Skip to main content
Log in

Do You Know What I Know? Intent to Share Knowledge in the US and Ukraine

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Knowledge is a strategically important resource, but research is needed to elucidate individual issues in knowledge sharing, particularly cross-contextual examinations. Thus, we developed a contextualized, extended model of knowledge sharing intentions based on the theory of planned behavior, and tested it using large samples of employees from the US, and from Ukraine, where anecdotal evidence suggests pandemic knowledge hoarding. Tests of the model in each country produced significant results for all of the path coefficients in the US, and for all but two paths in Ukraine. Comparative analysis for hypothesis testing indicated that, overall, individuals’ dispositions and attitudes were more relevant for understanding knowledge sharing intentions in the individualistic context of the US, while collective, relational elements were stronger in Ukraine, but with notable exceptions, particularly the influence of societal knowledge control norms. The results provide important implications for theory concerning knowledge sharing across contexts, including institutional theory assumptions, and for efficaciously managing knowledge processes, including cross-national knowledge transfers.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Adapted and reproduced with special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

  2. Although we do not advance hypotheses in each country, the necessary analysis in each country indicates that all of the path coefficients were statistically significant (the weakest being p < 0.01) in the US, and that only two path coefficients, those between conscientiousness and knowledge sharing attitudes, and between fear of negative evaluation and relational screening, were not statistically significant in Ukraine. Also, a 95 % confidence interval supported the indirect effects of control norms in both countries. A 99 % confidence interval confirmed the indirect effects of control norms in Ukraine, and the effects of control norms via attitudes in the US. Yet, the effect of control norms via relational screening was not confirmed in the US, as the confidence interval included zero. Complete results concerning indirect effects are available from the authors.

  3. We thank Professor Henseler for providing the necessary program for conducting this test.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., Song, J., & Grant, M. (2002). Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science, 13(2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreeva, T., & Ikhilchik, I. (2011). Applicability of the SECI model of knowledge creation in Russian cultural context: theoretical analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(1), 56–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & 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 

  • Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, P. (2009). Employee help-seeking: Antecedents, consequences and new insights for future research. In J. Martocchio, H. Liao, & A. Joshi (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 28, pp. 49–98). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, P. A., & Pratt, M. G. (2010). Moving forward by looking back: reclaiming unconventional research contexts and samples in organizational scholarship. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 665–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bello, D. C., & Kostova, T. (2012). Conducting high impact international business research: the role of theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6), 537–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(1), 14–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, N. I., Berends, H., & Van Baalen, P. (2011). Relational models for knowledge sharing behavior. European Management Journal, 29(2), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: a social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodbeck, F. C., Hanges, P. J., Dickson, M. W., Gupta, V., & Dorfman, P. W. (2004). Societal culture and industrial sector influences on organizational culture. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 654–668). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S.-J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. L. C. (2007). Critical issues in international management research: an agenda for future advancement. European Journal of International Management, 1(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Del Prado, A. M., Ortiz, F. A., Mastor, K. A., Harumi, Y., et al. (2006). Implicit theories and self-perceptions of traitedness across cultures: toward integration of cultural and trait psychology perspectives. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 694–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessments Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, D., Krishnan, M., Faith, M., & Storch, E. A. (2006). The psychometric properties of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(6), 807–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967-2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 114–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism: 100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elenkov, D. S. (1998). Can American management concepts work in Russia? A cross-cultural comparative study. California Management Review, 40(4), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensign, P. C. (2009). Knowledge sharing among scientists: Why reputation matters for R&D in multinational firms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, C. F., & Furu, P. (2008). Top management incentive compensation and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 29(12), 1301–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, C. F., Morgulis-Yakushev, S. M., Park, H. J., & Björkman, I. (2009). Opening the black box of the relationship between HRM practices and firm performance: a comparison of MNE subsidiaries in the USA, Finland, and Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(4), 690–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, C. F., Pavlovskaya, A., & Tang, J. (2004). A comparison of human resource management in Russia, China, and Finland. Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitudes, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C. (Ed.). (1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis: Methods (Vol. 1). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. (2009). Alternative research strategies in the knowledge movement: from macro bias to micro-foundations and multi-level explanation. European Management Review, 6(1), 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, N. J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 455–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., & Raver, J. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: a framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R., & Grant, D. (2005). Knowledge management or management of knowledge? Why people interested in knowledge management need to consider Foucault and the construct of power. Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 3(2), 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hales, C. (1993). Managing through organizations. Surrey: Thompson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J. (2007). A new and simple approach to multi-group analysis in partial least squares path modeling. In: Martens, H., Naes, T., Martens, M. (eds.), PLS’07 international symposium on PLS and related methods – causalities explored by indirect observation. Norway: Matforsk, Ås. pp. 104–107

  • Henseler, J., & Fassott, G. (2010). Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: An illustration of available procedures. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 713–735). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in world-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2004). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, N. (2002). Cross-cultural management: A knowledge management perspective. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 451–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2004). Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group membership. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 84–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, K., & Michailova, S. (2006). The impact of group membership on knowledge sharing in Russia and China. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 1(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Beamish, P. W. (1997). Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 177–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1990). Handbook in research and education (2nd ed.). San Diego: EdITS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiacheng, W., Lu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanagawa, C., Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (2001). “Who am I?” The cultural psychology of the conceptual self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(1), 90–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolekofksi, K. E., & Heminger, A. R. (2003). Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share information in an organizational setting. Information & Management, 40(6), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: a critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 994–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriauciunas, A., & Kale, P. (2006). The impact of socialist imprinting and search on resource change: a study of firms in Lithuania. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 659–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, F. Y., & Young, M. L. (2008). Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention: a test of competing models. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2697–2722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(3), 371–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behavior. Management Decision, 42(1), 108–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. (2014) Mutual intelligibility of languages in the Slavic family. http://www.academia.edu/4080349/. Accessed 14 Jan 2015.

  • Liu, C., Huang, P., Peng, T. K., Lin, C., & Fang, S. (2006). Examining antecedents of dyadic knowledge sharing. Presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • Luo, X. (2007). Continuous learning: the influence of national institutional logics on training attitudes. Organization Science, 18(2), 280–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. A., Costa, P. T., Oryol, V. E., Rukavishnikov, A. A., & Senin, I. G. (2002). Applications of the Russian NEO-PI-R. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 261–277). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(3), 301–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. C., Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2005). Transferring management knowledge to Russia: a culturally based approach. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. C., & Stewart, W. H, Jr. (2013). Building theory with BRICs: Russia’s contribution to knowledge sharing theory. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 9(1/2), 147–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, R. C., Stewart, W. H, Jr, Puffer, S. M., McCarthy, D. J., & Ledgerwood, D. E. (2011). Predictors of individual knowledge acquisition commitment in a post-Soviet setting. Management International Review, 51(5), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M., May, R. C., Ledgerwood, D. E., & Stewart, W. H, Jr. (2008). Overcoming resistance to change in Russian organizations: the legacy of transactional leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 37(3), 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 9(4), 231–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachan, R. R., Sutton, S., & Myers, L. B. (2010). Mediation of personality influences on physical activity within the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(8), 1170–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medcof, J. W. (1990). The need for dominance scale of the manifest needs questionnaire: its reliability and validity. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39(3), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe: transactions, resources, and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 600–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S. (2000). Contrasts in culture: Russian and Western perspectives on organizational change. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 99–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S. (2011). Contextualizing in international business research: why do we need more of it and how can we be better at it? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(1), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2003). Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms. California Management Review, 45(3), 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. (2006). National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: a comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 383–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailova, S., & Mustaffa, Z. (2012). Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: research accomplishments, gaps, and opportunities. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D. B. (2007). Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 47(4), 567–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D., & Pedersen, T. (2010). Governing individual knowledge-sharing behaviour. International Journal of Strategic Change Management, 2(2), 200–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C. F., & Park, H. J. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 586–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawojczyk, M. (2006). Universalism versus particularism through the European Social Survey lenses. Acta Physica Polonica B, 37(11), 3059–3069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsillo, S. M. (2001). Measures for social phobia. In M. M. Antony, S. M. Orsillo, & L. Roemer (Eds.), Practitioner’s guide to empirically based measures of anxiety (pp. 165–187). New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in transition: institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 492–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., & Jiang, Y. (2008). An institution-based view of international business strategy: a focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 920–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prashantham, S., & Floyd, S. W. (2012). Routine microprocesses and capability learning in international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(6), 544–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prykarpatska, I. (2008). Why are you late? Cross-cultural pragmatic study of complaints in American English and Ukrainian. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 21(1), 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2011). Two decades of Russian business and management research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn’t enough: the role of motivation ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS. http://www.smartpls.de. Accessed 23 Feb 2013.

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2010). Finite mixture partial least squares analysis: Methodology and numerical examples. In V. E. Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications (pp. 195–218). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M., Chan, D., Ployhart, R. E., & Slade, L. A. (1999). Employee attitude surveys in a multinational organization: considering language and culture in assessing measurement equivalence. Personnel Psychology, 52(1), 37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M. (2008). A review of recent approaches for capturing heterogeneity in partial least squares path modelling. Journal of Modelling in Management, 3(2), 140–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for organizational research: a best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6(2), 169–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37(5), 427–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkar, O. (2004). One more time: international business in a global economy. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, P., Shepherd, R., Wierenga, N., & Zimmermans, N. (1995). Perceived behavioral control, unrealistic optimism and dietary change: an exploratory study. Appetite, 24(3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 835–854.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9(2), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Jr., W. H., & May, R. C. (2012). A test of knowledge sharing hostility in the U.S. and Ukraine. Presented at the Western Business & Management International Research Conference, Paris, France.

  • Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36(1), 111–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K. A. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority of people: between subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 820–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1998). Vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism: theory and research implications for international comparative management. Advances in International Comparative Management, 12, 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture: academic commentary. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 88–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and collectivism: cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture (2nd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenizationn to pluralism: international management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: advances, gaps and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 426–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter-and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 830–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. C., & Yang, Y. J. (2007). Personality and intention to share knowledge: an empirical study of scientists in an R&D laboratory. Social Behavior and Personality, 35(10), 1427–1436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, J. W., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Hart, T. A., Turk, C. L., Schneier, T. R., & Liebowitz, M. R. (2005). Empirical validation and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale in patients with social anxiety disorder. Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., & Peng, M. W. (2005). Strategy research in emerging economies: challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies, 42(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D., & Meyer, K. E. (2013). Linking theory and context: strategy research in emerging economies after Wright et al. 2005. Journal of Management Studies, 50(7), 1322–1346.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne H. Stewart Jr..

Appendices

Appendix 1: Items for Original Instruments

I. Knowledge sharing attitudes

 AKS1

I agree when organizations encourage sharing knowledge within the unit

 AKS2

Information should be freely shared across the whole organization

 AKS3

Organizations should encourage knowledge sharing by all employees

 AKS4

Organizations should promote knowledge sharing across units within the organization

 AKS5

Departments in the company should be willing to share knowledge with other departments

II. Control norms

 Cont1

Knowledge should be tightly controlled

 Cont2

I agree when organizations encourage employees to tightly control knowledge

 Cont3

Companies should do more to restrict access to knowledge

 Cont4

Organizations should create policies designed to strictly control access to knowledge

 Cont5

The more tightly the company controls knowledge the better

III. Relational screening

 R1

I am likely to share knowledge regardless of how the requestor treated me in the past. (reverse-coded)

 R2

A person’s actions toward me in the past affects whether I share knowledge with her or him

 R3

I am willing to share knowledge with someone in the company who needs it even if we did not have a good relationship in the past. (reverse-coded)

IV. Intent to share knowledge

 I1

My first tendency is to share knowledge if someone requests it

 I2

I am inclined to share knowledge regardless of its size

 I3

I believe it is best for me to protect knowledge instead of making it available to others in the company. (reverse-coded)

 I4

I tend to avoid situations where I might be asked to share knowledge. (reverse-coded)

 I5

My first tendency is to protect, and therefore not share knowledge, if someone requests it. (reverse-coded)

 I6

I am more likely to share knowledge with someone in my company than to deny their request

  1. All items are five-point Likert (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree)

Appendix 2: Common Method Variance Analysis

Latent variable

Indicator

Substantive factor loading (R1)

R12

Method factor loading (R2)

R22

Country: Ukrainea

 Need for control

NC1

0.79***

0.62

−0.03

<0.01

NC2

0.80***

0.64

0.04*

<0.01

NC3

0.64***

0.40

−0.01

<0.01

 Conscientiousness

ConA

0.74***

0.54

−0.00

0.00

ConD

0.82***

0.67

−0.02

<0.01

ConO

0.75***

0.56

0.06*

<0.01

ConS

0.85***

0.72

−0.03

<0.01

 Fear of negative evaluation

F1

0.71***

0.50

0.05

<0.01

F2

0.78***

0.60

0.01

<0.01

F3

0.79***

0.62

0.01

<0.01

F4

0.72***

0.51

0.02

<0.01

F5

0.73***

0.53

0.00

0.00

F6

0.74***

0.54

−0.06**

<0.01

F7

0.64***

0.40

−0.03

<0.01

 Knowledge sharing attitudes

AKS1

0.77***

0.59

0.01

<0.01

AKS2

0.61***

0.37

0.06

<0.01

AKS3

0.72***

0.51

−0.05

<0.01

AKS4

0.74***

0.54

−0.06

<0.01

AKS5

0.68***

0.46

0.05

<0.01

 Control norms

Cont1

0.69***

0.47

0.07**

<0.01

Cont2

0.78***

0.60

0.09***

<0.01

Cont3

0.60***

0.36

−0.16***

0.02

Cont4

0.77***

0.59

0.03

<0.01

Cont5

0.67***

0.44

−0.04

<0.01

 Relational screening

R1

0.82***

0.67

−0.03

<0.01

R2

0.69***

0.47

0.24*

0.05

R3

0.74***

0.54

−0.12**

0.01

 Self-efficacy

Eff1

0.77***

0.59

−0.03

<0.01

Eff2

0.45***

0.20

0.13**

0.01

Eff3

0.79***

0.62

−0.06**

<0.01

 Intent to share knowledge

I1

0.91***

0.82

−0.18*

0.03

I2

0.85***

0.72

−0.14*

0.02

I3

0.59***

0.34

0.11

0.01

I4

0.66***

0.43

0.03

<0.01

I5

0.49***

0.24

0.17*

0.02

I6

0.66***

0.43

0.05

<0.01

 Average

 

0.720833

0.52

0.005

0.0072

Country: United Statesb

 Need for control

NC1

0.80***

0.64

0.08***

<0.01

NC2

0.82***

0.67

−0.01

<0.01

NC3

0.64***

0.40

−0.09**

<0.01

 Conscientiousness

ConA

0.77***

0.59

−0.04

<0.01

ConD

0.79***

0.62

0.07**

<0.01

ConO

0.73***

0.53

0.02

<0.01

ConS

0.86***

0.73

−0.05*

<0.01

 Fear of negative evaluation

F1

0.90***

0.81

0.05**

<0.01

F2

0.79***

0.62

−0.09***

<0.01

F3

0.88***

0.77

−0.01

<0.01

F4

0.88***

0.77

0.03

<0.01

F5

0.85***

0.72

0.07**

<0.01

F6

0.60***

0.36

0.02

<0.01

F7

0.85***

0.72

0.05***

<0.01

 Knowledge sharing attitudes

AKS1

0.72***

0.51

0.06*

<0.01

AKS2

0.74***

0.54

0.03

<0.01

AKS3

0.67***

0.44

−0.00

0.00

AKS4

0.87***

0.75

−0.05

<0.01

AKS5

0.83***

0.68

−0.03

<0.01

 Control norms

Cont1

0.83***

0.68

0.02

<0.01

Cont2

0.89***

0.79

0.06*

<0.01

Cont3

0.77***

0.59

−0.09***

<0.01

Cont4

0.86***

0.73

−0.00

0.00

Cont5

0.88***

0.77

0.02

<0.01

 Relational screening

R1

0.85***

0.72

0.025

<0.01

R2

0.76***

0.57

0.02

<0.01

R3

0.78***

0.60

−0.05

<0.01

 Self-efficacy

Eff1

0.69***

0.47

0.10*

0.01

Eff2

0.70***

0.49

−0.11**

0.01

Eff3

0.78***

0.60

−0.00

0.00

 Intent to share knowledge

I1

0.96***

0.92

−0.25***

0.06

I2

0.80***

0.64

−0.16***

0.02

I3

0.51***

0.26

0.28***

0.07

I4

0.38***

0.14

0.31***

0.09

I5

0.79***

0.62

−0.03

<0.01

I6

0.83***

0.68

−0.11**

0.01

 Average

 

0.779167

0.62

0.004028

0.01014

  1. To avoid a third order latent variable, the subdimensions of conscientiousness were used here.
  2. *, ** and *** represent significance at p < 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively (two-tailed tests)
  3. aCMV AVE = 0.22
  4. bCMV AVE = 0.15

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stewart Jr., W.H., May, R.C. & Ledgerwood, D.E. Do You Know What I Know? Intent to Share Knowledge in the US and Ukraine. Manag Int Rev 55, 737–773 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0252-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-015-0252-9

Keywords

Navigation