Search

This study presents a micro-level investigation that provides new insights into how employees’ knowledge sharing affects their own innovative work behaviours (IWBs). Our study posited three mechanisms linking an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviours to his or her own IWBs: (i) a direct effect whereby the act of sharing elicits a recombination and translation of knowledge that facilitates innovation; (ii) an indirect effect whereby knowledge sharing creates social conditions (i.e., reciprocation with new knowledge) for innovation; (iii) a distal effect whereby the antecedents of knowledge sharing also promote innovation. We tested these hypotheses on 155 employees in four palliative care organizations. Our results provide original evidence that employees who share knowledge also engage more in creating, promoting and implementing innovations. This study reveals a direct, unmediated link between knowledge sharing behaviours and IWBs. Our evidence suggests that it is the act of knowledge recombination and translation embedded in knowledge sharing that exerts the most positive effect on IWBs. We discuss how this result indicates that sharing knowledge ignites transformation and exploitation capabilities that help sharers innovate their own work practices.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide arguments and empirical evidence that different knowledge sharing behaviours – i.e. sharing best practices, sharing mistakes, seeking feedbacks – are promoted and enabled by different types of knowledge assets, and differently affect employees’ innovative work behaviours. Design/methodology/approach The research framework includes four sets of constructs: employees’ innovative work behaviour, knowledge sharing, knowledge assets, psychological safety. The literature-grounded hypotheses were tested collecting data from healthcare professionals from three hospice and palliative care organisations in Italy. In all, 195 questionnaires were analysed using structural equations modelling technique. Findings First, findings show that the linkage between knowledge assets and knowledge sharing is both direct and indirect with psychological safety as relevant mediating construct. The linkage between relational and structural social capital and seeking feedbacks and sharing mistakes is fully mediated by psychological safety. Second, findings show that each dimension of knowledge sharing affects the different dimensions of employees’ innovative work behaviour – i.e. idea generation, idea promotion, idea implementation – in a distinct manner. While sharing of best practices influences all of them, seeking feedbacks affects idea promotion and sharing mistakes influences idea implementation. Practical implications The results provide operations managers with a clearer picture of how to pursue improvements of current operations by leveraging on knowledge sharing among employees through the creation of numerous, high-quality interpersonal relationships among employees, based on rich and cohesive network ties. Originality/value This study, by adopting a micro-level perspective, offers an original perspective on how knowledge assets and knowledge sharing initiatives may contribute to the engagement of innovative work behaviour by employees.

Purpose – A vast literature has already dedicated much attention on understanding which antecedents can help organizations to pursue knowledge exploration and exploitation. Our work enters this debate by investigating the role of Social Capital and Environmental Dynamisms on units’ ability to exploit existing knowledge as well as exploring new knowledge. Our contribution is grounded on existing insights that cohesive and strong ties across units or organizations are significant antecedents of innovation capabilities. At the same time, there is no empirical evidence on the actual link between social capital and exploitation/exploration. Past research on organizational learning has in fact focused mostly on organizational and managerial factors such as absorptive capacity, slack resources, culture or performance feedbacks. Design/methodology/approach – Our model considers three dimensions of social capital – structural, relational and cognitive social capital. It also considers the moderation of environmental dynamism – the hypothesis is that social capital exerts stronger impacts in conditions of environmental stability. Head physicians from Italian hospitals were surveyed using a self-compiled questionnaire. The survey consisted on multiple questions on exploration/exploitation, social capital and environmental dynamism of hospital wards. The dataset consists of 174 observations, analyzed using Seemingly Unrelated Regression techniques. Originality/value – This research provides evidence of the role played by the structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital – thus adding to a literature which has thus far concentrated on contextual factors (e.g. culture, organizational identity) and on units’ properties (e.g. size, functions). Cohesive and strong ties emerge as highly instrumental for units in gaining access to external knowledge assets and to stimuli to recombine the knowledge already available within the unit. The results also adds to conflicting evidence on environmental dynamism – which is shown here to exert a direct positive impact on exploitation and exploration; and to moderate the link between relational capital and exploration – while having no moderation effect towards exploitation. Practical implications – The empirical evidence on the link between social capital and exploitation/exploration can support hospital managers in designing initiatives that recognize the centrality of network ties for strategies of continuous improvement. Social networks represent the locus in which hospital units can identify and acquire knowledge from outside (supporting an explorative capability) as well as the locus in which knowledge can be shared, recombined and turned into novel solutions (supporting an explorative capability). Managers should thus encourage initiatives that support systematic connections among units and facilitate knowledge exchange. – e.g. through systematic plenary meetings to more sophisticated ones such as “boundary spanning” tools (e.g., ICT solutions) and roles (e.g., knowledge brokers).