Search results

This study aims to adopt the microfoundation perspective to investigate undesirable knowledge rejection by individuals in organizations in the context of counterproductive knowledge behavior (CKB). The paper advances a conceptual framework of the conditions of knowledge rejection by individuals and their respective knowledge rejection behavior types.

This study reviews the limited literature on knowledge rejection and outline a set of antecedents leading to rejecting knowledge as well as a set of different types of knowledge rejection behaviors. This study reviews and synthesizes articles on knowledge rejection from a microfoundation perspective.

The proposed conceptual framework specifies four particular conditions for knowledge rejection and outlines four respective knowledge rejection behavior types resulting from these conditions. Recipients’ lack of capacity leads to ineptitude, lack of motivation leads to dismissal of knowledge, lack of alignment with the source leads to disruption and doubts about the validity of external knowledge lead to resistance. The authors treat these behaviors as variants of CKB, as they can hinder the productive use of knowledge resources in the organization.

Further investigation of both knowledge rejection causes and the resulting knowledge rejection behaviors will ensure a more thorough grasp of the relationships between them, both in terms of the inherent nature of these relationships and their dynamics that would likely be context-sensitive. Although this study focuses only on the individual level, future studies can conduct multi-level analyses of undesirable knowledge rejection, including team and organizational levels.

Practitioners can use the framework to identify, diagnose and manage knowledge rejection more meaningfully, accurately and purposefully in their organizations. This study offers valuable insights for managers facing undesirable knowledge rejection, and provides recommendations on how to address this behavior, improves the constructive use of knowledge resources and the effectiveness of knowledge processes in their organizations. Managers should be aware of undesirable knowledge rejection, its potential cost or concealed cost to their organizations and develop strategies to reduce or prevent it.

The paper contributes toward understanding the relatively neglected topic of knowledge rejection in the knowledge management field and offers a new way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. It proposes that there are two types of knowledge rejection – undesirable and desirable – and advances a more precise and up-to-date definition of undesirable knowledge rejection. Responding to calls for more research on CKBs, the study examines a hitherto unresearched behavior of knowledge rejection and provides a foundation for further study in this area.

Inter-firm collaborative innovation typically requires knowledge sharing among individuals employed by collaborating firms. However, it is also associated with considerable risks, especially if the knowledge sharing process is not handled using proper judgment. Such risks have been acknowledged in the literature, but the underlying empirical evidence remains unclear. This study aims to examine how sharing of business-critical knowledge with external collaboration partners affects firm’s innovation performance.

The authors develop a mediating model and hypotheses predicting that the uncontrolled sharing of knowledge leads to accidental knowledge leakage, which, in turn, hinders particularly firm’s radical innovation performance. The authors test the model by using a survey of 150 technology-intensive firms in Finland and a partial least squares structural equation model. The mediating model is tested with incremental and radical innovation performance, and the authors control for firm size, age, R&D intensity and industry.

The authors find strong support for the model in that uncontrolled external knowledge sharing leads to accidental knowledge leaking and to lower radical innovation performance. The same results are not found for incremental innovation, implying that uncontrolled knowledge leakage is especially detrimental to radical innovation.

These findings help in better understanding some of the downsides of too much openness and lack of judgment about knowledge sharing beyond the boundaries of the firm. Thus, firms pursuing radical innovation should carefully guide their employees with regard to what knowledge they share, to what extent they share it and with whom they share it.

This paper aims at further developing and empirically examining the concept of knowledge‐sharing hostility. It seeks to analyze reasons for hoarding knowledge, reasons for rejecting external knowledge, and attitudes towards mistakes, as well as the influence of these factors on actual knowledge‐sharing behavior. The paper aims to examine how two specific knowledge‐governance mechanisms – commitment‐based and transaction‐based mechanisms – affect knowledge sharing

The authors test the hypotheses on a sample of 1,639 respondents in 15 organizations in Denmark.

The authors find that the use of transaction‐based mechanisms promotes knowledge‐sharing hostility by strengthening individuals' reasons for hoarding and rejecting knowledge, and by negatively affecting individuals' attitudes towards sharing knowledge about mistakes. In contrast, the use of commitment‐based mechanisms diminishes knowledge‐sharing hostility among individuals.

The contribution of the paper is two‐fold. First, it responds to the clear need to examine individual characteristics related to withholding knowledge in organizations. Second, by delineating specific organizational governance mechanisms that are critical for dealing with knowledge‐sharing hostility, the research responds to the call for research aimed at explaining and detailing problems that lie in the intersection of organization and knowledge processes.

This paper argues that knowledge mapping may provide a fruitful avenue for intellectual capital management in academic environments such as university departments. However, while some research has been conducted on knowledge mapping and intellectual capital management in the public sector, the university has so far not been directly considered for this type of management. The paper initially reviews the functions and techniques of knowledge mapping and assesses these in the light of academic demands. Second, the result of a focus group study is presented, where academic leaders were asked to reflect of the uses of knowledge mapping at their departments and institutes. Finally a number of suggestions are made as to the rationale and conduct of knowledge mapping in academe.

This introductory paper aims to outline the reasons for optimism as well as for skepticism in regard to Russia's position in the group of BRIC nations and in the global economy.

The paper presents a brief overview of developments in Russia. This discussion serves as a contextual introduction to this special issue by embracing some of the common themes elaborated in the other papers that are featured in the issue.

The paper takes a balanced perspective by discussing both positive and negative trends in Russia's development.

The paper sets the context in which the other papers that comprise this special issue can be situated.

This large‐scale exploratory research explores the manner in which various organizational types view their social obligations in terms of the tradeoffs (or potential symbioses) between economic and non‐economic (social) goals. Historically, this issue has been researched only in the context of business firms. Given the increased scope and visibility of nonprofit organizations, it becomes particularly relevant to explore a broad range of organizational types. To proceed with this research, this study proposes a 5‐class typology describing the organizational spectrum from the fully for‐profit to the fully nonprofit organizations. This paper also contributes to the emerging empirical research stream in the area by undertaking a systematic assessment of the way in which all organizational types value their economic versus social orientations as gauged by several measures. Across the two top executive levels, a regular progression of statistically significant differences are found between the five organizational types with respect to their social and economic orientations. A by‐product of this research is that we reveal how the economic or social orientation of organizations can be systematically investigated by undertaking large‐scale empirical studies with appropriately designed research instruments.

Self-inflicted crises (SIC)– either intentionally induced or at least carelessly accepted – can tremendously damage a corporation’s reputation and legitimacy in the eyes of the stakeholders. While academia usually advices companies to accept full responsibility, practice shows that by far not all companies rely on such a responsible strategy. In practice, corporations choose various response strategies ranging from apologies, over diminishing approaches to full denials. By investigating a large data set embracing several countries and industries covering 696 cases of SIC, the authors analyze how corporations respond to such events and compare these response strategies across countries and types of crises.

This book chapter follows a domain-spanning approach by combining corporate social responsibility (CSR), crisis management, and stakeholder management to investigate how companies aim at solving crises. Drawing on attribution theory and situational crisis communication theory, the results reveal that corporations often do not follow the prevailing recommendation to take responsibility. The authors find that in the majority of cases, internationally active corporations try to deny or diminish their responsibility for the crises. Hence, the findings suggest that the concept of CSR is not working in the case of SIC since not only the existence of such corporate behavior but also the use of denial and diminish strategies contradicts the idea of corporate responsibility. Moreover, the authors shed light on possible differences and preferences toward a specific response strategy between countries and between different types of crises.

The authors contribute to the growing literature in the field of crisis management and crisis response strategies by investigating a large data set embracing several countries and industries. In this regard, the study differs from previous qualitative studies and experimental research as it is based on a large cross-country and cross-company set of secondary data. Thereby, the study allows drawing conclusions for a wide range of corporations and countries, hence increasing its general applicability.

This paper aims to explain a new idea for the corporate board's main agenda, which should dramatically increase the scale of problems with which the board deals. This agenda also changes the board's interaction with the management providing a new approach to the agency problem.

The paper is based on the normative method. The authors rely on cases (only a few are presented here) to illustrate uses of the real option analysis in the approach to the board activities. The paper shows that, on one hand, it is impossible to avoid managerial fraud and misconduct by means of the board's (and authorities’) traditional monitoring, even under the maximum possible toughening of the criminal and civil law, but, on the other hand, it is possible to change the content of the board‐management interaction to prevent fateful events.

The paper shows how “the duty to say no” approach can prevent corporate failure and, at the same time, facilitate growth and innovation. The underlying basic idea is to use the real options analysis (ROA), which gives an approach to designing strategies under uncertainty. The paper illustrates this technique on different real‐life cases.

The paper's strategic approach does not ignore such traditional issues as remuneration and executives and board turnover. It just shifts the priorities of the board. Obviously, further research is needed to articulate the appropriate approach for various circumstances.

The paper proposes and justifies a dramatic change in the board's duties. It suggests an approach to finding the most important business problems, which require strategic rather than technical decisions; a substitution of the existing “forensic” approach with a “large‐scale” one, turning the board from a policeman into a leader; a change to the style of the board's interaction with the top management of the company.

What is it about academia anyway? We profess to hate it, spend endless amounts of time complaining about it, and yet we in academia will do practically anything to stay. The pay may be low, job security elusive, and in the end, it's not the glamorous work we envisioned it would be. Yet, it still holds fascination and interest for us. This is an article about American academic fiction. By academic fiction, I mean novels whosemain characters are professors, college students, and those individuals associated with academia. These works reveal many truths about the higher education experience not readily available elsewhere. We learn about ourselves and the university community in which we work.