influence of psychological safety and confidence on employee knowledge sharing enno siemsen aleda v....

Influence of Psychological Safety and Confidence on

Employee Knowledge Sharing

Enno Siemsen Aleda V. Roth

University of Illinois Clemson University

Sridhar Balasubramanian Gopesh Anand

University of North Carolina University of Illinois

2007 POMS Conference – May 6, 2007

Siemsen, Roth, Balasubramanian & Anand 2

Knowledge Sharing Among Individuals

“Specify that problems be solved close to their occurrence in time, place, and process, by those affected by the problem…” From Spear and Bowen’s DNA of the Toyota Production System

“Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company”

From Deming’s 14 points


Studying Motivation to Share

• Focus on dyadic relationships within groups– Knowledge provider’s perspective

• Obstacles to sharing– Hoarding – Inability-to-share

• Moderators– Belief of knowledge provider– Type of knowledge


Psychological Safety

“… employee’s sense of being able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career”

Kahn 1990

“… shared belief that the team is safe for inter-personal risk taking”

Edmondson 1999


Confidence

• Defined as workers belief that work related knowledge is justified

• Moderates the effect of Psychological Safety (PS) on Motivation to Share (MS)

• Possible explanation of Choo et al’s (2007) finding of no relationship between PS and MS


Group Process Perspective

Interaction

+

+

-

H1

H2

H3

Psychological Safety (PS)

Confidence (CON)

Motivation to Share (MS)


Communication Frequency

• Social network theory – Strength of employee ties

• Frequency of interaction and communication• Reduction of cost of transfer

• Tacit knowledge requires strong ties– Sharing codifiable knowledge does not

require communication frequency to same extent


Social Network Perspective

Interaction

+

+

-

H4

H5

H6Motivation to

Share (MS)

Communication Frequency (CF)

Codifiability (COD)


Integrating Group Process and Social Network Perspectives

• Communication frequency increases comfort level of knowledge provider to take risks – Makes provider feel psychologically safe

• Explicit knowledge gives higher confidence to knowledge provider in her knowledge


Interrelationships

+

+

H7

H8



Codifiability (COD)

Confidence (CON)


Structural and Organizational Antecedents

+

+

-

-

H10

H12

H11

H9

Nembhard and Edmondson 2006

Roth et al. 1994

Allen 1977

Reagans 2005



Leadership Consideration

(LC)

Communication Space (CS)

Functional Distance (FD)

Locational Distance (LD)


Complete Model


LocationalDistance (LD)



Codifiability(COD)


(LC)

Confidence (CON)



H1 (+)

H2 (+)

H3 (-)

H4 (+)

H5 (+)

H6 (-)

H7 (+) H8 (+)

H9 (+)

H10 (+)

H11 (-)

H12 (-)


Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control Variables Psychological

Safety Communication

Frequency Combined

Variable Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE Est. SE

Management - .29 (.32) -.40 (.29) -.18 (.30) -.30 (.29) Male - .18 (.22) -.00 (.21) -.08 (.22) -.12 (.21) Education3 -.14 (.29) -.15 (.27) -.14 (.28) -.19 (.27) Education4 -.07 (.36) -.02 (.33) -.02 (.34) -.01 (.32) Education5 -.33 (.43) -.26 (.39) -.49 (.39) -.37 (.38) Age - .02 (.01) -.02 (.01) -.02* (.01) -.02** (.01) Tenure -.02 (.01) -.02* (.01) -.02* (.01) -.03** (.01) Company2 - .60* (.33) -.16 (.31) -.21 (.31) -.04 (.30) Company3 1.07*** (.31) -.79*** (.29) -.79** (.29) -.66** (.29) PS -.41*** (.13) -.36*** (.14) CON -.51*** (.14) -.43*** (.16) PS×CON -.15* (.09) -.16* (.09) PS2 -.15** (.07) -.16** (.07) CON2 -.06 (.06) -.06 (.06) CF -.22* (.12) -.04 (.13) COD -.44*** (.12) -.14 (.14) CF×COD -.21* (.11) -.11 (.11) CF2 -.09 (.07) -.14* (.07) COD2 -.17** (.08) -.00 (.08) Intercept -.93 (.64) -.79 (.59) -.82 (.61) -.60 (.58)

N 188 188 188 188 χ2 30.06 69.10 55.24 77.91 Pseudo R2 .06 .13 .10 .14

Psych. Safety & Comm. Frequency

H 1, 2 & 3

H 4, 5 & 6


Confidence as Moderator

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

-1.3 -0.8 -0.3 0.2 0.7

Psychological Safety

Mo

tiva

tio

n t

o S

har

e

Confidence = .8 Confidence = 0 Confidence = -1.5


Structural and Organizational Antecedents

+

+

-

-

H10

H12

H11

H9

Nembhard and Edmondson 2006

Roth et al. 1994

Allen 1977

Reagans 2005




(LC)





Model Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Dependent Variable

CF PS CON MS

Management .58*** (.24) -.39* (.25) -.31 (.31) .42 (.31) Male .06 (.16) .08 (.16) .29 (.23) -.23 (.21) Education3 .02 (.19) -.11 (.21) -.01 (.30) -.28 (.26) Education4 -.18 (.25) -.10 (.26) -.33 (.35) -.27 (.32) Education5 .06 (.30) .11 (.31) -.32 (.42) -.54 (.39) Age -.02 (.01) -.01 (.01) .00 (.01) .02 (.01) Tenure .00 (.01) .01 (.01) .00 (.01) -.02* (.01) Company2 .40* (.24) .15 (.25) .95*** (.32) -.03 (.29) Company3 .26 (.22) -.31 (.22) 1.05*** (.30) .68** (.28) CS .29*** (.08) .07 (.08) .16 (.11) LD -.13 (.21) -.04 (.19) -.56** (.25) FD -.72*** (.19) .18 (.19) .27 (.27) LC .17** (.08) .06 (.10) CF .49*** (.08) -.02 (.14) COD .49*** (.10) .15 (.14) CF×COD -.09 (.11) CF2 -.14** (.07) COD2 .02 (.08) PS .33** (.14) CON .39** (.16) PS×CON -.20** (.09) PS2 .17*** (.07) CON2 .05 (.06) Constant .70 (.45) .49 (.47) -.52 (.67) -.12 (.59)

N 188 188 188 188 χ2 57.79 67.99 64.91 88.15 Pseudo R2 .11 .12 .12 .16

Antecedents

H 7 H 9

H 10

H11

H12 H 8






Codifiability (COD)


(LC)

Confidence (CON)



H1 (+)

H2 (+)

H3 (-)

H4 (+)

H5 (+)

H6 (-)

H7 (+) H8 (+)

H9 (+)

H10 (+)

H11 (-)

H12 (-)

***

***

***

***

*

***

*

*

***

**

***

*** p < 0.01

** p < 0.05

* p < 0.10

ns Not Supported

ns

Overall Results


Implications

• Identifies contingencies for the effects of Psychological Safety on Knowledge Sharing

• Relates Group Process Perspective to Social Network Theory

• Sheds light on managerial decisions that influence communication frequency

• Confirms importance of leadership in creating psychologically safe environments


Thank You!

Questions and Suggestions


Supplementary Slides


Primary Data• Three companies + one used for pilot

– Web services– Aircraft components– Food

• n = 191 (subsequently reduced to 188)• Response rate 11% to 16%• Responses anchored on knowledge sharing

incidents• Scale validity and reliability tests

conducted• Common Method Variance checks included


Scale ItemsMotivation to Share (MS) (Source: Siemsen, Roth and Balasubramanian 2006) “The provider’s inner drive to share knowledge with the recipient.” MS1 I had no intention to share this knowledge with my coworker. (reverse coded) MS2 I was motivated to share what I know with my coworker. MS3 I really wanted to share this knowledge with my coworker. Psychological Safety (PS) “A shared belief that the dyad is safe for interpersonal risk taking.” PS1 I can safely tell my coworker about any mistakes I make. PS2 I feel comfortable telling my coworker about the errors I make. PS3 It is safe to admit any mistakes I make to my coworker.

Confidence (CON) “The provider’s belief that her knowledge is justified.” CON1 I feel confident that this knowledge is correct. CON2 I am sure that this knowledge is right. CON3 I have no doubt that this knowledge is accurate.


Scale ItemsCommunication Frequency (CF) “The frequency with which the provider and the recipient communicate at work.” IF1 At work, I communicate with my coworker regularly. IF2 I rarely have any contact with my coworker at work. (reverse coded) IF3 I frequently interact with my coworker at work. IF4 My coworker and I often talk with each other at work. Codifiability (COD) “The degree to which knowledge can be written into a document.” COD1 This knowledge can be recorded into a manual. COD2 This knowledge can be written into a document. COD3 This knowledge can be precisely described for documentation. Availability of Communication Spaces (CS) “The degree to which spaces for communication are available to employees.” CS1 I could find a good space for me and my coworkers to share knowledge. CS2 There are adequate places to meet available if I want to exchange ideas with my

coworkers. Leadership Consideration (LC) (Source: Stogdill 1962) “The work group leader’s concern for his or her subordinates’ well-being, comfort, status, and contributions.” LC1 My supervisor is willing to make changes. LC2 My supervisor is friendly and approachable. LC3 My supervisor looks out for the personal welfare of group members. LC4 My supervisor treats all group members as his or her equals.


CFA MS CON COD CS CF LC PS

MS1 .65 .09 -.03 .07 .00 .06 .06 MS2 .79 -.22 .11 .06 .05 .05 -.04 MS3 .77 .13 -.09 -.11 -.05 -.11 .00 CON1 -.04 .79 .08 -.03 .11 -.02 .08 CON2 .15 .87 -.14 .01 -.11 .00 -.10 CON3 -.15 .52 .09 .05 .01 .06 .06 COD1 .00 -.02 .78 -.01 .06 .04 .12 COD2 .01 .03 .62 .12 .07 .04 .08 COD3 .00 .00 .92 -.05 -.10 -.06 -.16 CS1 -.01 .11 .10 .85 .08 -.23 .06 CS2 .01 -.09 -.08 .77 -.07 .19 -.05 CF1 .11 .02 .07 -.12 .87 -.04 .06 CF2 -.04 -.03 .00 .04 .43 .02 .03 CF3 -.05 .02 -.03 .10 .82 .03 -.17 CF4 -.07 -.04 -.07 .02 .71 .01 .13 LC1 -.20 -.09 -.13 -.10 .03 .72 .05 LC2 .01 .07 -.01 .00 -.05 .78 -.04 LC3 .04 -.10 .04 .16 .04 .75 .01 LC4 .16 .14 .12 -.09 -.01 .66 -.02 PS1 .04 -.02 -.01 .07 .10 -.01 .77 PS2 .01 .04 .04 -.01 -.18 -.02 .93 PS3 -.03 -.03 -.04 -.03 .12 .03 .87 AVE .55 .55 .61 .58 .53 .53 .74


Level of Analysis Checks

Measurement Error Company Workgroup Individual

Scale R2 R2 ICC R2 ICC R2

Communication Spaces (CS) 21% 17%** .36 39%** .29* 40% Communication Frequency (CF) 21% 2% .02 17% .01 62% Leadership Consideration (LC) 18% 4%* .08 36%** .25* 46% Psychological Safety (PS) 12% 6%** .13 21% .08 67%

Notes: **indicates significance at the .01 level, * indicates significance at the .05 level. Since the R2 values for ‘individual’ and ‘measurement error’ are calculated, no statistical test is provided.

influence of psychological safety and confidence on employee knowledge sharing enno siemsen aleda v....

Documents

transfertacit knowledge

safeexplicit knowledge

related knowledge

higher confidence

psychological safetymotivation

pointsstudying motivation

shared belief

workers belief