10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 5 June 2021 Revised: 4 October 2022 Accepted: 5 October 2022
DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1734

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Knowledge sharing, knowledge seeking, and emotions:

A longitudinal study of hospital restructuring decision making

Yolande E. Chan 1 | Rashmi Krishnamurthy 2 | Janelle Mann 3 | Rajiv Sabherwal 4

1
Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill
University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
2
Smith School of Business, Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
3
Department of Economics, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
4
Walton College of Business, University of
Arkansas, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA
Correspondence
Yolande E. Chan, Desautels Faculty of
Management, McGill University, Montreal, QC,
Canada.
Email: yolande.chan@mcgill.ca
Funding information
Monieson Centre, Queen's University
Abstract
Prior research examines factors that enable or hinder knowledge sharing and knowl-
edge seeking in groups. However, individuals also share and seek knowledge outside
group meetings, especially if the group is making strategic decisions over time. There-
fore, this study examines how, during a longitudinal strategic decision-making pro-
cess, the emotions of group members and knowledge sharing within the group affect
their knowledge-sharing intentions and knowledge-seeking behaviors beyond the
group. We focus on a single organization, a hospital, whose board created a citizen
advisory panel (CAP) of 28 individuals to gather community input on the restructur-
ing of the hospital's activities to contain costs. The group met in five all-day sessions
to provide their input. We surveyed each member before the CAP process and after
each CAP session. The resulting longitudinal data were analyzed using panel-data
techniques, with the findings being complemented by qualitative insights. The results
indicate, somewhat surprisingly, that both positive and negative emotions (specifi-
cally enthusiasm and anxiety) positively affect both knowledge-sharing intentions
and knowledge sharing within groups in strategic decision-making contexts. We also
find that enthusiasm, anxiety, and perceived relative knowledge within groups posi-
tively affect subsequent knowledge-seeking behaviors. Our findings contribute to
the literature on knowledge management and organizational decision making. The
study provides insights into how, in groups making strategic decisions over time,
emotions as well as knowledge sharing within groups affect knowledge-related inten-
tions and behaviors beyond the groups. The study also adds to the theory of planned
behavior to highlight the role of emotions in influencing intentions and behaviors.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Organizational decision making has long relied on inputs from groups
of individuals (Bock et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2019). This is not surpris-
ing as groups often produce better decisions than individuals due to
knowledge sharing among group members (Dennis, 1996). Indeed,
knowledge sharing and seeking by groups are shown to improve orga-
nizational performance (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Forsgren et al., 2018;
Israilidis et al., 2021). Further, knowledge sharing also has a positive
impact on individual employees (Reychav & Weisberg, 2009). Informa-
tion technologies and other factors (e.g., see Ardichvili et al., 2003;
Forsgren et al., 2018; Kane & Alavi, 2007) can facilitate effective
group knowledge sharing, which in turn affects the success of group
decision-making processes, particularly when diverse actors are
involved (Ghobadi & Mathiassen, 2016). However, few studies exam-
ine the role of knowledge and knowledge management in the context
of complex decisions that evolve over time. Such decisions are not
made in a single meeting or discussion, and they involve considerable
knowledge sharing and seeking not only within each session but also
between sessions. Studies of knowledge sharing within a single ses-
sion or in communities (e.g., Phang et al., 2009) generally do not
examine the link between knowledge sharing within the group during

Knowl Process Manag. 2022;1–15. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/kpm © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1

2 CHAN ET AL.
a session and knowledge sharing and seeking beyond groups between
the sessions. We address this gap by examining knowledge-related
processes over time in a decision-making process that evolves across
multiple sessions.
Organizations increasingly incorporate external knowledge by
involving outsiders in important decisions (Ghobadi & Two aspects of knowledge management—knowledge sharing and
Mathiassen, 2016). They rely on external groups to help solve com-
plex problems and create new products or services (Cummings, 2004).
This trend is seen, for example, in the rise of the “crowdsourcing”
phenomenon (e.g., Chiu et al., 2014; Majchrzak & Malhotra, 2013).
When decisions, or important recommendations, are made by groups
of individuals external to organizations, the individual members are
diverse not only in their experiences and backgrounds but also in their
perspectives, demographics, and socioeconomics. When individuals
engage in external knowledge sharing and seeking, they are likely to
expand their sources of knowledge, which improves their group deci-
sion making and improves performance (Cummings, 2004). Further-
more, when individuals engage in external knowledge sharing and
seeking, they can discover knowledge not previously discussed in
their groups (Cummings, 2004; Presbitero et al., 2017). However,
sharing knowledge is complex as it involves articulating, transferring,
and capturing what individuals are thinking (Hau & Kang, 2016). It can
be difficult for team members to work cohesively to solve problems in
a group setting (Rosendaal & Bijlsma-Frankema, 2015). This becomes
even more problematic in groups that span different units, organiza-
tional affiliations, and geographical locations.
Given the importance and challenges of knowledge sharing and
seeking within and beyond groups, we examine them in a high-stake
(hospital restructuring), or strategic, decision-making context. Also, we
recognize that when individuals make recommendations on difficult
decisions, positive or negative emotions may be created that can
affect knowledge sharing and seeking (Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2013;
Valentino et al., 2008; Witherspoon et al., 2013). The study's context,
i.e., a strategic (hospital restructuring) decision-making process, allows
us to address the following research questions:
RQ1. During a strategic decision-making process, how
do group members' emotions and individual knowledge
and knowledge sharing within the group affect knowl-
edge-sharing intentions beyond the group over time?
RQ2. During a strategic decision-making process, how
do group members' emotions and individual knowledge
and knowledge sharing within the group affect knowl-
edge-seeking behaviors beyond the group over time?
2 | THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Knowledge is a critical resource for organizations. Knowledge man-
agement involves searching for, codifying, and analyzing knowledge
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). It is collaborative in nature as groups
connect with others to share and seek knowledge (Ahmad, 2017).
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Effective knowledge management drives an organization's growth and
sustains its competitive advantage (Bock et al., 2005). Studies show
that when an organization leverages knowledge, it can promote value
creation, improve performance, and foster innovation (Nguyen
et al., 2019).
knowledge seeking—have received considerable attention from
researchers and practitioners (Israilidis et al., 2021; Reychav &
Weisberg, 2010). Knowledge sharing involves providing information
about tasks and communicating know-how with others to complete a
task or address a problem (Chang et al., 2017; Cummings, 2004).
Knowledge seeking involves finding relevant knowledge from others,
including experts, to improve capacity, address questions, and remove
doubts (Bock et al., 2006). Knowledge sharing and seeking can reduce
implementation costs, promote organizational learning, and improve
performance (Israilidis et al., 2021; Nguyen & Prentice, 2020).
While knowledge sharing and seeking are important for organiza-
tional success, encouraging individuals to share and seek knowledge
can be a complex task (Nguyen et al., 2019; Witherspoon et al., 2013).
As organizational knowledge “resides within individuals,” the levels of
knowledge sharing and seeking depend on the commitment and moti-
vation of individuals (Bock et al., 2005, p. 89). Although organizations
can promote knowledge sharing and seeking, they cannot force indi-
viduals to engage in these behaviors (Bock et al., 2005; Nguyen
et al., 2019).
When individuals share and seek knowledge, new ideas are gen-
erated and innovation is created (Van Wijk et al., 2008). When diverse
groups of individuals collaborate, sharing, and seeking knowledge,
they solve problems creatively and reach better decisions (Ghobadi &
Mathiassen, 2016; Singh et al., 2019). Increasingly, organizations
design groups to include individuals from different units or back-
grounds to share knowledge and generate ideas (Wu & Deng, 2019).
In addition, diverse groups (e.g., employees in different geographical
locations and customer–employee groups) are created so that individ-
uals can externally share what they have learned within their groups
and externally seek knowledge to improve their contributions within
their groups. Group members who engage in knowledge sharing and
seeking outside of group meetings can improve the organization's per-
formance (Cummings, 2004).
Given the importance of knowledge sharing and seeking, it is
essential to understand the factors that encourage individuals in a
group to share and seek knowledge beyond their group. This process
and the related decision making seldom happen in a single setting, lim-
iting the usefulness of a cross-sectional dataset (Dey &
Mukhopadhyay, 2018). A longitudinal approach better supports the
identification of factors that encourage individuals to share and seek
knowledge beyond their groups and over time (Singh et al., 2019).
Recognizing this importance, and the lack of prior research in this
area, this paper focuses on identifying the effects of potentially
important factors—knowledge aspects within the group and the emo-
tions of its members—on individuals' intentions to share and seek
knowledge beyond group meetings. We employ a longitudinal method
to understand how this interplay between knowledge sharing within

CHAN ET AL.
the group and knowledge sharing and seeking beyond the group
unfolds over time.
2.1 | Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
As we focus on predicting factors that promote or hinder knowledge-
sharing intentions and knowledge-seeking behaviors, we draw on the
TPB as a theoretical foundation (Nguyen et al., 2019). Ajzen (1991)
extended the theory of planned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and pro-
posed TPB. It is a social cognitive theory that examines how individuals'
attitudes, norm perceptions, and behavioral controls predict their inten-
tion to perform actions (Cheng & Huang, 2013; T. Hansen et al., 2004;
Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). Studies have applied TPB to understand
how psychological factors control behavioral intentions and subsequent
actions (Dey & Mukhopadhyay, 2018; Minbaeva & Pedersen, 2010).
According to Ajzen (1991), it is important to understand inten-
tions to perform an action because they “capture the motivational
factors that influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard
people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning
to exert, in order to perform the behavior (p. 181).” Three factors—
subjective norms, attitudes, and perceived behavioral control—predict
intention. Subjective norms are the level of social pressure an individ-
ual experiences to perform (or not perform) the behavior. Individual
attitude toward the behavior is defined as the individual's judgment
about the behavior, which can be either positive or negative. Per-
ceived behavioral control refers to level of difficulty (or ease) an indi-
vidual predicts to perform the behavior. These three factors in varying
degrees combine to determine an individual's intention to perform the
behavior (Dey & Mukhopadhyay, 2018).
Studies in knowledge management have applied TPB as a theo-
retical foundation to understand knowledge-sharing and knowledge-
seeking behaviors (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Yang & Farn, 2009).
Although TPB is applied as a theoretical framework to explain ante-
cedents of knowledge-sharing intentions, it is criticized for being
rational in its assumptions about human behavior and ignoring the
influence of positive and negative emotions on behaviors such as
knowledge sharing (Ajzen, 2011).
Despite its limitations, we believe that TPB provides a useful frame-
work for understanding how individuals' attitudes, beliefs, and norms
influence their knowledge sharing in groups and exploring knowledge
sharing in goal-oriented settings (Innan & Moustaghfir, 2015; Radaelli
et al., 2015). TPB takes into account how individuals' attitudes, subjec-
tive norms, and perceived control influence knowledge-sharing inten-
tions (Ajzen, 1991). In this paper, we draw on and add to TPB by
examining the influence of emotions on knowledge-sharing intentions
and knowledge-seeking behaviors outside of group meetings.
2.2 | Research model and hypotheses
According to TPB, intention to perform a behavior is the main predic-
tor of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Intention can be defined as the level
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
of motivation an individual has (i.e., how much a person is determined
to try) to perform an action (Ajzen, 1991). When intention is stronger,
the likelihood of the behavior is higher (Ajzen, 1991; Nguyen
et al., 2019). Although intention to perform a behavior is a good pre-
dictor of behavior, researchers highlight the gap between intentions
and behaviors (Kuo & Young, 2008). For instance, an important factor
that can prevent individuals from performing a task is their lack of
understanding (Nguyen et al., 2019). Thus, individuals that lack under-
standing are likely to engage in knowledge-seeking behaviors to more
fully understand their tasks (Jeon et al., 2011). In this study, we focus
on how knowledge-seeking behaviors are influenced by knowledge-
sharing intentions—the willingness of individuals to engage in activi-
ties to share their knowledge. Knowledge-seeking behaviors can
involve searching for useful information about the context to make
better sense of the situation (Markus, 2001). They include, for exam-
ple, searching for new information online and/or reaching out to
experts (Marrone, 2010). Bock et al. (2006) find that the motivation to
share knowledge is positively associated with knowledge-seeking
behaviors. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. The intention of group members to share
knowledge after the group meeting is positively associated
with subsequent knowledge-seeking behaviors.
TPB also suggests that how individuals view a task (e.g., favorably
or unfavorably) influences whether they intend to share task-related
knowledge (Ajzen, 1991). Although TPB ignores the impact of individ-
ual emotions, when individuals feel positive about a task, they are
more likely to form a favorable opinion about it; individuals' emotions
about their tasks can influence their beliefs and task-related opinions
(Ajzen, 2011). Moreover, how group members feel about their partici-
pation in organizational decision making can determine their actions;
emotions can influence both knowledge sharing and seeking beyond
the group (Celli et al., 2016; Kumi & Sabherwal, 2019). When people
have positive emotions (e.g., hopefulness and pleasure), they are more
likely to share knowledge (Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2013). Along similar
lines, when individuals feel enthusiastic about a situation, they are
more likely to pass along their knowledge to other people
(Heath, 1996). Positive feelings such as enthusiasm are often related
to increased knowledge sharing (Celli et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2017).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2. Enthusiasm is positively associated with
subsequent knowledge-sharing intentions.
In the literature, we see that negative emotions such as anxiety
often result in knowledge-seeking behaviors (Marcus &
MacKuen, 1993). According to TPB, when individuals form an unfa-
vorable opinion about a task, they may not feel like performing the
task (Ajzen, 1991). Individuals in a negative state gravitate toward
inaction (Ajzen, 2011) or seek more information about the task and its
anticipated outcomes. When individuals experience fear and negative
emotions, they become more alert and pay greater attention to the

4 CHAN ET AL.
environment (Derryberry, 1991; Marcus et al., 2000). For example,
when individuals feel anxious about political candidates, they engage
in knowledge-seeking behaviors, and when they experience negative
emotions, particularly anxiety, they pay more attention to learning
and new information (Valentino et al., 2008). Similarly, other research
demonstrates that when individuals feel anxiety, they are more likely
to seek knowledge to take action (Brader et al., 2008). Thus, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3. Anxiety is positively associated with sub-
sequent knowledge-seeking behaviors.
It is important to understand how knowledge sharing within a
group influences knowledge sharing beyond the group. Scholars
argue that both internal and external knowledge sharing are impor-
tant for organizational effectiveness (Argote et al., 2000;
Cummings, 2004). Work groups often share knowledge beyond their
groups to incorporate external feedback and know-how, and to avoid
reinventing the wheel (Renzl, 2008). TPB suggests that the social
pressures perceived by individuals influence whether they will
engage in certain behaviors (Ajzen, 1991). In terms of knowledge
sharing in groups, individuals often focus on the group's behavioral
norms or what other group members are doing (Minbaeva &
Pedersen, 2010). When individuals perceive knowledge sharing as
valued by group members, and different perspectives as being able
to be shared within or outside the group (Bock et al., 2005; Jeon
et al., 2011), they are more likely to engage in similar knowledge
sharing. In addition, when members have different organizational
affiliations and roles, which increases internal knowledge sharing,
they are more likely to engage in greater external knowledge sharing
(Cummings, 2004). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4. Knowledge sharing within group sessions
is positively associated with the subsequent intention to
share knowledge outside the group.
Another factor that can influence knowledge sharing beyond the
group is the group members' task-related knowledge. Task knowledge
refers to how informed group members are about their roles, tasks,
and responsibilities in the group. When members believe they have
expertise, they are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing
(Thomas-Hunt et al., 2003; Zhang & Jiang, 2015). TPB posits that
when individuals perceive they are capable of performing a task, they
are likely to develop an intention to perform the task (Ajzen, 1991).
When individuals perceive they are knowledgeable about a task and
believe the knowledge is easy to share, they are more likely to
develop an intention to share knowledge. Scholars find that individ-
uals have higher tendencies to share knowledge when they feel they
have clear ideas and useful information (Constant et al., 1994). Fur-
thermore, group members who have more knowledge about the pro-
cess and goals are more likely to share knowledge beyond the group
to help others understand the issues being addressed by the group
(Cummings, 2004). Thus, we posit:
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Hypothesis 5. Task knowledge is positively associated
with the subsequent intention to share knowledge outside
the group.
The group members' knowledge of the organization and its con-
text can also affect knowledge sharing beyond the group. Organiza-
tional knowledge refers to awareness and information about the
organization and its mission and goals. According to TPB, individuals
develop perceptions about a task based on what they believe is
achievable (Ajzen, 1991). In the context of organizational knowledge
sharing, individuals' knowledge of the organization and its mission
influences their perception of whether their task is easy and achiev-
able, and what behaviors they should engage in. Szulanski (1996) finds
that when individuals are not clear about organizational goals and
practices, they are less likely to share their organizational knowledge.
Group members may be more inclined to share knowledge beyond
the group if they are informed about the organization and therefore
feel they have something to contribute to its effectiveness. Thus, in
organizational settings, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6. Organizational knowledge is positively
associated with the subsequent intention to share knowl-
edge outside the group.
Finally, when group members feel they lack knowledge compared
to other members, they often engage in knowledge-seeking behav-
iors. When group members interact, they become aware of their
knowledge, relative to other group members, about the subject areas
and tasks at hand (Jackson et al., 2006). Relative knowledge refers to
how individuals perceive their level of knowledge about a task com-
pared to other members of the group. As noted earlier, according to
TPB, individuals often develop perceptions about tasks based on what
appears achievable. In a group decision-making setting, if members
feel they are less capable compared to other members, they may seek
knowledge to improve their ability to perform a task. When group
members feel that other members are more knowledgeable, they may
feel uncomfortable and subsequently engage in search activities to
acquire new information and useful knowledge to improve their
understanding. Moreover, individuals may search for and identify new
information to complement their expertise (M. T. Hansen, 1999). Pre-
vious studies find that individuals' motivation to learn and improve
their knowledge base often leads to knowledge-seeking behaviors
(Bock et al., 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Therefore, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 7. Lower relative knowledge is positively
associated with subsequent knowledge-seeking behaviors.
Figure 1 presents our research model. The model shows a link
between knowledge-sharing intentions beyond the group and
knowledge-seeking behaviors. It also identifies how emotions (enthu-
siasm and anxiety), knowledge sharing within the group (knowledge
sharing), and knowledge within the group (task knowledge,

CHAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 Research model with
hypotheses. Dashed arrow indicates a
negative effect; other effects are positive.
Nonsignificant hypothesized effects are
excluded [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
organizational knowledge, and lower relative knowledge) influence
knowledge-sharing intentions beyond the group and knowledge-
seeking behaviors.
3 | METHODS
We focus on a single organization—for which we use the pseudonym
OntarioHospital—located in the province of Ontario in Canada. The
hospital board created a citizen advisory panel (CAP) to gather com-
munity input on the restructuring of the hospital's programs and ser-
vices to contain healthcare costs. The hospital was undergoing budget
cuts and needed to restructure its services. The Government of
Ontario Local Health System Integration Act (2006) legally requires an
Ontario community hospital to consult community members before
restructuring hospital programs and services. Therefore, OntarioHos-
pital's board convened the CAP, who met five times at OntarioHospi-
tal to provide input to the restructuring plan. In addition to engaging
community members, the board collected input from the hospital
staff, physicians with hospital privileges, and hospital volunteers. The
goal was to collect stakeholder perspectives and provide stakeholders,
particularly CAP members, with opportunities to shape the decisions
regarding how to restructure their local hospital's programs and ser-
vices. However, the final decision-making authority resided with the
hospital board.
The CAP met five times at OntarioHospital. Each of the five CAP
sessions lasted an entire Saturday, or about 7–8 hours. The first two
CAP sessions provided CAP members with an overview of Ontario-
Hospital, the Ontario health system, hospital budgeting challenges,
hospital performance indicators, and the CAP mandate. The second
session also included a hospital tour. The third session provided a
detailed discussion of the hospital's 23 services and was followed by a
public roundtable. At this roundtable, the CAP members intermingled
with community members and facilitated table discussions. In the
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
fourth session, CAP members received information about community
health service providers, physicians, and long-term care. In the fifth
and final session, CAP members voted to finalize their recommenda-
tions. This session led to the preparation of a CAP report that was
submitted and presented to the board. The board then met to finalize
the budget and service restructuring recommendations. It accepted
the vast majority, but not all, of the CAP's recommendations, which
included closing 26 beds and two outpatient programs, as well as inte-
grating another program with the Emergency Department. These
changes resulted in a balanced hospital budget in the subsequent
fiscal year.
The members of the CAP were randomly selected based on a
civic lottery system following the advice of a consulting firm
employed by OntarioHospital. This process aimed to create a repre-
sentative sample of the community (i.e., in terms of age, gender, and
other sociodemographic factors). The 28 CAP members were between
ages 19 and 84 years. On average, 23 CAP members attended each
session along with either or both the OntarioHospital chief executive
officer (CEO) and a non-voting board member. CAP members gener-
ally made an effort to attend each session, but some missed an occa-
sional session because of other commitments.
3.1 | Data collection
We conducted one survey before the first CAP session, one survey at
the end of each CAP session, an initial follow-up survey one month
after the last CAP session, and a second follow-up survey three
months after the last CAP session. The pre-CAP survey was distrib-
uted electronically to collect baseline information on demographics,
socioeconomics, the panel members' knowledge about healthcare ser-
vices, and how they felt about their upcoming participation. The sur-
veys at the end of each CAP session were administered in person.
Each survey took about 15 minutes to complete.

6 CHAN ET AL.
In total, the research team conducted eight surveys: one pre-CAP
survey, five CAP surveys, and two post-CAP surveys. In addition to
gathering survey data, one member of the research team attended all
five CAP sessions and recorded the CAP discussions and decision
making. This team member observed but did not participate in or
influence the process.
3.2 | Measures
CAP member emotions (i.e., anxiety and enthusiasm) were measured
using three items each based on Markus and Mackuen (1993). We
developed measures for knowledge management (within group),
knowledge (within group), and facilitative leadership. These items
were repeated using identical language for all five CAP surveys to
enable their use in panel-data regressions.
The survey questions used a Likert-type 4-point scale, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). We chose a 4-point
Likert scale to avoid a common measurement error in 5-point scales
where respondents gravitate toward 3 or a neutral score
(Chang, 1994). The survey instrument also included open-ended ques-
tions to examine CAP members' perceptions about their involvement
in the panel. Appendix A summarizes the measures. Cumulatively,
31 items were used to measure the nine focal constructs (anxiety,
enthusiasm, facilitative leadership, task knowledge, organizational
knowledge, relative knowledge, knowledge-seeking behavior (within
the group), knowledge-sharing intention (beyond the group),
knowledge-seeking behavior (beyond the group)), with single items
being used to measure participants' income, age, gender, and health-
care use. Appendix B lists the specific items.
3.3 | Validation of measures
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 31 items used to measure
the eight constructs, with varimax rotation, supports the measures
(Velicer & Jackson, 1990). It led to the nine expected factors with
eigenvalues over 1. The nine factors explained 78.4% of the total vari-
ance. All items loaded on their respective factors (all primary loadings
are of 0.6 or above, except one loading of 0.57), with no item loading
on another construct 0.5 or more. As recommended (Nunnally, 1979),
all factors have Cronbach's alphas of 0.8 or above. Appendix B also
provides the standardized loading coefficients (lambdas) for the items
measuring each construct (Pornprasertmanit et al., 2014).
Next, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the
31 items. We used maximum likelihood estimates with standard errors
clustered by participants. Such clustering allowed us to control for
correlations among responses from the same participants
(Woolridge, 2002). We used reflective measures because causality
flows from construct to items, items are interchangeable, items have
high intercorrelations, items have similar signs, and error items are
identifiable (Coltman et al., 2008).
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
To test for discriminant and convergent validity, we conducted
CFA using structural equation modeling (SEM) and computed the
average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The full SEM model did not converge because of the
small sample size (n = 1191). However, we conducted a power analy-
sis (MacCallum et al., 1996) and were pleased to confirm that we had
enough data to run regression analyses. We obtained an approximate
fit for our model by setting the number of iterations to 200. The
resulting model fit moderately with the data (Kline, 2005), with a root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.08, standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) of 0.073, comparative fit index
(CFI) of 0.88, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) of 0.85, and χ2
(320) = 585.83; p value = 0.0. We found that when we dropped the
knowledge sharing (beyond the group) construct from the model, the
CFA converged with satisfactory fit statistics. Therefore, we used the
AVE of the knowledge sharing (within the group) construct from the
nonconvergent model and the AVEs of the other eight constructs
from the convergent model. As reported in Table 1, each construct's
AVE exceeds 0.5 and each construct's square root of AVE exceeds its
correlations with other constructs. Thus, we demonstrated the dis-
criminant and convergent validity of the constructs.
3.4 | Common method variance
To test for common method variance, we conducted several tests.
First, we used both EFA and CFA to conduct Harman's one-factor test
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). In EFA, all items were loaded on one factor to
test whether a single factor dominated the overall variance. The
results indicated that the first factor explained 24.9% of the variance.
We were pleased to see that this value was well below the commonly
accepted threshold of 50%. We also conducted CFA with one latent
(e.g., common method) construct. The goodness-of-fit indices for the
one-factor CFA model were: RMSEA of 0.19, SRMR of 0.16, CFI of
0.36, TLI of 0.3, and χ 2(348) = 1730.66; p value = 0.0. This model's fit
indices were not acceptable, as desired. Thus, the results of EFA and
CFA indicated that common method variance bias was not an issue.
Second, we conducted Lindell and Whitney's (2001) marker vari-
able test. A marker variable (such as a common method) is theoreti-
cally unrelated to the main constructs of a study (Lindell &
Whitney, 2001). We used the distance of the nearest hospital from
the respondent's home as a marker variable. Correlations were com-
puted between nine constructs and the marker variables. The results
of correlations indicated that the distance variable's correlation score
ranged from 0.13 to 0.23 and correlations were not significant, as
desired.
Third, we conducted a CFA marker technique to test common
method variance (Richardson et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2003). We
added a latent construct with paths to all measurement items and the
distance variable. As is desirable, the latent construct explained a lim-
ited amount of the variance (5.7%) in the items measuring the
construct.
 CHAN ET AL.

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Std.
Variable N Mean SD alphaa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Income 183 3.36 0.81 - -
2. Age 198 57.20 15.51 - 0.25* -
3. Facilitative leadership 117 3.82 0.33 0.88 0.08 0.28* 0.79
4. Healthcare use 198 1.65 0.56 - 0.16 0.10 0.24* -
5. Enthusiasm 119 3.35 0.58 0.79 0.03 0.18 0.35** 0.04 0.77
6. Anxiety 114 1.61 0.75 0.82 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.80
7. Knowledge sharing within the group 118 3.76 0.39 0.81 0.02 0.34** 0.57*** 0.32** 0.39*** 0.04 0.81
8. Task knowledge 119 3.63 0.53 0.93 0.04 0.05 0.36** 0.29* 0.32** 0.20 0.41*** 0.85
9. Organizational knowledge 119 3.06 0.68 0.90 0.13 0.13 0.28* 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.14 0.42*** 0.88
10. Relative knowledge 119 3.08 0.58 0.82 0.02 0.21 0.13 0.06 0.14 0.01 0.09 0.23* 0.19 0.80
11. Knowledge-sharing intention (beyond 96 3.43 0.58 0.81 0.14 0.13 0.23* 0.23* 0.36** 0.05 0.41*** 0.26* 0.02 0.20 0.83
the group)
12. Knowledge-seeking behavior (beyond 119 3.23 0.67 0.92 0.22 0.44*** 0.09 0.02 0.27* 0.20 0.15 0.32** 0.11 0.49*** 0.26* 0.87
the group)

Note: Square roots of average variances extracted are reported in boldface along the diagonal.
a
Composite reliability for each construct, excluded to save space, is about the same as standardized Cronbach's alpha.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
7

10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 CHAN ET AL.

T A B L E 2 Random effects model with knowledge-sharing Finally, we also checked for common method variance using an
intention (beyond group) as dependent variable unmeasured latent method construct (ULMC) approach, adding a
Variable 1 2 latent construct (with no unique indicators) with paths to all measure-

Controls ment items (Chin et al., 2012; Richardson et al., 2009; Williams
et al., 1989). The addition of the latent construct resulted in 7.2% vari-
Income 0.247*** 0.279***
ance in the estimation of the model compared to the original model
Age 0.010** 0.003
without the latent construct. The results of these tests indicate that
Facilitative leadership 0.041 0.053
common method bias is not an issue.
Healthcare use 0.087 0.165
Gender 0.500*** 0.452***
Emotions
4 | RE SU LT S
Enthusiasm 0.205**
Anxiety 0.179** We performed panel-data regression analysis using data from the five
Knowledge management (within group) CAP session surveys to examine how emotions, knowledge manage-
Knowledge sharing within the group 0.203** ment (within group), and knowledge (within group) affect knowledge-
Knowledge (within group) sharing intention (beyond the group) and subsequent knowledge-
Task knowledge 0.05 seeking behaviors (beyond the group). Panel-data regression analysis

Organizational knowledge 0.032 is appropriate because we have panel data from five sessions across a
cross-section of 28 CAP members; also, responses to the survey ques-
Relative knowledge 0.130
tions used to test the seven hypotheses vary across time. We used
Constant 2.245*** 2.026***
Stata's xtreg command to conduct panel-data regression analysis for
Observations 82 76
two dependent variables: knowledge-sharing intention (beyond group)
Number of participants 24 23
and knowledge-seeking behaviors (beyond group).
Note: This table reports coefficient estimates with the random-effects The first model investigates RQ1, concerning factors affecting
model selected over the fixed-effects model using the Hausman (1978)
knowledge-sharing intention (beyond group). It was estimated with
test (p-value = 0.40). Standard errors are clustered by participant.
*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.
independent variables entered in two steps: (1) controls (income, age,

T A B L E 3 Random effects model with

Variable 1 2 3
knowledge-seeking behavior (beyond
Controls group) as dependent variable
Income 0.259* 0.323*** 0.362***
Age 0.024*** 0.022*** 0.021***
Facilitative leadershipt 1 0.005 0.015 0.020
Healthcare use 0.106 0.229 0.260
Gender 0.034 0.210 0.174
Emotions
Enthusiasmt 1 0.235* 0.222*
Anxietyt 1 0.226** 0.211*
Knowledge management (within group)
Knowledge sharing within the groupt 1 0.076 0.093
Knowledge (within group)
Task knowledget–1 0.025 0.034
Organizational knowledget 1 0.064 0.067
Relative knowledget 1 0.360*** 0.350***
Knowledge-sharing intentiont 1 (beyond the group) 0.098
Constant 0.246 0.130 0.403
Observations 76 70 70
Number of participants 22 21 21

Note: This table reports coefficient estimates with the random-effects model selected over the fixed-
effects model using the Hausman test (p-value = 0.09). Standard errors are clustered by participant.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.0; ***p < 0.01.
 10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAN ET AL. 9

F I G U R E 2 Emergent model [Colour

figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

facilitative leadership, healthcare use, and gender) and (2) emotions

TABLE 4 A summary of the results of the hypothesis testing
(enthusiasm and anxiety), within-group knowledge management
(knowledge sharing) and within-group knowledge (task knowledge, Hypothesis Supported

organizational knowledge, and relative knowledge). The second model Hypothesis 1 The intention of group members to No
examines RQ2, concerning factors affecting knowledge-seeking share knowledge after the group
meeting is positively associated with
behaviors (beyond group). It includes the same two steps as above,
subsequent knowledge-seeking
with knowledge-sharing intention (beyond group) being entered in the behaviors
third step. As reported in Tables 2 and 3, the Hausman test was used Hypothesis 2 Enthusiasm is positively associated Yes
to choose between the random- and fixed-effects estimations and with subsequent knowledge-sharing
supports random-effects estimation for both models. Robust standard intentions
errors were achieved by clustering by CAP participant to allow each Hypothesis 3 Anxiety is positively associated with Yes
participant's responses to be correlated across surveys. subsequent knowledge-seeking
behaviors
Table 2 displays the results of the panel-data regression analysis
Hypothesis 4 Knowledge sharing within group Yes
with the random-effects estimation method for RQ1 with knowledge-
sessions is positively associated with
sharing intention (beyond group) as the dependent variable. Although the subsequent intention to share
we did not hypothesize some of the relations shown in Figure 2 knowledge outside the group
(e.g., enthusiasm's influence on knowledge-seeking behaviors), we Hypothesis 5 Task knowledge is positively No
included how they influence the dependent variables. Enthusiasm has associated with the subsequent
a positive and significant effect (Hypothesis 2, β = 0.205, p < 0.05) on intention to share knowledge
outside the group
knowledge-sharing intention (beyond group), as does knowledge shar-
Hypothesis 6 Organizational knowledge is positively No
ing (within group) (Hypothesis 4, β = 0.203, p < 0.05). The results sup-
associated with the subsequent
port Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4, whereas the effects intention to share knowledge
hypothesized in Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 are not supported. outside the group
The panel-data regression results add insight into the role of emotions Hypothesis 7 Lower relative knowledge is positively Yes
in that not only does enthusiasm have a positive and significant effect associated with subsequent
on knowledge-sharing intention (beyond group), but so does anxiety. knowledge-seeking behaviors

Table 3 displays the results of the panel-data regression analysis
with the random-effects estimation method for knowledge-seeking
behaviors (beyond group). Anxiety has a positive effect on
knowledge-seeking behaviors (beyond group) between one CAP ses-
sion and the next (Hypothesis 3, β = 0.211, p < 0.10). Within the
group, perceived relative knowledge from one CAP session also has a
positive effect on knowledge-seeking behaviors between CAP ses-
sions (Hypothesis 7, β = 0.350, p < 0.01). These results support
Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 7, but Hypothesis 1 does not have a sig-
nificant effect. Again, the panel-data regression results add insight
into the role of emotions in that not only does anxiety have a positive
Note: Shaded boxes include measures (e.g., enthusiasm, anxiety) and non-
shaded boxes include broad concepts (e.g., Emotions [t]).
and significant effect on knowledge-seeking behaviors (beyond
group), but so does enthusiasm. Figure 2 summarizes the emergent
model, based on the above results.
To summarize, as shown in Table 4, the results from the two
panel-data models that incorporate data from the pre-CAP and five
CAP meetings support four of our seven hypotheses, and they yield
statistically nonsignificant results for the other three hypotheses. Of

10
particular interest is that both enthusiasm and anxiety have a positive
and statistically significant effect on knowledge-sharing intention
(beyond group) and knowledge-seeking behaviors (beyond group)
between one CAP session and the next. This is especially relevant for
organizations that involve individuals beyond organizational bound-
aries in the decision-making process because individuals with stronger
emotions are more likely to share their experience with members out-
side the organizational boundaries.
5 | DISCUSSION
In this paper, we draw on TPB to examine how a CAP engaged in a
difficult decision-making process to recommend service cuts to bal-
ance their local hospital's budget over the course of a year. We test
our research model and report key findings.
5.1 | Contributions to research
The findings of this study suggest that emotions (both anxiety and
enthusiasm) have positive and significant effects on knowledge-sharing
intentions. Previous scholars find that positive emotions (e.g., pleasure,
joy) influence individuals' actions beyond the group (Celli et al., 2016;
Stieglitz & Dang-Xuan, 2013; Witherspoon et al., 2013). However, we
find that emotions in either direction (positive or negative) increase
knowledge sharing. This adds to the TPB literature and illustrates the
importance of emotions, in general, in explaining knowledge-sharing
intentions. We address the criticism that TPB is overly rational in its
assumptions and provide insights into how emotions can predict
knowledge-sharing and knowledge-seeking behaviors beyond groups.
The findings reported in this study also address the call for
research to understand how emotions play a role in knowledge shar-
ing, especially over time (Wang et al., 2017). Thus, we add to knowl-
edge management literature by examining the effects of enthusiasm
and anxiety on knowledge-sharing between sessions. When individ-
uals participate in complex group decision making, they are more
likely to need more than one session, and to engage in extended delib-
erations over time. We find that emotions influence what group mem-
bers do (e.g., their interactions) beyond their group settings. The role
of emotions in knowledge-sharing intentions opens up new avenues
for exploration in the TPB and knowledge management literatures.
The results also indicate that not all knowledge factors influence
knowledge-sharing intentions. We do not find empirical support for
our hypotheses that task knowledge and organizational knowledge
are positively associated with the intention to share knowledge out-
side the group. This may be due to the decision-making context of our
study. During their group sessions, CAP members were making deci-
sions about whether to cut hospital services. The context of decision
making was somewhat negative and more personal in nature
(e.g., healthcare), suggesting that task knowledge and organizational
knowledge may have had somewhat unique and conflicting effects.
Further research is needed to examine whether task knowledge and
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAN ET AL.
organizational knowledge are more relevant in other settings as deter-
minants of the intention to share knowledge.
We also find that anxiety and enthusiasm have positive and sig-
nificant effects on subsequent knowledge-seeking behaviors (i.e., at
time t + 1). Our findings suggest that emotions influence knowledge-
seeking behaviors outside of group meetings. Studies indicate that
negative emotions such as anxiety and fear often push individuals to
seek more knowledge (Marcus & MacKuen, 1993; Valentino
et al., 2008). We contribute to this literature and highlight that emo-
tions, both positive and negative, play an important role in influencing
knowledge-seeking behaviors between sessions. The stronger the par-
ticipants' positive or negative emotions are, the more likely they are
to engage in knowledge-seeking behaviors. How participants feel is
likely to influence their search for new information about the topic
and their participation in subsequent decision-making processes. Our
study contributes to the knowledge management literature by
highlighting that explicitly paying attention to, and addressing, individ-
uals' emotions can influence how keen individuals are to seek knowl-
edge later. Further research in other contexts is needed to confirm
these findings. Overall, we illustrate the importance of emotions in
explaining knowledge-sharing intentions and knowledge-seeking
behaviors beyond groups over time.
Collectively, our findings highlight how TPB predicts knowledge-
sharing and knowledge-seeking behaviors beyond groups over time.
Specifically, we present mechanisms to explain how different anteced-
ents influence knowledge-sharing intentions and knowledge-seeking
behaviors beyond groups when external organizational members
(e.g., community members, customers, and partners) are involved in
decision-making processes. Further, we address the call for research
(Dey & Mukhopadhyay, 2018) to highlight the benefits of using longi-
tudinal mixed methods to examine how knowledge sharing unfolds
over time. Our study also contributes to the TPB and knowledge man-
agement literatures to highlight the process of decision making in
groups and beyond group settings.
5.2 | Limitations
The findings of our study are limited by the focus on one important
set of decisions in the context of a single organization embedded in
its community. We suggest that future research examines other con-
texts (e.g., in multiple organizations across several locations) to deter-
mine whether the mechanisms of knowledge-sharing intentions and
knowledge-seeking behaviors beyond groups play out similarly in
these different settings. Also, future studies can further explore the
linkage between knowledge-sharing intentions and actual knowledge
sharing, in emotionally charged contexts. Although we did not explore
this in our study, prior studies have noted the positive relationship in
general between knowledge-sharing intention and actual knowledge
sharing (e.g., Wipawayangkool & Teng, 2016).
Second, the organization we examine is a government-funded
hospital. This also can potentially limit the generalizability of our find-
ings. Future studies can examine how knowledge-related processes

CHAN ET AL.
play out in other organizational settings (e.g., in for-profit firms). It
may also be interesting to compare how the type of decision influ-
ences the importance of constructs in the model. Our findings can
stimulate future research on knowledge management in organizations,
particularly when groups with diverse individuals are created to make
emotion-laden decisions.
Finally, because the decision-making group studied includes
28 individuals, the number of respondents to our repeated surveys is
small (i.e., 119). However, the strength of our approach is our
repeated engagement with these respondents over multiple time
periods. Organizational decision making seldom occurs in one session.
We describe how knowledge-related processes within groups influ-
ence knowledge-sharing intentions and knowledge-seeking behaviors
beyond the groups, and between sessions, over time.
5.3 | Potential implications for practice
Despite the above limitations, and in light of the results being from
a strategic (hospital restructuring) decision-making process, this
paper has important implications for practice. The results highlight
the effects of both positive and negative emotions on knowledge-
sharing intentions beyond group meetings and subsequent
knowledge-seeking behaviors. A key implication is that organiza-
tions should pay attention to how individuals feel about their partic-
ipation in decision-making processes. Moreover, organizations that
involve individuals beyond organizational boundaries in decision-
making processes should pay attention to participants' emotions
because individuals with stronger emotions are more likely to share
their experiences with members outside of organizational bound-
aries. It is important to note that OntarioHospital involved CAP
members in its decision making initially because of government poli-
cies, but in the end, the hospital was pleased with the involvement
of CAP members and their recommendations. Because involving
external parties, such as community members, in organizational
decisions can be both time-consuming and expensive, our study of
OntarioHospital suggests that organizations should focus on mem-
bers' emotions to actively manage how decision-making processes
unfold.
Our findings also provide insights for hospitals, and potentially
other organizations, that create groups whose members have differ-
ent organizational affiliations. By paying attention to the emotions of
diverse external group members, organizations not only influence
how members share information beyond their groups between
decision-making sessions, but also how they seek knowledge subse-
quently. Whether participants feel positive or negative emotions, they
are likely to seek more knowledge about issues, which will likely influ-
ence decision-making processes over time. Thus, organizations can
develop mechanisms to monitor participants' emotions, and to posi-
tively influence and support their behaviors in between decision-
making sessions, for example, by providing them with helpful
resources between meetings. Noticing how diverse individuals feel in
group decision-making processes is important, as organizations can
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
develop systems to support them and facilitate knowledge sharing
beyond formal group settings.
Our study of OntarioHospital reiterates how knowledge sharing
within groups influences knowledge-sharing intentions beyond the
groups. Organizations need to think carefully about the design of
knowledge-management processes within groups as they influence
members' knowledge-sharing intentions beyond the groups and orga-
nizational effectiveness over time. This is particularly important when
organizations involve external members (community members, cus-
tomers, etc.) in decision-making processes. Furthermore, our study
highlights the corrective nature of domain expertise by showing that
individuals who perceive themselves to be less knowledgeable than
others seek additional knowledge.
6 | CONC LU SIONS
This study shows the importance of knowledge sharing within and
beyond groups. Previous research finds that when members have dif-
ferent organizational affiliations and external ties, they engage in
knowledge sharing beyond their groups (Cummings, 2004;
Hansen, 1999). Our findings contribute to the literature on knowledge
management by highlighting factors that influence external knowledge
sharing when organizations engage individuals beyond organizational
boundaries in decision-making processes. For instance, because group
members are also part of other communities, they may feel the need
to share knowledge gained during sessions with others in these sec-
ondary communities (e.g., family members and neighbors). This should
be recognized and planned for.
This study also examines knowledge seeking behaviors between
group meetings. When individuals feel less informed compared to
other group members, they are more likely to engage in knowledge
seeking. This finding suggests that we do not need to rule out group
participants simply because they initially have less information. Partic-
ipants in decision-making processes are often able to compare their
knowledge about a subject with others' knowledge (Jackson
et al., 2006), and if they feel less knowledgeable, they try to catch
up. This study shows that group members who feel that they know
less than other group members in one session are more likely to com-
pensate for this by actively engaging in knowledge-seeking behaviors
before the next group session.
Overall, by showing the interplay over time between knowledge
sharing within groups and knowledge sharing and seeking beyond
groups, and the important role of emotions, our study contributes to
the TPB and the literature on knowledge management.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this study areavailable from the
authors upon request. However, the authors and the fundinginstitu-
tion reserve the right to apply specific restrictions to data sharing.
OR CID
Yolande E. Chan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-9778
 10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 CHAN ET AL.

ENDNOTE Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in small group decision
1
We used a repeated sample of 28 individuals in five CAP surveys. How- making. Small Group Research, 27(4), 532–550.
ever, due to some missing data in the survey responses, our final sample Derryberry, D. (1991). The immediate effects of positive and negative
size is 119 instead of 140 (or 28  5). feedback signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2),
267–278.
Dey, T., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2018). Linkage between contextual factors,
RE FE R ENC E S knowledge-sharing mediums, and behaviour: Moderating effect of
knowledge-sharing intentions. Knowledge and Process Management,
Ahmad, F. (2017). Knowledge-sharing networks: Language diversity, its
25(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1558
causes, and consequences. Knowledge and Process Management, 24(2),
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
139–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1539
introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobser-
and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
vable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. SAGE
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflec-
Publications Sage CA.
tions. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.
Forsgren, N., Sabherwal, R., & Durcikova, A. (2018). Knowledge exchange
1080/08870446.2011.613995
roles and EKR performance impact: Extending the theory of knowl-
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge
edge reuse. European Journal of Information Systems, 27(1), 3–21.
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues.
Ghobadi, S., & Mathiassen, L. (2016). Perceived barriers to effective
MIS Quarterly, 25, 107–136.
knowledge sharing in agile software teams. Information Systems Jour-
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to
nal, 26(2), 95–125.
participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice.
Government of Ontario. (2006). Local health system integration act. 2006
Journal of Knowledge Management, 7, 64–77.
S.O. §4—Bill 36. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/06l04
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties
transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others.
in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Sci-
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.
ence Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
Bock, G.-W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sharma, S. (2006). Are norms enough? The
Hansen, T., Jensen, J. M., & Solgaard, H. S. (2004). Predicting online gro-
role of collaborative norms in promoting organizational knowledge
cery buying intention: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action
seeking. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(4), 357–367.
and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral inten-
Management, 24(6), 539–550.
tion formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic
Hau, Y. S., & Kang, M. (2016). Extending lead user theory to users'
motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS
innovation-related knowledge sharing in the online user community:
Quarterly, 29, 87–111.
The mediating roles of social capital and perceived behavioral con-
Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public oppo-
trol. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4),
sition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat.
520–530.
American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.
Hausman, J. (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46,
Celli, F., Ghosh, A., Alam, F., & Riccardi, G. (2016). In the mood for sharing
1251–1271. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913827
contents: Emotions, personality and interaction styles in the diffusion
Heath, C. (1996). Do people prefer to pass along good or bad news?
of news. Information Processing & Management, 52(1), 93–98.
Valence and relevance of news as predictors of transmission propen-
Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-
sity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2),
type scales in relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological
79–94.
Measurement, 18(3), 205–215.
Innan, R., & Moustaghfir, K. (2015). Explicating employees' behaviour for
Chang, W.-J., Liao, S.-H., & Wu, T.-T. (2017). Relationships among organi-
an effective subscription to healthcare policy: An application of the
zational culture, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: A case
theory of planned behaviour. Knowledge Management Research & Prac-
of the automobile industry in Taiwan. Knowledge Management
tice, 13(4), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2014.6
Research & Practice, 15(3), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-
Israilidis, J., Odusanya, K., & Mazhar, M. U. (2021). Exploring knowledge
016-0042-6
management perspectives in smart city research: A review and future
Cheng, H.-H., & Huang, S.-W. (2013). Exploring antecedents and conse-
research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 56,
quence of online group-buying intention: An extended perspective on
101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.015
theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Man-
Jackson, S. E., Chuang, C. H., Harden, E. E., Jiang, Y., & Joseph, J. M.
agement, 33(1), 185–198.
(2006). Toward developing human resource management systems for
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012). Assessing common
knowledge-intensive teamwork. In Research in personnel and human
method bias: Problems with the ULMC technique. MIS Quarterly, 36,
resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
1003–1019.
Jeon, S., Kim, Y., & Koh, J. (2011). An integrative model for knowledge
Chiu, C.-M., Liang, T.-P., & Turban, E. (2014). What can crowdsourcing do
sharing in communities-of-practice. Journal of Knowledge Management,
for decision support? Decision Support Systems, 65, 40–49.
15(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119682
Coltman, T., Devinney, T. M., Midgley, D. F., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative
Kane, G. C., & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational
versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative
learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes.
measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.
Organization Science, 18(5), 796–812.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it?
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K.-K. (2005). Understanding seeking
A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems
from electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical study. Journal of
Research, 5(4), 400–421.
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(11),
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge
1156–1166.
sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences. Principles and practice
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organiza-
of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
tions manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

CHAN ET AL.
Kumi, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2019). Knowledge sharing behavior in online
discussion communities: Examining behavior motivation from social
and individual perspectives. Knowledge and Process Management, 26(2),
110–122.
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.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method
variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 86(1), 114–121.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analy-
sis and determination of sample size for covariance structure model-
ing. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems per-
spective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268.
Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the
vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during
presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3),
672–685.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence
and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
Markus, L. M. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of
knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 18(1), 57–93.
Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of
past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management,
36(4), 911–940.
Minbaeva, D., & Pedersen, T. (2010). Governing individual knowledge-
sharing behaviour. International Journal of Strategic Change Manage-
ment, 2(2–3), 200–222.
Nguyen, T.-M., Nham, P. T., & Hoang, V. N. V. (2019). The theory of
planned behavior and knowledge sharing: A systematic review and
meta-analytic structural equation modelling. VINE Journal of Informa-
tion and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 76–94.
Nguyen, T.-M., & Prentice, C. (2020). Reverse relationship between
reward, knowledge sharing and performance. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 1–12, 516–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14778238.2020.1821588
Nunnally, J. C. (1979). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Phang, C. W., Kankanhalli, A., & Sabherwal, R. (2009). Usability and socia-
bility in online communities: A comparative study of knowledge seek-
ing and contribution. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
10(10), 2–747.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & 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.
Pornprasertmanit, S., Lee, J., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Ignoring clustering in
confirmatory factor analysis: Some consequences for model fit and
standardized parameter estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
49(6), 518–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.933762
Presbitero, A., Roxas, B., & Chadee, D. (2017). Effects of intra- and inter-
team dynamics on organisational learning: Role of knowledge-sharing
capability. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(1), 146–
154. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2015.15
Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., & Masella, C. (2015). Physicians' willingness to
share: A TPB-based analysis. Knowledge Management Research & Prac-
tice, 13(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.33
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The medi-
ating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2),
206–220.
Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2009). Good for workers, good for companies:
How knowledge sharing benefits individual employees. Knowledge and
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
Process Management, 16(4), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/
kpm.335
Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2010). Bridging intention and behavior of
knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 285–
300. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032418
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. (2009). A tale of
three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for
detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational
Research Methods, 12(4), 762–800.
Rosendaal, B., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2015). Knowledge sharing within
teams: Enabling and constraining factors. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 13(3), 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.
2013.45
Singh, S. K., Mittal, S., Sengupta, A., & Pradhan, R. K. (2019). A dual-
pathway model of knowledge exchange: Linking human and psychoso-
cial capital with prosocial knowledge effectiveness. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 23, 889–914.
Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and information diffusion in
social media—Sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217–248.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the
transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17(S2), 27–43.
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who's really
sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange
within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464–477.
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a
worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seek-
ing, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29(2),
247–273.
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter-and intra-
organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assess-
ment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management
Studies, 45(4), 830–853.
Velicer, W. F., & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus com-
mon factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate proce-
dure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327906mbr2501_1
Wang, C., Zhou, Z., Jin, X.-L., Fang, Y., & Lee, M. K. (2017). The influence
of affective cues on positive emotion in predicting instant information
sharing on microblogs: Gender as a moderator. Information Processing &
Management, 53(3), 721–734.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method vari-
ance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or arti-
fact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468.
Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2003). Recent advances
in causal modeling methods for organizational and management
research. Journal of Management, 29(6), 903–936.
Wipawayangkool, K., & Teng, J. T. C. (2016). Assessing tacit knowledge
and sharing intention: A knowledge internalization perspective. Knowl-
edge and Process Management, 23(3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.
1002/kpm.1505
Witherspoon, C. L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C., & Stone, D. N. (2013). Ante-
cedents of organizational knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis and cri-
tique. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 250–277.
Woolridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel
data. MIT Press.
Wu, H., & Deng, Z. (2019). Knowledge collaboration among physi-
cians in online health communities: A transactive memory per-
spective. International Journal of Information Management, 49,
13–33.
Yang, S.-C., & Farn, C.-K. (2009). Social capital, behavioural control, and
tacit knowledge sharing—A multi-informant design. International Jour-
nal of Information Management, 29(3), 210–218.

14
Zhang, X., & Jiang, J. Y. (2015). With whom shall I share my knowledge? A
recipient perspective of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Man-
agement, 19, 277–295.
How to cite this article: Chan, Y. E., Krishnamurthy, R., Mann,
J., & Sabherwal, R. (2022). Knowledge sharing, knowledge
seeking, and emotions: A longitudinal study of hospital
restructuring decision making. Knowledge and Process
Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1734
APP E NDIX A: MEASURES
Participants' income, age, gender, and healthcare use were measured
as reported by the participants. We operationalized facilitative leader-
ship using five items measured using a Likert 4-point scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The participants were
asked if the facilitator treated each group member with respect, val-
ued each group member's opinion, kept conversations focused and
productive, understood the task(s) at hand, and did not influence
decision(s).
Enthusiasm was operationalized using three items measured using
a Likert 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great extent).
The participants were asked to what extent does their participation in
the Citizen Advisory Panel (CAP) led them to feel: hope, honor, and
pleasure.
To operationalize anxiety, we used three survey items that asked
how participants felt about their participation in the panel. The partici-
pants were asked to choose a score on a 4-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a great extent) to indicate their emotions:
uneasy, afraid, and stressed.
Three survey items measured knowledge sharing (within the
group). The participants were asked how well they were able to
10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAN ET AL.
express their views, how well group members showed respect for
each other, and how open the group was to each other's views. The
participants were asked to select options ranging from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 4 (strongly agree).
Task knowledge was operationalized by four survey items that
used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not informed) to 4 (very informed).
The participants were asked how informed they were with respect to
the following aspects of the panel: goals, process, tasks involved, and
responsibilities of its members.
Organizational knowledge was measured by three survey
items using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not informed) to 4 (very
informed). The participants were asked how informed they were
about: the extent to which an Ontario hospital (OntarioHospital)
involves community members in decision making, OntarioHospi-
tal's current method of making decisions about programs and
services, and OntarioHospital's current method of making budget
decisions.
Relative knowledge was operationalized by three survey items
using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (much less informed) to 4 (much
more informed). Participants were asked, compared to other members
of the CAP, how informed they were about: the healthcare system,
OntarioHospital's programs and services, and OntarioHospital's
budget.
Knowledge-sharing intention (beyond the group) was operatio-
nalized by three survey items measured using a Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The participants
were asked about their plan to share the information about the
CAP session they attended with members of their household, other
family members, friends or neighbors, and other members of the
community.
To operationalize knowledge-seeking behavior (beyond the
group), four survey items used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 4 (to a great extent). The participants were asked the extent to
which they paid attention to, and learned about, the following: general
health-related news, OntarioHospital-related news, the Canadian
healthcare system, and OntarioHospital.
 10991441, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1734 by UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL PAULISTA, Wiley Online Library on [29/10/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CHAN ET AL. 15

APPENDIX B

See Table B1.

TABLE B1 Measurement items and standardized factor loadings (lambdas)

Label Item λ
Facilitative leadership
Fac1 At today's Panel session my facilitator(s) treated each group member with respect 0.78
Fac2 At today's Panel session my facilitator(s) valued each group member's opinion 0.84
Fac3 At today's Panel session my facilitator(s) kept our conversations focused and productive 0.71
Fac4 At today's Panel session my facilitator(s) understood the task(s) at hand 0.72
Fac5 At today's Panel session my facilitator(s) did not influence our decision(s) 0.75
Enthusiasm about participation in the panel
Enthu1 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel hope? 0.57
Enthu2 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel honor? 0.81
Enthu3 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel pleasure? 0.75
Anxiety about participation in the panel
Anx1 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel uneasy? 0.89
Anx2 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel afraid? 0.86
Anx3 To what extent does your participation in the Panel lead you to feel stress? 0.82
Knowledge sharing (within the group)
CollBehr1 At today's Panel session I was able to express my views 0.62
CollBehr3 At today's Panel session we showed respect for each other 0.85
CollBehr4 At today's Panel session we were open to each other's views 0.74
Task knowledge
InfCAP1 At this point, how informed are you with respect to the following aspects of the Panel: the goals? 0.82
InfCAP2 At this point, how informed are you with respect to the following aspects of the Panel: the process? 0.81
InfCAP3 At this point, how informed are you with respect to the following aspects of the Panel: the tasks involved? 0.80
InfCAP4 At this point, how informed are you with respect to the following aspects of the Panel: the responsibilities of its members? 0.87
Organizational knowledge
InfOrg4 At this point, how informed are you about the extent to which OntarioHospital involves community members in decision 0.76
making?
InfOrg5 At this point, how informed are you about OntarioHospital's current method of making decisions about programs and 0.90
services?
InfOrg6 At this point, how informed are you about OntarioHospital's current method of making budget decisions? 0.85
Relative knowledge
InfInd2 Compared to other members of the Panel, how informed are you about the healthcare system? 0.85
InfOrg7 Compared to other members of the Panel, how informed are you about OntarioHospital's programs and services? 0.85
InfOrg8 Compared to other members of the Panel, how informed are you about OntarioHospital's budget? 0.68
Knowledge-sharing intention (beyond the group)
BehrInt1 I plan to discuss information from today's session with: members of my household. 0.88
BehrInt2 I plan to discuss information from today's session with: other family members, friends, or neighbors 0.91
BehrInt3 I plan to discuss information from today's session with: other members of my community 0.67
Knowledge-seeking behavior (beyond the group)
InfSearch1 To what extent do you do the following: pay attention to general health-related news? 0.91
InfSearch2 To what extent do you do the following: pay attention to OntarioHospital-related news? 0.88
InfSearch3 To what extent do you do the following: learn about the Canadian healthcare system? 0.72
InfSearch4 To what extent do you do the following: learn about OntarioHospital? 0.85