Loading…
Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective
Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their pee...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of organizational behavior 2018-07, Vol.39 (6), p.796-811 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473 |
container_end_page | 811 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 796 |
container_title | Journal of organizational behavior |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Hong, Woonki Gajendran, Ravi Shanker |
description | Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their peers for their expertise? To answer this question, this paper develops a theoretical model predicting dyadic expertise use in teams based on the opportunity–ability–motivation framework of behavior in organizations. We argue that 3 complementary conditions influence dyadic expertise use in teams: A focal team member is more likely to use a peer's expertise in a specific domain when the peer is perceived to have valuable expertise (opportunity), when the member is psychologically empowered (motivation), and when the member shares a strong tie with the peer (ability). We tested our framework using a 2-wave dataset consisting of 1,898 observations of dyadic domain-specific peer expertise use based on 71 members rating 166 peers nested within 22 teams. Findings suggest that tie strength and psychological empowerment jointly moderate the relationship between perceived peer expertise level and peer expertise use. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/job.2286 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2063049169</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26610757</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26610757</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E1Lw0AQBuBFFKxV8A8IAS9eUmc32a-jSv2i0Iuel81mUzZNs3E3pe2_NyXFm4dh5vDMDLwI3WKYYQDyWPtiRohgZ2iCQcoUZ1yeowkImafDyC7RVYw1ANBcsgni833XaNe6dpWUB106k9h9Z0Pvok22Q7k2Wbd-19hyZZOdD-ukt3oTr9FFpZtob059ir5f518v7-li-fbx8rRITYYpSxkXkksrRF5wwg3gDCiUjGtTlCY3RhfUCkIrIRjOGTVgC2EIzUhZGa1znk3R_Xi3C_5na2Ovar8N7fBSEWAZ5BIzOaiHUZngYwy2Ul1wGx0OCoM6xjJsFeoYy0DTke5cYw__OvW5fD75u9HXsffhzxPGMHDKs1_iNGwC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2063049169</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection</source><creator>Hong, Woonki ; Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</creator><creatorcontrib>Hong, Woonki ; Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</creatorcontrib><description>Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their peers for their expertise? To answer this question, this paper develops a theoretical model predicting dyadic expertise use in teams based on the opportunity–ability–motivation framework of behavior in organizations. We argue that 3 complementary conditions influence dyadic expertise use in teams: A focal team member is more likely to use a peer's expertise in a specific domain when the peer is perceived to have valuable expertise (opportunity), when the member is psychologically empowered (motivation), and when the member shares a strong tie with the peer (ability). We tested our framework using a 2-wave dataset consisting of 1,898 observations of dyadic domain-specific peer expertise use based on 71 members rating 166 peers nested within 22 teams. Findings suggest that tie strength and psychological empowerment jointly moderate the relationship between perceived peer expertise level and peer expertise use.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0894-3796</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-1379</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/job.2286</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley (Variant)</publisher><subject>Ability ; Empowerment ; expertise awareness ; expertise use ; Experts ; Knowledge management ; knowledge transfer ; Motivation ; Organizational behavior ; Organizational change ; Peers ; Psychological empowerment ; RESEARCH ARTICLE ; Teams ; Teamwork ; tie strength</subject><ispartof>Journal of organizational behavior, 2018-07, Vol.39 (6), p.796-811</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4244-8781 ; 0000-0003-4744-7814</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26610757$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26610757$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hong, Woonki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</creatorcontrib><title>Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective</title><title>Journal of organizational behavior</title><description>Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their peers for their expertise? To answer this question, this paper develops a theoretical model predicting dyadic expertise use in teams based on the opportunity–ability–motivation framework of behavior in organizations. We argue that 3 complementary conditions influence dyadic expertise use in teams: A focal team member is more likely to use a peer's expertise in a specific domain when the peer is perceived to have valuable expertise (opportunity), when the member is psychologically empowered (motivation), and when the member shares a strong tie with the peer (ability). We tested our framework using a 2-wave dataset consisting of 1,898 observations of dyadic domain-specific peer expertise use based on 71 members rating 166 peers nested within 22 teams. Findings suggest that tie strength and psychological empowerment jointly moderate the relationship between perceived peer expertise level and peer expertise use.</description><subject>Ability</subject><subject>Empowerment</subject><subject>expertise awareness</subject><subject>expertise use</subject><subject>Experts</subject><subject>Knowledge management</subject><subject>knowledge transfer</subject><subject>Motivation</subject><subject>Organizational behavior</subject><subject>Organizational change</subject><subject>Peers</subject><subject>Psychological empowerment</subject><subject>RESEARCH ARTICLE</subject><subject>Teams</subject><subject>Teamwork</subject><subject>tie strength</subject><issn>0894-3796</issn><issn>1099-1379</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E1Lw0AQBuBFFKxV8A8IAS9eUmc32a-jSv2i0Iuel81mUzZNs3E3pe2_NyXFm4dh5vDMDLwI3WKYYQDyWPtiRohgZ2iCQcoUZ1yeowkImafDyC7RVYw1ANBcsgni833XaNe6dpWUB106k9h9Z0Pvok22Q7k2Wbd-19hyZZOdD-ukt3oTr9FFpZtob059ir5f518v7-li-fbx8rRITYYpSxkXkksrRF5wwg3gDCiUjGtTlCY3RhfUCkIrIRjOGTVgC2EIzUhZGa1znk3R_Xi3C_5na2Ovar8N7fBSEWAZ5BIzOaiHUZngYwy2Ul1wGx0OCoM6xjJsFeoYy0DTke5cYw__OvW5fD75u9HXsffhzxPGMHDKs1_iNGwC</recordid><startdate>20180701</startdate><enddate>20180701</enddate><creator>Hong, Woonki</creator><creator>Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</creator><general>Wiley (Variant)</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K7.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4244-8781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-7814</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180701</creationdate><title>Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams</title><author>Hong, Woonki ; Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Ability</topic><topic>Empowerment</topic><topic>expertise awareness</topic><topic>expertise use</topic><topic>Experts</topic><topic>Knowledge management</topic><topic>knowledge transfer</topic><topic>Motivation</topic><topic>Organizational behavior</topic><topic>Organizational change</topic><topic>Peers</topic><topic>Psychological empowerment</topic><topic>RESEARCH ARTICLE</topic><topic>Teams</topic><topic>Teamwork</topic><topic>tie strength</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hong, Woonki</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Journal of organizational behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hong, Woonki</au><au>Gajendran, Ravi Shanker</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective</atitle><jtitle>Journal of organizational behavior</jtitle><date>2018-07-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>796</spage><epage>811</epage><pages>796-811</pages><issn>0894-3796</issn><eissn>1099-1379</eissn><abstract>Organizations use project teams to lower search costs associated with locating expertise by assembling requisite expertise within a single unit. But prior research suggests that availability of expertise in teams does not guarantee its use. When are team members more likely to reach out to their peers for their expertise? To answer this question, this paper develops a theoretical model predicting dyadic expertise use in teams based on the opportunity–ability–motivation framework of behavior in organizations. We argue that 3 complementary conditions influence dyadic expertise use in teams: A focal team member is more likely to use a peer's expertise in a specific domain when the peer is perceived to have valuable expertise (opportunity), when the member is psychologically empowered (motivation), and when the member shares a strong tie with the peer (ability). We tested our framework using a 2-wave dataset consisting of 1,898 observations of dyadic domain-specific peer expertise use based on 71 members rating 166 peers nested within 22 teams. Findings suggest that tie strength and psychological empowerment jointly moderate the relationship between perceived peer expertise level and peer expertise use.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley (Variant)</pub><doi>10.1002/job.2286</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4244-8781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4744-7814</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0894-3796 |
ispartof | Journal of organizational behavior, 2018-07, Vol.39 (6), p.796-811 |
issn | 0894-3796 1099-1379 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2063049169 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection |
subjects | Ability Empowerment expertise awareness expertise use Experts Knowledge management knowledge transfer Motivation Organizational behavior Organizational change Peers Psychological empowerment RESEARCH ARTICLE Teams Teamwork tie strength |
title | Explaining dyadic expertise use in knowledge work teams: An opportunity–ability–motivation perspective |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T21%3A50%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Explaining%20dyadic%20expertise%20use%20in%20knowledge%20work%20teams:%20An%20opportunity%E2%80%93ability%E2%80%93motivation%20perspective&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20organizational%20behavior&rft.au=Hong,%20Woonki&rft.date=2018-07-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=796&rft.epage=811&rft.pages=796-811&rft.issn=0894-3796&rft.eissn=1099-1379&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/job.2286&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26610757%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3156-678979e884b727c013050d67acbdc4ccab5e825f8861465c0eb8c2532dfcaa473%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2063049169&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26610757&rfr_iscdi=true |