Proactive or reactive sharing of knowledge, does it matter? Human resource management and motivational antecedents and performance outcomes

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to examine the antecedents and performance outcomes of proactive and reactive knowledge-sharing behaviour. Specifically, it investigates from the employee’s perspective how human resource management, with the system of human resource (HR) practices and work climate, influences proactive and reactive knowledge-sharing behaviours via the employees’ interest-based motivation.

Design/methodology/approach

For the main hypotheses, a moderated mediation model was tested using survey-based data from 400 employees from Poland and structural equation modelling analyses. Next, the authors used data from 143 employee supervisor dyads (subsample data) to test the employee performance outcomes of knowledge sharing.

Findings

The results show that commitment-based HR practices are positively related to knowledge-sharing behaviour via autonomous motivation when employees perceive a cooperative climate in the workplace. Furthermore, there are motivational and outcome differences between sharing knowledge reactively and proactively. External motivation is detrimental to reactive knowledge sharing, while introjected motivation is positively related to proactive knowledge sharing. Next, while proactive knowledge-sharing is related to better performance, reactive knowledge-sharing has no performance implications for employees.

Practical implications

From the managerial perspective, this study suggests that to facilitate knowledge sharing, managers should align the implementation of commitment-based HR practices with a cooperative climate in the work environment.

Originality/value

By differentiating proactive and reactive knowledge-sharing behaviour and examining the contingent role of cooperative psychological climate, the study explains the mixed results of external and introjected motivation to share knowledge. This study also provides more specific results on the performance outcomes of knowledge givers, showing that performance effects should not be taken for granted.