LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE

TRANSFER VIA INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL

MECHANISMS
D A N A B . M I N B A E VA , K R I S T I I N A M Ä K E L Ä ,
AND LARISSA RABBIOSI

In response to recent calls for more research on micro-foundations, we

seek to link human resource management (HRM) and knowledge transfer
through individual-level mechanisms, arguing that individual-level condi-
tions of action influence the extent to which employees engage in knowledge
exchange. We examine four such conditions empirically using data from 811
employees in three Danish multinational corporations (MNCs). Our findings
suggest that individual-level perceptions of organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing, and extrinsic motivation, directly influence the extent
to which employees engage in firm-internal knowledge exchange. We also find
that intrinsic motivation and engagement in social interaction significantly
mediate the relationship between perceived organizational commitment
and knowledge exchange. Given that HRM can influence such conditions
through an overall signaling effect and various practices, an understanding
of these micro-foundations will shed light on how organizations can effectively
enhance knowledge transfer through HRM. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: HRM, knowledge exchange, organizational commitment,

motivation, interaction

Introduction
on the potential mechanisms and processes
n recent years, the effective management facilitating the internal transfer of knowl-

I of internal knowledge stocks and flows

has emerged as a key determinant of
value creation in organizations, with
firm-specific knowledge ultimately be-
coming a driver of performance (Grant, 1996;
Kang, Morris, & Snell, 2007; Kogut & Zander,
1992, 1993; Spender, 1996). Consequently,
edge in large multiunit and multinational
organizations (e.g., Eisenhardt & Santos,
2003; Grandori & Kogut, 2002; Grant, 1996;
Jansen, van de Bosch, & Volberda, 2005;
Minbaeva, Pedersen, Björkman, Fey, & Park,
2003; Nickerson & Zenger, 2004; Osterloh &
Frey, 2000). In accordance with this trend,
there has been increasing research emphasis human resource management (HRM) scholars

Correspondence to: Dana B. Minbaeva, Department of Strategic Management and Globalization, Copenhagen
Business School, Kilevej 14, Copenhagen Frederiksberg 2000, Denmark, Phone: ⫹45 3815 2527, Fax: ⫹45 3815 3035,
E-mail: dm.smg@cbs.dk

Human Resource Management, May–June 2012, Vol. 51, No. 3. Pp. 387–405
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI:10.1002/hrm.21478
388 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
have taken an interest in how different HRM
practices facilitate intraorganizational knowl-
edge transfer (Foss, 2007), how the HRM
architecture influences knowledge stocks and
flows between different employee groups
(Kang et al., 2007; Lepak & Snell, 1999,
2002), and how HRM practices may be used
to increase absorptive capacity or to over-
come other knowledge-transfer barriers
(Minbaeva, 2005; Minbaeva et al., 2003).
Although this research has advanced our
understanding of many relevant issues, it has
tended to focus on aggregate collective-level
relationships, and the underlying mecha-
nisms of the HRM-knowledge link, such as its
individual-level and interpersonal-level micro-
foundations (Felin & Hesterly,
2007), have seldom been tested.
Yet, it is argued that these are of
Given that HRM is a primary interest: Minbaeva, Foss,
and Snell (2009, p. 481), for ex-
primary mechanism ample, explicitly state in their in-
troduction to the recent special
through which
issue of Human Resource Manage-
organizations ment that “scholars should base
future research on HRM and
are able to exert knowledge processes on the prem-
ise that a deeper understanding of
influence on such
the relationship between HRM
individual-level practices and knowledge implies
theorizing the individuals (Grant,
conditions, we 1996), individual heterogeneity
(Felin & Hesterly, 2007), and indi-
need a better
vidual interaction (Felin & Foss,
understanding of 2005).”
In responding to these calls, we
how and why HRM seek to link HRM and knowledge
transfer through individual-level
affects employees’ mechanisms. More specifically, we
argue that “individual-level condi-
knowledge-sharing
tions of action” (Coleman, 1990),
behavior. such as individual-level perceptions
of organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing, extrinsic
and intrinsic motivation, and
engagement in social interaction, influence
the extent to which individuals engage in
knowledge sharing across the boundaries of
different employee groups. Given that HRM
is a primary mechanism through which orga-
nizations are able to exert influence on such
individual-level conditions, we need a better
understanding of how and why HRM affects
employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. It
should be noted at this point that we use the
terms knowledge exchange and knowledge shar-
ing interchangeably to denote the two-way
movement of knowledge on the
interpersonal level. Knowledge transfer, in
turn, refers to organizational-level knowledge
flows.
In the following, we first review previous
literature on the role of individuals in intra-
organizational knowledge transfer, and draft
a theoretical link between HRM and individ-
ual-level conditions of action. We then focus
on these conditions of action and develop a
set of hypotheses on the relationship between
them. After describing the data and the meth-
odology of the empirical analysis, we test our
hypotheses on a dataset of 811 individuals
working in three Danish multinational cor-
porations (MNCs). We test our theoretical
model using structural equation modeling
(SEM) techniques, which allow us to validate
both the full model as well as the constructs
we adopted. Further, we test the robustness of
our results by conducting a number of jack-
knife tests for different controls. Finally, we
discuss our findings and draw conclusions for
theory and practice.
The Role of Individuals in Intraorga-
nizational Knowledge Transfer
The effective deployment of internal and exter-
nal knowledge is one of the key challenges
firms face today (Doz, Santos, & Williamson,
2001). Multiunit organizations, and multina-
tional corporations in particular, depend on
the successful integration of the internal knowl-
edge that resides in their various geographically
dispersed units (Tsai, 2002; Westney, 2001).
Consequently, issues related to internal knowl-
edge transfer have increased in importance in
both academic research and corporate practice
(Argote & Ingram, 2000; Argote, McEvily, &
Reagans, 2003). The effective internal flow of
knowledge has, for example, been linked to
innovation and new product development
(Hansen, 1999; Tsai, 2001; Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998), improved coordination processes and
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

best practices (Kostova & Roth, 2002; Szulanski,
1996, 2000), and ultimately to competitive
advantage, leading to better performance
(Grant, 1996; Kogut & Zander, 1992, 1993;
Spender, 1996).
More recently, several scholars have
argued that a full understanding of intraorga-
nizational knowledge transfer requires a focus
on people (Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Grant,
1996), individual heterogeneity (Felin &
Hesterly, 2007), individual-level motivations
(Bock, Zmud, & Kim, 2005; Osterloh & Frey,
2000), and interpersonal interaction (Argote &
Ingram, 2000; Felin & Foss, 2005). These
studies collectively suggest that firm-level phe-
nomena such as intraorganizational knowl-
edge transfer emerge from individual action
and interaction. Foss (2007, p. 43), for exam-
ple, argues that a deeper understanding of
intraorganizational knowledge processes
“cannot be reached in lieu of a starting point
in individuals,” with Felin and Hesterly
(2007) adding that explanations of organiza-
tional-level phenomena should be grounded
in explanatory mechanisms that are located
at the individual and interpersonal levels.
The micro-focus has also been advanced
through the emerging Knowledge Gover-
nance Approach (KGA) (Foss, 2007; Grandori,
2001; Peltokorpi & Tsuyuki, 2006), respond-
ing to the “methodological collectivism” that
currently dominates knowledge-based
research (Foss, 2007; Gooderham, Minbaeva, &
Pedersen, 2011).
In a similar vein, recent theorization in
the literature on strategic HRM emphasizes
that it is precisely the impact it exerts on
individuals that largely mediates its relation-
ship with any performance-related outcome—
such as knowledge transfer (Bowen &
Ostroff, 2004; Wright & Nishii, forthcoming).
Guest (1997, p. 269), for example, empha-
sizes the “‘human’ factor in human resource
management”: if HRM activities have an im-
pact on organizational-level outcomes, they
will only do so provided that employee per-
ceptions and behavior are affected (see also
Gerhart, 2005; Paauwe & Farndale, 2007;
Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Importantly,
while there are a number of other factors,
such as individual traits and characteristics
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 389
and cultural preferences, that influence em-
ployee perceptions, HRM is among the few
determinants that organizations can control.
Taken together, these arguments suggest
that individual-level (micro-) foundations are
crucial in understanding how HRM influ-
ences intraorganizational knowledge transfer
(Minbaeva et al., 2009). Accordingly, if the
causal link with HRM (or any other gover-
nance mechanism) is to be ex-
plained, we need to identify the
While there are a
underlying mechanisms and es-
tablish how they interact. Foss number of other
(2007) uses Coleman’s (1990) dia-
gram depicting two levels of anal- factors, such as
ysis, the macro and the micro, in
individual traits
order to illustrate this research
logic (see Figure 1). The diagram and characteristics
explains a macro-level phenome-
non (Arrow 4) through the micro and cultural
level as denoted by Arrows 1, 2,
preferences, that
and 3. The arrows in the figure
represent the causal mechanisms influence employee
that produce the observed asso-
ciations between phenomena: a perceptions, HRM
macro-level (in our case, organi-
zation-level) phenomenon, lo- is among the few
cated in the upper-right-hand determinants that
corner (e.g., organizational-level
knowledge transfer) is explained organizations can
through the aggregation (and
emergence) of the actions of indi- control.
vidual actors (e.g., the knowledge
exchanges in which individuals engage).
These actions follow from specific individual-
level circumstances or “conditions,” which in
turn are influenced by organizational-level
determinants (e.g., HRM).
In line with this logic, we suggest that the
link between HRM and unit-level knowledge
transfer is forged via individual-level mecha-
nisms: HRM influences individual conditions,
which are internal to the individual and con-
sist of perceptions, attitudes, desires, and
behavioral choices (Elster, 1989). These, in
turn, drive individual action (i.e., the extent to
which an individual employee engages in
knowledge exchange across the boundaries of
different employee groups). These exchanges
may relate to any information or know-how
that is relevant to the accomplishment of
390 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
HRM practices
1 3
Individual-level
conditions
FIGURE 1. Research Logic
H3
Individual engagement in
An individual’s perceived
organizational commitment
to knowledge sharing
H4
An individual’s extrinsic
motivation to share
knowledge
FIGURE 2. Theoretical Framework and Empirical Focus
organizational tasks, and the type of knowl-
edge exchanged can include external market
knowledge about customers, the business
environment or competitors, and internal
company-specific knowledge about products/
services, routines, processes, or people.
Finally, it is—at least partly—from these
individual-level actions that organizational-
level knowledge transfer emerges.
Hypothesis Development: HRM,
Individual-Level Conditions,
and Individual Action
We will now identify a number of individual-
level conditions that we expect to influence
knowledge sharing among individuals (Arrow 2
in Figure 1), including individual-level per-
ceptions of organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation to share knowledge, and engage-
ment in social interaction. In short, we argue
that the way in which HRM exerts influence
on individual-level knowledge sharing is
through two primary mechanisms: a signaling
4 Knowledge
“Macro” transfer
“Micro” The knowledge
exchange in which an
2 individual engages
Empirical focus of the article
H1
Individual intrinsic
motivation to share H3 The knowledge
knowledge exchange in
which an
individual
social interaction for the engages across
purpose of knowledge
H4 employee-
sharing
group
boundaries
H2
effect (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) that influences
employee perceptions and the direct effect of
HRM on employees’ extrinsic motivation.
We also suggest that the extent to which an
individual engages in knowledge exchange is
further mediated by his/her intrinsic motiva-
tion and engagement in social interaction.
Figure 2 summarizes the relationships in
question and the hypotheses, which are dis-
cussed in the sections that follow.
Perceived Organizational Commitment
First, according to recent theorization on
strategic HRM (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004), it is
not so much the specific sets or “bundles” of
HRM practices a firm employs (cf. Delaney &
Huselid, 1996; Huselid, 1995), but rather the
strength of the HRM system as a whole that
influences various outcomes. This influence is
exerted through a signaling effect: a strong
HRM system sends signals indicating “what is
important and what behaviors are expected”
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p. 205). A shared
interpretation of these signals among the
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

firm’s employees creates a strong organiza-
tional climate (i.e., a shared perception of
what is important and expected). In such a
strong climate, individual employees tend to
internalize external norms and thus to pro-
duce the desired behaviors and actions
(Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Delbecq & Mills,
1985; Schneider, 1990). In the context of
intraorganizational knowledge transfer, it
should follow that the signaling effect of a
strong HRM system creates a shared view that
knowledge sharing is valued, which on the
individual level is manifested in the employ-
ees’ perceptions of the organizational com-
mitment.
These individual perceptions, in turn,
could be seen as “individual conditions of
action” (Coleman, 1990), as discussed earlier,
influencing the actions individual employees
take (such as the extent to which they engage
in knowledge exchange). An individual who
perceives organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing as high is more likely
to behave in ways that are aligned with such
norms and expectations. In other words,
engagement in knowledge exchange is depen-
dent upon the extent to which the individual
believes that his/her immediate group and the
organization as a whole generally agree that it
is a valued activity (Bock et al., 2005; Lin &
Lee, 2004; Minbaeva & Pedersen, 2010). Our
first hypothesis is based on this theorization:
Hypothesis 1: The more positive an individu-
al’s perception of organizational commitment
to knowledge sharing is, the higher the extent of
knowledge exchange he or she engages in across
employee-group boundaries.
Extrinsic Motivation
Another key mechanism through which
HRM influences individual-level knowledge
exchange is its effect on the extrinsic motiva-
tion of individual employees to share knowl-
edge. Individuals are extrinsically motivated
when their needs are satisfied indirectly, pri-
marily through financial compensation but
also through gaining power or recognition
(Osterloh, Frost, & Frey, 2002); in other words,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 391
people engage in a task in the expectation of
an external reward. In the HRM context,
extrinsic motivation is associated with indi-
vidual-level responsiveness to incentives to
behave in a certain way. As Coleman (1990)
argues, it could be seen as another key “indi-
vidual condition” that can be influenced
through HRM, with practices such as perfor-
mance management and compensation and
reward systems. It is directly manageable in
that it derives from both the rewards (or sanc-
tions) in place and their significance, desirabil-
ity, or utility to the individual (Gottschalg &
Zollo, 2007).
Previous literature has suggested that
there is a relationship between extrinsic
motivation and knowledge-sharing behavior
(Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Björkman, Barner-
Rasmussen, & Li, 2004; Bock et al., 2005;
Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006; Foss,
Minbaeva, Pedersen, & Reinholt, 2009;
Osterloh & Frey, 2000). For example, Cabrera
and Cabrera (2002) argue that the process re-
lated to decisions about whether or not to en-
gage in knowledge sharing bears resemblance
to cost-benefit analysis: “when individuals
perceive a link between knowledge sharing
behaviors . . . and organizational rewards . . .
they will be more inclined to participate in
knowledge sharing activities” (Cabrera et al.,
2006, p. 251). Consequently, in terms of
motivation, it is a matter of restructuring the
payoff so that the employee will find it ben-
eficial (Foss et al., 2009). Accordingly, we put
forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The higher an individual’s extrinsic
motivation to share knowledge is, the higher the
extent of knowledge exchange he or she engages in
across employee-group boundaries.
Intrinsic Motivation
In addition to the above, we argue that the
extent to which an individual engages in
knowledge exchange is further influenced by
two mediating relationships that concern
his/her intrinsic motivation and engagement
in social interaction.
392 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
First, we expect the relationship between
an individual’s perception of organizational
commitment to knowledge sharing, and the
extent of knowledge exchange he/she engages
in, to be partially mediated by his/her intrin-
sic motivation to share knowledge. Individu-
als are said to be intrinsically motivated when
they undertake an activity for its own sake
(Osterloh et al., 2002), because it satisfies
internal needs rather than gives external re-
wards: “there is no apparent re-
ward except the activity itself”
We expect the (Deci, 1975, p. 23). In the field of
organizational behavior, intrinsic
relationship
motivation has been found to po-
between an tentially lower transaction costs,
increase effort put into the task,
individual’s and enhance trust and social capi-
tal (Osterloh & Frey, 2000), influ-
perception of
encing knowledge sharing posi-
organizational tively (Bock et al., 2005; Cabrera
et al., 2006; Osterloh & Frey, 2000).
commitment to In line with these studies, we as-
sume that individual intrinsic moti-
knowledge sharing,
vation will have a positive effect on
and the extent the extent to which an individual
engages in knowledge exchange.
of knowledge Given that it is based on deep
internal needs and desires, intrin-
exchange he/she sic motivation is not directly mal-
leable by external means, such as
engages in, to be
HRM practices. Yet, research on
partially mediated prosocial behavior suggests that
there is a connection between the
by his/her intrinsic degree to which the individual in-
ternalizes or adopts characteristics
motivation to share
or perspectives of the organiza-
knowledge. tion and his/her intrinsic motiva-
tion (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).
In line, we argue that the HRM
signaling effect drives individual-level per-
ceptions of what is important and valued,
which in turn affects intrinsic motivation
and, consequently, leads to a higher likeli-
hood of desired actions. More specifically, a
strong and shared perception of the impor-
tance of internal knowledge sharing creates a
sense of purpose and direction on the individ-
ual level, and thus increases an employee’s in-
trinsic motivation to engage in actual knowl-
edge-sharing behaviors (Bowen & Ostroff,
2004; Gottschalg & Zollo, 2007; Wright, Mc-
Mahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Wright & Snell,
1991). We thus hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: An individual’s intrinsic motivation
positively mediates the relationship between per-
ceived organizational commitment to knowledge
sharing and the extent of knowledge exchange he
or she engages in across different employee-group
boundaries.
Engagement in Social Interaction
The second mediation effect is realized through
individual engagement in social interaction
(for the purpose of knowledge sharing). On
the firm level, socialization mechanisms
that develop trust and cooperation among in-
dividuals and facilitate formal and informal
face-to-face relationships have been found to
positively affect knowledge transfer (Björkman
et al., 2004; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000;
Schulz, 2001). In a similar vein, research has
indicated that the level of interaction between
members of different groups or units has a sig-
nificant positive effect on the level of knowl-
edge exchange (Hansen, 1999; Reagans &
McEvily, 2003; Tsai, 2002; Tsai & Ghoshal,
1998). For example, Uzzi (1997) and Uzzi and
Lancaster (2003) observed that embedded
ties characterized by frequent interaction
were associated with a higher level of knowl-
edge sharing than more arm’s-length ones.
What is more, without intergroup interac-
tion, organizational knowledge may remain
trapped in individual minds and knowledge-
management systems, and thus be under-
leveraged (Hansen, 2002).
Yet, it is not just the existence of various
opportunities to interact, but rather the indi-
vidual’s engagement that matters as far as
knowledge sharing is concerned. Organiza-
tions may try to “reduce the amount of dis-
tance” (Argote et al., 2003, p. 575) by building
communication bridges, offering opportuni-
ties for dialogue across the organizational
hierarchy, improving conditions for team
learning, and creating various systems for
capturing and sharing knowledge internally
(Argyris & Schön, 1996; Levitt & March,
1988; Senge, 1990). However, the decision to
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

use such opportunities is internal to individu-
als, and hence not directly manageable. In
other words, individuals may attend forums
for social interaction, but whether or not
they decide to use them for knowledge shar-
ing depends on their perceptions of what is
important and what behaviors are desired.
The logic here is similar to that concerning
intrinsic motivation: the HRM signaling
effect influences individual-level perceptions
of what is important, which in turn positively
influences the extent to which the social-
interaction opportunities provided by the
organization are taken up, leading to a higher
incidence of actual knowledge exchange. We
therefore hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4: The use of social-interaction mech-
anisms positively mediates the relationship be-
tween perceived organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing and the level of knowledge
exchange an individual engages in across different
employee-group boundaries.
Methods
Survey
The data used for our empirical analysis were
collected as part of a large research project
focusing on individual-level knowledge shar-
ing within organizations. We used a struc-
tured questionnaire, which was developed
after having thoroughly reviewed the litera-
ture and conducted a cross-case analysis of
five in-depth studies (of the Danish firms
CSC Denmark A/S, Rovsing Management
A/S, DIOS A/S, ITK, and Cell Network AB).
The questionnaire was then administered
globally in three Danish MNCs—NovoNordisk
Engineering (NNE), Danisco, and Chr.
Hansen.1 The selection of these particular
MNCs was a conscious choice that was made
for a number of reasons. First, being able to
test our hypotheses in the context of the
MNC allowed us to study a wide array of
individual employees in various geographi-
cal, cultural, and institutional contexts. Until
recently, studies on intra-MNC knowledge
transfer have predominantly been conducted
on the organizational level, focusing on vertical
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 393
(headquarters-subsidiaries) and horizontal
(subsidiary-subsidiary) knowledge flows. Our
dataset enabled us to capture individual-level
heterogeneity over and above these aggregate
levels of analysis (including cultural, demo-
graphic, and other individual characteristics).
Second, internal knowledge sharing was a
key strategic priority in all three companies.
NNE’s strong client focus requires a flexible
and integrated organization in which engi-
neers, architects, and pharmacists work closely
together, and the company relies heavily on
collaborative projects following an “Engineer-
ing around the clock” principle. Danisco, in
turn, has adopted the corporate slogan “First
we add knowledge . . .,” signaling both inter-
nally and externally the importance it puts on
knowledge processes. Chr. Hansen, too, is
continuously striving for innovation and
development, which has resulted in its adop-
tion of the corporate slogan “130 years of in-
novation.” Finally, all three companies
encourage face-to-face interaction in the shar-
ing of knowledge, combined with various IT-
based solutions used to overcome geographi-
cal distance. Yet, the degrees to which the
individuals within the companies use the in-
teraction opportunities differ, and this pro-
vided us with the necessary variation.
The data collection took place during
2004–05. Prior to launching the survey, we
pretested the questionnaire in each company
in order to ensure the clarity of the questions
and to avoid interpretation errors. Some
questions (such as department/function
names) were adjusted to specific company
contexts. The questionnaire was available in a
number of different languages and in both In-
ternet and paper-based versions. The ques-
tions were translated and back-translated,
thereby reducing the risk of comprehension
problems. Of the 897 NNE employees invited
to participate in the survey, 341 responded (38
percent response rate); 281 invitations were
sent out in Danisco, and 221 completed ques-
tionnaires were returned, 219 of which were
usable for the analysis (78 percent); and invita-
tions were distributed to 350 employees in Chr.
Hansen, and we received 251 responses (72
percent). In all, 811 questionnaires were re-
turned. Following consultation with company
394 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
representatives, we concluded that the distri-
bution of the survey responses was represen-
tative.
Measures
In the following sections, we describe the
operationalization of the constructs and eval-
uate the reliability and validity of our mea-
sures. The exact wording of the questions is
given in Table I.
Dependent Variable
In operationalizing the dependent
variable, we adapted to the indi-
We focused vidual level the characterization
on individual suggested in the firm-level litera-
ture, in which successful knowl-
perceptions of edge transfer is defined as the ex-
tent to which potentially useful
organizational knowledge is gained from a sender
commitment
and used by a receiver (Björkman
et al., 2004; Bresman, Birkinshaw,
to knowledge & Nobel, 1999; Minbaeva et al.,
2003). Furthermore, in order to
sharing as a proxy knowledge exchange across
different employee-group bound-
content-specific
aries (Kang et al., 2007), we refer to
manifestation knowledge exchange across depart-
ments. Accordingly, the dependent
of a strong variable knowledge exchange across
employee groups was measured on
organizational
four items. Specifically, the respon-
climate. dents were asked to indicate on a
five-point Likert-type scale (rang-
ing from 1 ⫽ “To little or no ex-
tent” to 5 ⫽ “To a very large extent”): “To what
extent (1) have you gained knowledge from
colleagues in other departments, (2) have you
used knowledge from colleagues in other de-
partments, (3) have colleagues in other depart-
ments gained knowledge from you, (4) have
colleagues in other departments used knowl-
edge obtained from you?”
Independent Variables
As discussed earlier, we focused on individual
perceptions of organizational commitment
to knowledge sharing as a content-specific
manifestation of a strong organizational
climate (for a similar construct on social con-
text, see Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Accord-
ingly, we used three items on a five-point
Likert-type scale (1 ⫽ “Strongly disagree” to
5 ⫽ “Strongly agree”) in operationalizing the
variable perceived organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing: (1) “Knowledge sharing is
valued in my company”; (2) “Uncovering
and leveraging existing knowledge is highly
valued in my company”; and (3) “Acquiring
and leveraging new knowledge is highly val-
ued in my company.”
As recommended by Vroom (1995, p. 7),
we operationalized motivation as “governing
choices made by a person.” First, in accor-
dance with the argument put forward by
Cabrera et al. (2006, p. 251)—“when indi-
viduals perceive a link between knowledge
sharing behaviors . . . and organizational re-
wards . . . they will be more inclined to par-
ticipate in knowledge sharing activities”—we
operationalized the variable extrinsic motiva-
tion as individual-level responsiveness to in-
centives to behave in a certain way. In order
to capture this concept, we asked the respon-
dents to assess the extent to which they
would prefer to be rewarded in the future for
(a) transferring knowledge in their company
and (b) for reusing knowledge in their com-
pany (1) “by increments/bonuses” or (2) “by
promotion” (five-point Likert-type scales
ranging from 1 ⫽ “To little or no extent” to
5 ⫽ “To a very large extent”).
Second, intrinsic motivation refers to
commitment to a task for its own sake, the
reward being the satisfaction derived from
the activity itself (Deci, 1975; Osterloh et al.,
2002). Accordingly, we defined the variable
intrinsic motivation using the following three
items on a five-point Likert-type scale (rang-
ing from 1 ⫽ “Strongly disagree” to 5 ⫽
“Strongly agree”): (1) “Increased value to me
is enough to motivate knowledge sharing”;
(2) “Increased value to my department is
enough to motivate knowledge sharing”; and
(3) “Increased value to my company is
enough to motivate knowledge sharing.”
Furthermore, we defined the variable
engagement in social interaction based on the
following six items (ranging from 1 ⫽ “Never”
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
TABLE I Constructs and Items
t-Value Average
Factor (Estimate/ Construct Variance
Constructs and Items Loading SE) R 2-Value Reliability Extracted
Knowledge exchange 0.82 0.54
To what extent have . . .
1 . . . you gained knowledge from colleagues in other departments? 0.80 Fixed 0.65
2 . . . you used knowledge from colleagues in other departments? 0.80 49.46 0.64
3 . . . colleagues in other departments gained knowledge from you? 0.68 12.81 0.47
4 . . . colleagues in other departments used knowledge from you? 0.65 12.40 0.42
Intrinsic motivation 0.91 0.78
5 Increased value for me is enough to motivate knowledge sharing 0.91 Fixed 0.83
6 Increased value for my department is enough to motivate knowledge sharing 0.84 12.94 0.70
7 Increased value for my company is enough to motivate knowledge sharing 0.90 12.16 0.81
Engagement in social interaction 0.87 0.52
To what extent do you use the following media when you transfer knowledge to
other people in your company?
8 – Cross-functional project groups 0.76 Fixed 0.58
9 – Conferences, seminars, and workshops 0.70 11.16 0.49
10 – Meetings 0.75 10.62 0.57
To what extent do you use the following media when you search for knowledge?
11 – Cross-functional project groups 0.82 26.38 0.67
12 – Conferences, seminars, and workshops 0.62 10.76 0.38
13 – Meetings 0.68 11.29 0.46
Perceived organizational commitment 0.80 0.57
14 Knowledge sharing is valued in my company 0.80 23.83 0.64
15 Uncovering and leveraging existing knowledge is highly valued in my company 0.73 21.50 0.53
16 Acquiring and leveraging new knowledge is highly valued in my company 0.73 21.38 0.53
Extrinsic motivation 0.90 0.70
How would you prefer to be rewarded for transferring your knowledge in the future?
17 . . . by increments/bonuses 0.92 30.33 0.84
18 . . . by promotion 0.65 19.92 0.43
How would you prefer to be rewarded for reusing knowledge in the future?
19 . . . by increments/bonuses 0.85 27.64 0.72
20 . . . by promotion 0.90 28.56 0.81
396 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
to 5 ⫽ “Very often”): (1) “To what extent do
you use meetings when you transfer knowl-
edge to other people in your company?”
(2) “To what extent do you use conferences,
seminars, and workshops when you transfer
knowledge to other people in your com-
pany?” (3) “To what extent do you use cross-
functional project groups when you transfer
knowledge to other people in your com-
pany?” (4) “To what extent do you use meet-
ings when you search for knowledge?” (5) “To
what extent do you use conferences, semi-
nars, and workshops when you search for
knowledge?” and (6) “To what extent do you
use cross-functional project groups when
you search for knowledge?”
The Validity and Reliability of the
Measures
In order to estimate the structural model
(i.e., the relationships among the constructs)
and the measurement model (i.e., the rela-
tionships between the manifest variables and
the constructs they represented), we applied
structural equation modeling using LISREL.
Table I shows the strength of the linearity in
relations between the constructs and the
items; all R2 values were higher than 0.38,
which is clearly above the usual threshold of
0.20 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995).
We also note that the t-values for all items are
highly significant (all above 10.62) and that
their (standardized) factor loadings are strong
(all above 0.62). Second, we calculated the
reliability of each construct, and all of these
values were above the recommended thresh-
old of 0.70 (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). In
addition, with regard to the average variance
extracted (AVE), the five constructs display a
good fit, all being above 0.5. Our model also
shows adequate discriminant validity in that
each construct shares more variance with its
measures than it shares with other constructs:
the square roots of the AVE values are all
greater than the correlations between the
latent constructs (Hulland, 1999). The valid-
ity of our five constructs is further reflected
in the goodness-of-fit statistics for the mea-
surement model. Specifically, the model re-
ported a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.94,
a non-normed fit index (NNFI) of 0.97, and a
root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) of 0.05, all of which meet the re-
quirements for accepting the entire model.
Although estimation of SEM in this study is
based on covariance, for replicability pur-
poses we provide a correlation matrix. Table II
reports the means, standard deviations, and
correlations among the items.
As a check for possible common method
bias, we took the following steps. In order
to diminish, if not avoid, the effects of con-
sistency artifacts (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2003; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977), we
placed the survey questions related to the en-
dogenous variables (e.g., knowledge sharing)
after those designed to measure the indepen-
dent variables. We used multiple-item con-
structs in order to reduce response bias,
which has been shown to be more problem-
atic on the item than on the construct level
(Harrison, McLaughlin, & Coalter, 1996).
With a view to reducing possible social desir-
ability bias, we followed the example of Tsai
and Ghoshal (1998) and explained in the
opening paragraph that the software we were
using prevented any identification of indi-
viduals, that the data would be collected
through a company-external server, and that
our analysis would be restricted to the aggre-
gate level. Finally, we followed the recom-
mendation of Podsakoff et al. (2003) and
conducted a statistical post-hoc test control-
ling for the effects of an unmeasured latent
methods factor. Specifically, as Liang, Saraf,
Hu, and Xue (2007) suggest, we used partial
least squares (PLS) to examine a model in
which items are allowed to load on their the-
oretical constructs, as well as on a latent
common-method-variance factor. The
squared values of the method-standardized
factor loadings (i.e., the percentage of indica-
tor variance that was method-based) turned
out to be substantially lower than the squared
standardized loadings linking the substantive
latent constructs with their indicators (i.e.,
the percentage of substantive variance). All
this allowed us to conclude that common
method bias is unlikely to be a serious con-
cern (Williams, Edwards, & Vandenberg,
2003).
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
 TABLE II Descriptive Statistics
Item Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1 3.35 0.95
2 3.35 0.96 0.89
3 3.33 0.93 0.49 0.49
4 3.25 0.95 0.45 0.47 0.92
5 3.70 0.74 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.14
6 3.68 0.77 0.21 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.62
7 3.66 0.78 0.25 0.24 0.12 0.11 0.54 0.74
8 2.78 1.15 0.35 0.32 0.28 0.24 0.14 0.15 0.13
9 2.62 0.95 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.48
10 3.66 0.87 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.49 0.47
11 2.43 1.13 0.31 0.33 0.24 0.21 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.71 0.44 0.39
12 2.59 1.03 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.40 0.60 0.37 0.46
13 3.27 0.97 0.30 0.31 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.43 0.39 0.58 0.48 0.48
14 3.68 0.84 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.11 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.08 0.13 0.15
15 3.57 0.84 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.55
16 3.69 0.83 0.20 0.19 0.10 0.12 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.50 0.47
17 3.12 1.15 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.22 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.10 ⫺0.06 ⫺0.05 0.01 0.01 ⫺0.02 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.00 –0.06
18 2.71 1.22 0.04 0.03 0.22 0.21 ⫺0.02 ⫺0.04 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.08 –0.06 –0.08 –0.07 0.55
19 2.72 1.18 0.05 0.06 0.17 0.17 ⫺0.01 ⫺0.04 0.03 ⫺0.04 0.00 –0.01 0.01 0.06 0.05 –0.02 –0.03 –0.04 0.72 0.51
20 2.43 1.15 0.10 0.09 0.22 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.06 –0.07 –0.08 –0.05 0.47 0.77 0.70
Correlations greater than 0.06 are significant at p < 0.05.
398 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
0.39 (9.58)
Individual engagement in
An individual’s perceived
organizational commitment
to knowledge sharing 0.31 (7.12) purpose of knowledge
An individual’s
extrinsic motivation to
share knowledge
FIGURE 3. Structural Parameter Estimates
Note: The figures given are the path parameters estimated for the structural equation, with t ⫽ values written in parentheses.
Results
Figure 3 shows the parameter estimates for
the structural equation model. Of note, first,
are the significant positive effects found for all
of the tested relationships, in support of our
four hypotheses. As the results indicate, the
independent variable “individual perception
of organizational commitment to knowledge
sharing” had a significant and positive direct
effect on knowledge exchange (coeff. ⫽ 0.36,
t ⫽ 8.17), in line with Hypothesis 1. Hypoth-
esis 2 is also supported in that the estimate of
the relationship between extrinsic motiva-
tion and knowledge exchange was positive
and significant (coeff. ⫽ 0.17, t ⫽ 5.62). Fur-
thermore, there was an indirect effect be-
tween individual perceptions of organiza-
tional commitment to knowledge sharing
and knowledge exchange via individual in-
trinsic motivation (coeff. ⫽ 0.39, t ⫽ 9.58;
coeff. ⫽ 0.22, t ⫽ 4.73; effect ⫽ 0.39 ⫻ 0.22 ⫽
0.09) and engagement in social interaction
(coeff. ⫽ 0.31, t ⫽ 7.12; coeff. ⫽ 0.39, t ⫽ 8.31;
effect ⫽ 0.31 ⫻ 0.39 ⫽ 0.12), which lends
support to Hypotheses 3 and 4. The total ef-
fect of an individual’s perceptions of organi-
zational commitment to knowledge sharing
on knowledge exchange was therefore 0.57
(0.36 ⫹ 0.09 ⫹ 0.12).
The results may reflect potential exoge-
nous effects stemming from heterogeneity in
the sample. Accordingly, in order to assess
the robustness of our findings we conducted
a jackknife procedure on the model that
0.36 (8.17)
Individual intrinsic 0.22 (4.73)
The knowledge
motivation to share
exchange in
knowledge
which an
0.39 (8.31) individual
social interaction for the engages across
employee-
group
sharing
boundaries
0.17 (5.62)
we had obtained (e.g., Chatfield, 1988). First,
the function or department to which the
employee belongs may influence the extent
to which he or she exchanges knowledge
with other colleagues. Because the functions/
departments varied across the three firms
included in our sample, we clustered them as
product-related (e.g., production, R&D),
customer-related (e.g., marketing, sales, and
logistics), and corporate (e.g., finance, human
resources, and information technology),
according to their position in the value chain.
In order to control for any possible depart-
ment/function-related spurious effects, we
first excluded individuals working in corpo-
rate functions from the original sample. We
then reran the model with this subsample
and repeated this procedure by omitting each
function in turn, to verify whether there were
any significant changes in the relationships
between the constructs employed. None of
these tests resulted in any relevant changes
concerning the sign or statistical significance
of the estimated paths. Second, given that
the respondents belonged to three different
MNCs, we also controlled for firm-specific ef-
fects by omitting each MNC from the original
sample and repeating the process described
earlier. None of the tests resulted in any sig-
nificant changes in the estimated paths.
Third, previous studies report that women
may be more intrinsically motivated than
men (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992) and
more sensitive to factors such as the social-
interaction culture (Connelly & Keloway,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

2003). Thus, in order to capture any potential
gender differences, we divided the sample
into two subsamples: female and male. We
then tested the two groups as described ear-
lier. The tests produced no significant
changes, with the following two exceptions.
In the case of the male subsample, Hypothe-
sis 3 was not supported, given that the path
between intrinsic motivation and the depen-
dent variable, although positive, was not sta-
tistically significant at any conventional
level. Conversely, we found that where
women were concerned, the direct effect of
individual perceptions of organizational
commitment to knowledge sharing on the
dependent variable disappeared. In other
words, with regard to women, the effect of
individual perceptions of organizational
commitment to knowledge exchange was
fully mediated by intrinsic motivation and
engagement in social interaction. These find-
ings seem feasible in light of the assumption
that women are potentially more intrinsi-
cally than extrinsically motivated, and also
more responsive to social-interactional cul-
tures (Connelly & Keloway, 2003; Vallerand &
Bissonnette, 1992). Fourth, since different po-
sitions and management levels may require
different levels of knowledge exchange, we
assess the robustness of our findings omitting
individuals in a top-management position
from the original sample. Again, the esti-
mated paths in the two subsamples did not
show any significant changes. Finally, we
reran our model after omitting individuals
working in Denmark from the original sam-
ple, controlling for a potential home-country
effect. We did not observe any significant
changes, with the exception of a slightly
weaker effect of individual perceptions of or-
ganizational commitment to knowledge
sharing on the dependent variable in the sub-
sample of Danish employees.
Discussion and Implications
In this article, we examined the relationship
between individual employees’ perceptions of
organizational commitment to knowledge
sharing, their extrinsic and intrinsic moti-
vation, their engagement in social interaction,
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 399
and the extent to which they shared knowl-
edge across different employee-group bound-
aries. Our findings suggest that such individ-
ual-level perceptions and extrinsic motivation
directly influence the extent of knowledge
exchange. We also find that intrinsic motiva-
tion and engagement in social interaction
significantly mediate the relationship be-
tween perceived organizational commitment
and knowledge exchange. In doing so, we
contribute to the literature by providing a
micro-level analysis on the HRM-knowledge
relationship complementary to the macro
emphasis that has dominated current re-
search (see Felin & Hesterly, 2007). A micro
approach is warranted because
much of organizational knowl-
Intrinsic motivation
edge resides in the firm’s employ-
ees, and much of the transfer oc- and engagement in
curs when individual (or small
groups of) employees exchange social interaction
information and know-how on
significantly mediate
behalf of and in the interest of
their respective employee groups the relationship
(Argote et al., 2003; Felin & Foss,
2005; Foss, 2007)—thereby mak- between perceived
ing them conditions sine qua
organizational
non for intraorganizational knowl-
edge transfer. commitment
Another key contribution is
that we have shed light on the ex- and knowledge
planatory mechanisms between
HRM-system effects and knowl- exchange.
edge transfer. Our main finding
provides empirical evidence for the argument
that the strength of the HRM system is posi-
tively related to knowledge-sharing behavior
at the individual level. Further, we also con-
tribute to the literature on HRM and knowl-
edge transfer by explicitly contrasting a cli-
mate-based argument with an incentives-based
one. In our model, the combined direct and
indirect effect of perceived organizational
commitment (0.57 ⫽ 0.36 ⫹ 0.39 ⫻ 0.22 ⫹
0.31 ⫻ 0.39) is higher than that of extrinsic
commitment (0.17), which indicates that or-
ganizations may do better by seeking to cre-
ate a strong pro-knowledge-sharing culture
than by providing reward-based incentives to
drive internal knowledge transfer. What is
more, when such governance mechanisms
400 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
are aligned, their combinatory effect may be
particularly powerful (Foss, 2007; Grandori,
2001).
A key managerial implication is that firms
should make sure the messages their HRM
system and practices send are aligned with
organizational objectives: for example, the
importance of knowledge sharing has to
consistently come across in performance
management, training and development,
compensation and rewards, and talent man-
agement in order for the system to send an
equivalent signal. Mechanisms for doing that
include using knowledge-sharing behavior as
a key performance indicator (KPI) in perfor-
mance management and related compensa-
tion and reward systems, using
training courses not only to pro-
Our results suggest
vide training in the use of various
that intrinsic collaborative tools, but also
intentionally to create informal
motivation strongly networks across the different parts
of the organization, and treating
mediates the
knowledge-sharing behavior as
effect of females’ a key criterion for talent-pool
inclusion.
perceptions of Further, our findings pertain-
ing to the mediating role of indi-
organizational vidual intrinsic motivation and
commitment to engagement in interaction have
several potentially noteworthy
knowledge sharing theoretical and practical implica-
tions. The question of how effec-
on their engagement tively firm-level governance
mechanisms can influence intrin-
in knowledge
sic motivation has been a long-
exchange, whereas standing concern for both
academics and practitioners, given
this is less important that it is internal to the individual
and thus not directly manageable.
for male employees.
Our theoretical reasoning and em-
pirical findings suggest that these
“conditions of individual actions” are poten-
tially malleable through the HRM signaling ef-
fect and practices that promote a strong and
shared organizational commitment to knowl-
edge sharing. Interestingly, and in line with
previous research results (e.g., Connelly &
Keloway, 2003; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992),
we also found that gender had an impact on
knowledge-sharing behaviors. Specifically,
male and female employees of a given orga-
nization do not respond in the same way to
the HRM signaling effect, and this may be a
function of motivational predisposition. Our
results suggest that intrinsic motivation
strongly mediates the effect of females’ per-
ceptions of organizational commitment to
knowledge sharing on their enga gement
in knowledge exchange, whereas this is less
important for male employees.
We acknowledge that our findings also
have certain limitations. First, we based our
empirical analyses on cross-sectional data.
Further longitudinal research should verify
the causality of our model: it is certainly fea-
sible that successful engagement in knowl-
edge exchange in the past may influence an
employee’s intrinsic motivation to do so in
the future, thereby creating a feedback loop
at the individual level. Second, we also
acknowledge the shortcomings in using per-
ceptual instruments to measure our variables,
and it would be useful in the future to com-
bine perceptual data with more objective
indicators in order to develop more elaborate
measures. However, we should point out that,
despite their obvious limitations, perceptual
and self-reported measures have been found
most suitable for the study of individual
human behavior and, when employed as part
of a rigorous research design, may even be
superior to other approaches (Howard, 1994;
Schmitt, 1994; Spector, 1994). Third, our em-
pirical focus was limited in that we only ex-
amined three MNCs, all of which originate
from Denmark. We recognize that individual
processes, which we consider in the article,
can be sensitive to a number of firm-specific
characteristics and cultural factors. Accord-
ingly, in order to further generalize the find-
ings, there is a need for further empirical
study based on individual data gathered from
a wider variety of firms from different coun-
try origins. Future studies should also take
the impact of the external environment (for-
mal and informal institutions) into account
in relation to the formation of the individual
processes we considered. Among the vari-
ables to be explored is the national culture: it
may have an influence on how employees re-
spond to extrinsic rewards, and on how they
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
 LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 401

would like to be rewarded for sharing
knowledge.
We also emphasize the need to pay more
attention to individual heterogeneity and
its effect on knowledge processes (Felin &
Hesterly, 2007). Future studies should con-
sider elaborating further on individual differ-
ences, particularly as they may become pro-
nounced in the aggregation of “individual
actions” into organizational-level outcomes.
The logic behind such aggregation from the
micro to the macro level is that individual
actions combine and interact to produce so-
cial outcomes. This involves potentially
strong interdependence between the actions
of an individual and of others in the same
context. Each individual’s actions influence
other individuals, and each individual is open
to being influenced by the actions of others,
either positively or negatively. Indeed,
explaining micro-macro interdependence has
proved to be the “main intellectual hurdle
both for empirical research and for theory
that treats macro-level relations via method-
ological individualism” (Coleman, 1986,
p. 1323), and our work and the literature we
are building on are no exceptions.
Finally, and related to the interdepen-
dence of interpersonal linkages above, another
key area of future research involves studying
micro-macro relationships in a group/team
context (e.g., Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004;
Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006). A basic tenet
of the Bowen and Ostroff (2004) theory is the
sharedness of a strong culture, which brings in
not only the positivity or negativity of percep-
tions at the individual level, but also their
intragroup variance (i.e., the question of how
similar the perceptions are across the mem-
bers of a team or group). Similarly, for organi-
zational knowledge transfer, it is not only
intergroup knowledge exchange that matters,
but rather an optimal combination of group-
internal and external knowledge exchange in
which knowledge is both shared across boundar-
ies and disseminated within groups (Kostova &
Roth, 2003; Oh et al., 2004, 2006).
In sum, future studies should continue to
explore individual- and interpersonal-level
determinants of knowledge transfer, linking
them back to the organizational level through
multilevel research. Such a focus would be
valuable both theoretically and practically,
given the fact that the “implications for how
a firm creates new value are radically differ-
ent, depending on the underlying assump-
tion about the locus of knowledge” (Felin &
Hesterly, 2007, p. 196).
Note
1. For more information on NNE, Danisco, and Chr.
Hansen, visit www.nne.dk, www.danisco.com, and
www.chr-hansen.com, respectively.

DANA B. MINBAEVA (MBA, PhD in economics and business administration) is a profes-

sor in strategic and global human resource management at the Department of Strategic
Management and Globalization, and the head of the PhD School in Economics and Man-
agement at the Copenhagen Business School. Her research on strategic international
HRM, knowledge sharing, and transfer in multinational corporations has appeared in the
Journal of International Business Studies, the Journal of Management Studies, Human
Resource Management, the International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Management International Review, International Business Review, Employment Rela-
tions, Personnel Review, the European Journal of International Management, and the
International Journal of Strategic Change Management. She has taught at the graduate
and executive levels in Denmark, Kazakhstan, Russia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, and Finland,
as well as having held visiting research positions in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Austra-
lia, and Canada. She is on the editorial board of Human Resource Management.

KRISTIINA MÄKELÄ (PhD in business administration) is a visiting associate professor in

international business at Aalto University and associate professor in management and or-
ganization at Hanken School of Economics. Her research focuses on HRM and knowledge
issues in multinational corporations and has appeared in Human Resource Management,

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

402 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012

the Journal of Management Studies, the Journal of World Business, International Business
Review, theJournal of Managerial Psychology, theInternational Journal of Human Resource
Management, International Studies in Management and Organization, and the Scandina-
vian Journal of Management, among others. She has taught international business and
human resource management in Finland, the United Kingdom, and Austria.

LARISSA RABBIOSI (PhD in economics and management engineering) is an assistant

professor in the Department of Strategic Management and Globalization at Copenha-
gen Business School. Her research interests mainly concern knowledge transfer, orga-
nizational structure and practices, innovation and firm performance, and mergers and
acquisitions. Within these areas, she has had her work published in international jour-
nals such as Industrial and Corporate Change, the Journal of International Management,
Management International Review, European Management Review, the Journal of World
Business, and the International Journal of the Economics of Business, as well as in inter-
national books.

References Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge sharing

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer:
A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
82, 150–169.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Manag-
ing knowledge in organizations: An integrative
framework and review of emergent themes.
Management Science, 49, 571–582.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning
II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging
knowledge sharing: The role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
tional Studies, 9, 64–76.
Björkman, I., Barner-Rasmussen, W., & Li, L. (2004).
Managing knowledge transfer in MNCs: The impact
of headquarters control mechanisms. Journal of
International Business Studies, 35, 443–455.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2005). Behav-
ioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational climate.
MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.
dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687–710.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006).
Determinants of individual engagement in knowl-
edge sharing. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17, 245–264.
Chatfield, C. (1988). A statistician’s guide. London, UK:
Chapman & Hall.
Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research,
and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 91, 1309–1335.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory.
Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
Connelly, C., & Keloway, K. (2003). Predictors of
employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 24, 294–302.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY,
and London, UK: Plenum Press.
Delaney, J., & Huselid, M. (1996). The impact of human
resource management practices on perceptions of
organizational performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 39, 949–969.

Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding
HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the
“strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 29, 203–221.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999).
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30,
439–462.
Delbecq, A., & Mills, P. K. (1985). Managerial practices
that enhance innovation. Organizational Dynamics,
14, 24–34.
Doz, Y. L., Santos, J., & Williamson, P. (2001). From
global to metanational. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2003). Knowl-
edge-based view: A new theory of strategy?

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm


In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.),
Handbook of strategy and management
(pp. 139–164). London, UK: Sage.
Elster, J. (1989). Nuts and bolts for the social sciences.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2005). Strategic organization:
A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic
Organization, 3, 441–455.
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. (2007). The knowledge-based
view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation:
Philosophical considerations on the locus of
knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32,
195–218.
Foss, N. J. (2007). The emerging knowledge gover-
nance approach: Challenges and characteristics.
Organization, 14, 27–50.
Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M.
(2009). The impact of autonomy, task identity, and
feedback on employee motivation to share knowl-
edge. Human Resource Management, 48, 871–893.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated
paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of
Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.
Gerhart, B. (2005). Human resources and business
performance: Findings, unanswered questions, and
an alternative approach. Management Review, 16,
175–185.
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). Antecedents, con-
sequences, and mediating role of organizational
ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,
47, 209–226.
Gooderham, P., Minbaeva, D., & Pedersen, T. (2011).
Governance mechanisms for the promotion of
social capital for knowledge transfer in the mul-
tinational corporation. Journal of Management
Studies, 48, 123–150.
Gottschalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment
and competitive advantage. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 32, 418–437.
Grandori, A. (2001). Neither hierarchy nor identity:
Knowledge governance mechanisms and the
theory of the firm. Journal of Management and
Governance, 5, 381–399.
Grandori, A., & Kogut, B. (2002). Dialogue on organi-
zation and knowledge. Organization Science, 13,
224–232.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.
Guest, D. (1997). Human resource management
and performance: A review and research agenda.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 403
International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 8, 263–276.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge
flows within multinational corporations. Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 473–496.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C.
(1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem:
The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
organisational subunits. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 82–111.
Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining
effective knowledge sharing in multiunit compa-
nies. Organization Science, 13, 232–248.
Harrison, D. A., McLaughlin, M. E., & Coalter, T. M.
(1996). Context, cognition, and common method
variance: Psychometric and verbal protocol evi-
dence. Organization Behavior and Human Decision,
68, 246–261.
Howard, G. (1994). Why do people say nasty things
about self-reports? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 399–404.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in
strategic management research: A review of four
recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20,
195–204.
Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resource
management practices on turnover, productivity,
and corporate financial performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 635–672.
Jansen, J. J. P., van de Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda,
H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized ab-
sorptive capacity: How do organizational anteced-
ents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48,
999–1015.
Kang, S.-C., Morris, S. S., & Snell, S. A. (2007). Rela-
tional archetypes, organizational learning, and value
creation: Extending the human resource architec-
ture. Academy of Management Review, 32, 236–256.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,
combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm
and the evolutionary theory of the multinational-
corporation. Journal of International Business
Studies, 24, 625–645.
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organi-
zational practice by subsidiaries of multinational
corporations: Institutional and relational effects.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 215–233.
404 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MAY–JUNE 2012
Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2003). Social capital in multina-
tional corporations and a micro-macro model of its
formation. The Academy of Management Review,
28, 297–317.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource
architecture: Toward a theory of human capital
development and allocation. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 24, 31–48.
Lepak, D., & Snell, S. (2002). Examining the human
resource architecture: The relationships among
human capital, employment, and human resource
configurations. Journal of Management, 28,
517–543.
Levitt, B., & March, J. (1988). Organizational learning.
Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimila-
tion of enterprise systems: The effect of institution-
al pressures and the mediating role of top manage-
ment. MIS Quarterly, 31, 59–87.
Lin, H., & Lee, G. (2004). Perceptions of senior manag-
ers toward knowledge-sharing behavior. Manage-
ment Decision, 42, 108–125.
Minbaeva, D. B. (2005). HRM practices and MNC
knowledge transfer. Personnel Review, 34, 125–144.
Minbaeva, D., Foss, N. J., & Snell, S. (2009). Bringing
knowledge perspective into HRM. Introduction to
the special issue. Human Resource Management,
48, 477–483.
Minbaeva, D., & Pedersen, T. (2010). What drives
knowledge sharing behavior of individuals? Inter-
national Journal of Strategic Change Management,
2, 200–222.
Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., Fey, C., &
Park, H. (2003). MNC knowledge transfer, sub-
sidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of
International Business Studies, 34, 586–599.
Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. (2004). A knowledge-based
theory of the firm: The problem-solving perspec-
tive. Organization Science, 15, 617–632.
Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group
social capital and group effectiveness: The role of
informal socializing ties. Academy of Management
Journal, 47, 860–875.
Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A mul-
tilevel model of group social capital. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 569–582.
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational com-
mitment and psychological attachment: The effects
of compliance, identification and internalization on
prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 492–499.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowl-
edge transfer, and organizational forms. Organiza-
tion Science, 11, 538–550.
Osterloh, M., Frost, J., & Frey, B. (2002). The dynamics of
motivation in new organizational forms. International
Journal of the Economics of Business, 9, 61–78.
Paauwe, J., & Farndale, E. (2007). International human
resource management and firm performance. In G. B.
Stahl & I. Björkman (Eds.), Handbook of research in
international human resource management
(pp. 91–112). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Peltokorpi, V., & Tsuyuki, E. (2006). Knowledge gover-
nance in a Japanese project-based organization.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4,
36–45.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N.
P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral re-
search: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879–903.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure
and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and
range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of
need-satisfaction models of job attitudes. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 22, 427–456.
Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of
theory and measurement. Journal of Organization-
al Behavior, 15, 393–398.
Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An ap-
plication of the climate construct. In B. Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture
(pp. 383–412). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness:
Organizational learning and knowledge flows.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 661–681.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and prac-
tice of the learning organization. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
Spector, P. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in
OB research: A comment on the use of a controver-
sial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
15, 385–392.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a
dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(Special Issue), 45–62.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness:
Impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge
transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 82, 9–27.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in interorganiza-
tional networks: Effects of network position and
absorptive capacity on business unit innovation
and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 996–1004.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of “coopetition” with-
in a multiunit organization: Coordination, competi-
tion, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing.
Organization Science, 13, 179–190.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value
creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy
of Management Journal, 41, 462–476.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in
interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.
Uzzi, B., & Lancaster, R. (2003). Relational embedded-
ness and learning: The case of bank loan manag-
ers and their clients. Management Science, 49,
383–399.
Vallerand, R., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic,
extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of
behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personal-
ity, 60, 599–620.
Vroom, V. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm
LINKING HRM AND KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER 405
Westney, E. (2001). Multinational enterprises and
cross-border knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka &
T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge emergence: Social,
technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowl-
edge creation (pp. 147–175). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Williams, L. J., Edwards, J. R., & Vandenberg, R. J.
(2003). Recent advances in causal modeling meth-
ods for organizational and management research.
Journal of Management, 29, 903–936.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001).
Human resources and the resource based view of
the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701–721.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A.
(1994). Human resources and sustained competi-
tive advantage: A resource-based perspective.
International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 5, 301–326.
Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. H. (forthcoming). Strategic
HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating mul-
tiple levels of analysis. In D. Guest, J. Paauwe, &
P. M. Wright (Eds.), Human resource management
and performance: Progress and prospects. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Wright, P. W., & Snell, S. (1991). Toward an integrative
view of strategic human resource management.
Human Resource Management Review, 1, 203–225.