Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use

J. Scott Holste and Dail Fields

Abstract Purpose This study aims to explore the impact of affect-based and cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge. Design/methodology/approach The relationships were examined through data provided by a sample of 202 professionals and managers in world headquarters of an international organization. Findings The levels of both types of trust inuence the extent to which staff members are willing to share and use tacit knowledge. Affect-based trust has a signicantly greater effect on the willingness to share tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust plays a greater role in willingness to use tacit knowledge. Research limitations/implications The data are cross-sectional and were also collected in one organization. Future studies should consider longitudinal designs across multiple organizations. Alternatively, archival information could be used to measure actual tacit knowledge sharing and use among co-workers. Practical implications The results indicate that both distinct types of trust are involved in decisions affecting transfer and use of tacit knowledge. This suggests that knowledge management efforts may need to include a ner grained view of the nature of the social networks impacting the knowledge transfer and management process. Originality/value Previous studies have not examined the differential effects of both affect-based and cognition-based trust on employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Keywords Trust, Knowledge management Paper type Research paper

J. Scott Holste is Director, Global Research Department, Ofce of Overseas Operations, International Mission Board, Richmond, Virginia, USA. Dail Fields is a Professor in the School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.

Introduction
There is broad recognition that effective management of knowledge is essential to the success of modern rms. Organizational leaders have reacted to this need by spending nearly a trillion dollars annually to analyze, store, and retrieve knowledge (Lohr, 2002). However, investments in technology primarily affect an organizations ability to accumulate and recall knowledge that has been made explicit through codication or writing in the form of documents, reports, white papers, catalogues, presentations, patents, formulas, etc. Other knowledge in organizations is tacit in nature. This knowledge is highly personal and difcult if not impossible to reduce to writing. If expressed at all, it frequently takes the form of analogies, metaphors, stories, or personal strategies that reveal insight into the how and why underlying an employees approach to tasks or problems (Blackler, 1995; Blumentritt and Johnston, 1999; Choo, 1998, 2000; Collins, 1993; Narasimha, 2000; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Zack, 1999a, b). In some professional organizations, much of the most useful knowledge may be tacit in nature. Although critical to organizational decisions, tacit knowledge is difcult to measure and has been infrequently studied (Brockmann and Anthony, 1998). While technology may facilitate the storage of explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge resides only in the minds of people and its availability and use depends upon individual decisions and relationships (Cross and Baird, 2000; Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Hinds and Pfeffer, 2001; Lucas, 2005).

Received 15 September 2008 Revised 22 January 2009 Accepted 9 March 2009

PAGE 128

JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010, pp. 128-140, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270

DOI 10.1108/13673271011015615

The willingness of organizational members to share and use tacit knowledge may depend on the extent that co-workers are trusted recipients and sources (Adler, 2002; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gruber, 2000; Locke, 1999; Lucas, 2005; McAllister, 1995; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Scott, 2000; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). For example, Lucas (2005) found that interpersonal trust between co-workers and reputation of co-workers had separate effects on employee experiences in transferring knowledge within an organization. In a related study, Smedlund (2008) has suggested that tacit knowledge transfer (sharing and use) is facilitated by a social network within organizations characterized by ties based both on interpersonal relationships and long-standing working relationships where reciprocity among co-workers is the norm. Some previous studies have found that trust has a multi-faceted nature (Dasgupta, 1988; Dasgupta and Serageldin, 2000; Lane, 1998; Lewicki and Bunker, 1996; Lewis and Weigert, 1985; McAllister, 1995). McAllister (1995) developed and tested empirically the distinctiveness of two forms of trust: 1. affect-based trust, which is grounded in mutual care and concern between workers; and 2. cognition-based trust, which is grounded in co-worker reliability and competence. Previous studies have examined the effects of alternative types of trust on general knowledge transfer (Lucas, 2005) and organizational citizenship behaviors (McAllister, 1995). However, none has examined the differential effects of both affect-based and cognition-based trust on employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge (Adler, 2002; Johannessen et al., 2001; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gruber, 2000; Locke, 1999). This study adds to the literature about and practical understanding of the knowledge transfer process by exploring the effects of both affect-based and cognition-based trust on the willingness of employees to share and use tacit knowledge. By identifying and clarifying the relationships among the different types of trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use, this study endeavors to provide organizational leaders with empirically based information that is helpful in facilitating the transfer and exchange of tacit knowledge among professional employees (Smedlund, 2008).

Theoretical development
Explicit and tacit knowledge In their review, Raub and Ruling (2001) have noted that the bulk of knowledge management literature is concerned primarily with the role of information technology. Cook and Brown (1999) have voiced specic concerns about information technologys preoccupation with knowledge as an object to be possessed. Managers must also address the processes and structures that encourage individuals and groups to share and use organizational knowledge (Cross and Baird, 2000). Indeed, the preoccupation of organizations with information technology for managing explicit knowledge may have led to neglect of the more important and challenging task of facilitating the sharing and use of tacit forms of knowledge (Johannessen et al., 2001). Explicit knowledge is easily articulated or reduced to writing, is often impersonal and formal in nature, and frequently takes the form of documents, reports, white papers, catalogues, presentations, patents, formulas, etc. (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Konno, 1998; Nonaka and Nishiguchi, 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Teece, 2001; Zack, 1999b). In contrast, tacit knowledge (e.g. abilities, developed skills, experience, undocumented processes, gut-feelings, etc.) is highly personal and difcult to reduce to writing. Tacit knowledge is rooted in an individuals experience and values (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). This type of knowledge may play an important role in the strategic planning performance of managers and professional staff (Bennett, 1998; Blattberg and Hoch, 1990; Brockmann and Anthony, 1998). Table I describes some specic characteristics of both explicit and tacit knowledge.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 129

Table I Descriptions and characteristics of explicit and tacit knowledge

Citation Athanassiou and Nigh (2000) Explicit knowledge Tacit knowledge Transfer depends on the credibility of the transferer and is most effectively achieved through face-to-face interaction Learned through observation and imitation; shared through analogies, metaphors, and stories Experimental, intuitive, communicated through face-to-face collaboration Primarily transferred through direct interaction between individuals Big picture issues, company information/rumors/gossip, needs, new ideas, insight, intuition, problems, concerns, issues Intuition, rule-of-thumb, gut feeling, personal skill Mental models, beliefs, persuasions, care-why Transferred through face-to-face interaction, observation, imitation, practice, shared-experiences based on trust Practical, action-oriented, know-how, resembles intuition, mental models, values, beliefs, perceptions, insights, assumptions. Exchanged through knowledge fairs, learning communities, study missions, tours, advisory boards, job rotation Rules-of-thumb, tricks of the trade, heuristics, estimation and envisioning capability, physical maneuvering, efciency enhancing, image formation and recognition, and handling of human relationships Shared through highly interactive conversation, storytelling, shared experience

Choo (2000)

Clarke and Rollo (2001) Davenport and Grover (2001) Epstein (2000)

Products, patents, code, databases, technical drawings, tools, prototypes, audiovisuals, operating procedures Codied, formal, systematic, reports, manuals, documents Easily codied Data, instructions, simple factual information, work progress, status Handbooks, lectures, databases, textbooks, manuals, newsletters Know-what, know-why, know-how, copyrights, patents, trademarks

Haldin-Herrgard (2000) Meso and Smith (2000) Scott (2000)

Smith (2001)

Academic, know-what, print or electronic media, manuals, mathematical expressions, copyrights, patents

Wong and Radcliffe (2000)

Documents, blueprints, manuals, patents

Zack (1999b)

Mathematical formulas, training manuals, product literature, computer software

Tacit knowledge sharing and use Face-to-face interaction often is the primary method for transferring tacit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Spender and Grant, 1996; Sweeney, 1996; Teece, 2000; Teece et al., 1997). The levels of risk and uncertainty that are associated with tacit knowledge transfer are reduced by trusting relationships (Foos et al., 2006). Some transfers of tacit knowledge are formal, resulting from training events, or conferences, while others are more informal, resulting from interdepartmental task forces, informal social networks and employee interactions (Marquardt, 1996). Key to both formal and informal tacit knowledge transfer is the willingness and capacity of individuals to share what they know and to use what they learn (Foos et al., 2006; ODell et al., 1998; Szulanski, 1995, 1996). Barriers may arise that limit the transfer of tacit knowledge (Lucas, 2005). These include coworker willingness to share and/or use tacit knowledge, limited awareness of the tacit knowledge an individual possesses, difculty in expressing tacit knowledge that is tied to mental and/or physical action, and difculty of applying context-specic tacit knowledge in other contexts (Argote, 1999; Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Nidumolu et al., 2001; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Stenmark, 2000, 2002). Sharing tacit knowledge may involve risks to an individual, such as loss of competitive advantage over peers (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Stenmark, 2000, 2002). Likewise, use of tacit knowledge may involve risks to an individual, such as a source providing incomplete or having a questionable track record. In light of these risks, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) developed a theoretical model linking trust and knowledge exchange, suggesting that trust may be a multidimensional construct that includes distinct cognitive and affect/relationship based components. Affect-based trust is grounded in relationships where the parties have

PAGE 130 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

care and concern for each other, value the intrinsic virtue of such relationships, and believe that these sentiments are reciprocated (McAllister, 1995; Pennings and Woiceshyn, 1987). On the other hand, cognition-based trust is based on another persons perceived competence and reliability (McAllister, 1995). Lucas (2005) found that both interpersonal trust and reputation of knowledge recipients and sources explained variance in employee knowledge transfer. In this study, Lucas did not distinguish between explicit and tacit knowledge, but the interpersonal trust measure used is similar in nature to affect-based trust, while reputation is akin to cognition-based trust. The empirical research of McAllister (1995) demonstrated that affect-based and cognition-based trust each are distinct forms of interpersonal trust and were both related to extra-role organizational citizenship behaviors directed at other individuals in an organization. Thus both affect-based trust and cognition- based trust may contribute to explanation of employee willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. H1. Both affect-based and cognition-based trust in a co-worker will have positive relationships with the willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.

Previous studies have shown that as individuals grow closer in their personal relationship to one another, they are increasingly motivated to act in ways that benet the other (Brann and Foddy, 1988; Epstein, 2000; Fukuyama, 1995; Messick et al., 1983; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Organ, 1990). Several studies have highlighted the importance of trust developed through close personal relationships. For example, Hansen (1999) found that in new product development projects, strong personal ties were necessary for the transfer of tacit knowledge between work units. Epstein (2000) found that individuals who were friends were more likely to exchange personal and complex knowledge through face-to-face communication. These previous studies suggest that willingness to share tacit organizational knowledge with another co-worker is likely to be heavily inuenced by affect-based connections. People often learn tacit knowledge through close observation and interaction with someone who already possesses that knowledge, as an apprentice learns his trade from a master craftsman. As Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) found in their study of Japanese companies, personal relationships developed in the context of organizational retreats often resulted in the sharing of tacit knowledge. In a separate study, Epstein (2000) found that personal relationships had the greatest impact on the sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals. Foos et al. (2006) also found that interpersonal trust among project team members was a signicant predictor of tacit knowledge transfer. These previous ndings highlight the importance of affect-based trust and led to our second study hypothesis: H2. Affect-based trust of a coworker will have a larger inuence than cognition-based trust on an employees willingness to share tacit knowledge.

A willingness to use tacit knowledge is likely based on an employees understanding of the accuracy and validity of the knowledge (Auster and Choo, 1994; Choo, 1998; Szulanski, 1995, 1996). As Lucas (2005) points out, successful knowledge transfer depends on individual willingness to change the way things are done and risk the possibility of failure. Employees must perceive there are positive benets from using tacit knowledge. Studies of persuasion and inuence suggest that an expert and trustworthy source is more likely to inuence a recipient (Perloff, 1993; Szulanski, 1995). Other studies suggest that limitations in transfer of tacit knowledge may result from the lack of perceived reliability of the source or recipient (Arrow, 1974). When a source of knowledge is not perceived as trustworthy, his/her advice and knowledge may be more openly challenged and resisted (Szulanski, 1995). Other studies have found that before tacit knowledge is used by other employees, the source must have a solid reputation within the organization (Foos et al., 2006; Lucas, 2005). These studies taken together suggest that employees must be relatively certain that tacit knowledge sources will provide all the relevant information, will deliver what is expected, and are perceived in the organization as possessing worthwhile knowledge. Thus, use of tacit knowledge will depend more heavily on cognition-based trust.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 131

H3.

Cognition-based trust of a coworker will have a larger inuence than affect-based trust on an employees willingness to use tacit knowledge.

Methods
Sample The sample for this study consisted of managerial and professional staff in headquarters of an international non-prot organization that supports the work of missionaries working around the world. The organizations managers and professional staff operate in functional areas common to most organizations (e.g. strategic planning, research, accounting, human resources, information technology, public relations, etc.). These employees regularly have needs to share and use tacit knowledge in the course of performing their jobs. Of the 263 managers and professional staff in the organization, 202 provided data for this study, a response rate of 76.81 percent. There were no signicant difference between the members of the sample and the total members of the sampling frame in age, gender, and average tenure. The sampling frame and our sample both contained 70 percent professional staff and 30 percent managers. Measures Dependent variables. Lacking previously tested and validated measures for willingness to share and use tacit knowledge, two four-item measures were developed based on the literature. For each of these measures the survey asks the respondent to indicate his/her agreement to a particular statement on a seven-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 slightly disagree, 4 neither agree nor disagree, 5 slightlyagree, 6 agree, 7 strongly agree) for each item. The items used and their sources are: 1. Willingness to share tacit organizational knowledge:
B

If requested to do so, I would allow this individual to spend signicant time observing and collaborating with me in order for him/her to better understand and learn from my work (Choo, 2000; Clarke and Rollo, 2001; Davenport and Grover, 2001; Scott, 2000). I would willingly share with this person rules of thumb, tricks of the trade, and other insights into the work of my ofce and that of the organization I have learned (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Wong and Radcliffe, 2000). I would willingly share my new ideas with this individual (Epstein, 2000). I would willingly share with this individual the latest organizational rumors, if signicant (Epstein, 2000).

B B

2. Willingness to use tacit organizational knowledge:

B

If relevant to my work, I would welcome the opportunity to spend signicant time observing and collaborating with this individual in order for me to better understand and learn from his/her work (Choo, 2000; Clarke and Rollo, 2001; Davenport and Grover, 2001; Scott, 2000). If relevant to my work, I would welcome and use any rules of thumb, tricks of the trade, and other insights he/she has learned (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Wong and Radcliffe, 2000). I would eagerly receive and consider any new ideas this individual might have (Epstein, 2000). I would tend to believe organizational rumors shared by this individual and would use such knowledge as appropriate (Epstein, 2000).

Cronbachs a for the scale measuring willingness to share tacit knowledge was 0.85, while for the scale measuring willingness to use tacit knowledge it was 0.84. Independent variables. Measures developed and tested by McAllister (1995) were used to assess affect and cognition-based trust. Affect-based trust was measured using McAllisters ve-item scale (a 0:93). Example items for affect-based trust include: I can talk freely to

PAGE 132 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

this person about difculties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen and I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional involvements in our working relationship. Cognition-based trust is measured using McAllisters (1995) six-item survey (a 0:93). Example items include: I can rely on this person not to make my job more difcult through careless work and Most people, even those who arent close friends of this individual, trust and respect him/her as a co-worker. Control variables. Some studies (Strauss and Howe, 1993; Tulgan, 1995) have suggested that younger workers are more individualistic and less trusting of others than older workers This suggests that age might affect a workers willingness to share or use tacit knowledge. Carroll (2002) found that same-sex friendships between women are more trusting than those between men. Consequently, women may be more willing than men to share and use tacit knowledge from colleagues. An employees tenure with an organization might reduce the tendency to use tacit knowledge obtained from co-workers and increase the tendency to share such knowledge. Thus, respondent age, gender and tenure were controlled in our analyses.

Procedure
The Senior Vice President of the organization sent a letter to all managers and professional staff, informing them of the nature of the study and encouraging their participation. These personnel were then contacted via e-mail and asked to complete an online survey. The survey software assigns a unique ID to each addressee that ensures each respondent completes only one survey. This also enabled us to follow up with non-respondents. It is possible that the relationship of an individuals trust of a coworker and the willingness to share or use tacit knowledge with/from that person may differ depending on the nature of the personal interactions between the two co-workers (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). For example, the relationship between affect-based and cognition-based trust and the willingness to share and use of tacit knowledge could be quite different for a co-worker with whom a respondent has agreeable personal interactions than for one with whom personal interactions are difcult. In an effort to obtain information about the role of affect-based and cognition-based trust across a full range of coworker relationships, two responses to our questionnaire were obtained from each respondent. One response was for co-workers with whom the respondents works well and one for co-workers that the respondent does not work with well. Previous studies have asked respondents to provide responses for a co-worker with whom they work well and a co-worker with whom they do not work well and both types of responses have been averaged in the study sample (McAllister, 1995; Tsui and Gutek, 1984). Following this approach, the two responses were averaged for analysis.

Results
In order to investigate the discriminant validity of our measures, conrmatory factor analyses were used to compare the t of a four factor model (willingness to share tacit knowledge, willingness to use tacit knowledge, affect-based trust, cognition-based trust) with alternative three-factor models (one combining the trust variables, the other combining the willingness to share and use variables), a two-factor model, and a one-factor model. The model with four distinct factors had the best t with the data, suggesting that our dependent and independent variables are empirically distinct. The results of this conrmatory analysis are shown in Table II. To further evaluate the construct validity of our measures for willingness to share and use tacit knowledge, follow-up data were collected from a sub-sample of 19 of the original respondents. Respondents were asked to:
B

rate their willingness to share and use tacit knowledge with a selected co-worker using our measures; indicate the extent to which each had actually shared tacit with the co-worker; and indicate the extent to which each had actually used tacit knowledge provided by the co-worker.

B B

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 133

Table II Results of conrmatory factor analysis of the independent and dependent variables
Alternative models Four constructse Three constructs (combining affect-based trust and cognition-based trust) Three constructs (combining willingness to share and willingness to use tacit knowledge) Two constructs (combined trust measures and combined willingness measures) One construct

x 2 (df)
241.84 278.38 289.14 309.95 369.92 (146)** (149)** (149)** (151)** (152)**

Dx 2 (df)

RMSEAa 0.06

GFIb 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.92

NFIc 0.90 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.83

CFId 0.95 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.89

36.56 47.32 68.11 128.08

(3)** (3)** (5)** (6)**

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08

Notes: aRoot mean squared error of approximation; bgoodness of t index; cnormed t index; dcomparative t index; eaffect-based trust, cognitive-based trust, willingness to share tacit knowledge, willingness to use tacit knowledge

The correlation between the willingness to share tacit knowledge and the extent to which tacit knowledge was actually shared was 0.69 (p , 0:05). The correlation between willingness to use tacit knowledge and the extent to which tacit knowledge was received and used was 0.78 (p , 0:01). The correlations among the study variables are shown in Table III. The only correlations that exceed 0.50 in Table II are between two dependent variables suggesting that multicollinearity of the independent variables is unlikely to bias parameter estimates developed in the multivariate regression analysis (Pedhazur, 1973). The study hypotheses were tested using hierarchical moderated multivariate regression. These regression models are presented in Table IV. In Table IV, the coefcients for both affect-based and cognition-based trust are positive and signicant in both the regression model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge and the model predicting willingness to use tacit knowledge. These results support H1. In the model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge, the coefcient for affect-based trust is signicantly larger than the coefcient for cognition-based trust (t 3:88, p , 0:01) in the regression model predicting willingness to share tacit knowledge. This supports H2. In the regression model predicting willingness to use tacit knowledge the coefcient for cognition-based trust is signicantly larger than the coefcient for affect-based trust (t 1:78, p , 0:05, one-tailed test). This result supports H3.

Discussion
This study focused on exploring the relationship between both affect-based and cognition-based trust and the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge within an organization. Our multivariate regression analyses show that both affect-based and cognition-based trust are positively related to a workers willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Affect-based trust has a greater inuence on willingness to Table III Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (n 202)
Variables 1. Willingness to share tacit knowledge 2. Willingness to use tacit knowledge 3. Affect-based trust 4. Cognition-based trust 5. Gendera 6. Age 7. Tenure Mean 5.30 5.37 4.43 5.11 1.40 45.6 13.7 SD 0.73 0.73 0.65 0.69 0.49 9.52 8.89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0.75 0.49 0.34 0.02 0.06 2 0.06

0.39 0.46 0.07 0.06 2 0.07

0.40 0.01 0.07 2 0.02

2 0.05 0.08 2 0.01

0.06 0.16
a

0.57

Notes: Correlations larger than 0.14 are signicant at p , 0:05; correlations larger than 0.18 are signicant at p , 0:01. Coded 1 male and 2 female

PAGE 134 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Table IV Regression models predicting tacit knowledge sharing and use (n 202)
Variables Gender Age Tenure DR 2 Cognition-based trust Affect-based trust DR 2 Total R 2 Tacit knowledge sharing b b (SE) 0.05 0.01 2 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.50 0.25** 0.27** (0.10) (0.01) (0.01) (0.08)* (0.08)** 0.03 0.06 2 0.09 0.17* 0.41** b Tacit knowledge use (SE) b (0.09) (0.01) (0.01) (0.07)** (0.08)** 0.10 0.07 2 0.12 0.37** 0.23**

0.15 0.01 2 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.26 0.25** 0.28**

Notes: *p , 0:05; **p , 0:01

share tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust has a larger inuence on willingness to use tacit knowledge. Taken together, these results suggest that both warm personal relationships most likely developed through face-to face interactions and solid respect for another workers professional capability is required for the sharing of tacit knowledge. Affect-based and cognition-based trust together accounted for approximately 25 percent of the variance in willingness to share tacit knowledge As ONeill and Adya (2007) have pointed out, professionals may tend to view themselves as relatively autonomous, with as much or more commitment to their occupation as to their organization. The store of tacit knowledge these workers have accumulated may be considered a valuable asset that will be shared primarily with others with whom a good personal relationship exists and whose reputation for solid professional performance is established. The need for both types of trust seems to be important, suggesting that a good personal relationship alone may not predict tacit knowledge exchange. Willingness to share tacit knowledge also requires some condence that the knowledge will be appropriately and professionally used. However, the quality of the personal relationship with a co-worker has the most signicant effect on willingness to share tacit knowledge, suggesting that unless affect-based trust of another co-worker is present, little tacit knowledge sharing may occur regardless of how competent the possible recipient may be. Both affect-based and cognition-based trusts are also needed for a professional employee to be willing to use tacit knowledge. The perceived competence and professionalism of the source of the tacit knowledge is a more critical determinant of willingness to use such knowledge. The use of tacit knowledge may present a somewhat larger risk to a professional employee than the act of sharing such knowledge. If a worker chooses to use and apply tacit knowledge provided by another, and the results are not as positive as expected, the recipient may need to present a responsible explanation to organizational management. Thus, the recipient of tacit knowledge must be condent about the consensus concerning the professional competence of the knowledge source. An employee may make decisions about his/her personal liking for a co-worker in relative isolation because it is not considered important for others to approve of ones friends. However, judgments about a peers professional competence and contribution to the organization may require consensus views to be considered valid. While cognition-based trust has substantial inuence on the willingness to use tacit knowledge, affect-based trust also must be present. A critical requirement for effective use of tacit knowledge is receipt of complete information, a process that is likely facilitated by a positive personal relationship with and trust of the source of the tacit knowledge.

Practical implications
The effective management of tacit knowledge the unwritten memory of the rm is essential to the success of modern rms. Tacit knowledge is not readily captured or stored by information technology systems. Increasing investment in information technology will not translate into better transfer and use or tacit knowledge because individuals decide whether they will share tacit knowledge and individuals decide whether they will use tacit knowledge.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 135

Our results suggest that tacit knowledge sharing and use depends on the formation of both affect-based and cognition-based trust among co-workers. This suggests that any diagnosis of organizational knowledge exchange processes should carefully consider the types and levels of trust between employees. If sharing and use of tacit information is important within an organization, leaders may be well served to make investments that help develop these types of trust among coworkers. Both types of trust may be increased through frequent direct engagement of co-workers in collaborative processes especially situations that illustrate interdependency and provide opportunity for workers to demonstrate individual competency (Dietz, 2004; McAllister, 1995). For example, co-worker affect-based and cognition-based trust might be fostered by collaborative experiences involving interdependent projects similar to those presented to competitors on the popular television show The Apprentice without the fear of hearing Youre red. The results also suggest that it may be important to understand the source of the levels of affect-based trust. That is, if workers tend to make judgments about co-workers based primarily on social categorization using surface attributes, increased frequency of interaction among these co-workers may positively alter trust levels. In some cases, a co-worker who appears different may turn out to be more similar in underlying values, attitudes, and competencies. However, if a co-worker is not trusted because of demonstrated differences in competence or values, increased interaction may further decrease both affect-based and cognition-based trust. McAlister (1995) also found that higher levels of afliative behavior (taking a personal interest, passing on information, helping another with tasks) increased affect-based trust among professional peers. Managerial actions and practices that encourage and perhaps measure these types of collaborative behaviors may be worthwhile investments that lead to greater levels of sharing and use of tacit knowledge within organizations. However, McAllisters (1995) data also suggested that cognitive-based trust signicantly affected the level of affect-based trust among peers. Thus managers may be advised to focus on identifying and remedying job performance weaknesses of professional staff. Heading off such weaknesses through training, on-the-job instruction, and development experiences seems likely to pay off in greater levels of trust among co-workers and more extensive sharing and use of tacit knowledge.

Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research

While our results are framed in terms of the inuences of cognition and affect-based trust on the willingness to share tacit knowledge with co-workers, it is also possible that causal direction runs in the opposite direction. That is, our data are cross-sectional. So it possible that the affect-based and cognition-based trust measured in this study had developed because tacit knowledge had been shared and/or used by co-workers. Although empirical evidence (conrmatory analysis and the Harmon one-factor test) suggests that the relationships among the variables are unlikely to be primarily the result of common method, and that the constructs are distinct, condence in the relationship among the constructs will be further enhanced by future studies that make use of multiple methods to obtain data. Future studies should consider longitudinal designs that will make it possible to understand better the causal ordering among alternative trust types and willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Alternately, archival information could be used in future efforts to measure actual knowledge receipt and use among co-workers. This study is also limited in that it surveyed management and professional staff in only one organization. Future research should explore the relationships among affect-based and cognition-based trust and tacit knowledge transfer in other organizational contexts to better understand possible effects of cultural norms within organizations. It is possible that professionals working in other types of organizations, especially for-prot companies, might weight affect- and cognition-based trust differently in making decisions to share and use tacit knowledge. Similarly, professionals working in task environments with different degrees of interdependence (e.g. military, security, etc.) might place emphasis on different aspects of trust.

PAGE 136 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

 Affect-based trust has a greater inuence on willingness to share tacit knowledge, while cognition-based trust has a larger inuence on willingness to use tacit knowledge.
It should also be recognized that professionals providing data for this study worked in an international headquarters where some critical trust-building interactions occurred in face-to-face meetings. Workers in regional of branch ofces may have to rely more on virtual communication and thus may place different emphasis on each form of trust in determining their willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Finally, although ethnicity was not measured within our sample, observation by the researchers suggested more members were native to the USA. In a group comprised of different cultural groups affect and cognition-based trust may play different roles in determining cross-cultural willingness to share and use tacit knowledge. Future studies should examine the relationship of affect-based and cognition-based trust on organizations of different size where opportunities for personal interaction differ. Future research could also explore how the impetus for a specic knowledge exchange opportunity affects a persons willingness to engage in such exchange. For example, an individual may be willing to respond to a request from another for knowledge of how a task should be done. Yet, that same individual might be less willing to take the initiative to share the knowledge independent of such a request. Such reticence may be problematic in that employees may not know who in the organization has the knowledge they need.

References
Adler, P.S. (2002), Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism, in Choo, C.W. and Bontis, N. (Eds), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 100-31. Argote, L. (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA. Arrow, K. (1974), The Limits of Organization, Norton, New York, NY. Athanassiou, N. and Nigh, D. (2000), Internationalization, tacit knowledge and the top management teams of MNCs, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 471-87. Auster, E. and Choo, C.W. (1994), CEOs, information, and decision making: scanning the environment for strategic advantage, Library Trends, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 206-26. Bennett, R.H. III (1998), The importance of tacit knowledge in strategic deliberations and decisions, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 589-97. Blackler, F. (1995), Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation, Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1021-46. Blattberg, R. and Hoch, S. (1990), Database models and managerial intuition: 50% model 50% intuition, Management Science, Vol. 36, pp. 887-99. Blumentritt, R. and Johnston, R. (1999), Towards a strategy for knowledge management, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-300. Brann, P. and Foddy, M. (1988), Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating resource, Journal of Conict Resolution, Vol. 31, pp. 615-30. Brockmann, E.N. and Anthony, W.P. (1998), The inuence of tacit knowledge and collective mind on strategic planning, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 204-22. Carroll, M.N. (2002), Gender Differences in Trust and Loyalty within Single Sex Friendships, Loyola University, New Orleans, LA. Choo, C.W. (1998), The Knowing Organization: How Organizations use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 137

Choo, C.W. (2000), Working with knowledge: how information professionals manage what they know, Library Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 395-403. Clarke, T. and Rollo, C. (2001), Corporate initiatives in knowledge management, Education Training, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 206-14. Collins, H. (1993), The structure of knowledge, Social Research, Vol. 60, pp. 95-116. Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. (1999), Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 381-400. Cross, R. and Baird, L. (2000), Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational memory, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 69-78. Dasgupta, P. (Ed.) (1988), Trust as a Commodity, Blackwell, Oxford. Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (2000), Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, The World Bank, Washington, DC. Davenport, T.H. and Grover, V. (2001), General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21. De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27. Dietz, G. (2004), Partnership and the development of trust in British workplaces, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 5-24. Epstein, L.D. (2000), Sharing knowledge in organizations: how people use media to communicate, unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), The 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-76. Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief attitude, intention, and behaviour, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 421-35. Foos, T., Schum, G. and Rothenburg, S. (2006), Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 6-18. Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, The Free Press, New York, NY. Gruber, H.G. (2000), Does organizational culture affect the sharing of knowledge? The case of a department in a high-technology company, unpublished dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa. Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), Difculties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-65. Hansen, M.T. (1999), The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111. Hinds, P.J. and Pfeffer, J. (2001), Why Organizations Dont Know What They Know: Cognitive and Motivational Factors Affecting the Transfer of Expertise, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Johannessen, J.-A., Olaisen, J. and Olsen, B. (2001), Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-20. Lane, C. (1998), Theories and Issues in the Study of Trust, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. (1998), The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 112-32. Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985), Trust as a social reality, Social Forces, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 967-84. Locke, E.A. (1999), Some reservations about social capital, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 8-9.

PAGE 138 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010

Lohr, S. (2002), Gazing into 2003: economy intrudes on dreams of new services, The New York Times, December 30, p. 3. Lucas, L. (2005), The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 87-101. McAllister, D.J. (1995), Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59. Marquardt, M. (1996), Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Meso, P. and Smith, R. (2000), A resource-based view of organizational knowledge management systems, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 224-34. Messick, D.M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M.B., Kramer, R.M., Zemke, P.E. and Lui, L. (1983), Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 294-309. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66. Narasimha, S. (2000), Organizational knowledge, human resource management, and sustained competitive advantage: toward a framework, Competitiveness Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123-35. Nidumolu, S., Subramani, M. and Aldrich, A. (2001), Situated learning and the situated knowledge web: exploring the ground beneath knowledge management, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 115-50. Nonaka, I. (1991), The knowledge-creating company, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 96-104. Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998), The concept of ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 40-54. Nonaka, I. and Nishiguchi, T. (2001), Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Nonaka, I. and Teece, D.J. (2001), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage Publications, London. ODell, C.S., Grayson, C.J. and Essaides, N. (1998), If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice, The Free Press, New York, NY. ONeill, B. and Adya, M. (2007), Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 411-36. Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-72. Pedhazur, E. (1973), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Fort Worth, TX. Pennings, J.M. and Woiceshyn, J. (1987), A typology of organizational control and its metaphors, in Bacharach, S.B. and Mitchell, S.M. (Eds), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 75-104. Perloff, R.M. (1993), The Dynamics of Persuasion, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillside, NJ. Raub, S. and Ruling, C.C. (2001), The knowledge management tussle: speech communities and rhetorical strategies in the development of knowledge management, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 113-30. Scott, J. (2000), Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 81-113.

VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 139

Smedlund, A. (2008), The knowledge system of a rm: social capital for explicit, tacit and potential knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 63-77. Smith, E.A. (2001), The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 311-21. Spender, J.C. and Grant, R.M. (1996), Knowledge and the rm: overview, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, special issue, Winter, pp. 5-9. Stenmark, D. (2000), Leveraging tacit organisational knowledge, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 9-24. Stenmark, D. (2002), Sharing tacit knowledge: a case study at Volvo, in Barnes, S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management Systems: Theory and Practice, Thomson Learning, London. Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1993), 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Vintage Books, New York, NY. Sweeney, G. (1996), Learning efciency, technological change and economic progress, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 11 Nos 1-2, pp. 5-27. Szulanski, G. (1995), Unpacking stickiness: an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practices in the rm, Academy of Management Journal, Best Papers Proceedings, Vol. 38, special issue, pp. 437-41. Szulanski, G. (1996), Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the rm, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp. 27-43. Teece, D.J. (2000), Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic, and Policy Dimensions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Schuen, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33. Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), Social capital and value creation: the role of intrarm networks, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-76. Tsui, A. and Gutek, B. (1984), A role-set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective relationships, and career success of industrial middle managers, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 619-35. Tulgan, B. (1995), Managing Generation X, Merritt Publishing, Santa Monica, CA. Wong, W. and Radcliffe, D. (2000), The tacit nature of design knowledge, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 493-512. Zack, M.H. (1999a), Knowledge and Strategy, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA. Zack, M.H. (1999b), Managing codied knowledge, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 45-58.

Further reading
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Parks, B.M., Henager, C.D. and Scamahorn, S.D. (1996), Trust and reactions to messages of intent in social dilemmas, Journal of Conict Resolution, Vol. 40, pp. 134-51. Tyler, T.R. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), Whither trust?, Trust in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Dail Fields can be contacted at: daile@regent.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 140 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 14 NO. 1 2010