MARCO LEGAL

2.6.1 The Role of Trust

Trust can be built up by similarities due to repeated interactions among individuals, interests, and norms that can lead to self-belief. Employees’ interpersonal trust improves through personal similarities (Adler & Heckscher, 2006; Kristiina, Hanna, & Rebecca, 2007). Similarly, top-down interpersonal trust between managers (line and senior managers) and employees can be developed by openness through discovering similarities and reducing fear (Renzl, 2008). Interpersonal trust can be built on in work places when employees and managers mingle in a work environment that is less bureaucratically administered. There are several methods in building interpersonal trust among employees. One method can be to facilitate interpersonal trust by engaging employees in collaborative practices, for example, a team environment that can boost employees’ knowledge sharing behaviour (Ipe, 2003).

Once employee interpersonal trust is built, it can promote effective knowledge creation and sharing in organisations that may lead to collaborative learning within organisations (Holste & Fields, 2010; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). Interpersonal trust can remove employees’ knowledge sharing barriers and ensure that knowledge is well understood, absorbed, and can be used effectively (Cross, Rice, & Parker, 2001). Employees perceive that

63 | P a g e

interpersonal trust can improve their trust in management and thus organisations can improve their organisational capability (Bordia, Irmer, & Abusah, 2006).

On the other hand, employees perceive that a lack of interpersonal trust between employees and managers can lead to poor knowledge integration and imperfect information sharing (Theriou & Chatzoglou, 2008). To achieve their business objectives, managers play an important role in building trust (Ribiere & Sitar, 2003). Interpersonal trust among employees cannot be built instantaneously as it takes time to develop confidence (Wang, Shieh, & Wang, 2008). New employees initially lose job performance confidence due to a lack of practical knowledge. However, with the passage of time, the organisational culture and environment can improve their trust in other employees, and the organisation can help them in sharing their personal experiences (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003).

Employees rely on trusted and capable colleagues for information sharing. Sharing experiences and knowledge with other members in the workplace can create an obligation on employees to support those employees who have shared their experiences (Lesser & Everest, 2001). Interpersonal trust enables members of communities of practice and multidisciplinary teams (knowledge sources) to effectively deliver their knowledge to knowledge seekers (Kanter, 1999). However, there is little empirical research on how interpersonal trust and the engaging of employees through collaboration harnesses employees’ knowledge sharing activities to improve individual and organisational capability (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Currie & Kerrin, 2003).

This thesis focuses on trust as an antecedent of knowledge sharing behaviour. However, this thesis also acknowledges that, together with trust, other factors such as psychological contracts, reciprocity and transactional sharing may influence knowledge sharing behaviour within organisations. The latter two concepts are more important in virtual settings and

64 | P a g e

among inter-organisational networks. Employees' knowledge sharing within their organisations, through physical and face-to-face knowledge sharing, requires mutual interpersonal trust, trust in management and in the organisation.

Trust is a key component of the psychological contract. Several research scholars have discussed psychological contracts in the knowledge sharing context, for instance, the theoretical model (O'Neill & Adya, 2007) and qualitative study (O'Donohue, Sheehan, Hecker, & Holland, 2007), and in virtual settings (Chiu, Wang, Shih, & Fan, 2011). Hislop (2003) provides an extensive review of articles, discussing HRM and KM in the context of the psychological contract. Hislop suggests that employees’ commitment to their organisations is a behavioural result of their psychological contract, with positive psychological contract providing better organisational commitment, However, when employees’ perceive that the psychological contract has been violated, it may decrease loyalty, motivation, and their intention to share knowledge, and increase their intention to quit. Later, Flood, Turner, Ramamoorthy, and Pearson (2001) conducted a survey among knowledge workers and found that in order to improve the level of organisational commitment based on psychological contracts, management should make sure that incentives are fair and on merit. The authors argue that these findings are similar to the findings in relation to trust and the intention to stay in the organisation. Moreover, employees are willing to stay with employers who provide procedural justice in reward systems and learning opportunities. Organisational commitment, trust and citizenship are essential components of the psychological contract (Rousseau 1997).

This thesis acknowledges the concept of psychological contracts in the knowledge sharing context. However, instead of psychological contracts, the role of trust has been tested in employees’ knowledge sharing behaviour. One of the reasons for this is that social

65 | P a g e

interaction and reciprocity, where individuals are psychologically bound to share their inputs, may result in an increase in the quantity of knowledge and reduce quality knowledge (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).

2.6.2

Typically, senior management focuses on planning, organising, and co-ordinating employees. However, the role of managers (senior managers and line managers in KIFs) has now changed from command and control to coach and facilitator. For instance, Davenport and Prusak (2000) suggest that the role of managers in knowledge sharing activities cannot be ignored, especially when managers perceive knowledge related activities (e.g. knowledge accessibility and knowledge sharing) as important resources. Management support positively influences overall organisational performance. Support from top management attracts participation from employees in initiation and dissemination of important knowledge to other employees in the organisation (Darroch, 2003; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998). Managers’ support can help to transform employees’ tacit knowledge into usable information which can act to stimulate innovation capability (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995).

In contrast, employees perceive that not all managers support knowledge management activities due to managers’ own skills deficits, lack of expertise, and fear of loss of power and position in an organisation (Grover & Davenport, 2001). When managers are not trained and skilled to handle complex situations in the workplace, they can unwittingly destroy organisational knowledge. For instance, Michailova and Husted (2003) note that some employees do not share knowledge due to time constraints imposed by a managerial focus on timely results. However, in workplaces, employees’ knowledge sharing activities demand time and a collaborative environment. Senior managers can facilitate knowledge sharing

66 | P a g e

among individuals by creating an environment where individuals can apply their experiences in problem solving (MacNeil, 2003).

Management support acts to moderate the knowledge sharing process and can create an environment to support employees’ tendency to work individually and to take ownership of what knowledge they have so as to be rewarded and promoted (Brashear, Manolis, & Brooks, 2005). Managers, when acting as coaches and facilitators, can enhance the employee knowledge sharing processes that can lead to innovation and organisational performance (Gilley, Dixon, & Gilley, 2008). The role of managers has been highlighted in this section. In KIFs, managers need to be competent and open to facilitate employees’ knowledge flow. The role of managers should be changed from that of traditional administrator to coach in KIFs.