowledge sharing benefiting continuous improvement of processes and
outcomes for various projects across the organization. Thus, as with employees, this is a strength
except for the connection between knowledge sharing and psychological safety.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor conceptual
knowledge of knowledge sharing is a strength.
Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2
Stakeholders need to feel knowledge hiding can have negative impacts.
Employee Survey Results. For this influence, participants were asked to respond to three
related statements: knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the way you feel about work
(Table 16), your team (Table 17), and your ability to reach your goals (Table 18). Respondents
80

were asked to use a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree to respond to the
statements. Participants scored at or above the 80% threshold for all three statements. Thus, this
is an organizational strength for employees.

Table 16
Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 1
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 38)
Percentage Count
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the way you
feel about your work.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 18.42 7
4 Agree 36.84 14
5 Strongly agree 44.74 17

81

Table 17
Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 2
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 38)
Percentage Count
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the way
you feel about your team.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.26 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 10.53 4
4 Agree 36.84 14
5 Strongly agree 47.37 14

Table 18
Employee Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 3
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 38)
Percentage Count
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the way you
feel about your ability to reach your goals.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.26 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.16 5
4 Agree 34.21 13
5 Strongly agree 47.37 18

82

Employee Interview Findings. There was no direct question related to the negative
impacts of knowledge hiding. However, when participants defined knowledge hiding, they
discussed the impacts of knowledge hiding. Four out of four employees directly discussed
negative impacts on the work environment. Quinn discusses being in a toxic environment where
knowledge hiding was common. They shared a time when they reached their fill of participating
in knowledge sharing. They said, “I had reached my point of not being okay with knowledge
hiding. Misrepresenting the firm and leading friends and clients down roads that I knew were not
going to be good for them.” Both Charlie, Devon, and Terry discussed how knowledge hiding
impacted their work and trust of the team at large. Thus, these responses demonstrate an
organizational strength in understanding the negative impacts of knowledge hiding on their
work, teams, and the environment.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee conceptual knowledge of
knowledge hiding is a strength.
Supervisor Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2
Stakeholders need to feel knowledge hiding can have negative impacts.
Supervisor Survey Results. Supervisor participants were asked to respond to two
statements about the impact of knowledge hiding. The statements were: Knowledge hiding has a
negative impact on the team, and knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the work
environment. On the Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree, 83% or more of
respondents correctly chose to agree and strongly agree that knowledge hiding has negative
impacts on both statements, as shown in Table 19 and Table 20. Thus, these survey items
identify an organizational strength for supervisors.

83

Table 19
Supervisor Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 1
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 43)
Percentage Count
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the team.
1 Strongly disagree 2.33 1
2 Disagree 4.65 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 9.30 4
4 Agree 32.56 14
5 Strongly agree 51.16 22

Table 20
Supervisor Conceptual Knowledge Influence 2, Question 2
Conceptual knowledge item (n = 43)
Supervisor
Percentage Count
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on the work
environment

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.33 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 39.53 17
5 Strongly agree 58.14 25

84

Supervisor Interview Findings. For this influence, there were no direct questions on the
impacts of knowledge hiding. When asked about knowledge hiding in general, participants
discussed feelings regarding the impact of knowledge hiding. Four supervisor participants spoke
about the negative impacts of knowledge hiding. Andie speaks on what it feels like when people
do not share knowledge during a process or project. They remark, “It becomes a frustrating time
crunch because there’s a gap in what was supposed to have happened.” They continued by
saying, “It’s a panic to get everything done and get it done properly.” Kai and Morgan discussed
that knowledge hiding from leadership creates confusion and disengagement in the work
environment. Supervisors know knowledge hiding has negative impacts; thus, this is an
organizational strength.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, supervisors’ conceptual knowledge
of knowledge hiding is a strength.
Summary for Conceptual Knowledge. There were survey questions related to the
benefits of knowledge sharing and the impact of knowledge hiding. The results of the survey
demonstrate an understanding of both the benefits of knowledge sharing and the negative impact
of knowledge hiding by employees and supervisors. However, both employees and supervisors
misunderstand the benefits of knowledge sharing in supporting psychological safety. Participants
were able to name the harmful effects of knowledge hiding on the work environment. This
further demonstrates that both knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding need to be addressed at
the organizational level. It is not enough to address just one. Thus, based on the data for both
employee and supervisor participants, the conceptual knowledge of knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding were organizational strengths. While conceptual knowledge is a strength, it
85

should be noted that organizations can do better in building a deeper understanding of knowledge
sharing and psychological safety.
Procedural Knowledge
The procedural knowledge influence examined in this study was that stakeholders know
how to share information in the organization. There is one survey item related to procedural
knowledge. There is a corresponding open-ended question in the interview.
Survey Results
Participants were asked to identify components of procedural knowledge-sharing
activities. There are five correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table 21. For
employees, there were correct responses at the 80% threshold per item, and overall five out of six
correct responses. Supervisors did reach the 80% threshold for four out of five item responses.
On the fifth item, supervisors reached 76.74%. While overall, as a group, they did not reach the
overall 80% threshold on five out of six items, they came very close to this threshold. Thus, this
survey item identifies an organizational strength for both employees and supervisors.

86

Table 21
Procedural Knowledge Influence 1
Procedural knowledge item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 38) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percent Count Percent Count
The following are knowledge sharing
activities in the organization.

1 Offering to assist others to solve
problems*
86.84 33 95.35 41
2 Attending a training and actively
sharing insights*
94.74 36 93.02 40
3 Offering to provide information that
others need to complete their work*
94.74 36 97.67 42
4 Attending meetings where people share
their best practices*
89.47 34 90.70 39
5 Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management
system*
81.58 31 76.74 33
6 Attending a training 68.42 26 65.12 28

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

Employee and Supervisor Interview Findings
Both employees and supervisors were asked, “How do you share knowledge?” Four out
of four employees discussed a variety of ways they shared knowledge. They all mentioned some
level of frustration with the disorganization and volume of information on the knowledge
management systems. While they all share information on the systems, they did not feel others
were always engaged with the information being shared. Devon said, “A lot of knowledge just
87

exists in people’s heads or in their own personal folder.” Charlie discussed the challenges of
information being shared in meetings and not being captured. On the other hand, Quinn
mentioned hosting informal meetings outside of the workday for people to gather, offer each
other help, and share insights and best practices. Terry explained the challenges of not being in
the same physical room together, limiting the way people connect and offer each other help.
Thus, this is a strength for employees. However, there are clear challenges to executing in how
knowledge is shared that will be explored in the sections on motivation and organization factors.
Four of the five supervisors named ways they share knowledge. After probing, the fifth
supervisor discussed ways they share knowledge as well. All the supervisors said some variation
of how they share knowledge depends on the team and purpose. Kai and Morgan said it
“depends on who” needs the information and for what. They both further explained how they
share information more dynamically with their teams. Morgan discussed sharing behavioral
knowledge with people through informal mentoring. When asked if mentorship was something
the organization provides, they laughed and said, “She was actually kind of laughing about it and
asking me, ‘Why would you do that?’” Four supervisors talked about the challenges of sharing
information to other teams that would support their work. Andie discussed the need for
knowledge sharing to be in the procedural documents so “we’re understanding what’s coming to
us so that we can understand what we’re giving the next guy.” They continued by mentioning
things get lost and, at times, people because people might find a problem and just fix it; however,
they do not share it. Jamie mentioned something similar about being focused on completing your
project and not sharing information during this time. Thus, based on the interviews, this is an
organizational strength for supervisors. Similar to employees, there were challenges in executing
88

on “how to” share knowledge, which will be explored in the sections on motivation and
organization factors.
Summary
Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor procedural knowledge
is a strength.
Summary for Procedural Knowledge
Through the survey question and interview questions, participants shared how they share
knowledge. Participants know how to share their knowledge. All participants named a variety of
spaces where and how they share their knowledge. During the interviews, challenges began to
emerge as to how they shared their knowledge. The challenges will be further explored in this
chapter’s motivation and organization factors sections. From a strict procedural knowledge
standpoint, this is an organizational strength for employees and supervisors.
Metacognitive Knowledge
There are two survey items related to metacognitive knowledge. One pertains to
knowledge sharing, and one pertains to knowledge hiding. There are no direct interview
questions for metacognition knowledge; however, participants addressed their awareness and
lack thereof when asked other questions regarding knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding.
Those findings are shared in the interview findings for the corresponding sections.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1
Stakeholders monitor and evaluate their progress toward knowledge sharing.
Survey results. Participants were asked to identify how they monitor and evaluate their
own knowledge sharing. There are two correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table
22. For employees, there were no correct responses at the 80% threshold per item nor overall two
89

out of four correct responses. Similarly, supervisors did not reach the 80% threshold per item nor
overall two out of four correct responses. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational
challenge for employees and supervisors.

Table 22
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 1
Metacognitive knowledge item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 38) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
I monitor and evaluate my progress in
sharing knowledge with others by (check
all that apply).

1 Collecting data on meeting personal and
department goals*
28.95 11 18.29 15
2 I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge sharing.
47.37 18 21.95 18
3 I am aware of the importance of sharing
materials and knowledge among my team
members.*
73.68 28 42.68 35
4 I have a system for adding relevant
information to the company’s shared
learning or knowledge management
system.
18.24 7 17.07 14

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

90

Interview Findings. There was no specific question regarding monitoring and evaluating
the progress of knowledge sharing. As employees and supervisors spoke about knowledge
sharing throughout the interview, reflections on their practice of knowledge sharing emerged.
When asked who was in the room, four out of four employees named “depends on the context.”
All four discussed there is more clarity when there are requests from your closest working teams.
Three out of four respondents used the word “depends,” and some added on the “context” and
whether it is “formal” or “informal.”
All five supervisors had an awareness of the importance of sharing information with their
teams and others. The theme of the weight and impact of knowledge sharing on different people
was top of mind for four supervisors. One participant said, “I tailor information for who’s in the
room and the set of skills they might have.” Morgan and Riley talked about not wanting to share
information until they had all of the information. Andie was an outlier, saying, “I’m going to tell
everybody, and if they choose not to read it, they can choose not to read it.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor
metacognitive knowledge of knowledge sharing is a challenge.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 2
Stakeholders monitor and evaluate when they hide their knowledge.
Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify how they monitor and evaluate their
own knowledge sharing. There are three correct responses, as indicated by the asterisks in Table
23. For employees, there were no correct responses at the 80% threshold per item nor overall of
three out of four correct responses. Similarly, supervisors did not reach the 80% threshold per
item nor overall of three out of four correct responses. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational challenge for employees and supervisors.
91

Table 23
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 2
Metacognitive knowledge item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 38) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
I monitor and evaluate when I hide my
knowledge. (Check all that apply)

1 I keep track of when someone asks me for
information and I do not share it.*
5.88 2 2.38 1
2 I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge hiding.
61.76 21 59.52 25
3 I am aware of how many meetings or
trainings I skip.*
35.29 12 28.57 12
4 I do not attend “optional” learning or sharing
spaces.*
20.59 7 9.52 4

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

Interview Findings. There was no specific question regarding monitoring and evaluating
the progress of knowledge hiding. As employees and supervisors spoke about knowledge hiding
throughout the interview, reflections on their practice of knowledge hiding emerged. Three out
of four employees discussed acknowledgement of hiding knowledge in specific situations. One
participant stated, “If I don’t think it’s like buttoned-up enough, I won’t share it.” Another
participant mentioned, “I do this at different points” to not distract from the direction of the
conversation. Both participants demonstrated an awareness of when they hide knowledge in
general. Charlie mentioned hiding knowledge if they felt others were just going to pass it off as
92

their own; they were aware if they did not trust someone or feel safe, they would hide their
knowledge.
Three of the five supervisors discussed knowledge hiding when there was “bad” news
that might reflect back on them or when it might be demotivating to their team. Kai and Riley
both said they would hide knowledge if they thought it would discourage their team. Riley said,
“I’m making sure that everybody has what they need to do their job really well.” They continued
by saying there is some information that is not helpful.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor
metacognitive knowledge of knowledge hiding is a challenge.
Summary for Metacognition. In the survey, participants did not correctly identify
behaviors that would build their metacognition for knowledge sharing or knowledge hiding. This
could be because they have other systems for monitoring their progress. However, when people
discussed knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding in the interviews, they spoke about more
general monitoring rather than systematic reflection, monitoring, or evaluation. There was a
theme of awareness that when people get “busy,” they tend to not take the time to share
knowledge the way they would like to. Thus, based on both employee and supervisor
participants, metacognitive knowledge of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding was a
challenge.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Motivation is defined as “what keeps us going, keeps us moving, and tells how much
effort to spend” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 80). There are different motivators for knowledge
sharing and hiding (Connelly & Zweig, 2015). A survey and interview were conducted to build a
93

deeper understanding of strengths and challenges in regards to motivations of knowledge sharing
and knowledge hiding within organizations.
Value
There are two survey items related to value. One pertains to the importance of knowledge
sharing and the individual. The second question asks about the importance of knowledge sharing
to the organization. There is one open-ended question on valuing knowledge sharing in the
interview. The value influence examined in this study was that stakeholders value knowledge
sharing
Survey Results
Participants were asked to identify how important knowledge sharing is to them and to
the success of the organization. The correct response agree or strongly agree. Both supervisors
and employees strongly agreed or agreed beyond the 80% threshold, as demonstrated in Tables
24 and 25. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational strength for employees and
supervisors.

94

Table 24
Value Influence 1
Value motivation item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 38) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Sharing my knowledge with others is
important to me.

1 Strongly disagree 2.33 1
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.26 2
4 Agree 34.21 13 25.58 11
5 Strongly agree 60.53 23 72.09 31

Table 25
Value Influence 1, Question 2
Value motivation item (n = 81)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 43)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Sharing information is important for
the success of the organization.

1 Strongly disagree 2.33 1
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 21.62 8 11.63 15
5 Strongly agree 78.38 29 86.05 37

95

Interview Findings
Both employees and supervisors were asked, “How important is knowledge sharing to
you?” The four employees reported that knowledge sharing was very important. Each participant
discussed ways they formally or informally created systems for knowledge sharing. The sharing
was often an initiative they would take on themselves to support others in their roles. Charlie
discussed sharing research they read and highlighting pertinent sections to support others in their
work. Terry shared their system for organizing new learning with templates that would make it
easy for others to use in their job. Devon went as far as to take on an extra responsibility for their
team as “knowledge management lead.”
All five supervisors found knowledge sharing to be important to share with their teams to
reach desired outcomes. Jamie and Morgan went a step further to say sharing knowledge helps
teams navigate complex problems and industry challenges. Andie and Riley discussed how
sharing knowledge supports people being able to execute on their responsibilities. Riley said,
knowledge sharing is “making sure that everyone is in the loop and has what they need to know,
to get their job done.”
Summary
Based on the survey and interview data, employees and supervisors value knowledge
sharing, and this is an organizational strength.
Summary for Value
The theme of altruism resonated throughout all participant responses in the interviews.
Participants valued helping others engage in their work. Morgan extended their thoughts beyond
the team to the world at large. They said knowledge sharing could help other countries where
their “diseases might not be addressed if the financial equation might not make sense”
96

information sharing could create a more level playing field. Thus, based on the data for both
employee and supervisor participants, motivation of value was a strength.
Positive Emotions: Knowledge Sharing
There are four survey items related to positive emotions of knowledge sharing for
employees. For supervisors, there are three survey items related to positive emotions of
knowledge sharing. There are no direct interview questions for emotions; however, emotions
about knowledge sharing were shared throughout the interviews.
Positive Emotions: Knowledge Sharing (Employee)
The positive emotions influence examined in this study was that stakeholders need to feel
positive about sharing knowledge.
Employee Survey Results. Participants were presented with four statements regarding
their knowledge-sharing comfort and behaviors. All four statements had response options on a
Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. Employees agreed or strongly agreed that
they would share and seek out knowledge at 90% or above, as demonstrated in Tables 26, 27,
and 29 for three out of four statements. Responses for the fourth statement, “I always share my
knowledge at work,” were slightly below the 80% threshold, as displayed in Table 28. Thus, this
survey item identifies an organizational strength for employees.

97

Table 26
Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 1
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I am comfortable sharing knowledge with others.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 43.24 16
5 Strongly agree 56.76 21

Table 27
Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 2
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
Sharing materials and knowledge prepares me to fulfill
my work responsibilities.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.41 2
4 Agree 45.95 17
5 Strongly agree 48.65 18

98

Table 28
Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 3
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I always share my knowledge at work.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 10.81 4
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.51 5
4 Agree 48.65 18
5 Strongly agree 27.03 10

Table 29
Employee Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 4
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I seek out knowledge and information.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2.70 1
4 Agree 43.24 16
5 Strongly agree 54.05 20

99

Employee Interview Findings. There are no direct interview questions for emotions;
however, emotions about knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding were shared throughout the
interviews. All participants acknowledged they do not always share knowledge because of
comfort or to protect themselves or others. In fact, there were a variety of reasons that emerged.
Devon reported,
And I was like, I don’t think that you need to worry about this. So, I’m just not gonna
like, you don’t need to go through the whole story. I’m just gonna give you the solution.
You know, that kind of thing.
Another participant mentioned this might be the only time in the room with that person, “then
that’s like my one silly good impression, or two, to make a statement or to present myself as
someone who can contribute value.” Charlie offered another perspective: “It may be
representative of people not being in a highly excited environment.”
Three of the four participants discussed sharing information that was new to them, and
they perceived it would help them do their job through, for example, an article that they read or
training they attended. The participants, as previously mentioned, organized the materials and
their takeaways from their personal learnings. Then, frequently they would share either when
asked or spontaneously through email or shared team channels. Terry noted that knowledge
sharing “obviously does, I think definitely improve your work, but it doesn’t really get anything
on your to-do list.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee positive emotions about
knowledge sharing is a strength. However, it should be noted that knowledge hiding still occurs.
Employee Summary for Positive Emotions. Emotions about knowledge sharing
encourage sharing or hiding. Participants all named situations that encouraged knowledge hiding;
100

however, they also talked about times when they were excited to share knowledge, particularly
new learning opportunities.
Positive Emotions: Knowledge Sharing (Supervisor)
The supervisor positive emotions influence examined was that they need to feel positive
about sharing knowledge.
Supervisor Survey Results. Participants were presented with four statements about
creating a team. All four statements were on a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Two of the three questions were answered correctly at 90% or above, as demonstrated in Tables
30 and 32. Responses for Statement 2, “I believe creating competition among team members
supports our ability to achieve their goals,” were below the 80% threshold at 61%, as displayed
in Table 31. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational strength for employees.

101

Table 30
Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 1
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I believe it is important for members of the team to share
their knowledge to further the whole team and not
individuals.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2.44 1
4 Agree 34.15 14
5 Strongly agree 63.41 26

Table 31
Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 2
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I believe creating competition among team members
supports our ability to achieve their goals.

1 Strongly disagree 26.83 11
2 Disagree 34.15 14
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.95 9
4 Agree 14.63 6
5 Strongly agree 2.44 1

102

Table 32
Supervisor Positive Emotions Influence 1, Question 3
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I value creating a team atmosphere.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.44 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 19.51 8
5 Strongly agree 78.05 32

Supervisor Interview Findings. There are no direct interview questions for emotions;
however, emotions about knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding were shared throughout the
interviews. All supervisors discussed the importance of creating a team and finding what works
best for the team. All five supervisors also mentioned challenges that arose throughout the day to
day that made knowledge sharing difficult. Andie, Jamie, and Riley acknowledged that project
goals and deadlines would take precedence over slowing the process and knowledge sharing.
Jamie discussed, “moving people from project to project like creates real challenges to finding
time and capacity to doing … like sharing and engaging across projects.” Kai noted the
challenges of being one team that is competitive in nature. They said, “And there’s a lot of
information that is therefore not shared. That’s kind of a breakdown in the structure that we
have.” On the team they managed, they discussed people openly helping each other and sharing
information freely. Morgan named “the temptation to work on crisis and what is, you know, what
has to be delivered tomorrow.”
103

Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, supervisors’ positive emotions
regarding knowledge sharing is a strength.
Summary for Positive Emotions: Knowledge Sharing. Employees and supervisors feel
sharing knowledge is a positive thing. The interview responses across both supervisors and
employees raised some of the challenges with knowledge sharing as a lived daily reality. Some
themes that came up were that there is “no meeting in the hallway” anymore because of COVID.
Employees and supervisors alike spoke to the challenges of COVID and not being able to meet
face to face and connect with others. Also, supervisors did not meet the threshold of
disagreement that “competition among team members supports our ability to achieve their
goals.” In the interviews, the theme that seemed to correspond here is that meeting project goals
was the most important focus. This will be further explored in later sections on mastery goals
and organizational factors.
There was another theme of seeking and organizing learning to share with others among
the employees, but only doing so depending on who is in the room. Participants had a sentiment
about the impression that could be made on people and not always understanding the full context
of everyone in the room. While overall positive emotions about knowledge sharing are a
strength, there are some clear challenges that emerged. The challenges may be addressed through
other factors and could thus shift the way the challenges are perceived, allowing positive
emotions to increase among supervisors and employees.
Positive Emotions: Creativity and Innovation
Three survey items related to positive emotions of creativity and innovation for
employees and supervisors. There are no direct interview questions for emotions; however,
emotions about creativity and innovation were shared throughout the interviews. The creativity
104

and innovation influence examined was that stakeholders need to feel positive about creativity
and innovation.
Survey Results
Employees and supervisors were asked to rate three statements on a Likert scale of
strongly disagree to strongly agree in reference to their emotions on creativity and innovation.
The correct responses were agree or strongly agree at a combined 80% threshold. For all three
statements, both employees and supervisors correctly responded, as shown in Tables 33, 34, and
35. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational strength in positive emotions for creativity
and innovation for employees and supervisors.

Table 33
Positive Emotions Creativity and Innovation Influence 1, Question 1
Positive emotions motivation item (n =78)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 41)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
I believe finding new ways of doing
things is important.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.41 2
4 Agree 40.54 15 53.66 22
5 Strongly agree 54.05 20 46.34 19

105

Table 34
Positive Emotions Creativity and Influence 1, Question 2
Positive emotions motivation item (n = 78)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 41)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
I believe creativity is more achievable
as a team.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.44 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.51 5 12.20 5
4 Agree 37.84 14 36.59 15
5 Strongly agree 48.65 18 48.78 20

Table 35
Positive Emotions Creativity and Influence 1, Question 3
Positive Emotions Motivation Item (n = 78)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 41)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
You often seek out information, resources,
and new contacts.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.44 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 8.11 3 7.32 3
4 Agree 37.84 14 41.46 17
5 Strongly agree 54.05 20 48.78 20
106

Interview Findings
There are no direct interview questions for emotions; however, emotions about creativity
and innovation organically emerged throughout the interviews.
Three out of four employees interviewed discussed their desires for more creativity and
innovation within teams. Charlie named a lack of “free exchange of ideas and knowledge.” They
went on to say, “some of the best innovation happens when a small group of people are able to
just like, roll something out themselves, and mock it up and iterate quickly.” They noted there
are not currently spaces for this level of creativity and innovation. Terry raised the challenges of
being a creative type. They noted that their creativity “needed to be controlled.” They continued
by saying, “it can get difficult sometimes because there is a sort of way of thinking around what
it should look like.” Devon mentioned people in their organization have “a very entrepreneurial
spirit” and “have to, like, come up with your own way to fix things.” However, they talked about
this being a challenge to creating continuity and clarity in ways someone might do something.
They said, “right now, there’s two ways to do it. But we’re going to, hopefully, just have one
soon.”
This idea of having a way of doing something before innovating on it was echoed by
Andie, a supervisor. Supervisors also noted the importance of finding new ways to do things or
being creative as a team. Kai explained about creative meetings, “Those are the best meetings,
you know, because you’re creating together and you’re sharing information and brainstorming.”
They continue by saying, “but that doesn’t happen very much at the senior level. Yeah, it’s more
just shooting out updates and things like that.” Riley mentioned that creativity and innovation
tends to happen in a small group of people; they hoped that there were ways to leverage making
new connections. They discussed an opportunity to shadow others in similar roles to make new
107

contacts and learn new knowledge. However, they noted deadlines often got in the way of
executing this.
Summary
Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisors’ positive emotions
about creativity and innovation are a strength.
Summary for Positive Emotions: Creativity and Innovation
While there are positive attitudes and emotions toward creativity and innovation, the
ways in which they are realized in practice are an opportunity for improvement. Both supervisors
and employees noted the lack of creative spaces and challenges of siloed creation that did not
support organizational success but rather created confusion.
Mastery-Based Climate
There are two different survey items related to mastery-based climate for employees and
supervisors. There are no open-ended questions for both in the interview. However, participants
referenced goals and learning throughout the interviews.
Mastery-Based Climate (Employee)
The employee mastery-based climate influence was that they need to perceive a mastery-
based climate as a way to decrease knowledge hiding.
Employee Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to two statements about
learning and looking good at work. The statements used a Likert scale of strongly disagree to
strongly agree. Employees answered the statement “When things don’t go right, I learn from
them and keep going” correctly at the threshold of 80% or above, as shown in Table 36. For the
second statement in Table 37, “I want to do well at work because it makes me look good,”
108

employees scored 11% on disagree and strongly disagree on answer choices, not meeting the
threshold of 80%. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational challenge for employees.

Table 36
Mastery-Based Climate, Question 1
Mastery-based climate motivation item (n = 38)
Percentage Count
When things don’t go right, I learn from them and keep
going.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.63 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.26 2
4 Agree 50.00 19
5 Strongly agree 42.11 16

109

Table 37
Mastery-Based Climate, Question 2
Mastery-based climate motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I want to do well at work because it makes me look good.
1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1
2 Disagree 8.11 3
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.62 8
4 Agree 48.65 18
5 Strongly agree 18.92 7

Employee Interview Findings. As mentioned, there were no specific questions in the
interview related to mastery-based climate. However, participants referenced goals, learning, and
how others perceived them throughout the interviews. Three out of four participants discussed
explicitly how knowledge or perception of knowledge helps people stand out. Quinn went into
detail about the role of the individual contributor in an organization and their hope to “stand
out.” They went on to say the individual contributor seeks more knowledge so they can be
known as a “person who can help you fix a lot of stuff, he seems to know a lot, share a lot, and
be able to interact in a lot of different scenarios.” Terry spoke about “standing out” firsthand.
They spoke about the fact that people in the organization are asked to be on projects based on
their “perceived knowledge.” In meetings with people you do not often interact with, “you want
to make sure that you’re putting your best foot forward.” Charlie echoed both Quinn and Terry
discussing the desire for people to be in the “limelight” since currently there is a lack of sharing
of accolades and successes across an organization.
110

Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor mastery-
based motivation is a challenge.
Employee Summary for Mastery-Based Climate. The survey and interview responses
confirm the importance of “looking good” to employees. Interviewees discussed the desire to
“look good,” aligned with the perceived organizational expectations of performance. This is
confirmed by the supervisors’ survey and interview responses.
Mastery-Based Climate (Supervisors)
The supervisor mastery-based climate influence examined was that they need to perceive
a mastery-based climate as a way to decrease knowledge hiding.
Supervisor Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to two statements using
Likert scale response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. For each
statement, supervisors did not meet the 80% threshold. For the first statement in Table 38 to be
correct, supervisors would agree or strongly agree that they encourage mastery-based goals at a
threshold of 80% or above. Supervisors reached a 50% threshold. To be correct for the second
statement in Table 39, supervisors would choose to disagree or strongly disagree that they
encourage performance-based goals at 80% or above. For this statement, supervisors chose to
disagree or strongly disagree at 0%. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational challenge
for supervisors.

111

Table 38
Mastery-Based Climate, Question 1
Mastery-based climate motivation item (n = 40) Percentage Count
I encourage mastery-based goals for the team.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 12.50 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 32.50 13
4 Agree 42.50 17
5 Strongly agree 12.50 5

Table 39
Mastery-Based Climate, Question 2
Mastery-based climate motivation item (n = 40) Percentage Count
I encourage performance-based goals.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 7.50 3
4 Agree 70.00 28
5 Strongly agree 22.50 9

112

Supervisor Interview Findings. While there were no direct questions aligned to this
influence, participants referenced goals and learning throughout the interviews. The five
supervisors discussed the challenging impact of performance-based goals, yet they all need to
hold employees accountable for performance-based goals. Jamie discussed this at length, saying,
I would say more often than not there isn’t like an explicit goal on a project about
knowledge sharing or knowledge management. It’s not what we’re held accountable to
within our teams or within our individual performance management structures. So, we do
have a competency in our performance management model about constant learning,
which does have an indicator around generously sharing and seeking knowledge. So, it is
a component of how staff should be evaluated. But in my experience, I feel like the
competencies that have been prioritized are the ones around strategic prioritization,
motivating, and influencing in the work, and constant learning is sort of seen as like, a
nice to have behavior of that’s a nice mindset that you’re seeking and sharing knowledge.
But it isn’t necessarily one that is like, make or break your rating.
This sentiment was echoed when Andie discussed the challenge of providing learning time
because the team is already working “at 125%” to meet their current goals. Kai also named
performance targets as a barrier to knowledge sharing. They said, “everyone has their own KPIs
[key performance indicators]” and that takes precedence even though we are all working toward
“the same company goals.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor mastery-
based climate is a challenge.
Summary for Mastery-Based Climate. Despite performance-based goals being the way
of the organization, both supervisors and employees discussed a desire to disrupt the process for
113

recognition in an organization. As Charlie mentioned, “And I think as long as performance is
tied to individuals … there’s no benefit to collaboration. Because you’re really rewarded only on
your merits.”
Self-Efficacy
There are four survey items related to stakeholder confidence to do their job for self-
efficacy. The questions differ for employees and supervisors. There is one survey item on the
confidence level of sharing knowledge. In the interview, there is one open-ended question on
their confidence levels for sharing knowledge in a variety of contexts.
Self-Efficacy (Employee) Influence 1
Stakeholders need to have confidence in their knowledge and ability to do their job.
Employee Self-Efficacy Survey Results. Participants were presented with four
statements regarding their confidence in their knowledge and ability to do their job. All four
statements had response options on a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. For
three out of four questions, employees agreed or strongly agreed they had the skills and
knowledge to do their job at 90% or above, as demonstrated in Tables 40, 41, and 42. The fourth
statement, “I know what knowledge to share with people when they ask for it,” was 82%, just
above the threshold as displayed in Table 43. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational
strength for employees.

114

Table 40
Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 38) Percentage Count
I am successful in my work.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2.63 1
4 Agree 60.53 23
5 Strongly agree 36.84 14

Table 41
Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 38) Percentage Count
I am confident I can perform the tasks that the role
demands.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 60.53 23
5 Strongly agree 39.47 15

115

Table 42
Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 38) Percentage Count
I am confident I know when to ask for help.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.63 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.26 2
4 Agree 57.89 22
5 Strongly agree 34.21 13

Table 43
Employee Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 4
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 38) Percentage Count
I know what knowledge to share with people when they
ask for it.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.26 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.16 5
4 Agree 55.26 21
5 Strongly agree 26.32 10

116

Employee Self-Efficacy Interview Findings. While there were no direct interview
questions related to this influence, some participants did mention not wanting to share their
knowledge in certain settings because of how they might be perceived by others. One participant
mentioned they would not share something if it was “not buttoned-up.” And in certain meetings,
they would not share unless they were encouraged. One participant shared a story of a junior
researcher not wanting to ask a senior researcher for insights into a question, and this led to five
hours of work for them. From their perspective, if the junior researcher had asked the senior
researcher, it would have been a ten-minute conversation. Yet another participant said, “So, I’m
still new. It’s just I don’t fully know what you do. So, I don’t want to jump in yet.” Devon noted,
“I’m more likely to just share freely because I guess probably because they feel more
comfortable.” And Quinn further noted that “people do not want to show all their cards to
management; feels like they are showing a deficiency.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee self-efficacy is a strength.
Employee Summary for Self-Efficacy. Based on the survey data alone, employee self-
efficacy is a strength. In the interviews, however, employee confidence waned in relation to
asking for help or knowing what to share when others ask. The responses from employees signal
some of the motivations aligned to knowledge hiding and a lack of self-efficacy in some
contexts. While there is compelling data in the interviews, there is not enough data to draw a
different conclusion. Thus, without more data on this, the conclusion remains that employee self-
efficacy is a strength.
Self-Efficacy (Supervisor)
Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1. Stakeholders need to have confidence in their
knowledge and ability to do their job.
117

Supervisor Self-Efficacy Survey Results. Participants were asked to rate four
statements on the Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The first two statements
were related to establishing an environment and understanding the benefits of knowledge sharing
in their organization. For both statements, supervisors met the 80% threshold of agree and
strongly agree, as demonstrated in Tables 44 and 45. For the next two statements in Tables 46
and 47 regarding knowledge hiding, the 80% threshold of agree and strongly agree was not met.
When participants were asked, “I know how to decrease knowledge hiding from happening on
my team,” only 30% agreed, and 11% strongly agreed. Thus, supervisors creating a knowledge-
sharing environment was a strength, but decreasing knowledge hiding is a challenge.

Table 44
Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 43) Percentage Count
I am confident I can create an environment that promotes
knowledge sharing.

1 Strongly disagree 4.65 2
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 9.30 4
4 Agree 51.16 22
5 Strongly agree 34.88 15

118

Table 45
Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 43) Percentage Count
I understand the need and benefits of knowledge sharing.
1 Strongly disagree 2.33 1
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 32.56 14
5 Strongly agree 65.12 28

Table 46
Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 42) Percentage Count
I understand knowledge hiding.
1 Strongly disagree 4.76 2
2 Disagree 2.38 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 26.19 11
4 Agree 50.00 21
5 Strongly agree 16.67 7

119

Table 47
Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 1, Question 4
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 42) Percentage Count
I know how to decrease knowledge hiding from
happening on my team.

1 Strongly disagree 2.38 1
2 Disagree 21.43 9
3 Neither agree nor disagree 26.19 11
4 Agree 38.10 16
5 Strongly agree 11.90 5

Supervisor Self-Efficacy Interview Findings. There were no direct questions asked
about self-efficacy to supervisors, and nothing surfaced organically. This was a missed
opportunity to follow up with direct questions.
Summary. After viewing the survey and interview data, supervisors creating a
knowledge-sharing environment was a strength, but decreasing knowledge hiding is a challenge.
Supervisor Summary for Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy in this data is an organizational
strength for employees. Supervisors also demonstrated self-efficacy in knowledge sharing as an
organizational strength. However, they were less confident that they understood knowledge
hiding and could decrease knowledge hiding. Developing more understanding and skills for
supervisors to decrease knowledge hiding is an opportunity for organizations.
Employee and Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 2
Stakeholders are confident that they can share information in the organization.
120

Survey Results. Participants were asked to identify on a scale of 1 to 10 their level of
confidence in five knowledge-sharing activities in an organization. The correct threshold here is
an average (or mean) of 80%. For employees, four out of five activities met the 80% threshold.
The activity choice of “Adding knowledge to a shared learning system or knowledge
management system” was below the threshold, as displayed in Table 48. Supervisors met the
80% threshold for three activities. As with employees, supervisors missed the threshold for
adding knowledge to a system. Supervisors were just shy of the threshold for “attending a
training and actively sharing insights.” Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational
strength for employees and supervisors in knowledge sharing activities, such as offering to help
others, providing others with information to complete their work, and attending best practices
meetings. For both employees and supervisors, adding knowledge to a system is an
organizational challenge.

121

Table 48
Employee and Supervisor Self-Efficacy Influence 2
Self-efficacy motivation item (n = 81)
Employee mean
(n =38)
Supervisor mean
(n = 43)
Sliding scale 1 to 10
1 Offering to assist others to solve problems* 8 8.71
2 Attending a training and actively sharing
insights*
8 7.88
3 Offering to provide information that others
need to complete their work*
8 8.78
4 Attending meetings where people share their
best practices*
8 8.20
5 Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management system*
6 6.90

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

Supervisor Interview Findings. Both employees and supervisors were asked to discuss
their confidence level and to describe their knowledge-sharing activities aligned to the survey
item in Table 48.
Four out of four employees discussed being confident with offering others assistance and
attending meetings with best practices. There was less consistency in responses related to
offering to provide information and adding knowledge to a shared system. Devon and Terry both
named discomfort and lack of confidence in sharing knowledge with anyone. Charlie mentioned
they spent a lot of time organizing and sharing information. However, many people did not
engage whether it was via email or on a shared management system. They wondered if people
122

got overwhelmed with how to navigate through a system. This echoes Devon and their insights
from an earlier interview question that people have their own systems.
Supervisors all mentioned a challenge with using knowledge systems because “there are
too many channels” and “too many ways to share.” Two of the five supervisors were engaged in
organizing systems and providing guidance to others on where to add information and how to
gain knowledge from the systems. Two of the supervisors were working on finding systems that
worked for their team to share knowledge more seamlessly. Four supervisors mentioned that they
would not feel as confident earlier in their careers to engage in all of these activities. Jamie said,
“I don’t know, if I would have done that, you know, several years ago, you know, at a different
point, in my professional trajectory, perhaps felt like I needed to know the things and be less
comfortable.” Andie and Jamie discussed the need to be an “expert” to share as more junior
employees and not ask questions. Another supervisor mentioned that even sharing now in their
career depended on their own comfort level with the topic they were sharing.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employees demonstrated an overall
strength in their confidence in knowledge sharing.
Summary for Self-Efficacy. Overall confidence was high across employees and
supervisors in knowledge-sharing activities. There was another theme emerging–that when
things got busy, there was less sharing on the part of participants. Participants also often
pondered if time impacted other people’s sharing behaviors. Respondents also noted that when
they shared, sometimes it was a “ghost town” or there were “limited” responses. Supervisor self-
efficacy in knowledge sharing activities is a strength for offering assistance or information for
others to complete their job. In the interview data for employees, who was asking for information
would matter and impact confidence levels. For both employees and supervisors, attending
123

training and sharing insights was a strength. For both employees and supervisors, sharing a
knowledge system was an organizational challenge. Supervisors appeared to be less confident
using knowledge systems than having confidence in the systems to support their team.
Employees also brought up concerns with using of the knowledge systems. Employees raised
concerns about how sharing in the knowledge system or openly at meetings was uncomfortable.
Knowledge sharing was particular to who was in the room. This links to psychological safety.
Psychological safety is explored in the organizational factors.
Collective Efficacy
There are two survey items for employees and three survey items for supervisors on
collective efficacy. There is one open-ended question for both employees and supervisors in the
interview.
Employee Collective Efficacy Influence 1
Stakeholders need to have confidence in their team’s knowledge and ability to do their
job.
Employee Survey Results. Participants were asked to rate two statements on a Likert
scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree in reference to their confidence in their team. The
correct responses were agree or strongly agree at a combined 80% threshold. For both
statements, employees correctly responded, as demonstrated in Tables 49 and 50. Thus, this
survey item identifies an organizational strength in collective efficacy for employees.

124

Table 49
Employee Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1
Collective efficacy motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I believe the current team or department I work with can
accomplish anything they set out to do.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.51 5
4 Agree 40.54 15
5 Strongly agree 43.24 16

Table 50
Employee Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2
Collective efficacy motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I believe my colleagues have knowledge I need to do my
job.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 8.11 3
4 Agree 56.76 21
5 Strongly agree 35.14 13

125

Employee Interview Findings. Participants offered insights throughout their interviews
on their confidence in their team when asked to describe how your team works together to share
knowledge. Four out of four employees discussed the role trust and formality played in how
knowledge was shared. Quinn discussed the usefulness of peer-to-peer meetings to share “the
down and dirty long story.” They continued to address the need for more candid and accountable
meetings in more formal structures. This sentiment came up for Charlie and Terry as well. Terry
discussed a hope for people to reach out more to ask for information from one another before
decisions were made or actions were executed. Charlie mentioned formal spaces were not always
effective. They said, “And then you have one informational piece where someone [is] just talking
about something they did for 25 minutes. And it’s really jarring, and no one pays attention.”
Charlie and Terry also pointed to meaningful knowledge-sharing spaces. Terry mentioned a
space where knowledge sharing was meaningful: “And that’s a space where we can share our
thinking, make connections, what we’ve experienced, what we’ve been leaving on the ground.”
Charlie shared meetings where there was a “free flow” of information and when there was an
opportunity for people to share insights directly related to each other’s work. Devon mentioned
knowledge sharing happened more frequently in their smaller groups “we also like had a
discussion about knowledge sharing at our last meeting, and about how we can share what type
of knowledge we can share to support each other, because we’re all on different teams, but we
have similar roles.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee collective efficacy is a
strength.
Employee Summary for Collective Efficacy. Based on the survey data alone, employee
collective efficacy is a strength. However, in the interviews, employee confidence waned when
126

participants worked or collaborated outside of their most direct working teams. There was not
the same level of collective efficacy. This could be because there is less opportunity for
relationship building. Also, as several employee participants mentioned, being in the zoom room
versus “meeting accidentally in the kitchen” has shifted the way people interact with each other.
This will be explored more in the sections on organizational factors. Thus, the conclusion
remains that employee collective efficacy is a strength.
Supervisor Collective Efficacy
Stakeholders need to have confidence in their team’s knowledge and ability to do their
job.
Supervisor Survey Results. Participants were asked to rate three statements on a Likert
scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree in reference to their confidence in their team. The
correct responses were agree or strongly agree at a combined 80% threshold. Two out of three
statements were below the 80% threshold, as displayed in Tables 51and 52. However, the third
statement was above the 80% threshold, as shown in Table 53. Two out of three statements were
below the threshold creating 67% correct responses. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational challenge in collective efficacy for supervisors.

127

Table 51
Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 1
Collective efficacy motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I believe we have the “right” team to accomplish the
goals of this unit.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 12.20 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 14.63 6
4 Agree 63.41 26
5 Strongly agree 9.76 4

Table 52
Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 2
Collective efficacy motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I believe this team has the knowledge they need to do the
job well.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 17.07 7
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.95 9
4 Agree 56.10 23
5 Strongly agree 4.88 2

128

Table 53
Supervisor Collective Efficacy Influence 1, Question 3
Collective efficacy motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I believe it is important for members of the team to share
their knowledge to further the whole team and not
individuals.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2.44 1
4 Agree 34.15 14
5 Strongly agree 63.41 26

Supervisor Interview Findings. Participants were asked to describe how knowledge is
shared in their team. Across the supervisor participants, there was a theme of responsibility. All
five supervisors named ways they would “ensure everyone followed the process,” “consider how
to help others be happy and do their job well,” or “try not to take up people’s time.” There was a
consensus that there should be multiple kinds of meetings for various functions: “sub-meetings
for problem solving, cross-functional team meetings, and status updates,” to name a few.
Participants mentioned that teams need to understand what others need before and after us in the
process; however, if there is no clarity on that, not all the right information gets shared. Andie,
Jamie, and Morgan brought up the concern of continued silos throughout the organization. Jamie
discussed the opportunity to build more collective efficacy: “Our work as a whole could be
stronger if we came together rather than doing that in isolated ways.” Overall, supervisors had a
129

deep sense of care for the teams they managed; however, a clear confidence was not
communicated.
Summary. Based on survey items and the interview responses, employees demonstrated
an organizational strength in collective efficacy. Supervisor survey and interview data responses
of collective efficacy is a challenge.
Summary for Collective Efficacy. Employee participants said they were more likely to
share knowledge in their direct teams and informal connections. Supervisors discussed being
responsible for setting up a variety of spaces to harness knowledge. As mentioned earlier,
participants discussed the need to “manage information.” There appears to be a level of
disconnect between where and how teams build collective efficacy versus the “responsibility”
supervisors feel for creating those spaces.
Employee Relationships Influence 1
There is one survey item each for employees and supervisors related to relationships.
There are no corresponding open-ended questions; however, participants discussed the
importance of relationships in their workplaces throughout the interviews.
Relationships are important to motivating knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge
hiding.
Employee Relationships Survey Results
Participants were asked to identify on a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly
agree how they maintain relationships. The correct response is agree or strongly agree at the
80% threshold. Employees correctly answer this survey item above the threshold, as shown in
Table 54. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational strength for employees and
supervisors.
130

Table 54
Relationships Motivation
Relationships motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I maintain close social relationships with others.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.41 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 10.81 4
4 Agree 56.76 21
5 Strongly agree 27.03 10

Employee Interview Findings
There was no direct interview question for this influence. However, two out of four
respondents named maintaining social relationships as important and provided informal ways to
connect on knowledge sharing. Terry discussed how an informal group would share information
with each other and discuss pressing issues that they experienced across the organization. Quinn
echoed this when they shared, “And I host a no-management meeting once a month” because it
provides a space to share more openly. The current challenge of COVID was brought up by
Terry. They mentioned, “It is hard to informally connect” with people you do not already know
or work alongside. Charlie and Devon both named connecting with those in roles similar to their
own was important to them. Devon said in their core team, “the meetings are usually pretty
casual,” and natural “knowledge sharing moments” happen in those meetings. Interestingly,
those meetings are hosted by a senior leader, which is different from other employees’
131

experiences with open and informal meetings. Devon noted there is an open agenda that
everyone who attends the meetings adds to.
Summary
Based on the survey and interview data, employee relationship building is a strength for
knowledge sharing. However, how relationship building happens across organizations seems
limited and a potential area to explore more.
Employee Summary for Relationship
While relationship building occurs and is important to employees, how relationship
building happens across organizations seems limited and a potential area to explore more. When
employees discussed the informal spaces they created or participated in, there was a free flow of
knowledge sharing. Finding ways to create more relationship-building opportunities across an
organization, especially with the limitations of COVID could be important.
Supervisor Relationship Motivation Influence 1
Relationships are important to motivating knowledge sharing and decreasing knowledge
hiding.
Supervisor Survey Results
Participants were asked to identify on a Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly
agree how they develop relationships with their reportees. The correct response is agree or
strongly agree at the 80% threshold. Supervisors correctly answered this survey item above the
80% threshold, as displayed in Table 55. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational
strength for supervisors.

132

Table 55
Relationships Motivation
Relationships motivation item (n = 40) Percentage Count
I develop a personal working relationship with all of my
reportees.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree 45.00 18
5 Strongly agree 55.00 22

Supervisor Interview Findings
There was no direct interview question for this influence. Supervisors discussed the
importance of developing working relationships not just with reportees but also with others
across the organization throughout this study’s interviews. Andie discussed a practice of
connecting their reportees with people at various levels of the organization. They stated, “it’s just
belonging, right, you need, especially with COVID.” They continued by saying, “I think
belonging is an important piece. And, it also then gives them the comfort level to ask questions,”
and better understand what you “don’t know.” They also acknowledge this is not the case in all
organizations and named in most other organizations they worked that it was expected that you
“stay in your own lane” and “not step on any toes.” Morgan discussed the challenge of
maintaining some of the casual relationships. They said, “Which is, you know, these days, of
course, you know, there is nothing like the hallway. But it used to be also an important part.”
However, they found ways to connect with others through mentorship. Riley also spoke about
133

the importance of maintaining working relationships beyond direct reports. They identified the
challenge of holding others who do not report to you accountable. Maintaining a work
relationship is an important way to ensure that we ascertain “what we want.”
Summary
Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor factual knowledge of
knowledge hiding is a challenge.
Supervisor Summary for Relationships
Across both employees and supervisors, the importance of connecting across the
organization with a variety of stakeholders was addressed. The concern of being able to connect
more meaningfully because of COVID or being in “Zoom boxes” was raised by several
interviewees. Building relationships and meaningful connections creates a “sense of belonging.”
All participants were able to find groups or teams to connect with. In those spaces, knowledge
sharing is occurring. In the informal spaces in particular, there is organic and authentic
knowledge sharing. However, there is a challenge of creating more opportunities for relationship
building to establish stronger knowledge sharing across the organization. As many participants
mentioned, there is a need for more “cross-fertilization.”
Perceived Equitable Environment
There are three survey items related to a perceived equitable environment for employees
and supervisors. The three items for employees are related to how they are valued, heard, and
respected. The three items for supervisors are related to understanding people from diverse
backgrounds and making space for all to be heard. There is no corresponding open-ended
question; however, participants addressed issues of equity throughout the interviews.
134

Employee Perceived Equitable Environment Influence 1
Stakeholders need to perceive the environment is equitable.
Employee Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to three statements on a
Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The correct response was an 80% threshold
for each item and all items together. For two out of three statements represented in Tables 56 and
58, the employees reached the 80% threshold or above. However, employees scored below the
80% threshold for “My voice is heard in meetings” in Table 57. Employees did not reach the
80% threshold for all three items. Thus, a perceived equitable environment is an organizational
challenge at 67%.

Table 56
Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 1
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
I am valued as a member of this team.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 10.81 4
4 Agree 64.86 24
5 Strongly agree 21.62 8

135

Table 57
Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 2
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
My voice is heard at meetings.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.41 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 18.92 7
4 Agree 64.86 24
5 Strongly agree 10.81 4

Table 58
Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 3
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 37) Percentage Count
My colleagues do not respect me.
1 Strongly disagree 35.14 13
2 Disagree 54.05 20
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.41 2
4 Agree 5.41 2
5 Strongly agree

136

Employee Interview Findings. There were no specific questions related to this
influence. However, there was a theme of “not fully valued” emerging throughout the interviews.
Quinn discussed individual contributors wondering “how to find the way to leadership.” They
articulated the desire for individual contributors to be recognized and seen as someone people
can come to for support and help. Terry shared about how their creativity is valued. She said, “I
think it’s valued in theory. I think in practice, I think it can get difficult sometimes because there
is a sort of way of thinking about what the product should look like.” Charlie mentioned
something similar. They said, “And, you know, there’s kind of a hesitancy to disagree or engage
in scientific debate.” They made a connection between this hesitancy and the different agendas at
the organization. On the other hand, Devon noted, “it’s always urged to share your knowledge or
your opinions. People are also very affirming, you know, like, if someone shares something,
there’s a lot of gratitude.” They discussed further how it was a practice in their meetings to pause
after people share to give space for affirmations either in the chat of the virtual meeting or
verbally.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee perception of equity is an
organizational challenge.
Summary for Perceived Equitable Environments. Based on the survey data alone,
employees missed the threshold with one survey item. With consideration of the interview
responses, a theme emerged of not feeling valued or heard. This further demonstrates the
challenges of the perception of equity.
Perceived Equitable Environment (Supervisor)
Stakeholders need to perceive the environment is equitable.
137

Supervisor Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to three statements on a
Likert scale of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The correct response was strongly agree or
agree at an 80% threshold for all items. For two out of three statements represented in Tables 59
and 60, the supervisors reached the 80% threshold or above. However, supervisors scored below
the 80% threshold for “I am aware of how comments and/or requests can impact people from
diverse backgrounds,” as shown in Table 60. Supervisors did not reach the 80% threshold for all
three items. Thus, a perceived equitable environment is an organizational challenge at 67%.

Table 59
Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 1
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I know how to support people from different backgrounds.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 12.20 5
4 Agree 63.41 26
5 Strongly agree 24.39 10

138

Table 60
Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 2
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 41) Percentage Count
I am aware of how comments and/or requests can impact
people from diverse backgrounds.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.95 9
4 Agree 43.90 18
5 Strongly agree 34.15 14

Table 61
Supervisor Perceived Equitable Environment, Question 3
Perceived equitable environment motivation item (n = 40) Percentage Count
I can create a space where all voices can be heard.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 7.50 3
4 Agree 57.50 23
5 Strongly agree 35.00 14

139

Supervisor Interview Findings. There was no direct question related to this influence.
However, supervisors named ways equity might play a role in the way they interact or create
space with reportees. As previously mentioned, one supervisor mentioned that they were not
comfortable sharing knowledge from all training sessions. Riley specifically named discomfort
with sharing information from an Allyship training. They said, “But some of those more like, I
don’t know, big-picture training, are subjective. So, I don’t feel comfortable sort of like sharing
that.” Jamie mentioned people may not share because they may not feel “empowered because of
like positionality or identity or like uncertainty should speak up or could speak up, or where to
share certain information that they might have.” Both Andie and Morgan reported the
discomforts of being more junior at meetings or not having enough experience. None of the
participants spoke to how they ensured potential discomforts were addressed in the spaces they
created. However, all supervisors did acknowledge the variety of ways they created spaces to
support their reportees, “submeeting, check-ins, whole team meetings,” and so on.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, supervisor perception of equitable
environments is an organizational challenge.
Summary for Perception of Equitable Environments. Employees did not feel heard
but did feel valued and respected. Supervisors reported being able to create spaces where people
heard and supported reportees. Supervisors reported not fully understanding how requests might
impact people of diverse backgrounds. Despite supervisors feeling “I can create a space where
all voices can be heard,” employees reported feeling heard below the 80% threshold. Overall
perceived equity unearthed uneven results. There is an opportunity to learn more about how
employees can feel more heard, and supervisors can create spaces for that to occur. There is an
140

opportunity to further understand the dynamics between employees and supervisors across
organizations.
Results and Findings for Organization Factors
“Aligning culture and behavior” are important in an organization to ensure goals are met
(Clark & Estes, 2008). The organizational messages that are communicated through culture and
climate are important to individuals in an organization (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Schein, 2017). A
survey and interview were conducted to build a deeper understanding of the strengths and
challenges of culture and climate within organizations related to knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding.
Cultural Climate
There are nine survey items related to cultural climate. The first two survey items address
the perception of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. The last three survey items ask
about the signals of knowledge sharing in the organization. The last set are questions related to
the leader’s actions. There are three open-ended questions related to culture. The answers to
these questions will be used through this section.
Cultural Climate Influence 1
Stakeholders need to perceive a culture of knowledge sharing in the organization
Survey results. Participants were asked to respond to two statements on a Likert scale of
strongly disagree to strongly agree. For the first question, the correct response was strongly
agree or agree at an 80% threshold. The second survey item states, “There is a culture of
knowledge hiding in the organization.” The correct response was strongly disagree or disagree at
an 80% threshold. Employees did not meet the 80% threshold for a single item or overall both
items. The first statement was just under the threshold, as shown in Table 62. Supervisors
141

reached the threshold of 80% for the first statement but not the second statement, as represented
in Tables 62 and 63. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational challenge for both
employees and supervisors.

Table 62
Cultural Climate Influence 1, Question 1
Cultural climate influence 1 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
There is a culture of knowledge
sharing in the organization.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 18.92 7 7.69 3
4 Agree 37.84 14 61.54 24
5 Strongly agree 40.54 15 30.77 12

142

Table 63
Cultural Climate Influence 1, Question 2
Cultural climate influence 1 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
There is a culture of knowledge hiding in
the organization.

1 Strongly disagree 13.51 5 7.69 3
2 Disagree 40.54 15 38.46 15
3 Neither agree nor disagree 29.73 11 35.90 14
4 Agree 13.51 5 12.82 5
5 Strongly agree 2.70 1 5.13 2

Interview Findings. Both employees and supervisors were asked three open-ended
questions about culture. They were asked to describe how the culture supports knowledge
sharing, if there was information not shared with them, and how to improve knowledge sharing.
In their responses, participants discussed the culture of knowledge sharing and knowledge
hiding.
Employees acknowledged ways the organization is a knowledge-sharing organization
while also a knowledge hiding organization. For responses related to knowledge sharing, the
overall theme was how easily people shared information. When asked about knowledge hiding,
there was a theme of lack of inclusion. Three participants, Charlie, Devon, and Terry all
discussed the variety of resources and training available through the organization. Charlie
explained how the organization provided seminars from another team in the organization that
143

would help their team make more informed decisions. Terry discussed the variety of tools that
support not “reinventing the wheel.” Devon also noted the variety of platforms and training
available beginning at onboarding. Quinn shared how easy it was to go and ask questions of
anyone.
There are clear elements of knowledge sharing in the organizational culture. There are
also elements of knowledge hiding. Employees noted the lack of inclusion. Terry noted that
organizational leaders may “make decisions without seeking out information” from people closer
to a project. Charlie discussed the silos of teams having their own ways, and this makes it
difficult to share knowledge more effectively across the organization. Charlie also talked about
the challenges of people openly speaking their minds, and they noted, “I don’t know that even
the best of cultures can change that.”
Supervisors also noted examples of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. There was
a theme of creating space and encouragement for knowledge sharing. For knowledge hiding,
there was a theme of access. All supervisors discussed the variety of ways information and
knowledge is shared in the organization. Three of the five supervisors discussed the spaces that
are created to encourage knowledge sharing. But, some of the spaces were more information
sharing where no real interaction occurred: email updates, town halls, all hands, company
newsletters, and so on. These same participants discussed smaller intimate meeting spaces where
more exchange did occur. Andie, Jamie, and Morgan discussed the importance of cross-
functional team meetings to share knowledge and support the project goals. Morgan also
acknowledged that the organization has invested significant time and resources into building a
knowledge-sharing culture through organizational reorganization and using of consultants.
144

When asked about the culture of knowledge hiding, five participants discussed access.
Andie refers to the moment when a project wraps you get a message that says, “The database is
locked; we can now release” the information to all the teams who may need it. However, there is
no real clarity on how to do this. Jamie mentioned that “certain information is only available to
like our executive team or our leadership team. And I would say in most cases, I feel like there
are rationales.” The idea was that the level you are in the organization determines the
information or knowledge you have access to. This idea resonated in Riley’s comment when they
discussed others at the organization felt like there was a culture of knowledge hiding that the
employees unionized. Riley did not feel like knowledge hiding was a problem but noted, “it
could just be because maybe I’m just privy to more information.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employees and supervisors recognize
a challenge with the culture of knowledge sharing and hiding in the organization.
Cultural Climate Influence 2
Stakeholders need to feel that the organization is sending signals that knowledge sharing
is important.
Cultural Climate Influence 2 Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to
four statements related to knowledge sharing. The correct responses were strongly agree and
agree at the 80% threshold per item and overall. Employees reached the threshold of 80% for
two of the statement responses, as demonstrated in Tables 66 and 67. The first statement,
“knowledge sharing is important,” in Table 64 was at 79%, just under the threshold. “All
members share their knowledge” was 46% correct, as displayed in Table 65.
Supervisors did reach the 80% threshold for three out of four items, as displayed in
Tables 64, 66, and 67. For the question that did not reach the threshold, only 28% of supervisors
145

agreed all members share their knowledge as shown in Table 65. Thus, this survey item
identifies an organizational challenge for employees and a strength for supervisors.

Table 64
Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 1

Cultural climate influence 2 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
At my organization, knowledge sharing is
important.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 18.92 7 7.69 3
4 Agree 37.84 14 61.54 24
5 Strongly agree 40.54 15 30.77 12

146

Table 65
Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 2
Cultural climate influence 2 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
At my organization, all members
share their knowledge.

1 Strongly disagree 5.41 2 2.96 1
2 Disagree 27.03 10 33.33 13
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.62 8 35.90 14
4 Agree 40.54 15 28.21 11
5 Strongly agree 5.41 2

Table 66
Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 3
Cultural Climate Influence 2 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Collaboration and teamwork are central
to the work in my organization.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.13 2
4 Agree 67.57 25 38.46 15
5 Strongly agree 29.73 11 56.41 22
147

Table 67
Cultural Climate Influence 2, Question 4
Cultural climate influence 2 (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Continuous learning is important at my
organization.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 5.41 2
3 Neither agree nor disagree 8.11 3 15.38 6
4 Agree 48.65 18 35.90 14
5 Strongly agree 37.84 14 48.72 19

Interview Findings. Both employees and supervisors were asked three open-ended
questions about culture. In their responses, participants discussed the culture of knowledge
sharing. This section will focus on ways continuous learning and collaboration were highlighted
throughout the interview questions. Previous sections discuss interview findings on how
important knowledge sharing is to the organization and participants’ perspectives on whether
members share their knowledge. In summary, both employees and supervisors found the
organization to consider knowledge sharing as important. They also agree that not all members
share their knowledge. At times, in fact, the interviewees themselves do not share knowledge.
Four out of four employees expressed the importance of working in teams, collaborating
on projects, and continuous learning. Devon named the importance of sharing for collaboration
purposes, “we acquire knowledge, and we share it.” They also mentioned a challenge to
148

continuous learning: “change is difficult. People have their own way of doing things that they’re
very used to.” Charlie discussed the collaborative nature of the projects they oversee. They
acknowledged the need to be cross-functional and also continually learn as they engage
throughout the project. Often, agenda items at cross-functional meetings are connected to
decisions that need to be made based on new learnings. Terry also discussed the collaborative
nature of contracts at their organization. There are teams drawn together that work together on a
“common goal to get the client there.”
Supervisors also discussed the importance of continuous learning and collaboration.
Riley mentioned there is a company benefit to pay for classes and courses for people to gain
knowledge for their role. They did note, “They do not advertise it, though; you have to ask.”
Andie mentioned there are team sites that support asynchronous collaboration and people are
encouraged to attend training. They continued, “Anybody who goes to a training, they do a
presentation at a department meeting, or you know, or even just a quick five minute, hey, I
figured out how to do this, I’m going to share this with the rest of the team.” Morgan as
previously mentioned discussed the necessity of collaboration and continually finding ways to
collaborate more effectively. Kai named learning is a “bit chaotic” across the organization;
however, they discussed how collaboration occurs in the teams to varying degrees of success.
Summary. Based on the survey data alone, employees acknowledge aspects of
knowledge sharing being important is a challenge. However, in the interviews, employee and
supervisor participants correctly named aspects of how knowledge sharing is important
throughout this study. Thus, there was a conflict in the data. More weight is given to interviews
in this study because, in the interview space, participants were able to provide additional details
about their understanding of organizational messages related to knowledge sharing, and those
149

details corresponded with the correct answer choices in the survey. Based on the survey and
interview data, there is a strength that aspects of knowledge sharing are important to the
organization for both employees and supervisors.
Cultural Climate Influence 3
Stakeholders need to perceive leaders as modeling knowledge sharing.
Cultural Climate Influence 3 Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to
three statements related to leaders modeling knowledge sharing. The correct response for two
statements was strongly agree and agree at the 80% threshold per item. The correct response for
the statement referring to leaders not sharing their information was strongly disagree and
disagree at the 80% threshold. Employees did not reach the threshold of 80% for two of the
statement responses, as demonstrated in Tables 68 and 69. Employees did reach the 80%
accuracy threshold for the last statement, as shown in Table 70. Supervisors had met and missed
the same thresholds for the three survey item results as displayed in Tables 68, 69, and 70. Thus,
these survey items identify an organizational challenge for employees and a challenge for
supervisors.

150

Table 68
Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 1
Cultural climate (n = 75)
Employee (n = 36) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Leaders at my organization share their
knowledge often.

1 Strongly disagree 2.78
2 Disagree 19.44 12.82 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 8.33 25.64 10
4 Agree 44.44 41.03 16
5 Strongly agree 25.00 20.51 8

Table 69
Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 2
Cultural climate (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Leaders do not share information
readily.

1 Strongly disagree 16.22 15.38 6
2 Disagree 40.54 33.33 13
3 Neither agree nor disagree 24.32 35.90 14
4 Agree 18.92 15.38 6
5 Strongly agree
151

Table 70
Cultural Climate Influence 3, Question 3

Cultural climate (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
The visions, values, and goals of my
organization are clearly defined.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 10.81 4 2.56 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 5.41 2 10.26 4
4 Agree 54.05 20 56.41 22
5 Strongly agree 29.73 11 30.77 12

Interview Findings. There were three open-ended questions related to culture. However,
the perception of the leader was reflected by participants throughout the interviews. The theme
of leaders as role models emerged throughout the answers. Alongside modeling was a theme of
concern for how formal knowledge sharing can be when senior leaders are present.
Four out of four employees remarked on how leaders play a significant role in how
knowledge sharing or knowledge hiding occurs in an organization. Three out of four participants
mentioned that when senior leaders were in the room, the conversation was more formal. They
both spoke to knowledge sharing being more meaningful. As previously mentioned, Quinn noted
the importance of meetings without managers present because people share more deeply with
one another. Terry mentioned a time when a close colleague did not share knowledge with her
until they were in a meeting with a senior leader. They shared this about their experience with
152

this colleague: “They perceive it as being like, really great knowledge and information will want
to present it in a way that they may have more leverage in a space where higher-ups.” Devon
also mentioned that in meetings with a senior leader, it is more formal and focused on “more like
major updates,” not exchanging information or “brainstorming.” Charlie elaborated on the role
the leader could play in meetings, “really champion and exemplify these practices, and doesn’t
necessarily have to be good science, just it’s sort of the intent of, hey, here’s something I’ve
read, here’s, or, like, you guys should attend this event.” On the other hand, one participant had
high praise for their leader. Quinn discussed the CEO “showing up whenever you need their
help.” They mentioned the openness and support of the leader was clearly aligned to the vision
and values.
Two employees went into depth about how the vision and values were visibly aligned
with a knowledge-sharing culture. Devon said, while the value is more acquiring knowledge than
sharing it, “it’s pretty, like, woven into the organizational values that we learn, we try to acquire
knowledge, and we share it.” They continued, “the way that people talk to you and the things that
they say, but just that like everyone’s perspective is very valued and important.” Quinn said
knowledge sharing, to them, was connected to removing the stigma of talking openly. They
made a connection with their organization by saying the organization is living its vision inside
the organization and outside the organization. They said, “So, I think it’s a little easier in the
space we’re in as well to where it just is part of the natural DNA.” Charlie and Terry discussed
how there is no clarity inherently or specifically on vision, values, and goals. They both
mentioned creating an environment that values questioning. Terry said knowledge sharing could
be improved by creating space so “that we’re also able to ask questions, or able to, like, be
curious about each other’s work versus, you know, coming into the need to present what I did.”
153

And Charlie shared people do not openly ask questions and “without any clear messaging [from
the organization] say that no question is stupid or … I’m not going to ding you for that [stupid
questions],” people may never feel comfortable asking a question.
A few supervisor participants also discussed the vision, values, and organizational goals.
Andie shared a system where the entire organization can recognize each other for their values.
They said, “So, there’s a lot of encouragement for, for knowledge sharing,” and for living the
other values, “it really does encourage people to collaborate and to help others.” Another
participant discussed the “chaotic” nature of the organization, saying, “the direction is unclear.”
They went on to say the leader seems to change their direction often. The theme of changing
direction also was mentioned by Andie. The organization was restructured three times in the
three and half years they were there. They continued by sharing, “And I think they’re just trying
to figure out how best to be able to share information in the right.” They spoke about the
pyramid of knowledge and information coming from the “top down” and the need for it to go
“bottom up,” too. They named the need for tools for “both ways” to be successful.
Morgan said creating the environment to be successful often comes down to the leader.
They shared leaders, “especially, you know, the very highest leadership behaves, sets the tone for
the rest of the organization, if you want to or not, right. So, so then the question is, how
successful is the leadership to set the right tone.” They went on to describe two different types of
leaders. About one effective leader, they said, “You know, leaders that are very encouraging to
teams. They really wanted to understand what the teams were thinking, wanted to hear different
options for development, and wanted the team to think it through. Well, it’s very encouraging
and nurturing in a way, right.” About an ineffective leader, they said, “There’s a senior leader
who, you know, you come with a proposal. And pretty much what you get is I don’t like it, and
154

here’s what you should be doing.” They continued by saying this kind of leader distracts from
the goals the work is about: “trying to please that individual and you’re almost less focused on
the ultimate goal.” Jamie also discussed experiences where the leadership changed the tides of
how people focused on the goals and how values were lived inside an organization. They shared,
“you were meant to be like an expert all the time” and now “still not perfect, and other people
may feel different, but I think from my time, I have seen us get better about encouraging that
kind of like learning mindset.” Much of what was shared aligned with this influence continued in
participants’ perspectives of psychological safety, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor leadership
perception as supporting knowledge sharing is an overall challenge.
Summary for Cultural Climate. Throughout this section and this study, knowledge
hiding emerges as a challenge in organizations. An opportunity to improve this section of the
study could be to ask about continuous improvement versus continuous learning. The conflict of
importance versus action surfaced through the interviews. Also, collaboration seems to ring
through in teams aligned on shared projects; however, collaboration across the organization is
less supported by the organization, as evidenced in other sections. Participants name the need for
collaboration on “shared project goals” or “cross-fertilization on the same compounds.”
Leaders play an important role in people’s perception of knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding. Seven out of nine participants made a reference to “it starts at the top.”
Leaders “set the tone,” often “set the agenda,” and influence the ways people engage across the
organization. As one participant said, “If the teacher is always faced on the board and writing
words on it, then it’s not going to have questions. So, you kind of need to be facing the audience
and get the ball rolling by asking questions.”
155

Cultural Structures
There are four survey items related to culture structures: two pertain to rewards and
recognition of knowledge sharing, and two pertain to the systems for knowledge sharing. There
are three open-ended questions related to culture. The answers to these questions will be used
throughout this section.
Cultural Structures Influence 1
Stakeholders are more likely to share knowledge if they think this behavior will be
personally rewarded.
Cultural Structure Influence 1 Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to
two statements related to recognition and rewards. The correct responses are strongly agree and
agree at the 80% threshold per item and overall. Employees did not reach the threshold of 80%
for two of the statement responses, as demonstrated in Tables 71 and 72. Roughly 19% of
employees agreed or strongly agreed that there are clear incentives for knowledge sharing. Also,
38% of employees agreed or strongly agreed people are recognized for their impact on
knowledge sharing.
Supervisors also did not reach the 80% threshold for both statements, as displayed in
Tables 71 and 72. The percentages were similar to employee responses at roughly 20% for
incentives and 31% for recognition. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational challenge
for employees and supervisors.

156

Table 71
Cultural Structures Influence 1, Question 1
Cultural structure (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
There are clear incentives for knowledge
sharing.

1 Strongly disagree 8.11 3 5.13 2
2 Disagree 43.24 16 35.90 14
3 Neither agree nor disagree 29.73 11 38.46 15
4 Agree 10.81 4 15.38 6
5 Strongly agree 8.11 3 5.13 2

157

Table 72
Cultural Structures Influence 1, Question 2
Cultural Climate (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
People are recognized for their
knowledge sharing and the impact of
their contributions.

1 Strongly disagree 1 2.70 2.56 1
2 Disagree 10 27.03 41.03 16
3 Neither agree nor disagree 12 32.43 25.64 10
4 Agree 10 27.03 23.08 9
5 Strongly agree 4 10.81 7.69 3

Interview Findings. Participants were asked three open-ended questions aligned to the
culture of the organization. However, participants discussed rewards and recognition throughout
the interviews. Some of the comments were shared in previous sections.
The four employees discussed rewards and recognition of knowledge sharing. Three out
of four participants discussed the lack of rewards and recognition for knowledge sharing. Charlie
discussed the importance of “the incentive structures and the disincentive structures that exist.”
They continued by saying if incentives are always aligned to performance and individuals, there
is no safety or “benefit to collaboration.” When asked how to improve knowledge sharing and
decrease knowledge hiding, Terry responded by saying,
Could be great for the organization to think about ways to encourage or support, maybe
reward organizations and teams for documenting best practices, lessons learned, contract
158

and making those visible, and maybe encouraging folks to do that throughout. So that this
lessons learned document at the end of a project is really actionable, and specific, and
highlights those tweaks that we may, those nuances you may have made throughout the
project, that wouldn’t necessarily be something that we actually see, when we look back
at the project, or piece of work. I feel like if there’s something we could reward, draft
thinking or like real time, knowledge sharing, I think that could be really great. And I
think that could help build this community, or this culture of feeling comfortable and
okay, sharing draft knowledge.”
Conversely, Devon noted that there was acknowledgement and gratitude for sharing. Quinn
acknowledged a potential additional recognition and reward. They spoke about knowledge
sharing giving them an opportunity to connect with people. Connecting with people for them was
important as an “extrovert.”
Supervisors also spoke to the importance of incentives and recognition of knowledge
sharing. As previously mentioned, Kai acknowledged that KPIs are “tied to bonuses.” And the
KPIs in their current state create “competition” among the leadership team. Jamie shared a
similar connection between KPIs and bonuses. In their organization, knowledge sharing and
learning are in the performance indicators. However, they explained that “it doesn’t rise to the
top of all the competencies and skills that we tend to value amongst our employees. It isn’t the
one saying like, you get the bonus this year, because you were really good at this.” Morgan
discussed the importance of creating incentives across the industry for knowledge sharing. They
explained that this is challenging and complex but considered perhaps “get non-for-profit more
involved” could help mitigate the challenges by providing funding. Riley shared, as previously
mentioned, that there are benefits that are not always shared. One they specifically named was
159

the incentive to take learnings that are paid for by the company. They said, “I feel like it would
be nice if someone was saying, you know this is like, a fantastic perk that you can get. You
should try to do this. It’s kind of buried.” As previously mentioned, Andie discussed an
organizational leader through incentivizing by creating 20% of job responsibilities for
knowledge sharing and process innovation responsibilities. However, Andie felt that was not
feasible. They mentioned that teams are already working “nights and weekends” to meet their
current responsibilities.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor incentives
and recognition are a challenge.
Cultural Structures Influence 2
Stakeholders need to be able to access a variety of systems and networks to share their
knowledge.
Cultural Structures Influence 2 Survey Results. Participants were asked to respond to
two statements related to the variety and accessibility of knowledge-sharing systems. The correct
responses are strongly agree and agree at the 80% threshold per item and overall. Employees did
not reach the threshold of 80% for two of the statement responses, as demonstrated in Tables 73
and 74. Roughly 57% of employees agreed or strongly agreed that there are a variety of systems
for knowledge collecting. Also, 44% of employees agreed or strongly agreed the systems are
accessible.
Supervisors also did not reach the 80% threshold for both statements, as displayed in
Tables 73 and 74. The responses were roughly 44% strongly agree or agree for a variety of
systems, and 31% strongly agree or agree for accessibility. Thus, this survey item identifies an
organizational challenge for both employees and supervisors.
160

Table 73
Cultural Structures, Influence 2, Question 1
Cultural structures (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
There are a variety of systems for
collecting knowledge.

1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1 5.13 2
2 Disagree 21.62 8 17.95 7
3 Neither agree nor disagree 18.92 7 17.95 7
4 Agree 45.95 17 51.28 20
5 Strongly agree 10.81 4 7.69 3

161

Table 74
Cultural Structures Influence 2, Question 2
Cultural structures (n = 75)
Employee (n = 36) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
The systems of knowledge sharing are
easily accessible by all.

1 Strongly disagree 5.56 2 10.26 4
2 Disagree 27.78 10 35.90 14
3 Neither agree nor disagree 22.22 8 20.51 8
4 Agree 33.33 12 33.33 13
5 Strongly agree 11.11 4

Interview Findings. Participants were asked three open-ended questions aligned to the
culture of the organization. However, participants discussed knowledge management systems
and other platforms, like Slack, throughout the interviews. Some of the comments were shared in
previous sections. Both supervisors and employees expressed a desire for “ease” across the
interview regarding systems. Also, the participants raised the need for “less formal” systems,
platforms, or opportunities to collect/share knowledge.
Four out of four employees referenced the variety of systems used in their organizations.
Many of the systems people named at first included platforms such as Sharepoint and Slack. In
reference to knowledge management systems, Devon said, “it’s currently there, but it doesn’t
have structure.” They continued by saying, “we’re still trying to kind of figure things out,” and
“how to organize it,” and how to “get everybody in the organization to use the resources without,
162

you know, messaging us and asking all the time.” These quotes echoed what Charlie and Terry
shared as well. Charlie shared, “at least having a common standard through which people will
communicate” and “commitment from everyone” to participate is important to the success of
knowledge sharing systems. Terry suggested in addition to the formal system that “communities
of practice around specific topics” could enhance knowledge sharing. Quinn, as previously
mentioned, discussed using informal gatherings and mentoring as ways to increase knowledge
sharing.
All five supervisors named the variety of formal and informal knowledge-sharing
systems used in their organization. As with employees, systems like Sharepoint and Slack were
commonly used to collect knowledge. Similarly, there was expressed frustration with the system
being challenging to “keep up with” or “find” things. Andie said there is required training for the
systems; however, even though training documents are uploaded, “the documents are not always
properly linked together in the system.” They also mentioned that to improve the systems,
whether on a platform or within a process, “You need to hire more people.” They continued by
saying, “It really is more about having cross-functional review of things that talk to each other,
you know, we’re having a focus team that can really create a roadmap of the spaghetti of how
things, you know, touch.” They fully recognized that the reality of a role like this would
probably not happen in today’s current economy.
Jamie echoed the extensive training that occurs for the systems, and also acknowledged
that is only part of the work to implement the system with fidelity and accessibility. They
continued by saying, “We need to build up meeting people where they are and their workflows.”
It is paramount to build in knowledge sharing during the process. They explained, “It is built into
how we launch consulting engagements, how we wrap them up with their sort of like, clear
163

processes and steps around each of those phases that make it feel embedded in the work that
people are doing, rather than becoming this extra task.”
Morgan expressed the importance and value of mentoring, as previously mentioned. They
shared, “A very important part is just to have the right infrastructure set up to share information.”
They continued talking about the need to make it easy, “easy to search for something, it’s easy to
find something or at least it’s easy to find out who’s working on it, and who might have more
information.” If it takes too long, they remarked, “sometimes it just falls under the table, and I
don’t follow up. So, it’s the ease with which you can find a person or information that is very
important.” They also spoke about having “the right meetings set up” to ensure information is
shared and discussed meaningfully.
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor knowledge
systems are a challenge.
Summary for Cultural Structures. Lack of recognition and incentive of knowledge
sharing echoed throughout all the interviews. Participants also noted learning behaviors,
including knowledge sharing, were not rewarded, or as one participant put it, “the make it or
break it of your bonus.” There were also a few other ways knowledge sharing was incentivized
across participants. Some participants did name some non-direct monetized incentives for
knowledge sharing, such as promotion (without raise), mentoring, recognition through
affirmation, or paid learning experiences. Aside from not being rewarded, there was no clear
accountability for knowledge sharing aligned to performance measures. As one participant said,
“There’s no benefit to collaboration. Because you’re only really rewarded on your merits.”
Many participants acknowledged a lack of “time” and a lack of “ease” for contributing or
using the systems. One participant said, “People need time to think.” Another named “meeting
164

people where they are and their workflows … rather than becoming this extra task.” And yet
another participant discussed the importance of having more open space to build community
around sharing knowledge. One participant mentioned, “there is no accountability for knowledge
sharing.”
Culture: Supportive Environment
There are eight survey items related to culture and supportive environments. Four pertain
to trust and safety. Four items are related to equity and fairness in the organization. There are
three open-ended questions related to culture. The answers to these questions will be used
throughout this section.
Supportive Environment Influence 1
Stakeholders need to perceive trust and safety to share their knowledge.
Supportive Environments Influence 1 Survey Results. Participants were asked to
respond to four statements related to trust and safety. The correct response was strongly agree
and agree at the 80% threshold per item. Employees did reach the 80% accuracy threshold for
three out of four statements, as displayed in Tables 75, 76, and 78. For the survey item, “It is ok
to make mistakes at my organization,” employees did not meet the 80% threshold. The correct
response was reported by 70% of the respondents, as shown in Table 77. Supervisors met and
missed the same thresholds for the four survey item results as displayed in Tables 75, 76, 77, and
78. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational strength for employees and supervisors.

165

Table 75
Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 1
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Members of my organization are
trustworthy.

1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 2.70 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 13.51 5 5.13 2
4 Agree 67.57 25 58.97 23
5 Strongly agree 16.22 6 35.90 14

Table 76
Cultural environment Influence 1, Question 2
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Members of my organization are reliable.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree 10.81 4 10.26 4
4 Agree 67.57 27 58.97 23
5 Strongly agree 16.22 6 30.77 12
166

Table 77
Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 3
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
It is ok to make mistakes at my
organization.

1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1
2 Disagree 10.81 4 10.26 4
3 Neither agree nor disagree 16.22 6 23.08 9
4 Agree 59.46 22 43.59 17
5 Strongly agree 10.81 4 23.08 9

Table 78
Cultural Environment Influence 1, Question 4
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
It is easy to ask for help at my
organization.

1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1
2 Disagree 2.70 1 2.56 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 10.81 4 15.38 6
4 Agree 59.46 22 56.41 22
5 Strongly agree 24.32 9 25.64 10
167

Interview Findings. There were three open-ended questions about culture asked in the
interviews. Participants discussed the theme of safety. Some of those safety concerns were
named in previous sections. For example, “not feeling like there is a culture for asking
questions.”
The four participants discussed safety to be vulnerable in a variety of ways. Charlie said
about their current organization, “people don’t feel like they can be trustful at work. And I think
you need a little bit of that trust to encourage people to kind of be vulnerable with whatever their
knowledge deficits are.” At a previous organization, Charlie mentioned that a previous manager
would “pawn off” their work as the manager’s own. They continued by saying, “It was a power
broker in the company, so I couldn’t do much about it.” Quinn and Terry discussed ways they
and their colleagues did not feel comfortable sharing knowledge, asking questions, or
acknowledging mistakes. Quinn shared, “People are scared. They’re hiding it because they don’t
want people to know the ugly truth, because they think it’s gonna look really bad on them.”
The idea of safety and vulnerability emerged across supervisors as well. Andie spoke
about another organization they previously worked at where the leadership actually told them,
“Don’t ask stupid questions.” They continued by saying that “really set me up for kind of a living
on eggshells world for years.” In this current organization, the participant noted, “There is more
collaboration.” They felt in the current organization, “A screw-up is not necessarily a failure. It’s
a Learning Adventure. And that’s one of the things that is really encouraged here.” Although
they also discussed not sharing with other teams when mistakes or missteps occurred in a project.
The lack of trust people have for each other as they hand off project steps. They said people will
redo parts of a project because “that information didn’t land with the next person to understand,
and they do not trust it was done.” Morgan echoed sentiments about sharing mistakes and
168

missteps. They said sharing mistakes or failures could harm the team’s reputation, despite the
fact that there is only a “10% success rate” in their industry. Jamie reflected on how people feel
in the organization when they need to ask for help. They reported “a nervousness to like, ask
something for fear of like, looking uninformed, or looking not knowledgeable. And being self-
conscious about sort of like taking that position of asking a question or asking for help.”
Summary. Based on the survey data alone, employee and supervisor trust and
psychological safety are strengths. In the interviews, however, employee and supervisor
participants identified concerns with safety. Thus, there was a conflict in the data. More weight is
given to interviews in this study because, in the interview space, participants were able to
provide additional details about their experiences, and those details corresponded with trust and
safety not being a strength. It could have been the wording of the question that created this
conflict. Thus, for both employees and supervisors, safety is a challenge.
Supportive Environment Influence 2
Stakeholders need to perceive a sense of equity and fairness in the organization.
Supportive Environment Influence 2 Survey Results. Participants were asked to
respond to four statements related to fairness. The correct response for all statements was
strongly agree and agree at the 80% threshold per item. Employees did not reach the 80%
threshold for three out of four responses as demonstrated in Tables 80, 81 and 82. Employees did
reach the 80% accuracy threshold for the first statement, “Equity is important in my
organization,” in Table 79. Similar to employees, supervisors did not meet the 80% threshold for
three survey items, as displayed in Tables 80, 81, and 82. Supervisors also reached the 80%
threshold for the first statement, “Equity is important in my organization,” in Table 79. While
both employees and supervisors were below the threshold for the same three statements, it is
169

important to highlight there was a substantial difference between employee and supervisor
correct responses. Employees reported 52%, 29%, and 19% accuracy for Statements 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. Supervisors reported 72%, 67%, and 53% accuracy for Statements 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. Thus, this survey item identifies an organizational challenge for both employees
and a challenge for supervisors.

Table 79
Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 1
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
Equity is important at my organization.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree 8.11 3
3 Neither agree nor disagree 16.22 6 17.95 7
4 Agree 51.35 19 38.46 15
5 Strongly agree 24.32 9 43.59 17

170

Table 80
Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 2
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
All members of the organization are
valued.

1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1
2 Disagree 21.62 8 7.69 3
3 Neither agree nor disagree 24.32 9 23.08 9
4 Agree 29.73 11 43.59 17
5 Strongly agree 21.62 8 25.64 10

Table 81
Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 3
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
All members are recognized fairly.
1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1 2.56 1
2 Disagree 18.92 7 12.82 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 48.65 18 28.21 11
4 Agree 16.22 6 35.90 14
5 Strongly agree 12.51 5 20.51 8

171

Table 82
Cultural Environment Influence 2, Question 4
Cultural environment (n = 76)
Employee (n = 37) Supervisor (n = 39)
Percentage Count Percentage Count
All members are given the same
kinds of opportunities.

1 Strongly disagree 2.70 1 5.13 2
2 Disagree 29.73 11 15.38 6
3 Neither agree nor disagree 48.65 18 25.64 10
4 Agree 8.11 3 38.46 15
5 Strongly agree 10.81 4 15.38 6

Interview Findings. Participants were asked three open-ended questions about culture.
In their answer and throughout the interviews, participants raised themes and evidence regarding
fairness. Three out of four participants raised fairness through the lens of those with perceived
knowledge-gain opportunities. Terry explicitly stated, “They [the organization] do a good job of
rewarding people that they perceive to have knowledge.” They continued, “I am seeing that they
are elevated in a variety of positions. And that’s formally and informally on working groups on,
you know, cross-functional teams.”
Quinn, as previously mentioned, said “individual contributors” gain knowledge to be
recognized. They explained these people who appear to have knowledge of a variety of things
become “the person that people are called on inside of an organization potentially, to be like,
hey, this person can go help, fix a lot of stuff, he seems to know a lot, share a lot, and be able to
172

interact in a lot of different scenarios.” Charlie shared they were receiving a promotion and felt
this was due to their willingness to speak up. They shared, “One of my colleagues who’s in a
similar age bracket to me but has been at the company for seven years is very hesitant to sort of
put an opinion forward or ask a question or share an idea.” They also shared their take on why
people hold back:
There’s different stakeholders with different agendas, sending out different opinions into
the ether email, in response to even if it’s just a scientific publication, you know, maybe
that people are concerned about what that looks like, or, or things like this. And, you
know, there’s kind of a hesitancy to disagree or engage in scientific debate.
While they do not hesitate to share, they explained there is often “no feedback, which is kind of
irritating.” Devon, as previously mentioned, felt that people were recognized and heard. They
also shared that when senior leaders are at the meeting, it is not usually free-flowing. It was often
“sharing of an update.”
Three supervisors mentioned power dynamics as an obstacle to fairness. Kai shared that
the leadership meetings were often “just information sharing” and lacked consistency. They
continued, “But when I do have control, I’m like, with my team, I do try to do that. I think it
makes more sense to have different perspectives. You know, when you’re trying to create
something new, there’s certainly going to be things that I haven’t thought about that someone
else will.” Morgan discussed decision making and lack of voices in the room. They shared, “The
meetings where decisions are made have limited, very limited attendees.” They continued,
“When, you know, key decisions are made, I think you want to have more people present, that
they understand how decisions are made, and are more comfortable with them and also learn.”
173

Riley did not mention fairness explicitly. However, they did discuss the hierarchy of the
flow of information. They mentioned emails about decisions are sent out to all members of the
organization. When probed how they felt about the information in the email, they responded, the
“union that was formed a couple years ago was to get greater transparency. … I never personally
felt like that was a huge problem. But it could just be because maybe I’m just privy to more
information.” While Andie discussed the encouragement the senior leaders provide to all
members of the team. They reported, “People are very amenable to trying new things. We’ve had
to think outside of the box, and that teamwork is really kind of cool. And that’s at all levels,
people are encouraged to provide input and feedback on that.”
Summary. Based on the survey and interview data, employee and supervisor fairness is a
challenge.
Summary for Culture: Supportive Environments. While the survey results
demonstrated trust and psychological safety as strengths, there was conflicting data presented in
the interviews. Throughout the various sections, themes of not wanting to be seen as not
knowing, sharing “draft knowledge,” needing to be “the expert,” and feeling open to ask
questions were shared. Although there do appear to be pockets of safety for people, their closest
team members and colleagues provided them with safe spaces to share knowledge and concerns.
Given the extensive data in the interviews, trust and psychological safety is a challenge for
organizations.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 83, 84, and 85 show the KMO influences and their determination as a strength or a
challenge. Table 86 summarizes the overall themes across each factor. Appendix E contains the
code book.
174

Table 83
Knowledge Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge influence Strength or challenge for
employees
Strength or challenge for
supervisors
Factual
Sharing Strength Strength
Hiding Weakness Weakness
Conceptual
Sharing Strength Strength
Hiding Strength Strength
Procedural
Sharing Strength Strength
Metacognitive
Sharing Weakness Weakness
Hiding Weakness Weakness

175

Table 84
Motivation Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge
influence
Strength or challenge for
employees
Strength or challenge for
supervisors
Value
Important to self Strength Strength
Important to organization Strength Strength
Positive emotions
Knowledge sharing Strength Strength
Creativity and innovation Strength Strength
Mastery-based culture
Focus on mastery Challenge Challenge
Self-efficacy
Sharing Strength Strength
Hiding No questions asked Challenge
Sharing activities (offering
assistance, information, and
sharing from training)
Strength Strength
Sharing activities (adding to
knowledge system)
Challenge Challenge
Collective efficacy
Team efficacy Strength Challenge
Perceived equitable environment
Feedback Challenge Challenge

176

Table 85
Organizational Strengths or Challenges As Determined by the Data
Assumed knowledge
influence
Strength or challenge for
employees
Strength or challenge for
supervisors
Cultural climate
Perception Challenge Challenge
Signals Strength Strength
Leaders Challenge Challenge
Cultural structure
Rewards and recognition Challenge Challenge
Systems Challenge Challenge
Cultural: supportive
environment

Trust and safety Challenge Challenge
Fairness Challenge Challenge

177

Table 86
Quotes
Themes Example quote
Siloed Andie said, “That information didn’t land with the next person/department
to understand and they do not trust it was done.”
Valued
positively
Riley said, “Making sure that everyone is in the loop and has what they
need to know, to get their jobs done.”
Performance
versus mastery
goals
Jamie stated, “that’s a nice mindset that you’re like seeking and sharing
knowledge. But it isn’t necessarily one that … make or break your
rating.”
Feedback loop Kai mentioned, “just information sharing.”
Leadership Morgan stated, “The very highest leadership behaves, sets the tone for the
rest of the organization.”
Incentives Charlie said, “In the incentive structures … there is no benefit to
collaboration.”
Systems Devon said, “It’s currently there, but it doesn’t have structure.”
Safety and
fairness
Terry said, “They [the organization] do a good job of rewarding people that
they perceive to have knowledge.”

There are gaps in creating knowledge-sharing organizations where knowledge hiding is
minimized. The next chapter will explore recommendations and solutions to the challenges
highlighted in the discussion section.

178

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
This study is a field evaluation using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis
framework to identify gaps and make recommendations on how to increase knowledge sharing
and decrease knowledge hiding. The study examines how collective self-efficacy, spaces for
knowledge exchange, valuing diversity of thought, preventing stereotype threats, motivations,
power dynamics, and trust impact knowledge sharing and/or hiding behaviors in an organization.
The questions that guide the study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence
knowledge hiding and equitable knowledge sharing in organizations?
2. What are the recommendations for organizations to decrease knowledge hiding to
increase knowledge sharing and innovation?
Discussion of the Results and Findings
Participants understand knowledge sharing both factually and conceptually. They also
expressed a variety of ways in which they share knowledge. These are strengths. Knowledge
hiding is a challenge for both employees and supervisors. This could be because they do not
understand what knowledge hiding is or do not want to understand. To speak about knowledge
hiding, some participants were comforted to hear it was not a judgment zone. And it is not. all
people hide knowledge. In fact, could it be that knowledge hiding is the more common tendency
and emotional experience (Connelly et al., 2015)? Throughout the interviews, people spoke
about cultural and school influences that taught them not to speak out or openly share
knowledge. And after sharing, participants often shared a statement like, “I’m not sure if that’s
right.” It is right; it is a lived experience of how knowledge sharing and hiding happens in our
world. Most importantly, understanding the root of it helps us to strengthen opportunities for
179

knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 2019; Serenko & Bontis,
2016; Xiong et al., 2021). One gap to highlight is the challenge of metacognition for both sharing
and hiding. Often, people were not taught to self-regulate (Ambrose et al., 2010; Cho & Shen,
2013). Schooling in the past century was more about pouring knowledge into people, not
dynamically engaging with knowledge (Freire, 2018), and there are many instances where that is
still the case. This means there is an opportunity to build people’s metacognitive skills.
Engaging confidently in knowledge activities was a strength for participants, except for
sharing knowledge on knowledge management systems (KMS). There were challenges to
navigating such systems. Sharing on a KMS is currently an afterthought. It is another step in a
person’s workflow; it is not integrated and thus does not always get done. Also, many
participants discussed there was little feedback or connection around what was shared on the
system. This created feelings of frustration and lack of commitment for some participants. A
theme of reciprocity also emerged as participants discussed the challenge of gaining access to the
knowledge they needed from the KMS (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Osterloh & Frey, 2000, 2002).
If people shared their learnings more frequently from a project, others in the organization would
gain from it (Ahmad & Karim, 2019; Babic et al., 2019). In turn, the people who share their
knowledge-gain from sharing as well (Bogilović et al., 2017; Wang & Noe, 2010). Other
challenges that emerged in the motivation section included supervisors having the confidence to
decrease knowledge hiding and giving the team what they need to get the job done. Another
challenge is that employees are not receiving the feedback that they are heard and effective in
their role. Yet, supervisors feel they are creating a space to be heard. This is connected with
supervisor lack of confidence in knowing how comments are impacting people. The data points
to a potential challenge for supervisors to create feedback spaces either one or one or in teams.
180

Organizations are strongly signaling to employees that equity, knowledge sharing, and
learning are important (Culver et al., 2021; Molefi et al., 2021). However, there is a lack of
alignment across many of the organizational influences, creating a mismatch of intentions to
perceptions from employees (Kalev et al., 2016; Molefi et al., 2021). Another potential challenge
that emerged from the data across these influences is that supervisors saw themselves less as
leaders and more as managers. They expressed similar pressures of project deliverables, lack of
decision-making power, and time demands as employees. This raises an issue that supervisors
themselves feel or perceive that there are challenges in the majority of the organizational
influences, meaning there is a deep culture issue.
In sum, organizations in this study understand that knowledge translates into
organizational performance, growth, and innovation (Denning, 2011; Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-
Valle, 2011; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stewart, 1997). The following sections will explore
recommendations to increase knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding.
Recommendations to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences
This chapter addresses the second research question: What are the recommendations for
organizations to decrease knowledge hiding to increase knowledge sharing and innovation? And
it examines the highest priorities identified in the discussion section. Literature from Chapter
Two is also aligned to the highest priorities. Application suggestions are recommended alongside
supporting evidence-based studies when relevant.
Knowledge Recommendations
The importance of knowledge sharing and the negative impacts of knowledge hiding are
understood by participants in this study. This is a strength since knowledge sharing creates
positive impacts on organizational performance, growth, and innovation (Denning, 2011;
181

Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stewart, 1997). Knowledge
hiding is counterproductive to organizational goals and harms the individual who is hiding
knowledge (Bogilović et al., 2017; Fong et al., 2018; Serenko & Bontis, 2016). However,
participants are less aware of when they are sharing knowledge or hiding knowledge on an
ongoing basis. Increasing metacognition of how people share and hide their knowledge will
increase the ability to share more effectively (Ambrose et al., 2010; Renninger & Hidi, 2015).
Also, at a foundational level, knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding should be clearly defined
for the organization because it is important to address and understand both in an organization
(Connelly et al., 2012).
Organizations should clearly outline and define knowledge sharing and knowledge
hiding. Once the definition is clearly understood, reflective practices should be taught and
integrated into organizational process flows. For example, during meetings, on the agenda and/or
notes document, a section should be included to capture knowledge sharing highlights.
Reflective questions can be included for a quick check at the end of the meeting: How did you
share your knowledge today? Was there something you could have shared and did not? Can you
share it via Slack (or other platform)? Another example was provided by Terry during the
interviews. They suggested creating a learning document for each project. The learning
document can be integrated into the project documents and there can be key points in the project
timelines to update the learning sections of the project documents. To support employees and
supervisors where they are in their metacognitive skills, microlearnings should be developed.
Microlearnings are short training sessions to support new knowledge acquisition in a manageable
way for participants.
182

Supporting Evidence
Studies (Serenko & Bontis, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2012; Zhu, 2016) have shown the
effectiveness of knowledge sharing and hiding interventions. Zhu (2016) conducts a study on the
importance of individual learning to improve knowledge sharing. When employees are given
space to understand knowledge hiding and the impact on themselves, knowledge hiding can
decrease (Serenko & Bontis, 2016). Training leverages organizational structures while creating a
space that can increase knowledge exchange (Wang & Wang, 2012). Learning theories in
Ambrose et al. (2010) outline the need to conceptual understand, practice, and observe modeled
behaviors. Training opportunities that include the “what” and the “how” increase participants’
abilities to engage in new behaviors (Mayer, 2011; Taylor et al., 2005). Organizations show
progress when they develop opportunities for acquiring knowledge about knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding.
Motivation Recommendations
Intrinsic motivation and positive attitude toward knowledge sharing were reported as
strengths. The attitude of altruism, which is an intrinsic motivator, encourages knowledge-
sharing behaviors (Chen & Hung, 2010; Lin, 2007; Osterloh & Frey, 2002). Ensuring
organizational members find knowledge sharing as positive is important to sustaining a
knowledge-sharing culture (Bock et al., 2005). However, these motivators are not enough to
ensure knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge hiding.
When people feel confident in their jobs, they will share their knowledge (Bandura,
1997). Organizational members were not confident in using KMS in their organizations.
Research shows that people will only use technology systems if they have self-efficacy with
using the systems and they understand the value of their knowledge (Kwahk & Park, 2016). On
183

the KMS, there are limited feedback loops occurring. This could give people the impression that
others are hiding knowledge, and this triggers a reciprocity loop (Chang & Chuang, 2011;
Osterloh & Frey, 2000, 2002). As such, frequent feedback on knowledge sharing activities and
practice and feedback on the use of the knowledge management system would increase self-
efficacy.
In addition to lacking feedback loops on the KMS, the lack of feedback and
accountability, in general, is a challenge for supervisors. Providing feedback and accountability
is important to breaking barriers of knowledge sharing and decreasing motivations for
knowledge hiding (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013). This includes creating spaces where people can
feel heard; which increases cognitive trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning, and team
efficacy (Swift & Hwang, 2013). Some of these challenges could be connected to the lack of
diversity in leadership and supervisors’ lack of confidence in understanding how comments
impact people of diverse backgrounds. In such settings without diversity, Brown and Black
people in organizations struggle to fully engage in work tasks or experience a sense of belonging
(Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013). Organizations can create spaces and environments that
encourage “actions and attitudes to innovation” (McGuirk et al., 2015) that lead to creativity,
which increases knowledge sharing and decreases knowledge.
Results of the study show there is no overwhelming evidence that the supervisors
engaged in reflection, ongoing training, and learning on bias, equity, or belonging. Organizations
should provide ongoing training and coaching support to supervisors aligned to culturally
responsive, mastery-based feedback. This will help ensure feedback and recognition are provided
beyond performance. Depending on levels of prior knowledge, supervisors may need to build
184

more foundational knowledge in cultural competency before engaging in culturally responsive
feedback. Learning trajectories should be personal and based on individual goals and needs.
To overcome challenges of KMS, project goals can be aligned to contribute to the
organization system. For example, as Jamie shared, project goals should embed mastery-based
and knowledge-sharing goals directly into the project activities. At key points in the project,
there should be a nudge in project documentation or project management systems to add
learnings and relevant documents into the KMS. The nudge should also include individuals
searching the KMS for documents that would help inform their project responsibilities. Lastly,
similar to what you see in a grocery store, “Take a penny, leave a penny,” participants should be
encouraged to take something and leave a comment. Moreover, providing preloaded responses
makes it easy for people to know how the knowledge is being used in their project, and the
feedback increases motivation. For example, “Thanks, I am using this to improve the way we
design our client reporting to make it more accessible.”
Supporting Evidence
Mayer (2011) suggests that for achievement to occur, individuals need to know the
“when” of applying strategies as well as the “why” of applying them. He refers to these
constructs as the mighty Ms: metacognition and motivation. Metacognition is the awareness,
monitoring, and controlling of your thinking and learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Motivation
informs the ways people behave (Elliot et al., 2018). Motivational studies (Clark, 2003; Gagné,
2009) discuss effective techniques to increase knowledge sharing. During a study to examine the
managerial impact on knowledge sharing, Gagné (2009) found that managerial style and the
ways they give feedback impacts employee motivation. As Clark (2003) asserts, feedback is an
important role in how employees engage and are motivated to work. When managers do not or
185

cannot relate to their reports, this creates a lack of affiliation or belonging for employees (Bodla
et al., 2018). Providing training for managers on feedback practices that encourages team growth
and considers employee identity can increase knowledge sharing.
Studies (Peng, 2013; Škerlavaj et al., 2018) demonstrate effective practices to decrease
knowledge hiding. Peng (2013) discussed the phenomenon of knowledge perceived as territory.
They demonstrate a mediator to knowledge hiding is to shift perception to the knowledge shared
is knowledge for all employees. Thus, creating project goals aligned to organizational growth
and learning can create that perception. The research conducted by Škerlavaj et al. (2018)
furthers Peng’s findings by demonstrating that creating space to achieve the goals and
encouraging employees to support one another can increase knowledge sharing and decrease
knowledge hiding. Organizations can create systems that allow for interaction and space for
employees to connect on shared project goals; this can increase motivation to share knowledge.
Culture Recommendations
Organizations have missions, visions, and goals to drive them toward where they want to
be; however, organizational behaviors differ in action (Argyris & Schon, 1978). These
differences often lead to creating barriers to increasing knowledge sharing and decreasing
knowledge hiding (Morrison, 2014). The barriers can communicate a sense of inequity or lack of
fairness, and then employees will hide their knowledge (Černe et al., 2014).
Organizations should rethink how they incentivize and recognize knowledge sharing. If
organizations reward learning behaviors, they can overcome the challenges of members acting in
their own self-interest (Garvin, 1993; Garvin et al., 2008; Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994; Pedler
& Aspinwall, 1998). Another opportunity for organizations is to ensure there are clear spaces for
knowledge sharing to happen (Argote et al., 2003). In this study, a lack of consistency and ease
186

to how KMS, formal or informal, are being used in organizations surfaced. Without clear ways
and understandings of how to share knowledge, knowledge is lost, a detriment to the
organization (Guillaume et al., 2015). Reexamining the way the systems and processes work
together or create tension will be important in addressing this organizational challenge
(Flinchbaugh et al., 2016; Janus, 2016). Alongside the organization and integration of the
system, it will be important to build social networks within the organization (Xiao & Cooke,
2019). Social networks increase connection and trust, which increase the effectiveness of KMS
(Issac & Thomas, 2017). It is important for organizations to cultivate trust to allow for
knowledge sharing to remain competitive and continue to grow (Bogilović et al., 2017).
Power dynamics in an organization should be minimized to ensure knowledge sharing
(Heizmann & Olsson, 2015). Leaders play an important role in setting the tone in the
organization. Certain leadership styles cultivate a culture of collaboration, paving the way for
knowledge sharing (Park & Kim, 2018; García-Morales et al., 2012; Men et al., 2020). Leaders,
like transformational leaders, need to create alignment across the organization. This includes the
role managers play in the organization. Managers need to see themselves as leaders and adapt
leadership behaviors to continue to move organizational efforts forward (Jia et al., 2018).
Organizations should ensure alignment from “theory to action.” By developing a strategic
map with complementary structures, incentives, processes, and policies, organizations can ensure
actions and messaging are connected. Effective KMS that are organized for user ease, leverage
social networks, and acknowledge the interdependence of roles should be in place. This should
not be limited to a technology platform. To increase communication, there should be a variety of
structures, meetings, all hands (meetings with the whole organization present), and communities
of practice. As Devon mentioned, creating teams of communities of practice (small groups that
187

gather regularly to engage in shared learning on a topic, problem, or passion) can encourage
curiosity, feedback, and knowledge sharing. Incentives should be aligned to knowledge sharing
and learning. As Charlie said, monetary rewards should correspond to team efforts, not just
individual efforts. But incentives should not just include monetary rewards. For example,
mentoring could be an incentive for both a mentor and mentee. Processes in the organization
should reflect the “cross-fertilization” aspects and not “siloed” efforts of an individual team, as
both Andie and Morgan shared. There should be policies in place to ensure fairness of hiring,
recognition, and promotion; this may require training and coaching.
Supporting Evidence
The alignment of messages and actions is of the utmost importance in an organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008). When values, mission, and goals align to actions in the organization,
knowledge sharing increases (Park et al., 2017). Another study, Cavaliere et al. (2015) examined
ways to increase knowledge sharing through knowledge donating and knowledge collecting.
They found that people increased their knowledge sharing with effective technology, such as an
easily navigable platform, and it was even more effective if it had a social element integrated
into the systems. As Charlie mentioned, creating reward systems that collectively acknowledge
members in an organization increases knowledge sharing (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002).
Studies (Anand & Hassan, 2019; Butt & Ahmad, 2021) outline effective strategies to
mitigate knowledge hiding. Anand and Hassan (2019) identify a variety of opportunities to
overcome organizational factors that increase knowledge hiding. These include developing
policies and procedures that promote a “fair and supportive” work environment. They also noted
the increased interdependence in organizations and discussed the opportunity to support
coworkers in understanding one another’s roles and connecting informally outside of work. This
188

increases psychological safety. Gagné et al. (2019) further supported this by proving the ways
job design can boost creativity, improve organizational performance, increase knowledge
sharing, and decrease knowledge hiding. Butt and Ahmad (2021) also found interdependence in
organizations can increase knowledge sharing, along with increased incentives for knowledge
sharing and managing power dynamics.
Having examined the potential recommendations and their supporting evidence, the
following sections outline how these may be implemented and evaluated.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world Kirkpatrick model takes the Kirkpatrick model that was created in the
1950s and modernizes it for today’s realities. The four levels of the Kirkpatrick model were
developed to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of training for participants (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 4, results, measures the impact of participants' new learning. Level 3,
behavior, measures the degree to which participants apply their learning on the job. Level 2,
learning, measures how people leave training sessions feeling ready to use the skills and
knowledge shared in the training. Finally, Level 1, reaction, measures how the training made
participants feel during and after the training. While the levels have remained constant
throughout the years, there have been further considerations to the new model. The new model
addresses how learning happens more fluently and frequently in today’s world, such as on the
Internet. The new world Kirkpatrick model can be used to measure both the impact of training
within the organization and external training an organization provides to others. It measures the
process, starting with the end in mind: results, behavior, learning, and reaction. The training is
189

intended to support and align with the objectives of an organization; thus, the results act as an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the training.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 measures organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Since the
impact of training programs and other targeted actions is often delayed, leading indicators
provide organizations opportunities to monitor progress (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Leading indicators are short-term goals with metrics that can be shared with organization
stakeholders. In this study, a gap analysis was conducted to identify key internal and external
outcomes aligned to organizations’ mission to increase knowledge sharing. Knowledge is an
organization’s largest asset to ensure continued relevancy and innovation in order to increase
relevancy and competitiveness. During the benchmarking process, it is important for companies
to identify their competitive advantage to develop strategy (Shahin & Zairi, 2006). Table 87 is
generalized to represent external and internal outcomes for a field of organizations.

190

Table 87
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods
External outcomes
Increased recognition of
quality in respective
industry
Reaches industry benchmarks
with high ratings
Industry relevant tools used
to measure progress
annually
Increased reputation of
innovation
Receives awards and/or public
recognition for innovativeness
Annual industry relevant
awards or
acknowledgements, such
as Forbes “Best Of”
Increased reputation as the
“expert” in the industry
Number of media mentions or
contract approvals received
Annual measurement of
mentions and/or contract
approvals
Increased and/or
continued success with
client
Maintaining 90% or above on
both NPS and CSAT.
Surveys conducted with
client partners at the end of
projects (for short-term) or
every 5–6 months during a
long-term
partnership/customers
Increased competitiveness Meeting and exceeding financial
targets (including fundraising
goals)
Each quarter financial targets
are reviewed
Internal outcomes
Increased creation and use
of knowledge
management structures
Number of company spaces that
provide opportunities for
creating knowledge sharing
Audit strategic plans and
shared company spaces to
monitor increased future
thinking
Data collected by roles like
chief learning officer
(CLO)
Increased innovation and
collaboration
Number of knowledge sharing
inputs increases and the self-
reported number decreases in
knowledge hiding across
organizational stakeholders.
Conduct interviews and
surveys 2–3 times a year
against company
benchmarks
All employees contribute
to an organization
where their knowledge
is deemed valuable to
be recognized, growth,
and inclusion.
Number of employees that are
contributing to knowledge
management structures daily
Establish and maintain 90% or
above on the perspective of
employee experience in the
organization.
Data reported from
knowledge management
systems
Conduct interviews and
surveys 2–3 times a year
against company
benchmarks
191

Level 3: Behavior
The new world Kirkpatrick model proffers that external outcomes can only be reached if
internal outcomes are accomplished (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This section and analysis
align with the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), starting with the
end in mind and working backward to ensure all elements are present to meet performance
needs. To support performance needs, this section will explore how to ensure internal success by
identifying critical behaviors for observation, which are found in Table 88. To observe the
critical behaviors, there are KMO factors that need to be addressed or in place (Clark & Estes,
2008). A gap analysis of the KMO gaps was conducted to identify some opportunities for
organizations to reach the desired outcomes.
Critical Behaviors
Organizations are complex, and the needs of both employees and supervisors vary. Thus,
the organizations will need to take a multidimensional approach to reach the intended goal of
increased knowledge sharing and decreased knowledge hiding. To start the process, a gap
analysis should be conducted in the organization. This would be the basis for identifying the
current year's global (whole team) and personal (individual) development program. As part of
this multidimensional development program, all employees will be expected to leverage their
expertise to support others and share knowledge. Through engagement with both global and
personal development, the employees will effectively apply learnings to increase knowledge
sharing.
Incorporating learning and knowledge sharing will be part of the incentive and training
programs to increase employee motivation and support reaching performance goals (Erceg &
Suljug, 2016). It is important to note limiting incentives to financial rewards is not enough to
192

create intrinsic motivation, and incentives should align with what is important to stakeholders
(Erceg & Suljug, 2016; Marsh et al., 2011). Clark (2005) discusses increased collaboration and
confidence as forms of nonmonetary motivation for results.
To live up to the mission, goals, and culture of the organization, professional
accountability must be present. Part of professional accountability is giving critical feedback. To
support the current gap, organizations should provide structures that foster collaborative team
learning and performance to create engagement, sharing, and team-level development.
Cooperative team learning is a way to increase meaningful collaboration. The organization will
provide space for giving each other feedback, like the 360-performance model, and mediating
conflicts of interest to ensure cooperative learning is cultivated (Johnson et al., 2007).
Cooperative learning is further engaged through communities of practice where members can
share work artifacts and/or challenges with one another. Positive interdependence is fostered
through teams working in small groups to share knowledge with, support, and celebrate each
other. Interdependence helps individuals understand the contributions of their team members,
which builds team confidence (Clark, 2005). Through the small group problem of practice,
mutual interest is cultivated to reach shared goals, which creates promotive interaction or
encouragement of one another (Johnson et al., 2007). In turn, team members are able to
understand how interdependence promotes individual progress and promotes team-level
incentive buy-in (Corts, 2007). Interdependence also encourages the development of critical
thinking, self-esteem, and metacognition (Johnson et al., 2007), all of which are contributors to
the critical behaviors of increased knowledge sharing and decreased knowledge hiding identified
in Table 88.

193

Table 88
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
Employees and
supervisors will
accurately reflect,
self-assess, and
regulate learning to
ensure growth.
Number of completed
performance rubrics
demonstrates
growth from
baseline on
Self-assessment rubric
completed and
informally reviewed
in check-ins

Reviewed with a
supervisor during
formal performance
review
Every 4–6 weeks
informally;
quarterly
formally
Supervisors provide
critical,
compassionate, and
culturally
responsive feedback
aligned to mastery
(growth) for
employees.
Supervisors increase
their confidence in
delivering feedback
that is culturally
responsive and
aligned to mastery.

Employees feel
feedback is aligned,
fair, and supports
their growth.
Supervisors engage in
observations, reviews,
and progress
meetings.

Weekly during
team meetings
and during 1:1
check-ins; also
as needed
There is peer to peer
feedback in a
variety of spaces.
During meetings and
on shared
knowledge
management
systems, protocols
will be used to
provide explicit
feedback.
Employees self-report
during meetings,
creating space for
feedback from peers.
Weekly, daily
194

Critical behavior Metrics
Methods
Timing
Employees and
supervisors will
engage in
knowledge sharing
behaviors of both
tacit and explicit
knowledge.
Coaches will increase
contribution to the
knowledge
management site by
providing at least
three resources a
month.

All team members
will engage in tacit
knowledge sharing
through in-person
meetings and/or
structures like
communities of
practice.

Mentoring and/or
shadowing occurs
through the
organization for
100% of employees
who want to engage
in mentoring
and/shadowing.
On company-wide
knowledge sharing
platforms, in company
shared spaces, and in
volunteer spaces, such
as mentoring.
Daily, weekly,
monthly
depending on
the platform.
Employees and
supervisors avoid
knowledge hiding
behaviors of both
tacit and explicit
knowledge.
Number of instances
where knowledge
exists and not being
shared is reduced
Informal and formal
networking
opportunities
Every 6 weeks
Supervisors model
practices that
encourage all
employees to share
their knowledge.
Number of times that
supervisors model
practices
Brief feedback survey at
the end of a meeting
asking questions such
as, “Did you feel
included? Were you
able to share your
knowledge?”
Weekly

195

At the organizational level, there is monitoring of both cultural structures and cultural
settings (Schein, 2017). The values, beliefs, and attitudes of the organizations describe
cooperative, innovative, and learning organizations. To create a cooperative, innovative, and
learning organization, team members are held accountable through individual performance as it
contributes to the whole group. Performance outcomes are shared with teams through the
organization’s people platform. Members hold each other accountable to contribute to group
success, support one another to reach their team and personal goals, and individually challenge
themselves to improve. Team members regularly connect, share artifacts, and create spaces to
share what they know or may have learned individually. Johnson et al. (2007) discussed these
various methods as being effective ways to create a collaborative learning model.
The organization is responsible for ensuring the mission, vision, and performance are in
alignment. Through a combination of strategic management, balanced scorecards, and continual
benchmarking, organizations can develop a performance management system of accountability
(Shahin & Zairi, 2006). With the management system in place, they will clearly communicate
and uphold systems. Organizations will continually evolve systems as needed as they evaluate
the effectiveness of the implementation of Kirkpatrick’s Level 4 results and leading indicators
and Level 3 critical behaviors to make changes. As Hentschke and Wohlsetter (2004) concluded,
it is important to continually evolve systems to match intended outcomes.
Required Drivers
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined required drivers as the systems in place to
provide ongoing support for training and desired behaviors. In Table 89, the drivers are in four
categories: monitoring, reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding.

196

Table 89
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
Reinforcing
Establish individual and team
mastery and performance
goals aligned to
organizational performance
goals
Annual 1, 2, 3, 4
Multidimensional training on
knowledge sharing,
knowledge hiding, and
various contributing
aspects, i.e. culturally
responsive feedback
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Knowledge management
system that is effective in
that it collects and organizes
various information
Daily 1, 4
Asynchronous learning
opportunities that support
individual needs and inform
individuals on
organizational systems,
structures, and processes
Monthly 1,4
Leveraging team or consultant
experts to share, create, and
develop learning
experiences for the team
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Develop various knowledge
management structures,
such as communities of
practice
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging
Feedback and coaching for all
team members
Daily 1, 2, 3, 4
Remind team members of the
“why” and “what” of
knowledge sharing and
hiding in shared company
spaces, such as newsletters,
Weekly 1, 4
197

Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported
company retreats, and town
halls.
Rewarding
Team celebrations in
company updates, town
halls, and on Slack for
knowledge sharing and
discuss impact of share
Daily 1, 4
Team level incentives for
growth and progress in
against organizational goals
including learning and
knowledge sharing
Just-in-time bonuses; once a
year during compensation
conversations
1, 2, 4
Include “day time”
opportunities for teams to
shadow and/or mentor
Engage in a formal 6-month
program or monthly
shadowing as needed
1, 4
Monitoring
Individual and teams monitor
their knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding
Monthly, weekly, daily 1, 2, 3, 4
Performance conversations
provide feedback to teams
and individuals on their
mastery progress
Quarterly 1, 2, 4
Organization monitors
increased knowledge
sharing, decreased
knowledge hiding, and
positive perceptions through
internal surveys
Mid-quarter & quarterly 1, 4

Organizational Support
Organizations should provide the environment needed for optimal performance through
aligned messages and support (USAID, 2010). If organizations focus on structures, particularly
incentives, policies that create fairness, and training that supports collaboration and
interdependence, then critical behaviors from Level 3 will be built to achieve Level 4 outcomes.
198

As the organization better aligns messages to behaviors that reflect intended outcomes, the
people in the organization will feel more connected, confident, and recognized in their
knowledge sharing to contribute to innovation, relevancy, and competitiveness (Frink et al.,
2008). If misalignment persists and organizations do not see progress, organizations should
engage in consultant support to design an organizational change model and implementation
action plan.
Level 2: Learning
The learning goals support employees and supervisors in embodying the critical
behaviors identified in Table 88. These goals address the knowledge, skills, and motivations
identified during the gap analysis. In developing a learning program, employees and supervisors
increase their ability to achieve the overall organizational goals for knowledge sharing and
decreasing knowledge hiding. Subsequent sections will discuss how the learners engage with
learning to reach these goals.
Learning Goals
Learning goals are created to support recommendations identified in this chapter. These
learning goals are generalized and should be adapted for specific organizational contexts.
Implementing the recommendations in Tables 87, 88, and 89, employees and supervisors will be
able to:
1. Describe the “why,” “what,” and “how” of knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding.
2. Demonstrate value for reflection skills that lead to consistent improvement of self and
by engaging in self-reflection to improve knowledge sharing and decrease knowledge
hiding behaviors.
3. Show persistence in self-monitoring and self-regulating with support to create
199

conditions to stay motivated to grow, develop, and continue to contribute to
knowledge sharing more than knowledge hiding.
4. Identify learning opportunities for self to improve execution of individual and team
responsibilities.
5. Practice and adapt knowledge sharing practices in a variety of settings with various
stakeholders.
6. Apply strategies to minimize the impact of power dynamics in an organization.
7. Develop cultural competence and the ability to effectively provide feedback across
race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, age, and language background on a
daily basis.
8. Choose to be persistent and implement cooperative learning behaviors, such as
a. Critique and provide feedback to each other.
b. Demonstrate new knowledge and insights with the team before “perfected.”
c. Summarize the roles and responsibilities associated with current team
functions.
d. Create new solutions to problems of practice together.
9. Demonstrate confidence in the ability to implement feedback given in the group.
10. Adapt leadership behaviors in modeling and leading teams (supervisors).
11. Choosing to persist and implement strategies to build team capacity to learn new
skills and practices (supervisors).
Program
A multidimensional development program is needed to address the gaps in the KMO
influences. The program will support the development of the learning behaviors outlined in the
200

previous section. Internal learning teams design learning experiences for the internal team
members. Consultants may be engaged to provide additional expertise as needed in individual
organizations.
Training programs will be designed for both employees and supervisors. There will be
individual, team-based, and organization-wide learning experiences. At the beginning of each
year’s annual planning year, the organization will hold a retreat. At the retreat, organizations will
engage all stakeholders in organizational goals for the coming year. Knowledge hiding decreases
when spaces, like retreats, are created outside of the work environment to connect (Anand &
Hassan, 2019). Inviting stakeholders to the table builds organizational alignment and creates a
strong knowledge-sharing culture (García-Morales et al., 2012; Men et al., 2020; Park & Kim,
2018). During the retreats, different teams should meet to discuss, analyze, and design together
to solve organization-wide issues related to the function of their team. This will provide a space
for stronger networks to be created, cross-fertilization, and a deeper understanding of
interdependence across the organization (Anand & Hassan, 2019; Cavaliere et al., 2015). Each
year, these retreats will be used as a kick-off to cyclical development programs. It will also
provide a natural opportunity to engage in reflection on progress, growth, and development for
teams and individuals.
Throughout the year, there are several delivery options to support the development of
employees and supervisors. There are asynchronous learning experiences, synchronous learning
experiences, on-the-job coaching support from managers or peers related to mastery and
performance-based goals, and small flexible groups that are aligned to self-assessed needs and
interests (Herman, 2012; Mayer, 2011; Walter & van der Vegt, 2013; Zboralski, 2009). For those
interested, mentoring is offered. Mentoring encourages knowledge sharing when dedication and
201

commitment is consistent (Curtis & Taylor, 2018). Lastly, knowledge management system
training includes information on the various features and organization. The training includes
opportunities to engage with the system to provide feedback to others. Feedback creates a
feedback loop for organizational members that increases knowledge sharing of various features
and explicit training to ensure effectiveness and engagement (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Metiu &
Rothbard, 2013; Frey et al., 2013). These models create professional accountability to grow in
practice together to reach shared goals and outcomes. The explicit model and frequency should
be developed based on individual organization challenges. The following section presents an
example.
Program Example
Groups meet monthly in five synchronous sessions: two whole-group program sessions
and five small groups. On-the-job coaching and personal support occur at least 24 times a year in
the form of coaching cycle visits and growth check-ins. An asynchronous micro-learning
program consists of a collection of knowledge-based courses. The topics of the course include
content-specific knowledge, executive functioning skills, emotional intelligence skills, cultural
competency, organizational-specific processes, content-specific theories, and principles. Each
course is developed on a course authoring tool, which embeds reflection questions, formative
knowledge checks through the course, and a summative application assessment at the completion
of the course. However, the learnings are quick and easy to integrate on the job, which can
decrease barriers to more lengthy training (Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020). The courses are also
leveled and aligned to a reflection tool employees and supervisors can use to self-assess. This is
to ensure confidence in completion and increase self-efficacy to apply the learning (Bandura,
202

1997). Learners may also receive recommendations from other team members on courses to
complete during virtual visits or use a protocol like Critical Friends during artifact sharing.
Synchronous learning program includes global whole-group learning and team group
learning to support increasing knowledge sharing (Gagné, 2009). Global whole-group sessions
are designed to incorporate learning goals that all organization members need based on various
evaluations, including self-regulation, critical feedback, and performance artifacts (i.e.,
observations) aligned to rubrics to facilitate increased knowledge sharing (Ambrose et al., 2010;
Gagné, 2009; Renninger & Hidi, 2015). For example, many organization members struggle with
critical conversations (London & Smither, 2002). Thus, there is a yearlong global initiative
aligned to planning critical culturally responsive conversations. To evaluate this learning, there is
a benchmark at the beginning of the year, a midyear assessment, and reflection opportunities
throughout. Team synchronous groups use similar evaluations; however, these groups are
organized differently than the global learning. Small groups are a way to differentiate the
learning opportunities to match the level of each learner or team challenges toward
accomplishing the mastery goals. Throughout the synchronous learning program, employees and
supervisors make commitments to each other on the learning they will use in their job on a daily
basis to support knowledge transfer (Ambrose et al., 2010). These spaces are an opportunity to
create more cooperative and professional accountability structures in the organization to increase
knowledge sharing (Wang et al., 2014). In these models, relationships and trust are central for
people to share their progress, challenges, and knowledge (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Jiang et al.,
2019).
On-the-job coaching and knowledge management provides spaces for sharing expertise
and challenges, validating each other, celebrating progress, and on-the-job reinforcement (Bell et
203

al., 2016; Černe et al., 2014). On-the-job coaching is observing each other’s practice through
workshopping, virtual visits, or using protocols like Critical Friends for artifact sharing. These
spaces occur roughly four times a month in a variety of spaces. A knowledge management
system collects and organizes job aides and training onto a shared site creating an easy and
organized space for people to access previous training and tools (Kwahk & Park, 2016;
Valentine et al., 2019). The addition of a platform (like Slack or Teams) for connecting and
sharing encourages, validates, and celebrates the implementation of learning together, which
increases knowledge sharing (Super et al., 2016). People access these systems as needed.
Learning programs are not enough to ensure the transfer of learning; thus, on-the-job coaching
and knowledge management help integrate asynchronous and synchronous learning into
coaching practice (Clark & Estes, 2008).
For this example, the overall learning program is approximately 18 hours per month.
Throughout this section, components of learning and evaluation were explored. To develop an
organization that engages in learning and development behaviors, people need to hold each
accountable (Wang et al., 2014). The organization aims to increase knowledge sharing to
increase innovation and relevancy through organization, team, and individual development
(Wang et al., 2019; Wang & Noe, 2010). Jones (2001) identifies the process of organizational
learning as one that continually questions, reflects, shares, builds skills, and takes actions. This
program embeds these features from start to finish, creating responsiveness to the ongoing
monitoring and evaluation.
204

Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Table 90 outlines the components of learning to be evaluated with timing. Defining the
evaluation criteria creates a fair, supportive environment (Černe et al., 2014; Fehr & Gächter,
2000).

Table 90
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Methods or activities Timing
Declarative knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks throughout learning
experiences (asynchronous, synchronous)
During/after trainings and with supervisor
during 1:1 check-ins
Sharing during team meetings During team meetings
Procedural skills “I can do it right now.”
Role-plays during training During synchronous training
Artifact sharing During team meetings, community of
practice spaces, and/or on knowledge
management systems
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Knowledge sharing across the different
structures is sustained
Daily
Internal surveys demonstrate “worth” Two to three times annually
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Internal surveys demonstrate “I can do it” Two to three months after trainings and two
to three times annually
Discussions with teams, managers, and
mentors
Weekly and as they occur
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Training commitments During asynchronous group trainings
Performance and mastery goal conversations
formal and informal
Quarterly, weekly, and as needed

205

Level 1: Reaction
After each learning experience in the program, the organization should conduct a reaction
Level 1 survey (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Understanding participant satisfaction with
the different approaches gives insight into how people might use the learning in their practice
(Marsh et al., 2006). The data from this survey can also provide high-level feedback to make
immediate changes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Below in Table 91, there are examples of
ways to gauge relevance, engagement, and satisfaction of the program example or to be adapted
for any program.

Table 91
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Observation by facilitator or peers During synchronous training
Internal survey After completion of asynchronous or
synchronous training
Relevance
Internal survey After completion of asynchronous or
synchronous training
Critical feedback from supervisors, facilitators,
and peers
During synchronous training
Satisfaction
Internal survey After completion of asynchronous or
synchronous training
Internal organizational surveys Two to three times a year

206

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
After asynchronous or synchronous learning experience, surveys focused on Level 1 and
Level 2 are shared with each participant. An example of an evaluation tool is in Appendix F. The
tool consists of a Likert scale, confidence intervals, and open-ended questions.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Organizations commit time, money, and efforts to support employees in their
performance toward organizational goals. Developing an understanding of the long-term impact
of training on performance at an organization is important (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2010,
2016). In order to develop an understanding of the value of the program, a quarterly review is
conducted to check its efficacy and effectiveness. With this information, the organization will be
able to make pivots where it is not supporting individuals and teams in reaching organizational
goals. For the example program, there is an instrument that combines Level 1, 2, 3, and 4
evaluations; also, the intention is to conduct an organization performance audit each quarter.
Many organizations neglect to collect data past Level 2, but this is careless (Hauser et al.,
2020). Levels 1 and 2 do not provide accurate insight to the impact of programs on organization
performance. The evaluation instrument in Appendix G will incorporate all four levels. First,
Level 1 and Level 2 questions will be adapted. This is to check the learning program, as well as
the effectiveness of professional accountability at the organization. For Level 3, there will be
questions adapted and used from the Developmental Check-In (Church & Dawson, 2018).
Participants will collect Level 4 data in their reflection logs and internal survey questions
adapted from the Knowledge Sharing Survey tool (Appendix A) to measure any change in
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding behaviors in the organization.
207

Data Analysis and Reporting
An analysis of the impact of the implemented program should occur during and after the
program. Results and findings will include metrics and themes from both Level 4 internal and
external outcomes. In addition, themes and metrics aligned to Level 3 critical behaviors will be
shared. The results and findings should be shared to all stakeholders for different purposes.
Progress and growth should be celebrated in all areas of the organization. When data
demonstrates a lack of growth in the immediate data, teams should test small shifts to see if there
is any impact. If there are data patterns where movement is not occurring or there are continued
challenges during the delayed evaluation, teams should engage in a design process, such as
Designing for Equity in Higher Education, following the steps recommended by Culver et al.
(2021). Organizations may also choose to increase stakeholder involvement in the creation of the
program design through workshopping and using frameworks like logic models (Kellogg
Foundation, 2004). As organizations are in program implementation, a continuous improvement
program can be used to note opportunities to make shifts in the program.
At a high level, the qualitative and quantitative data should be consolidated into an
organizational initiative quarterly and yearly progress report that is easy for all stakeholders to
engage with. Appendix H shares an example of one of these reports. Annual and quarterly plans
are used to inform strategic planning. More detailed reporting should be provided to relevant
stakeholders, teams, and individuals. The team responsible for learning in the organization
should see daily reports of metrics for individual and team contributions to systems. The learning
team would also examine the overall impact of asynchronous individual learning and bimonthly
organizational learning. Supervisors’ data dashboards should include their personal data
alongside team data that has been collected. An example of this data dashboard can be found in
208

Appendix I. Employee data dashboards would be visible to self, peers, and supervisor. The
dashboard would include space for reflection, feedback, and key metrics.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The new world Kirkpatrick model was the framework used in this study to outline the
implementation of recommendations to support organizational outcomes. This model
provided an opportunity to explore evidence-based recommendations identified in the gap
analysis.
Evidence-based recommendations were outlined to optimize strengths and address
weaknesses identified when validating the KMO influences of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework.
The new world Kirkpatrick model stresses starting from the outcomes and evaluating
at various levels to gather cyclical information. This cyclical information gives insights to
create improvements and responses. Examining data from the multiple levels gives insight to
questions like, “Does this meet expectations? Why or why not?” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 112) to progress toward organization outcomes. These recommendations would
increase organizations’ knowledge-sharing behaviors and decrease knowledge hiding to build
organizational capacity.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study highlighted challenges across seven organizations and the recommendations to
improve on those challenges that surfaced. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of
implementing these recommendations would be an immediate next step for research.
Researching the impact of knowledge management spaces through observation and document
analysis could provide greater insight to challenges. For instance, what systems are used for
209

communicating online or what additional barriers to developing social networks exist in current
systems? On the systems in this study, participants discussed the challenge of interaction. Do the
technological systems take out some of the connection and relationship that is needed for people
to answer to one another? Or maybe the open ask on Slack channels eliminates the accountability
space people may have to one another? Continuing to research the impact of social networks and
reciprocity on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding both in systems and shared spaces will
be important, particularly in the new work environment that finds some teams at home, some
hybrid, and global.
Another opportunity for future research would be to take one organization and apply this
study to all stakeholders in the organization. By considering a number of contexts and applying
the study to more specific criteria for example, an organization that utilizes design thinking and
is recognized publicly for their innovation and a small business that uses design thinking, are
there significant differences? What kinds of context and criteria “tip the scales” to more
knowledge sharing and less knowledge hiding? And as organizations shift their practices, what
kinds of frameworks could be applied to recommendations?
Considering cross-disciplinary studies, like the emotional and neuroscience behind
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding—would potentially provide pathways to understand
the complexity of the behaviors of individuals through the dynamics of their context, teams, and
the organization. If people who exhibit more prosocial behaviors due to strong executive
functioning operate at a higher level of cooperation, then what does that mean for their
knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding behavior (Eisenberg, 2010)? Is there a correlation? Is
there a particular persona that shares knowledge more or hides knowledge more? Do
demographics matter?
210

Exploring any or all of these avenues would continue to illuminate new understandings to
breaking barriers and overcoming challenges to knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding.
Conclusion
There are responsibilities at all levels of the organization to ensure knowledge sharing is
an integral part of the culture and that knowledge hiding is limited. In this study, 23 influences
related to KMO were explored. Knowledge sharing, knowledge hiding, and dynamics in an
organization are complex. The strengths and challenges of organizations are varied not only to
context but also at a given time in the organization’s life cycle. In this field study, a variety of
opportunities emerged within the KMO framework, as noted at the beginning of this chapter. It is
important to remember actions implemented by an organization cannot be a once-and-done
approach. Shifts in culture must be continually nurtured (Schein, 2017).
The knowledge-sharing responsibilities do not stop at the walls of the organization.
Sharing knowledge within and across industries is important for well-being, equity, and growth.
The results, findings, and promise of this study can be seen in this current time of both COVID
and the “Great Resignation.” During COVID, scientists created ad hoc communities of practice
to share and discuss the new understandings and questions about the virus (Price et al., 2020).
Governments organized knowledge-sharing sites and groups that could provide quick
information about new safety protocols, updates on trends, and other information like where to
get your vaccine or how to get food safely (Whitelaw et al., 2020). At local, national, and
international levels, information was shared forward and backward (Lee & Trimi, 2021).
Communities make decisions based on their context. Recognition of inequities was further
highlighted by COVID (Gravlee, 2020; Walters, 2020). Despite the high levels of knowledge
sharing, there were still instances where people were unsure and distrustful of the information
211

(Limaye et al., 2020). The mistrust might stem from people being aware of the fact that
knowledge hiding happens. Knowledge hiding creates further distrust and disengagement in
people.
Alongside the level of uncertainty, some people exercised self-interest. People recognized
the demand for their talents and knowledge, and the labor market shifted. Work evokes a variety
of emotions and responses in people (Bandura, 1986, as cited in Bandura, 2011; Walton et al.,
2015). In 2021, the term “Great Resignation” was used to describe how people are leaving their
jobs in droves; 3.98 million resigned from their jobs that year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Organizations recognize the desired shifts, but employees still feel disconnected and pressured to
complete their projects or deliver on their responsibilities (De Smet et al., 2021). What occurs
within the proverbial walls of the organization and beyond is complex. Cultivating a learning
environment where knowledge sharing is integrated and knowledge hiding is limited demands a
constant tending to ensure messages, behaviors, and context are considered at the different levels
of the organization and different life cycles of the organization (Connelly et al., 2019; Marques
et al., 2019; Wang & Noe, 2010).
Precedents needed for knowledge sharing are still being understood, while knowledge
hiding and knowledge hoarding, another hiding behavior, are not the opposite of knowledge
sharing (Oliveira et al., 2021). Thus, building an understanding of knowledge sharing and
knowledge hiding is equally important for organizations. In that arena, there is much to
understand (Anand & Hassan, 2019; Butt & Ahmad, 2021; Oliveira et al., 2021). One of the
most valuable things people have to share is their knowledge. Knowledge is unique to each
individual. Developing practices across the organization that makes space for the individual and
212

supports team development builds an integrated team that can focus on growth to usher in
innovation.
213

References
Adžić, S. (2018). Learning organization: A fine example of a management fad. Business and
Economic Horizons, 14(3), 477–487.
Ahmad, F., & Karim, M. (2019). Impacts of knowledge sharing: a review and directions for
future research. Journal of Workplace Learning.
Akella, D. (2008). A reflection on critical management studies. Journal of Management &
Organization, 14(1), 100–110.
Aktharsha, U. S., & Anisa, H. (2011). Knowledge management system and learning
organization: An empirical study in an engineering organization. IUP Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(2), 26-43.
Aljuwaiber, A. (2016). Communities of practice as an initiative for knowledge sharing in
business organisations: A literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4),
731-748.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anand, & Hassan, Y. (2019). Knowledge hiding in organizations: everything that managers need
to know. Development and Learning in Organizations, 33(6), 12–15.
https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-12-2018-0158
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational
learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management studies, 37(6), 797–810.
Arain, G. A., Bhatti, Z. A., Ashraf, N., et al. (2018). Top-Down knowledge hiding in
organizations: An empirical study of the consequences of supervisor knowledge hiding
214

among local and foreign workers in the middle east. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4056-2
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in
virtual knowledge‐sharing communities of practice. Journal of knowledge management.
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to
knowledge. Organization science, 22(5), 1123–1137.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An
integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–
582.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Arshad, R., & Ismail, I. R. (2018). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: Does
personality matter? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
5(3), 278-288.
Asrar-Ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). A systematic review of knowledge management and
knowledge sharing: Trends, issues, and challenges. Cogent Business & Management,
3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2015.1127744
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R.,
Jorgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O'Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative social
innovation and (dis) empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145,
195–206.
Babic, K., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2019). Are we in this together?
Knowledge hiding in teams, collective prosocial motivation and leader-member
215

exchange. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(8), 1502-1522.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0734
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Urdan, T., & Pajares, F.
(Eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Information Age Publishing.
Bandura, A. (2011). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of
Management, 38(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed
groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied psychology, 82(1), 62.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of leadership & organizational studies 9, (1), 64–
76.
Beckwith, A., Carter, D., & Peters, T. (2016). The underrepresentation of African American
behavior change. Strategic HR Review, 17(6), 295–302.
Bell, L., van Waveren, C., & Steyn, H. (2016). Knowledge-sharing within the project-based
organisation: A knowledge-pull framework. South African Journal of Industrial
Engineering, 27(4), 18-33. doi.org/10.7166/27-4-1580
Belso-Martinez, & Diez-Vial, I. (2018). Firm’s strategic choices and network knowledge
dynamics: how do they affect innovation? Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(1), 1–
20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2016-0524
Block, C. J., Koch, S. M., Liberman, B. E., Merriweather, T. J., & Roberson, L. (2011).
Contending with stereotype threat at work: A model of long-term responses 1Ψ7. The
Counseling Psychologist, 39(4), 570-600.
216

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
Bodla, A., Tang, N., Jiang, W., & Tian, L. (2018). Diversity and creativity in cross-national
teams: The role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive climate. Journal of
Management & Organization, 24(5), 711-729. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.34
Bogilović, S., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 710-723.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1337747
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Booth, S. E. (2012). Cultivating knowledge sharing and trust in online communities for
educators. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 1-31.
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.47.1.a
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Burke, W. (2018). Organization change: Theory and practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Chapter 10:
Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research Design and Methods: An
Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner (pp. 147-159). SAGE Publishing.
217

Butt, A.S. & Ahmad, A.B. (2021), "Strategies to mitigate knowledge hiding behavior: building
theories from multiple case studies", Management Decision, 59(6), 1291–1311.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2020-0038
Caldwell, C., & Hansen, M. H. (2010). Trustworthiness, governance, and wealth creation.
Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 173–188.
Caldwell, R. (2012). Leadership and learning: A critical reexamination of Senge’s learning
organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 25(1), 39-55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-011-9201-0
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011). The influence
of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: the
mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22(07), 1442–1463.
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing stereotype threat is critical to diversity and
inclusion in organizational psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 8.
Casimir, G., Lee, K., & Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment
and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740–753.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781
Castaneda, D. I., & Cuellar, S. (2020). Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic
review. Knowledge and Process Management, 27(3), 159–173.
Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting
integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 4(4), 342–360.
218

Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S., & Giustiniano, L. (2015). Knowledge sharing in knowledge-
intensive manufacturing firms. An empirical study of its enablers. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 19(6), 1124–1145. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2014-0538
Černe, M., Hernaus, T., Dysvik, A., & Skerlavaj, M. (2017). The role of multilevel synergistic
interplay among team mastery climate, knowledge hiding, and job characteristics in
stimulating innovative work behavior. Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 281–
299.
Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G. L., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes
around: Knowledge hiding, motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1337747
Ceylan, C. (2013). Commitment-based HR practices, different types of innovation activities and
firm innovation performance. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(1), 208–226.
Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-
evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38(1),
81–128.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge
sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & Management, 48(1), 9–
18.
Chen, C. J. & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’
knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities.
Information & Management, 47(4), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.03.001
219

Chen, M. & Lin, C. (2013). Assessing the effects of cultural intelligence on team knowledge
sharing from a socio-cognitive perspective. Human Resource Management, 52(5), 675–
695. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21558
Chen, X. P., Eberly, M. B., Chiang, T. J., Farh, J. L., & Cheng, B. S. (2014). Affective trust in
Chinese leaders: Linking paternalistic leadership to employee performance. Journal of
Management, 40(3), 796–819.
Chenghao, M., Fong P. S. W., Weiwei, H., Jing, Z., Ruiqian, J., & Jinlian, L. (2020). Ethical
leadership and knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model of psychological safety
and mastery climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(3), 461–472.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10551-018-4027-7
Cho, M. H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance education, 34(3),
290–301.
Chou, H. W., Lin Y. H., Chang, H. H., & Chuang, W. W. (2013). Transformational leadership
and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy.
SAGE Open, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013497027
Choudhary, A. I., Akhtar, S.A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant
leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business
Ethics, 116(2), 433–440.
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Aramovich, N. P. (2013). The psychological benefits of creating an
affirming climate for workplace diversity. Group & Organization Management, 38(6),
659–689.
Church, A., & Dawson, L. (2018). Agile feedback drives accountability and sustained behavior
change. Strategic HR Review, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0063
220

Clark, R. E. (2003). Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
improvement, 42(3), 21–29.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and the learning organization:
Examining the connection between the individual and the learning environment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 9(4), 365–375.
Connelly, C. E., & Zweig, D. (2015). How perpetrators and targets construe knowledge hiding in
organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(3), 479–
489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.931325
Connelly, C. E., Černe, M., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge
hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 779–782.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2407
Connelly, C. E., Ford, D. P., Turel, O., Gallupe, B., & Zweig, D. (2014). Antecedents of
knowledge sharing under pressure. Knowledge Management Research and Practice,
12(1), 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.61
Connelly, C. E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., & Trougakos, J. P. (2012). Knowledge hiding in
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(1), 64–88.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.737
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publishing.
Culver, K.C., Harper, J., Kezar, A. (2021). Design for equity in higher education. Pullias Center
221

Curtis, M. B., & Taylor, E. Z. (2018). Developmental mentoring, affective organizational
commitment, and knowledge sharing in public accounting firms. Journal of Knowledge
Management.
De Smet, A., Dowling, B., Mugayar-Baldocchi, M., & Schaninger, B. (2021). “Great Attrition”
or “Great Attraction”? The choice is yours. McKinsey & Company.
Dee, J., & Leisyte, L. (2017). Knowledge sharing and organizational change in higher
education. The Learning Organization.
Dell, N. (2014). Intersectionality. https://sites.google.com/site/natalyadell/home/intersectionality.
Denning, S. (2011). The secret language of leadership: How leaders inspire action through
narrative. John Wiley & Sons.
Diaz-Uda, A., Medina, C., & Schill, B. (2013). Diversity’s new frontier: Diversity of thought and
the future of the workforce. Deloitte Insights.
www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/topics/talent/diversitys-new-frontier.html.
Diller A. (1996). The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics. Westview
Press.
Dolasinski, M. J., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Microlearning: a new learning model. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(3), 551-561.
Dollard, J., Doob, L., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O.H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and
aggression. Yale University Press.
Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang Z. X., & Li C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via
individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused
transformational leadership. Journal of organizational behavior, 38(3), 439–458.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2134
222

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350–383
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future
of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 23–43
Edmondson, A. C., Winslow, A. B., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2003). Learning how and
learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement
following technology adoption. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 197–224.
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning
organization. Management Learning, 29(1), 5–20.
Eisenberg, N. (2010). Empathy-related responding: Links with self-regulation, moral judgment,
and moral behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives,
emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 129–148). American
Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-007
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Erceg, A., & Šuljug, A. (2016). How corporations motivate their employees–Hrvatski
Telekom Example. Pravni vjesnik, 32(2), 85–102.
Evans, J. M., Hendron, M. G., & Oldroyd, J. B. (2015). Withholding the ace: The individual- and
unit-level performance effects of self- reported and perceived knowledge hoarding.
Organization Science, 26(2), 494.
Fan, Y-W., & Wu, C-C. (2011, January 4-7). The role of social capital in knowledge sharing: a
meta-analytic review [Conference presentation]. 2011 44th Hawaii International
223

Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.
https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2011.431
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–181.
Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion.
Field, L. (2019). Schools as learning organizations: Hollow rhetoric or attainable reality?
International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 1106–1115.
Filstad, C., & Gottschalk, P. (2011). Becoming a learning organization. The Learning
Organization, 18(6), 486-500. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111171321
Fleming, & Lau, H. C. (2014). How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8(JULY), 443–443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00443
Flinchbaugh, C., Li, P., Luth, M. T., & Chadwick, C. (2016). Team-level high involvement work
practices: Investigating the role of knowledge sharing and perspective taking. Human
Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 134–150. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1748-
8583.12098
Flores, L.G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., & Thomas, C.H. (2012). Organizational learning: Subprocess
identification, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. Journal
of Management, 38(2), 640–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310384631
Fong, P. S. W., Men, C., Luo, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Knowledge hiding and team creativity: The
contingent role of task interdependence. Management Decision, 56(2), 329–343.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2016-0778
for Higher Education. https://pullias.usc.edu/download/design-for-equity-in-higher-education/
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.) SAGE Publishing.
224

Franken, J. (2013). The role of trust in intra-organizational knowledge transfer and use of
knowledge [Unpublished doctoral dissertation], Open University, The Netherlands.
Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (4th ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Frey, B. S., Homberg, F., & Osterloh, M. (2013). Organizational control systems and pay-for-
performance in the public service. Organization Studies, 34(7), 949–972.
Frink, D.D., Hall, A.T., Perryman, A.A. , Ranft, A.L. , Hochwarter, W.A. , Ferris, G.R. , et al.
(2008). A meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 27, pp. 177–245).
Emerald.
Gagné, M. (2009). A model of knowledge‐sharing motivation. Human Resource
Management, 48(4), 571–589.
Gagné, M., Tian, A. W., Soo, C., Zhang, B., Ho, K., Seng, B., & Hosszu, K. (2019). Different
motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2364
Garcia-Morales, V. J., Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M. M., & Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. (2012).
Transformational leadership influence on organizational performance through
organizational learning and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1040–1050
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109.
Garvin, D.A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, July-August,
78–91.
Golden, N., & Gall, J. P. (2000). The Complete Toolkit for Building High-Performance Work
Teams. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
225

Golden, T. D., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Unpacking the role of a telecommuter’s job in their
performance: Examining job complexity, problem solving, interdependence, and social
support. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 55–69.
Gooderham, P., Minbaeva, D. B., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Governance mechanisms for the
promotion of social capital for knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Journal
of Management Studies, 48(1), 123–150.
Gravlee, C. C. (2020). Systemic racism, chronic health inequities, and COVID‐19: A syndemic
in the making? American Journal of Human Biology, 2020, Article e23482.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15, 103–120.
Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Otaye‐Ebede, L., Woods, S. A., & West, M. A. (2015).
Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of
workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 276–303.
Günther, C., Ekinci, N. A., Schwieren, C., & Strobel, M. (2010). Women can’t jump?—An
experiment on competitive attitudes and stereotype threat. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 75(3), 395–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2010.05.003
Hai Nam N., & Sherif, M. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge
management practices. The Journal of Management Development 30(2), 206–221.
DOI:10.1108/02621711111105786
Hajro, A., Gibson, C. B., & Pudelko, M. (2017). Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural
teams: Linking organizational diversity climates to teams’ effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 60(1), 345–372.
226

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of
individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90.
Han, S. H., Seo, G., Li, J., & Yoon, S. W. (2016). The mediating effect of organizational
commitment and employee empowerment: How transformational leadership impacts
employee knowledge sharing intention. Human Resource Development International,
19(2), 98–115.
Hansen, J. Ø., Jensen, A., & Nguyen, N. (2020). The responsible learning organization: can
Senge (1990) teach organizations how to become responsible innovators?. The Learning
Organization, 27(1), 65–74.
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y.-G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and
social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009
Hauser, A., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2020). Because “happy sheets” are not enough: A meta-
analytical evaluation of a personnel development program in academia. Studies in Higher
Education, 45(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1509306
Heizmann, H., & Olsson, M. R. (2015). Power matters: The importance of Foucault’s
power/knowledge as a conceptual lens in KM research and practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 19(4), 756-769.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/JKM-12-2014-0511
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
227

Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional
development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 16(5), 87–106.
Herzberg, F. M., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. John Wiley
& Sons.
Hoe, S. L. (2020). Digitalization in practice: the fifth discipline advantage. The Learning
Organization,(27)1, 54–64.
Hoe, S. L. (2020). The topicality of the learning organizations: Is the concept still relevant
today? (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Learning Organization. Oxford University
Press.
Holste, & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 14(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Holten, A., Hancock, G. R., Persson, R., Hansen, Å. M., & Hogh, A. (2016). Knowledge
hoarding: Antecedent or consequent of negative acts? The mediating role of trust and
justice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 215–229.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2015-0222
Hsu, S. W. (2013). Alternative learning organization. In Handbook of Research on the Learning
Organization. Edward Elgar.
Hsu, S. W., & Lamb, P. (2020). Still in search of learning organization? Towards a radical
account of the fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. The
Learning Organization, 27(1), 31–41.
Huang, M. C., Chiu, Y. P., & Lu, T. C. (2013). Knowledge governance mechanisms and
repatriate’s knowledge sharing: The mediating roles of motivation and opportunity.
228

Journal of Knowledge Management, (17)5, 677-694. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-
2013-0048
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization science, 2(1), 88–115.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource
Development Review, 2(4), 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985
Ismail, M. B., & Yusof, Z. M. (2010). The impact of individual factors on knowledge sharing
quality. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 13(1), 1–12.
Janus, S. S. (2016). Becoming a knowledge-sharing organization: A handbook for scaling up
solutions through knowledge capturing and sharing. World Bank Group.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/25320
Jeon, S., Kim, Y. G., & Koh, J. (2011). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in
communities‐of‐practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251–269.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119682
Jha, K. J., & Varkkey, B. (2018). Are you a cistern or a channel? Exploring factors triggering
knowledge-hiding behavior at the workplace: Evidence from the Indian r and d
professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 824–849.
Jia, X., Chen, J., Mei, L., & Wu, Q. (2018). How leadership matters in organizational innovation:
a perspective of openness. Management Decision, 56(1), 6–25.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0415
Jiang, X., Bao, Y., Xie, Y., & Gao, S. (2016). Partner trustworthiness, knowledge flow in
strategic alliances, and firm competitiveness: A contingency perspective. Journal of
Business Research, 69(2), 804–814.
229

Jiang, X., Li, M., Gao, S., Bao, Y., & Jiang, F. (2013). Managing knowledge leakage in strategic
alliances: The effects of trust and formal contracts. Industrial Marketing Management,
42, 983–991.
Jiang, Z., Hu, X., Wang, Z., & Jiang, X. (2019). Knowledge hiding as a barrier to thriving: The
mediating role of psychological safety and moderating role of organizational cynicism.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 800--818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2358
Jiménez-Jiménez, D. & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and
performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408–417.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9038-8
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Jones, M. L. (2001). Sustainable organizational capacity building: is organizational learning a
key? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 91–98.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (July-August 2016). Why diversity programs fail. Harvard
Kamaşak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation.
European Business Review, 22(3), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341011040994
Kang, S. (2016). Knowledge withholding: psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion
within an organisation. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 14(1), 144–149.
https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.24
230

Kezar, A. (2001). Organizational models and facilitators of change: Providing a framework for
student and academic affairs collaboration. New Directions for Higher
Education, 2001(116), 63–74.
Khalid, M., Bashir, S., Khan, A., & Abbas, N. (2018). When and how abusive supervision leads
to knowledge hiding behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6),
794–806. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2017-0140
Killingsworth, Xue, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge sharing among global
virtual teams. Team Performance Management, 22(5/6), 284–300.
https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-10-2015-0042
Kim, K., Watkins, K. E., & Lu, Z. L. (2017). The impact of a learning organization on
performance: Focusing on knowledge performance and financial performance. European
Journal of Training and Development, 41(2), 177–193.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training
evaluation. Association for Talent Development.
Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning:
Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization
Management, 36(3), 385–415.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
231

Kucharska, W., & Bedford, D. A. D. (2019). Knowledge sharing and organizational culture
dimensions: Does job satisfaction matter?: EJKM. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(1), 1-–18.
Kwahk, K. Y., & Park, D. H. (2016). The effects of network sharing on knowledge-sharing
activities and job performance in enterprise social media environments. Computers in
Human Behavior, 55, 826–839.
Labafi, S. (2017). Knowledge hiding as an obstacle of innovation in organizations a qualitative
study of software industry. AD-Minister, (30), 131–148.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Always learning: Pearson Research
Report, 24, 1–40.
Lanke, P. (2018). Knowledge hiding: impact of interpersonal behavior and expertise. Human
Resource Management International Digest, 26(2), 30–32.
https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-01-2018-0010
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. SAGE Publishing.
Le, P., & Lei, H. (2018) The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing processes. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(3), 521-537. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0463
Leana III, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment
practices. Academy of management review, 24(3), 538–555.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on
knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4), 473–491.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610362036.
232

Lee, Sang M., & Trimi, S. (2021)Convergence innovation in the digital age and in the COVID-
19 pandemic crisis. Journal of Business Research 123, 14–22.
Leonardi, P. M., Huysman, M., & Steinfield, C. (2013). Enterprise social media: Definition,
history, and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 1–19.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of management Review, 23(3), 438–458
Limaye, R. J., Sauer, M., Ali, J., Bernstein, J., Wahl, B., Barnhill, A., & Labrique, A. (2020).
Building trust while influencing online COVID-19 content in the social media world. The
Lancet Digital Health, 2(6), e277–e278.
Lin, S.-W., & Lo, L. Y.-S. (2015). Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing: integrating the
reward systems and social network perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management,
19(2), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2014-0209
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview (ED474273). ERIC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED474273
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the
longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review,
12(1), 81–100.
Lourenço, P. R. and Dimas, I. D. (2011). “From the past to the present: building workgroups”, in
Valentim, J.P. (Ed.), Societal Approaches in Social Psychology (pp. 195–213). Peter
Lang.
233

Lowe, F. (2013). Keeping leadership White: Invisible blocks to Black leadership and its Denial
in White organizations. Journal of Social Work Practice: Leadership and Management in
Social Work, 27(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2013.798151
Marquardt, M. J., Marquardt, M., & Reynolds, A. (1994). The global learning organization.
Irwin Professional.
Marques, J. M. R., Falce, J. L. L., Marques, F. M. F. R., Muylder, C. F. D., & Silva, J. T. M.
(2019). The relationship between organizational commitment, knowledge transfer and
knowledge management maturity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 489–507.
https://doi.org/10. 1108/jkm-03-2018-019
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision
making in education (RAND Education occasional paper). RAND.
Marsh, J., Springer, M., McCaffrey, D., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., Kalra, N., DiMartino,
C., & Peng, A. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York city's experiment with
schoolwide performance bonuses—final evaluation report. RAND Education.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1114.html (Summary, pp. 1–20).
Martín‐Pérez, V., Martín‐Cruz, N., & Estrada‐Vaquero, I. (2012). The influence of
organizational design on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge management.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59
234

McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and
recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, (1)1, 23–63.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. SAGE Publishing.
McGuirk, H., Lenihan, H., & Hart, M. (2015). Measuring the impact of innovative human capital
on small firms’ propensity to innovate. Research Policy, 44(4), 965–976.
McIver, D., Lengnick-Hall, C., & Ramachandran, I. (2013). Understanding work and knowledge
management from a knowledge-in-practice perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 38(4), 597–620. https://doi.org/10.M65/amr.2011.0266
Men, C., Fong, P., Huo, W., Zhong, J., Jia, R., & Luo, J. (2020). Ethical leadership and
knowledge hiding: A moderated mediation model of psychological safety and mastery
climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(3), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
018-4027-7
Mermoud, A., Keupp, M. M., Huguenin, K., Palmié, M., & Percia David, D. (2019). To share or
not to share: A behavioral perspective on human participation in security information
sharing. Journal of Cybersecurity, 5(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyz006
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Metiu, A., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus
of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group
engagement. Organization Science, 24(2), 455–475.
Milway, K. S., & Saxton, A. (2011). The challenge of organizational learning. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 9(3), 44–49.
235

Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity:
Mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing.
Management Decision, 53(5), 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2014-0464
Molefi, N., O’Mara, J., & Richter, A. (2021). Global diversity, equity, and inclusion
Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. SAGE Publishing.
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equity. In The Gender Question In Education (pp. 105-122). Routledge.
Morita, P. P. and Burns, C. M. (2014). Designing for interpersonal trust - the power of trust
tokens. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting,
(57)1, 339–343.
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
Mudambi, R., & Navarra, P. (2015). Is knowledge power? Knowledge flows, subsidiary power
and rent-seeking within MNCs. In The eclectic paradigm. Palgrave MacMillian, London.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-54471-1_7
Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., Aslam, U. and Ur-Rahman, U. (2017). Exploring the challenges,
trends and issues for knowledge sharing: a study on employees in public sector
universities. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, (47)1,
2–15.
Mura, M., Lettieri, E., Radaelli, G., & Spiller, N. (2013). Promoting professionals’ innovative
behaviour through knowledge sharing: the moderating role of social capital. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 17(4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2013-0105
236

Nadeem, M. A., Liu, Z., Ghani, U., Younis, A., & Xu, Y. (2020). Impact of shared goals on
knowledge hiding behavior: the moderating role of trust. Management Decision, 59(6),
1312–1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2019-1197
Nair, N., & Vohra, N. (2015). Diversity and inclusion at the workplace: a review of research and
perspectives. http://hdl.handle.net/11718/16616
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96-104
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. (8th ed.) Sage Publishing.
Nowlin, E.L., Anaza, N.A., Anaza, E., & Nowlin, E.L. (2015). Salesperson resistance to sharing
market intelligence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Marketing Channels, (22)2, 93–
107.
Offergelt, F., Spörrle, M., Moser, K., & Shaw, J. (2019). Leader‐signaled knowledge hiding:
Effects on employees’ job attitudes and empowerment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 40(7), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2343
Oliveira, Curado, C., & Garcia, P. S. (2021). Knowledge hiding and knowledge hoarding: A
systematic literature review. Knowledge and Process Management, 28(3), 277–294.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1671
Omar, M. K., Dahalan, N. A., & Yusoff, Y. H. M. (2016). Social media usage, perceived team-
efficacy and knowledge sharing behaviour among employees of an oil and gas
organisation in Malaysia. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 309–316.
237

Ortega, A., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Rico, R. (2010). Team learning and
effectiveness in virtual project teams: The role of beliefs about interpersonal context. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(1), 267–276.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms.
Organization science, 11(5), 538–550.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2002). Business performance measurement: Theory and practice.
Cambridge University Press.
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A
framework for responsible innovation. In Owen, R., Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (Eds),
Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and
Innovation in Society (pp. 27-50). Wiley.
Palinkas, L. A., Aarons G. A., Horwitz S., Chamberlain P., Hurlburt M., & Landsverk J. (2011).
Mixed method designs in implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 44–53.
Park, S. & Kim, E. J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1408–1423.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2017-0467
Patton, L. D., & Bondi, S. (2015). Nice White men or social justice allies?: Using critical race
theory to examine how white male faculty and administrators engage in ally work. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 488–514.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
238

Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge
barriers - Three blurry terms in KM. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
10(1), 81–91.
Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. (2017). Is the learning organisation still alive? The Learning
Organization, 24(2), 119–126.
Pedler, M., & Hsu, S. W. (2014). Unlearning, critical action learning and wicked problems.
Action Learning: Research and Practice, 11(3), 296–310.
Pedler, M., & Shih-wei, H. (2019). Regenerating the learning organisation: Towards an
alternative paradigm. The Learning Organization, 26(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/
10.1108/TLO-08-2018-0140
Peng, He. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(3), 398-415. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0380
Pierce, J. L., & Jussila, I. (2011). Psychological ownership and the organizational context:
Theory, research evidence, and application. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Podrug, N., Filipović, D., & Kovač, M. (2017). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation
capability in Croatian ICT companies. International Journal of Manpower, 38(4), 632–
644. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2016-0077
Price, W. N., Rai, A. K., & Minssen, T. (2020). Knowledge transfer for large-scale vaccine
manufacturing. Science, 369(6506), 912–914.
Prieto Pastor, I. M., Perez Santana, M. P., & Martin Sierra, C. (2010). Managing knowledge
through human resource practices: empirical examination on the Spanish automotive
industry. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(13), 2452–
2467.
239

Randall, R. M. (2015). W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne dispel blue ocean myths. Strategy &
Leadership, 43(2), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2015-0007
Rebelo, T. M., & Adelino, D. G. (2008). Organizational learning and the learning organization:
Reviewing evolution for prospecting the future. The Learning Organization, 15(4), 294-
308. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470810879556
Rebelo, T., Lourenço, P. R., & Dimas, I. (2020). Journey of team learning since the fifth
discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. The Learning Organization,
27(1), 42–53.
Reese, S. (2020). Reflecting on impacts of Peter Senge’s fifth discipline on learning
organizations. The Learning Organization, 27(1), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-
01-2020-244
Reese, S. R. (2020). Taking the learning organization mainstream and beyond the organizational
level: an interview with Peter Senge. The Learning Organization, (27)1, 6–16.
Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2015). The power of interest for motivation and engagement.
Routledge.
Rhee, Y. W., & Choi, J. N. (2017). Knowledge management behavior and individual creativity:
Goal orientations as antecedents and in-group social status as moderating contingency.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 813–832.
Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. The Academy of Management
Perspectives, 21(2), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2007.25356510
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
240

Romm, Norma. (2015). Reviewing the transformative paradigm: A critical systemic and
relational (Indigenous) lens. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5.
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioral sciences. Holt Rinehart
& Winston.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2007). Knowledge management and learning: Perfect together. In R. A. Reiser
& J. V. Dempsey, (Eds.). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.
Pearson.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). ualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publishing.
Rumanti, A. A., Samadhi, T. M. A. A., Wiratmadja, I. I., & Sunaryo, I. (2018, April 26-28). A
systematic literature review on knowledge sharing for innovation: Empirical study
approach [Conference Presentation]. 2018 5th International Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Applications (ICIEA), National University of Singapore, Singapore.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iea.2018.8387153
Ruparel, N., & Choubisa, R. (2020). Knowledge hiding in organizations: A retrospective
narrative review and the way forward. Dynamic Relationships Management Journal,
9(1), 5–22.
Rupcic, N. (2020). Learning organization: Organization emerging from presence. The Learning
Organization, (27)1, 17–30.
Rutten, W., Blaas - Franken, J., & Martin, H. (2016). The impact of (low) trust on knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 199–214.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0391
241

Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. SAGE Publishing.
Sankowska, A. (2013). Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer,
knowledge creation, and firm’s innovativeness. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 85–
100. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311288546
Sattayaraksa, T., & Boon-itt, S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and the new product
development process: The mediating roles of organizational learning and innovation
culture. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(6), 730–749.
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Research methods for business students (5th ed). Pearson Education
India.
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed). Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that
learn (updated and revised): A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. Currency.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2016). Understanding counterproductive knowledge behavior:
Antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1199-1224. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2016-0203
Shahin, A., & Zairi, M. (2006). Strategic management, benchmarking and the Balanced
Score Card (BSC): An integrated methodology. International Journal of Applied
Strategic Management, 2(2), 1–10.
242

Sheng-Wei, L., & Yi-Shih Lo, L. (2015). Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing:
Integrating the reward systems and social network perspectives. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 19(2), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2014-0209
Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual
team creativity: A cross‐level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197–
212.
Singh, S. K. (2019). Territoriality, task performance, and workplace deviance: Empirical
evidence on role of knowledge hiding. Journal of Business Research, 97, 10–19.
Singh, S. K., Gupta, S., Busso, D., & Kamboj, S. (2019). Top management knowledge value,
knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. Journal of
Business Research, 128(C), 788–798.
Škerlavaj, M., Connelly, C., Cerne, M., & Dysvik, A. (2018). Tell me if you can: Time pressure,
prosocial motivation, perspective taking, and knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(7), 1489–1509. doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0179
Smith, G. E., Barnes, K. J. and Harris, C. (2014). A learning approach to the ethical organization.
The Learning Organization, 21(2), 113–125
Spencer, S., Logel, C., & Davies, P. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology,
67(1), 415-437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235
Steele, C. M., and Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
243

Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Ravaja, N., & Haukkala, A. (2016). Why share expertise? A closer
look at the quality of motivation to share or withhold knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 20(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2015- 0124
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible
innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
Super, J. F., Li, P., Ishqaidef, G., & Guthrie, J. P. (2016). Group rewards, group composition and
information sharing: A motivated information processing perspective. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 134, 31–44.
Suppiah, V., & Manjit, S. S. (2011). Organisational culture’s influence on tacit knowledge-
sharing behaviour. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 462–477.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1108/13673271111137439
Swart, J., & Harvey, P. (2011). Identifying knowledge boundaries: the case of networked
projects. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(5), 703–721.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111174285
Swift, P.E., & Hwang, A. (2013). The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge
sharing and organizational learning. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 20–37.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Putting the human back in “human research
methodology:” The researcher in mixed methods research. The Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 4(4), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689810382532
Tastad, C., & Bass, D. (2020). The route to true gender equality? Fix the system, not the women.
World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/gender-gap-equality-
income-wages-solution/
244

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior
modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 692.
Taylor, S. P. (2017) What is innovation? A study of the definitions, academic models and
applicability of innovation to an example of social housing in England. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 5, 128–146. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.511010
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Marques, M. M., Rutter, H., Oppert, J. M., De Bourdeaudhuij, I.,
Lakerveld, J., & Brug, J. (2015). Successful behavior change in obesity interventions in
adults: a systematic review of self-regulation mediators. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 1–16.
Tsang, E. W. K. (1997). Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy
between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human Relations, 50(1), 73–89.
Tsay, C. H., Lin, T., Yoon, J., & Huang, C. (2014). Knowledge withholding intentions in teams:
The roles of normative conformity, affective bonding, rational choice and social
cognition. Decision Support Systems, 67, 53–65. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.08.003
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223- 247). SAGE Publishing.
University of Southern California. (2020, July). University of Southern California Human
Subjects Protection Program (HHSP) Policies and Procedures.
https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2020/07/USC-HSPP-Policies-and-Procedures-version-July-
2020.pdf
245

Valentine, M., Tan, T., Staats, B., & Edmondson, A. (2019). Fluid teams and knowledge
retrieval: Scaling service operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management,
21(2), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2017.0704
van der Haar, S., Koeslag-Kreunen, M., Euwe, E., & Segers, M. (2017). Team leader structuring
for team effectiveness and team learning in command-and-control teams. Small Group
Research, 48(2), 215–248.
Von Hippel, C., Issa, M., Ma, R., & Stokes, A. (2011). Stereotype threat: Antecedents and
consequences for working women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 151–
161.
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Owen, R.,
Bessant, J. and Heintz, M. (Eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible
Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society (pp. 51–74). Wiley.
Walter, F., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2013). Harnessing members' positive mood for team-directed
learning behaviour and team innovation: The moderating role of perceived team
feedback. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 235–248.
Walters, A. (2020). Inequities in access to education: Lessons from the COVID‐19 pandemic.
The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 36(8), 8–8.
Walton, G., Murphy, M., & Ryan, A. (2015). Stereotype threat in organizations: Implications for
equity and performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
032414-111322
246

Wang, L., Law, K., Zhang, M., Li, Y., & Liang, Y. (2019). It’s mine! Psychological ownership
of one’s job explains positive and negative workplace outcomes of job engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000337
Wang, S., & Noe, R. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert
systems with applications, 39(10), 8899–8908.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art
and science of systemic change. Jossey-Bass.
Watkins, K. W., Connell, C. M., Fitzgerald, J. T., Klem, L. A. U. R. A., Hickey, T., & Ingersoll-
Dayton, B. E. R. I. T. (2000). Effect of adults' self-regulation of diabetes on quality-of-
life outcomes. Diabetes Care, 23(10), 1511–1515.
Weber, R. A., & Camerer, C. F. (2003). Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental
approach. Management Science, 49(4), 400–415.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Whitelaw, S., Mamas, M. A., Topol, E., & Van Spall, H. G. (2020). Applications of digital
technology in COVID-19 pandemic planning and response. The Lancet Digital Health,
2(8), e435-e440.
Wickramasinghe, V., & Widyaratne, R. (2012). Effects of interpersonal trust, team leader
support, rewards, and knowledge sharing mechanisms on knowledge sharing in project
teams. VINE, 42(2), 214–236.
247

Wilson, J. P. (2008). Reflecting-on-the-future: A chronological consideration of reflective
practice. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(2),
177–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802005525
Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Antecedents of
organizational knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis and critique. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(2), 250-277. http://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311315204
Women in Executive Leadership: What’s Getting in the Way? Journal of Business
Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 115–134. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1807470842/
Xiao, M., & Cooke, F. L. (2019). Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful:
a review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(4), 470–502.
Xiong, C., Chang, V., Scuotto, V., Shi, Y., & Paoloni, N. (2021). The social-psychological
approach in understanding knowledge hiding within international R&D teams: An
inductive analysis. Journal of Business Research, 128, 799–811.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299–312.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119709
Yeager, D. S., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., and Dweck, C. S. (2013). How can we instill
productive mindsets at scale? A review of the evidence and an initial R&D agenda.
White House Meeting on Excellence in Education: The Importance of Academic
Mindsets.
248

Yeo, R. K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization: A synthesis of the learning
organization literature. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 368–382.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510599145
Zack, M. H. (2003). Rethinking the knowledge-based organization. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 44(4), 67.
Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of
knowledge management, 13(3), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910962897
Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group creativity in
Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5),
851–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.007
Zhang, Z., & Min, M. (2019). The negative consequences of knowledge hiding in NPD project
teams: The roles of project work attributes. International Journal of Project
Management, 37(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.006x
Zhao, H., Xia, Q., He, P., Sheard, G., & Wan, P. (2016). Workplace ostracism and knowledge
hiding in service organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 59,
84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.09.009
Zhu, W., Newman A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust in
transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference? The
Leadership quarterly, 24(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.004
Zhu, Y. Q. (2016). Why and how knowledge sharing matters for R&D engineers. R&D
Management, 47(2), 212–222.

249

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Email sent via internal organization member:
Hi x (personalized organization) team member,
Are you interested in contributing to some cutting-edge research on how knowledge is
shared within organizations to impact innovation and growth in your organization? I am a
doctoral student researching how knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors impact
knowledge sharing or hiding. To help with this research, follow this link to an online survey that
should take between 10-15 minutes to complete. In the survey, you’ll answer questions about
your background experience and your experience with sharing your own knowledge with
colleagues. You will not be asked to provide your name as part of this study. Neither your
participation nor completion of this survey is not tied in any way to your professional activities.
Any and all information from this study is confidential and will be stored electrically on a
password-protected device and folder. The research has been reviewed according to the
University of Southern California IRB (Institutional Review Board) procedures for research
involving human subjects. Follow this link to participate in the study.
Thank you for time and participation in this research! If you have any questions about
this research, you can reach out to the researcher Stacey Schultz at slschult@usc.edu.
Best wishes,
Stacey
Survey Instrument
ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please check each box to move forward in the survey.
● You have read all of the information in the email.
● You voluntarily agree to participate
250

● You are at least 18 years of age
Directions for the survey:
For the purpose of the this survey, knowledge will refer to the knowledge people hold from
experience, like how someone does their job, or knowledge that can be collected and organized,
such as definitions. When I ask questions referring to knowledge sharing mean how or what
knowledge people share with others. And knowledge hiding will mean the knowledge people do
not share with others. There are 30 questions on this survey and it should take you roughly 10-15
minutes to complete.

Table A1
Knowledge Factors
Employee assessment Manager assessment
Which of the following are components of
knowledge sharing in our organization?
(Check all that apply)

Knowledge people hold from experience*
How someone does their job*
Knowledge collected and organized*
Sharing information informally*
Sharing information by contributing to
knowledge management systems*
Keeping a personal knowledge journal
Listening to others in meetings
Which of the following are components of
knowledge sharing in our organization?
(Check all that apply)

Knowledge people hold from experience*
How someone does their job*
Knowledge collected and organized*
Sharing information informally*
Sharing information by contributing to
knowledge management systems*
Keeping a personal knowledge journal
Listening to others in meetings
Knowledge hiding is: (Check all that apply)
Lack of knowledge sharing.
Only sharing part of the information
someone asked you to share *
Avoiding sharing knowledge*
Collecting knowledge that may or may
not be shared
Collecting information for yourself
Knowledge hiding is: (Check all that apply)
Lack of knowledge sharing.
Only sharing part of the information
someone asked you to share *
Avoiding sharing knowledge*
Collecting knowledge that may or may not
be shared
Collecting information for yourself
251

Employee assessment Manager assessment
Protecting someone from knowledge they
should not have*
Pretending you do not know something*
Protecting someone from knowledge they
should not have*
Pretending you do not know something*
The benefits of knowledge sharing in the
organization are: (Check all that apply)

Promotes innovation*
Promotes a diversity of thought*
Enhances work engagement*
Enhances psychological safety*
Contributes to customer satisfaction
Increases media attention
The benefits of knowledge sharing in the
organization are: (Check all that apply)

Promotes innovation*
Promotes a diversity of thought*
Enhances work engagement*
Enhances psychological safety*
Contributes to customer satisfaction
Increases media attention
For each of the following statements, please
scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree:
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact
on the way you feel about:
Your work
Your team
Your ability to reach your goals
Knowledge hiding has a negative impact on
the:
Team
Work environment
The following are knowledge sharing
activities in the organization: (Check all
that apply)

Offering to assist others to solve
problems*
Attending a training and actively sharing
insights*
Offering to provide information that
others need to complete their work.*
Attending meetings where people share
their best practices.*
Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management
system*
Attending a training
The following are knowledge sharing activities
in the organization: (Check all that apply)

Offering to assist others to solve problems*
Attending a training and actively sharing
insights*
Offering to provide information that others
need to complete their work.*
Attending meetings where people share
their best practices.*
Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management
system*
Attending a training
I monitor and evaluate my progress in
sharing knowledge with others by: (Check
all that apply)
Collecting data on meeting personal and
departmental goals.*
I monitor and evaluate my progress in sharing
knowledge with others by: (Check all that
apply)
Collecting data on meeting personal and
departmental goals.*
252

Employee assessment Manager assessment
I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge sharing
I am aware of the importance of sharing
materials and knowledge among my
team members.*
I have a system for adding relevant
information to the company's shared
learning or knowledge management
system.*
I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge sharing
I am aware of the importance of sharing
materials and knowledge among my team
members.*
I have a system for adding relevant
information to the company's shared
learning or knowledge management
system.*
I monitor and evaluate when I hide my
knowledge: (Check all that apply)

I keep track of when someone asks me
for information and I do not share it *
I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge
I am aware of how many meetings or
trainings I skip*
I do not attend “optional” learning or
sharing spaces*

I monitor and evaluate when I hide my
knowledge: (Check all that apply)

I keep track of when someone asks me for
information and I do not share it*
I do not have a way of monitoring and
evaluating my knowledge
I am aware of how many meetings or
trainings I skip*
I do not attend “optional” learning or
sharing spaces*

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

253

Table A2
Motivational Factors
Employee assessment

For each of the following statements,
please scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree:
Manager assessment

For each of the following statements, please scale
from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree:
Sharing my knowledge with others is
important to me.
Sharing information is important for
the success of the organization.
Sharing my knowledge with others is important to
me.
Sharing information is important for the success of
the organization.
I am successful in my work.
I am confident I can perform the tasks
that the role demands.
I am confident I know when to ask for
help.
I know what knowledge to share with
people when they ask for it.

I am confident I can create an environment that
promotes knowledge sharing.
I understand the need and benefits of knowledge
sharing.
I understand knowledge hiding.
I know how to decrease knowledge hiding from
happening on my team.

Using the scale below, rate your
confidence in performing the
following right now:
Offering to assist others to solve
problems *
Attending a training and actively
sharing insights *
Offering to provide information
that others need to complete
their work. *
Attending meetings where people
share their best practices. *
Adding knowledge to a shared
learning system or knowledge
management system *

Sliding scale from 1 to 10

Cited: Adapted from Bandura, 2000
Using the scale below, rate your confidence in
performing the following right now:
Offering to assist others to solve problems *
Attending a training and actively sharing insights
*
Offering to provide information that others need
to complete their work. *
Attending meetings where people share their best
practices. *
Adding knowledge to a shared learning system
or knowledge management system *

Sliding scale from 1 to 10

Cited: Adapted from Bandura, 2000
I believe the current team or
department I work with can
I believe we have the “right” team to accomplish
the goals of this unit.
254

accomplish anything they set out
to do.
I believe my colleagues have
knowledge I need to do my job.
I believe this team has the knowledge they need
to do the job well.
I am comfortable sharing
knowledge with others.

Sharing materials and knowledge
prepare me to fulfill my work
responsibilities.
I always share my knowledge at
work.
I seek out knowledge and
information.
I believe it is important for members of the team
to share their knowledge to further the whole
team and not individuals.
I believe creating competition among team
members supports our ability to achieve their
goals.
I value creating a team atmosphere.
I believe finding new ways of
doing things is important.
I believe creativity is more
achievable as a team.
You often seek out information,
resources, and new contacts.
I believe finding new ways of doing things is
important.
I believe creativity is more achievable as a team.
You often seek out information, resources, and
new contacts.
When things don’t go right, I learn
from them and keep going.
I want to do well at work because
it makes me look good.
I encourage mastery-based goals for the team.
I encourage performance-based goals.
I maintain close social
relationships with others.
I develop a personal working relationship with
all of my reportees.
I am valued as a member of this
team.
My voice is heard at meetings.
My colleagues do not respect me
I know how to support people from different
backgrounds.
I am aware of how comments and/or requests
can impact people from diverse backgrounds.
I can create a space where all voices can be
heard.

Note. Asterisks indicate a correct response.

255

Table A3
Organizational Factors
Employee and managers

For each of the following statements, please scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree)
There is a culture of knowledge sharing in the organization
There is a culture of knowledge hiding in the organization
At my organization, knowledge sharing is important.
At my organization, all members share their knowledge.
Collaboration and teamwork are central to the work at my organization.
Continuous learning is important at my organization.
Leaders at my organization share their knowledge often.
Leaders do not share information readily.
The vision, values, and goals of my organization are clearly defined.
There are clear incentives for knowledge sharing.
People are recognized for their knowledge sharing and the impact of their contributions.
There are a variety of systems for collecting knowledge.
The systems of knowledge are easily accessible by all.
Members of my organization
are trustworthy.
Are reliable.
It is ok to make mistakes at my organization.
It is easy to ask for help at my organization.
Equity is important at my organization.
All members of the organization are valued.
All members are recognized fairly.
All members are given the same kinds of opportunities.

256

Table A4
Demographics
How many years have you worked at this current
organization? Choose one that applies
1–5 years
5–10 years
10–15 years
15 or more years
What type of industry is your organization in?
Choose all that applies.
Education
Media
Tech
Publishing
Finance
For-profit
Non-profit
What role to you hold in your organization?
Choose the one that best describes your
responsibilities at your current organization.
Employee
Manager
Director
Organization leader
Please choose all that apply (optional). Female
Male
Person of color
White
Would you be interested in volunteering to
participate in an interview in the next two-four
weeks?
Yes
No

257

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Hi (NAME), Thank you again for taking the time to meet with me today. As I mentioned
in my email, this interview is purely confidential. During our meeting today, I will be recording
the session in zoom. The recording will be downloaded to my computer and password-protected
on my hard drive. As you entered the room, you had to agree to the recording, so thank you for
agreeing to that. Additionally, I would like to take notes on my computer notes while we meet.
Would that be ok with you? These notes are also kept confidential and protected with a
password. The interview should last no longer than 60 minutes. For the purpose of this interview,
knowledge will refer to the knowledge people hold from experience, like how someone does
their job, or knowledge that can be collected and organized, such as definitions, When I ask
questions referring to knowledge sharing mean how or what knowledge people share with others.
And knowledge hiding will mean the knowledge people do not share with others. Any clarifying
questions about the interview or how we will use these words today?

258

Table B1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes Q
Key concept
addressed
The first set of questions is to gain some background knowledge on your role and
responsibilities.
Please tell me about your position here?

1 Demographics
Whom do you report to? Does anyone
report to you, if so how many?

Power
dynamics
How long have you been associated
with this organization?
1 Demographics
What are your current responsibilities?
Is there knowledge specific
information aligned to
your current
responsibility?

1
Power
dynamics
This second set of questions will explore knowledge sharing and hiding.
Tell me what you think knowledge
sharing is.

How do you share
knowledge? Who is in the
room?
1
Improving
spaces
What do you think knowledge hiding is?

Do you engage in knowledge
hiding?

1
Supportive
environment
I'm going to give you a list of tasks. Tell
me how confident you are in doing
them.
Offering to assist others to solve
problems
Attending a training and actively
sharing insights *
Offering to provide information that
others need to complete their work.
Attending meetings where people share
their best practices.
Adding knowledge to a shared learning
system or knowledge management
system *

Community
participation
& efficacy
Describe how your team works together
to share knowledge.
In what ways: Systems,
platforms, slack, CoP, etc?

1
Values,
Structures &
Systems
259

Describe for me how the culture of the
organization supports knowledge
sharing.
How important is knowledge
sharing to you?

Is there any information not
shared with you?

In what ways could the
organization improve
knowledge sharing?

Structures &
Systems;
trust
Anything else you want to share?

260

Appendix C: Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research question Theoretical framework Data instrument questions

What are the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational
factors that influence
knowledge hiding and
equitable knowledge sharing
in organizations?

Clark and Estes gap analysis

To support the knowledge
factors: diversity of
thought, knowledge
hiding, knowledge sharing

To support the motivation
factors: social cognitive
theory, social dilemma
theory, self and collective
efficacy (social cognitive ,
stereotype threats theory,
mastery goal orientation,
attitudes

To support the organization
factors: transformational
leadership, psychological
safety, and trust
Survey Questions:

1–7 address knowledge
factors,

8–29 address motivation
factors,

30 has multiple parts
addressing
organizational factors
Interview questions 5–8

What are the recommendations
for organizations to decrease
knowledge hiding to increase
knowledge sharing?

Clark and Estes gap analysis

Survey questions 1–30
Interview questions 5–8
Demographic questions Survey questions
Interview questions 1–4

261

Appendix D: Information Study Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Knowledge Sharing: Valuing Everyone at the Table
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Stacey Schultz

FACULTY ADVISOR: Patricia Tobey, Ph.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
contains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that
influence knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding in organizations.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
You will be part of a study that helps to identify knowledge, motivation, and organization factors
that lead to knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding. With increased knowledge sharing, all
voices are heard and innovative possibilities are limitless. Your participation is voluntary. Your
refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation
in this research study. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to
participate in one scheduled interview. The interviews will be recorded. You have the
opportunity to review the transcription of the interview and retract or amend any statement or the
interview in its entirety. The interviews will occur online using Zoom or similar applications.
Each interview will last no longer than one hour. No risks are foreseen resulting from your
participation in this study.
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to complete an online survey that should take
roughly 10 minutes to complete (30 questions). In the survey, you’ll answer questions about your
background experience and your experience with sharing your own knowledge with
colleagues. Additionally, you will be offered the opportunity to volunteer in an interview.
Interviews will be on Zoom and are 60 minutes.

262

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $25 gift card for participating in the interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The survey will be distributed and stored in Qualtrics. The data from the survey and interview
will be stored on password-protected servers. As stated previously, you will be able to access the
transcription of your interview for edits or retractions. A pseudonym will be assigned to you (i.e.,
if you are a manager from The New York Times named Chris, your pseudonym may be Allie, a
manager in a large media company) for purposes of inclusion in the dissertation. You will have
the right to review the pseudonym prior to its use. All data will be coded for similarities in
responses and stored on electronic systems. Federal records require the data to be stored for three
years, then destroyed.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Stacey Schultz: Principal Investigator
at slschult@usc.edu or Patricia Tobey, PhD: Faculty Advisor at tobey@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

263

Appendix E: Code Book
Code type Codes
A priori Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
influences to open-ended responses that
corresponded during interview
Axial Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
influences as related to open-ended
responses that differed to question during
interview

Open Additional codes beyond the influences:
Siloed- individuals or departments
working on their own.

Feedback Loop- gaining feedback to
support people in building confidence
and being recognized

264

Appendix F: Sample Evaluation Tool to Be Used Immediately Following the Program
Implementation
We value your feedback. Data is evaluated and feedback helps the program team ensure
the training time is relevant and meaningful for you. Thank you for taking the time to complete
this survey.
Section I. Feedback
Level 1
Please respond using a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
1. I found this to be an effective use of my time.
2. I was motivated to perform the actions shared in this training aligned to knowledge
sharing.
3. The content was relevant to my job.
4. My learning was increased by this training.
5. I would recommend this training session to a colleague.
Level 2
1. What is knowledge hiding? Choose any that apply.
a. Keeping knowledge to yourself when you are asked
b. Forgetting to share information at a meeting
c. Forgetting to share information at a meeting and sharing it later
2. Answer the following on a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree.
a. I know what documents and files to share to the system and where to add it.
b. I add relevant documents daily.
c. I respond to everyone’s questions on the team channel daily.
d. My voice is always valued.
3. Answer the following on a 5-point Likert scale of Always to Never. How do you
engage in meetings?
a. Share knowledge, give feedback, and encourage others to share their knowledge
b. Only share if I am comfortable with who’s in the room
c. Only share when the topic or question feels aligned to my expertise
d. Feel confident and comfortable sharing knowledge and feedback with anyone
Section II. Personal Growth
Heading: Each session, we learn new knowledge. In the personal commitment box
discuss what your personal commitment to new learning entails and how you will demonstrate
your learning in practice.
Personal Commitment and Intended Artifacts: Short answer open text box.
Please upload artifacts aligned with personal commitment. File attachment box.
Section III. End of the Survey
265

Thank you for your participation and dedication. Please provide any additional feedback.
Open comment box.

266

Appendix G: Sample Evaluation Tool Delayed for a Period After the Program
Implementation
Level 1
Five-point Likert scales strongly disagree to strongly agree
Over the past quarter did the professional learning experiences provide you with the
materials and training you needed to:
a. Conduct your role.
b. Engage in more teamwork.
c. Support interdependence across the organization.
d. Provide feedback to peers and/or direct reports.
Level 2
1. Answer the following on a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree.
a. I recently added documents and files to share to the system.
b. I added relevant documents daily over the past quarter.
c. I was aware of when I did not answer or add despite knowing the answer or
having the resource.
d. My voice is always valued.
e. I participated in twice as many creative meetings as reporting meetings this past
quarter.
2. Answer the following on a 5-point Likert scale of Always to Never. How do you
engage in meetings?
a. I can apply practices learned in the trainings to increase the impact of my
knowledge sharing.
b. I can apply practices learned in the trainings to increase the ways I knowledge
share despite who is in the room.
c. I asked for help from some directly outside of my team.
d. I know my voice is valued because
i. I received feedback from at least five peers over the past quarter.
ii. I received encouragement weekly over the past quarter.
Level 3
Complete self-reflection and upload artifacts where applicable. This section will be
shared with your peer reviewer and supervisor to complete as well.

267

Table F1
Rubric Example
Behavior Self-
reflection
1–5
Peer
reflection
Supervisor
reflection
Employee and
supervisor:
reflection
Rubrics demonstrate growth in
reflection and self-awareness.

Supervisors:
critical
feedback
I provide more critical feedback
that is:
Culturally responsive
Fair
Mastery-based

Employee and
supervisors:
Peer to peer
feedback
I provide aligned and meaningful
feedback, including
encouragement to colleagues.

Employee and
supervisor:
knowledge
hiding
I decreased the number of
instances that I knowledge hide.

Supervisors:
Modeling
I intentionally model knowledge
sharing in meetings,
communication, and in
knowledge management
systems.

*Adapted from Church & Dawson (2018)
Level 4
3. Answer the following on a 5-point Likert scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree.
a. There is a culture of knowledge sharing in the organization
b. There is a culture of knowledge hiding in the organization
c. At my organization, all members share their knowledge.
d. Leaders at my organization share their knowledge often.
268

e. There are clear incentives for knowledge sharing.
f. People are recognized for their knowledge sharing and the impact of their
contributions.
g. All members of the organization are valued.
h. All members are recognized fairly.
i. All members are given the same kinds of opportunities.

269

Appendix H: Sample Organization High-Level Data Report

270

Appendix I: Sample Data Dashboard for Stakeholders: Supervisor

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Knowledge sharing among student affairs professionals at a small faith-based higher education institution

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices

PDF

Identification of barriers to mentoring and their impact on retention and advancement of underrepresented populations in the federal government

PDF

Impact of job insecurity on intergenerational knowledge sharing among machinists in the United States

PDF

Understanding cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Ghana’s energy sector: an exploratory study

PDF

The role of community college department chairs in the prevention of bullying

PDF

Ambient anxiety within leadership teams and its impact on organizational efficiency in mental health organizations

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study

PDF

Faculty research performance evaluation with the gap analysis framework

PDF

Improving transfer of leadership training from the classroom to the corporate environment within the private sector in Saudi Arabia

PDF

Burnout in women of color in HR leadership roles during COVID-19

PDF

Stress in the Fire Service

PDF

Improving graduation equity in community colleges: a study on California Assembly Bill 705 policy implementation

PDF

Leadership education and development that incorporates e-leadership: the “e” factor in leading in an electronic (virtual) work environment

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Centering women's voices in CQAD accredited post-secondary institutions

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

The happiness design: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Schultz, Stacey Lee (author)

Core Title Knowledge sharing: valuing everyone at the table

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/25/2022

Defense Date 04/29/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag knowledge hiding,knowledge sharing,learning organization,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Kim, Esther C. (committee member), Yates, Kenneth (committee member)

Creator Email slschult@usc.edu,stacey.schultz@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375224

Unique identifier UC111375224

Legacy Identifier etd-SchultzSta-10976

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Schultz, Stacey Lee

Type texts

Source 20220728-usctheses-batch-962 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu