Skip to main content
Log in

‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’ Antecedents of knowledge sharing under pressure

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

This study considers the dilemma faced by employees every time a colleague requests knowledge: should they share their knowledge? We use adaptive cost theory and self-efficacy theory to examine how individual characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy and trait competitiveness) and situational perceptions (i.e., ‘busyness’ and perceived competition) affect knowledge sharing behaviours. A study was conducted with 403 students who completed a problem-solving exercise and who were permitted (but not required) to respond to requests for knowledge from people who were doing the same activity. Our results suggest that people who perceive significant time pressure are less likely to share knowledge. Trait competitiveness predicted perceived competition. This and low task self-efficacy created a sense of time pressure, which in turn led to people feeling ‘too busy’ to share their knowledge when it was requested. Perceived competition was not directly related to knowledge sharing. Implications for research and practitioners are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahituv N, Igbaria M and Sella A (1998) The effects of time pressure and completeness of information on decision making. Journal of Management Information Systems 15 (2), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M, Kayworth TR and Leidner DE (2005) An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (3), 191–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona DG, Goodman PS, Lawrence BS and Tushman ML (2001) Time: a new research lens. Academy of Management Review 26 (4), 645–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JL and Wothke W (1999) Amos 4.0 User's Guide. SmallWaters Corporation, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote L and Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82 (1), 150–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ariely D, Gneezy U, Loewenstein G and Mazar N (2009) Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies 76 (2), 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baer M and Oldham GR (2006) The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (4), 963–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. The American Psychologist 37 (2), 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett R and Randle J (2008) Hand hygiene practices: nursing students’ perceptions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 17 (14), 1851–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartol K and Srivastava A (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9 (1), 64–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M and Tice DM (1998) Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (5), 1252–1265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betsch T, Habterstroh S, Molter B and Glockner A (2004) Oops, I did it again – relapse errors in routinized decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 93 (1), 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG and Lee JN (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 87–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boman E and Hygge S (2000) Aftereffects of noise predictability and task load on motivation. In INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2000, No. 8, pp 914–919, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard-Bouchard T (1990) Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology 130 (3), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown SP, Cron WL and Slocum JW (1998) Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting and performance. Journal of Marketing 62 (4), 88–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera A, Collins WC and Salgado JF (2006) Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management 17 (2), 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun H, Dennis W and Crocker K (1994) Time pressure, Type A syndrome, and organizational citizenship behavior: a laboratory experiment. Psychological Reports 75 (1), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (1978) Environmental load and the allocation of attention. In Advances in Environmental Psychology (Baum A, Singer JE and Valins S, Eds), Vol. 1, pp 1–22, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S (1980) Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: a review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin 88 (1), 82–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen S and Spacapan S (1978) The aftereffects of stress: an attentional interpretation. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3 (1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly CE and Kelloway EK (2003) Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 24 (5), 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly CE, Zweig D, Webster J and Trougakos J (2012) Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33 (1), 64–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constant D, Kiesler S and Sproull L (1994) What's mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research 5 (4), 400–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall VC (1969) Sex differences in expectancy of intellectual and academic reinforcement. In Achievement-related Motives in Children (Smith CP, Ed), pp 11–45, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross R, Parker A, Prusak L and Borgatti SP (2001) Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics 30 (2), 100–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings JN (2004) Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science 50 (3), 352–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darrah CN (2007) The anthropology of busyness. Human Organization 66 (3), 261–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Prusak L (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes SS, Cresswell AM and Pardo TA (2009) Information sharing and public sector knowledge networks. Public Administration Review 69 (3), 392–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu CKW (2007) Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (3), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Grada E, Kruglanski AW, Mannetti L and Pierro A (1999) Motivated cognition and group interaction: need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (4), 346–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci EL, Koestner R and Ryan RM (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125 (6), 627–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desivilya HS and Eizen D (2005) Conflict management in work teams: the role of social self-efficacy and group identification. International Journal of Conflict Management 16 (2), 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries RE, Bakker-Pieper A and Oostenveld W (2010) Leadership=communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (3), 367–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulebohn JH and Martocchio JJ (1998) Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group incentive pay plans. Journal of Management 24 (4), 469–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson AC (2004) Learning from failure in health care: frequent opportunities, pervasive barriers. Quality and Safety in Health Care 13 (2), ii3–ii9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger R and Aselage J (2009) Incremental effects of reward on experienced performance pressure: positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30 (1), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger R and Cameron J (1996) Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? American Psychologist 51 (11), 1153–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger R, Pierce WD and Cameron J (1999) Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation – negative, neutral, and positive: comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin 125 (6), 677–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14 (1), 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin DL and Dirks KT (2003) The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: mediating processes and differential effects. Organizational Science 14 (1), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 7 (2), 117–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher TD, Major DA and Davis DD (2008) The interactive relationship of competitive climate and trait competitiveness with workplace attitudes, stress, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29 (7), 899–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford DP and Staples DS (2006) Perceived value of knowledge: the potential informer's perception. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 4 (1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne M (2009) A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management 48 (1), 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He W and Wei KK (2009) What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems 46 (4), 826–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmreich RL and Spence JT (1978) The work and family orientation questionnaire: an objective instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes toward family and career. In Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches (Spence JT, Ed), pp 7–74, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew KF and Hara N (2007) Knowledge sharing in online environments: a qualitative case study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58 (14), 2310–2324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highhouse S and Gillepsie JZ (2009) Do samples really matter that much?. In Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends (Lance CE and Vandenberg RJ, Eds), pp 247–266, Routledge, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999) Cut off criteria of fit indices in co-variance structure analysis; conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hui C, Organ DW and Crooker K (1994) Time pressure, Type A syndrome, and organizational citizenship behavior: a laboratory experiment. Psychological Reports 75 (1), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunnicutt BK (1996) Kellogg's Six-hour Day. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ippolito RA (2003) The impact of the minimum wage if workers can adjust effort. The Journal of Law and Economics 46 (1), 207–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL and Majchrzak A (2008) Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science 19 (2), 260–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS (2001) Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 151–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jex SM and Gudanowski DM (1992) Efficacy beliefs and work stress: an exploratory study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (5), 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiraporn P, Singh M and Lee CI (2009) Ineffective corporate governance: director busyness and board committee memberships. Journal of Banking & Finance 33 (5), 819–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones GR (1986) Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal 29 (2), 262–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY and Wei KK (2005) Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 113–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karau SJ and Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 28 (6), 542–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway EK (1998) Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher's Guide. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway EK and Barling J (2000) Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews 2 (3), 287–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly JR and Loving TJ (2004) Time pressure and group performance: exploring underlying processes in the attentional focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2), 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko D-G, Kirsch LJ and King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 59–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD and Johnson EC (2005) Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology 58 (2), 281–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labianca G, Moon H and Watt I (2005) When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management Journal 48 (4), 677–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence BS (1988) New wrinkles in the theory of age: demography, norms, and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal 31 (2), 309–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin HF, Lee HS and Wang DW (2009) Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Information Science 35 (1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans F (2002a) Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive 16 (1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans F (2002b) The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (6), 695–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell TR, Hopper H, Daniels D, George-Falvy J and James LR (1994) Predicting self-efficacy and performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (4), 506–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ DW and Hui C (1995) Time pressure, Type A syndrome, and organizational citizenship behavior: a field study replication of Hui, Organ, and Crooker (1994). Psychological Reports 77 (1), 179–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson RA (2001) On the use of college students in social science research: insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (3), 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putrevu S and Ratchford BT (1997) A model of search behavior with an application to grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing 73 (4), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley NR, Tesluk PE, Locke EA and Bartol KM (2007) A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science 18 (1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly PA (1998) Balancing flexibility, meeting the interests of employer and employee. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 7 (1), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaubroeck J and Merritt DE (1997) Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: the key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal 40 (3), 738–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag S and Bayer U-V (2005) Switching off mentally: predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10 (4), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag S and Volmer J (2009) Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes the role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group & Organization Management 34 (1), 37–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence JT and Helmreich RL (1983) Achievement-related motives and behavior. In Achievement and Achievement Motives: Psychological and Sociological Approaches (Spence JT, Ed), pp 7–74, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprigg CA and Jackson PR (2006) Call centers as lean service environments: job-related strain and the mediating role of work design. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (2), 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic AD and Luthans F (1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 124 (2), 240–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan BA, O’Connor KM and Burris ER (2006) Negotiator confidence: the impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 (5), 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2002) Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science 13 (2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voelpel SC, Dous M and Davenport TH (2005) Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens’ ShareNet. Academy of Management Executive 19 (2), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walstrom KA (1996) Chief executive officer's misperceptions: should students be used as surrogates? Journal of Computer Information Systems 37 (2), 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S and Noe RA (2010) Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review 20 (2), 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasko MM and Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 35–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood R, Bandura A and Bailey T (1990) Mechanisms governing organizational performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 46 (1), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dianne P Ford.

Appendix

Appendix

Measures

Knowledge sharing (Connelly et al, 2012)

When my partner asked me the question, I …

  1. 1

    explained everything very thoroughly.

  2. 2

    went out of my way to ensure that I understood the request before responding.

  3. 3

    told my counterpart exactly what s/he needed to know.

  4. 4

    looked into the request to make sure my answers were accurate.

  5. 5

    answered all his/her questions immediately.

Perceived time pressure (Putrevu & Ratchford, 1997)

  1. 1

    I found myself pressed for time when I solved the problems.

  2. 2

    I had an insufficient amount of time available to complete the exercise.

  3. 3

    I was in a hurry when I did the exercise.

  4. 4

    I tried to solve the problems as quickly as possible because I had many other problems to solve.

  5. 5

    I did not have enough time to complete the exercise.

Perceived competition was measured with a four-item scale developed by Brown et al (1998).

  1. 1

    Students during the exercise were generally very competitive.

  2. 2

    Students were competitive in trying to get the highest score.

  3. 3

    The participants of the exercise were competitive about trying to do well.

  4. 4

    Students were aggressively trying to outperform others during the exercise.

Task self-efficacy (Jones, 1986)

  1. 1

    A similar set of math problems is well within the scope of my abilities.

  2. 2

    I do not anticipate any problems in solving a similar set of math problems

  3. 3

    I feel I am overqualified for answering a similar set of math problems.

  4. 4

    I have the expertise to deal with a similar set of math problems.

  5. 5

    I feel confident that my math skills and abilities equal of exceed those of my classmates.

  6. 6

    My past academic experience and accomplishments increase my confidence that I will be able to perform successfully on a similar math task.

  7. 7

    I could have handled a more challenging set of math problems than the one I was doing.

  8. 8

    Professionally speaking, solving a similar set of math problems exactly satisfies my expectations of myself.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Connelly, C., Ford, D., Turel, O. et al. ‘I’m busy (and competitive)!’ Antecedents of knowledge sharing under pressure. Knowl Manage Res Pract 12, 74–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.61

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.61

Keywords

Navigation