Search results

Building on the premise of conservation of resources theory (COR) that people protect their knowledge as a resource, the authors questioned whether the contextual nature of job resources buffers the counterintuitive positive relationship between evasive knowledge hiding (KH) and task performance.

Two multisource field survey studies were conducted to examine the moderating influence of task-job resources on the knowledge hiders' task performance. Hierarchical regression analyses tested the main effect of evasive KH on task performance. In addition, conditional process analyses were applied to examine two-way and three-way interactions of evasive KH, job autonomy and task variety.

The data analysis showed a positive relationship between evasive KH and task performance. Moreover, the authors found that employees receiving accumulative task-job resources continued to hide knowledge and used abundant resources to increase their task performance further. However, contrary to expectations, for employees—who received partial task-job resources—their task performance deteriorated when evasively hiding knowledge.

Managers and human resource practitioners should acknowledge that employees' evasive KH to co-workers is not always wrong and should not be treated like it is. Moreover, they are endorsed to pay attention and invest in job resources since job autonomy and task variety create a beneficial context for knowledge holders' task performance.

The authors provided novel theoretical (the gain-loss perspective of COR theory) and consistent empirical (confirmed by two field-study evidence) arguments for an important contextual role of an HRM practice of job design in shaping the underrepresented knowledge behavior–task performance relationship.

This study, which consists of two parts, investigates the influence of structure on the learning of individuals in organizational settings. This second paper (Part II) builds on the conceptual paper (Part I) and explores the relationships between three structural dimensions of individual work – formalization, specialization and standardization – on employee learning behavior.

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the proposed relationships. Data were gathered in a large multinational corporation; 90 employees from 12 units participated in the research.

The results offer support for some of the proposed hypotheses, showing that employee learning behavior varies depending on how activities are structured. Employees perceiving their work to be less structured, with lower formalization, standardization and specialization, rely on external sources of knowledge and experience double-loop learning, whereas employees with a more structured work are inclined to an individual learning style. Structure thus determines learning.

Because this exploratory study used a single-company research setting, the use of multiple companies from different industries and additional measures of learning behavior are proposed to increase generalizability. A quasi-experimental research design would add to causality claims.

Implications for broader organization design practice to stimulate learning are proposed. Managers should be aware of the distinct impacts different structures have on learning behavior.

This paper contributes to the discussion on the relationship between structure and the learning of individuals at work.

The purpose of this study, which consists of two parts, is to bring together literature on organizational design and learning of individuals in organizational settings. The literature suggests that learning takes place in organic and less-structured organizational designs, whereas empirical research provides conflicting evidence. This first part theorizes about the influence of mechanistic vs organic designs on three different aspects of employees’ learning behavior: knowledge sourcing, learning styles and learning loops.

This paper is built on previous research on the impact of structure on learning and theorizes about the relationship between mechanistic/organic design and specific learning behavior at work.

Four propositions are developed in this paper, regarding how a different structure leads to a different learning behavior. Mechanistic structure is associated with internal learning, independent learning and single-loop learning, whereas organic design leads to external learning, collaborative learning and double-loop learning.

Because the paper is conceptual in nature, the propositions are in need of empirical validation. Some directions for empirical testing are proposed.

For an organization design practice, managers should be aware of the distinct impact different structures have on individual learning at work. Furthermore, the appropriate organizational structure for learning must be considered in the broader context of contingencies.

This paper contributes to the organizational design literature and to the organizational learning theory by conceptualizing the relationship between structure and learning of individuals at work.

Technological development creates technological imperative for organisations. The most recent is dedicated to digital technologies with a strong influence on the way of managing and organising. To gain a better understanding of the latest business practice, the authors use a multilevel perspective and apply the historical analysis method. Specifically, this chapter explores organisational design (OD) of the future through the evolutionary perspective (spanning across the four industrial revolutions) and brings into focus how technological imperatives modified organisational structure, coordination mechanisms and people/job practices. By reflecting on the historical changes in OD practices that happened throughout different phases of industrialisation, the authors analyse how building blocks of digital OD shape managerial and employee behaviours, thus unleashing the performance potential of digital technologies.