Perceived mastery climate, felt trust, and knowledge sharing

TLDR: In this paper, a multisource, multi-wave field study among 956 employees from 5 Norwegian organizations was conducted to examine the predictive roles of perceived mastery climate and employee felt trust for employees' knowledge sharing.

Abstract: Interpersonal trust is associated with a range of adaptive outcomes, including knowledge sharing. However, to date, our knowledge of antecedents and consequences of employees feeling trusted by supervisors in organizations remains limited. On the basis of a multisource, multiwave field study among 956 employees from 5 Norwegian organizations, we examined the predictive roles of perceived mastery climate and employee felt trust for employees' knowledge sharing. Drawing on the achievement goal theory, we develop and test a model to demonstrate that when employees perceive a mastery climate, they are more likely to feel trusted by their supervisors at both the individual and group levels. Moreover, the relationship between employees' perceptions of a mastery climate and supervisor-rated knowledge sharing is mediated by perceptions of being trusted by the supervisor. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

Figures

Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Key Study Variables at the Individual and Group Levels of Analysis (N = 956; ncluster = 245; average cluster = 3.90)

Table 5 Multilevel SEM Results for the Predicted Mediation Model (N = 956; ncluster = 245)

Table 1 Differences in the Various Study Variables According to Organizational Membership (N = 1,122; supervisor-rated knowledge sharing n = 417)

Full text

Nerstad, C. G.L., Searle, R. , Černe, M., Dysvik, A., Škerlavaj,
M. and Scherer, R. (2018) Perceived mastery climate, felt trust, and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), pp. 429-
447.
There may be differences between this version and the published version.
You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from
it.
Nerstad, C. G.L., Searle, R. , Černe, M., Dysvik, A., Škerlavaj,
M. and Scherer, R. (2018) Perceived mastery climate, felt trust, and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(4), pp. 429-
447. (doi:10.1002/job.2241)
This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with
Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/153121/
Deposited on: 07 March 2018

Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk

1
Perceived Mastery Climate, Felt Trust, and Knowledge Sharing
Christina G. L. Nerstad
1
, Rosalind Searle
2
, Matej Černe
3
, Anders Dysvik
1
,
Miha Škerlavaj
1
, and Ronny Scherer
4
1
BI Norwegian Business School,
2
University of Glasgow,
3
University of Ljubljana,
4
University of Oslo
Keywords: motivational climate, felt trust, knowledge sharing, multilevel
modeling

2
Abstract
Interpersonal trust is associated with a range of adaptive outcomes, including knowledge
sharing. However, to date, our knowledge of antecedents and consequences of employees
feeling trusted by supervisors in organizations remains limited. Based on a multisource,
multiwave field study among 956 employees from five Norwegian organizations, we
examined the predictive roles of perceived mastery climate and employee felt trust for
employees’ knowledge sharing. Drawing on the achievement goal theory, we develop
and test a model to demonstrate that when employees perceive a mastery climate, they
are more likely to feel trusted by their supervisors both at the individual and group levels.
Moreover, the relationship between employees’ perceptions of a mastery climate and
supervisor-rated knowledge sharing is mediated by perceptions of being trusted by the
supervisor. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of our findings are
discussed.

3
Perceived Mastery Climate, Felt Trust, and Knowledge Sharing
[Trust] the inmates to run the asylum.
—Laszlo Bock, Work Rules! Insights from Inside Google
that will Transform how you Live and Lead, 2015
Knowledge is a central resource for ensuring organizational competitive
advantage (Grant, 1996; Ipe, 2003; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Wang & Noe, 2010). It is
therefore essential that employees’ knowledge is made available in organizations through
processes involving most if not all employees and departments (De Vries, Van den
Hooff, & De Ridder, 2006; Grant, 1996; Ipe, 2003). Knowledge sharing refers to the
provision of task information and know-how as a way of helping others and of
developing collaborative problem solving, new ideas, and the implementation of novel
policies and procedures (Wang & Noe, 2010). Extant research in this area has revealed
that imparting and exchanging knowledge and information is positively associated with
both team and organizational productivity and performance (Collins & Smith, 2006;
Wang & Noe, 2010). Because knowledge work is regarded as significant in the process of
wealth creation in today’s global economy, understanding the antecedents of knowledge
sharing has become an increasingly important concern (De Vries et al., 2006; Frost,
Osterloh, & Weibel, 2010; Gagné, 2009).
The organizational context in which processes of sharing and combining
knowledge occur is a central component of actual knowledge transfer (Connelly &
Kelloway, 2003; Connelly, Zweig, Webster, & Trougakos, 2012; Javenpaa & Staples,
2001; Wang & Noe, 2010). However, developing our understanding of antecedents for
employees’ motivation for sharing and actual knowledge sharing remains an important
area of research (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Wang & Noe, 2010). In spite of this, the
motivational drivers for employee knowledge sharing are still not fully understood (Lam
& Lambermont-Ford, 2010; Milne, 2007; Osterloh, Frost, & Frey, 2002). This is
unfortunate because one of the greatest challenges organizations face stems from
practices of hoarding/hiding knowledge. Although providing short-term personal
competitive advantage (Milne, 2007), such maladaptive behaviors have long-term

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

Based on a multisource, multiwave field study among 956 employees from five Norwegian organizations, the authors examined the predictive roles of perceived mastery climate and employee felt trust for employees ’ knowledge sharing. Drawing on the achievement goal theory, the authors develop and test a model to demonstrate that when employees perceive a mastery climate, they are more likely to feel trusted by their supervisors both at the individual and group levels. Theoretical contributions and practical implications of their findings are discussed. 

Q2. What is the effect of supervisors’ trust?

When employees feel trusted by their supervisors, it can create a sense ofobligation but also of psychological empowerment and self-efficacy (Lau et al., 2007). 

Q3. What is the effect of feeling trusted on the employee?

Employees’ feelings of being trusted originate from cues and signals related toorganizational norms of compliance, task completion, and work-role achievement (Lau et al., 2014). 

Q4. What is the role of supervisors in the study?

Their study highlights the important role of supervisors and how their actions are perceived, by extending theconceptualization and operationalization of felt trust and the distinct mechanisms (most notably norms of reciprocity) that the supervisors who are making themselves vulnerable have established. 

Q5. What is the effect of trust on subordinates?

When supervisors trust subordinates, they bestow autonomy (a trusting behavior), which results in subordinates showing supervisors greater trust (Seppälä et al., 2011). 

Q6. What is the role of higher responsibility norms in the workplace?

Higher responsibility norms may, in turn, enhance employees’ engagement in knowledge sharing as an important way of contributing positively to organizational outcomes. 

Q7. What is the main reason why trustees choose to engage in knowledge sharing?

Making the provision of information more salient, providing a role model that enhances wider expectations of more collegial behavior, and showing the positive consequences of such behavior may explain why trustees decide to engage in knowledge sharing as a trusting behavior. 

Q8. What does Kramer find to be the important predictor of trust?

Kramer (2010) also found that cooperation enhances trust due to the self-reinforcing relationship promoted between the two parties. 

Q9. What is the effect of feeling trusted on employees?

conceptual work has suggested that feeling trusted may make employees less likely to detect their supervisors’ more malevolent, bullying, and exploitative intentions (Samnani, Singh, & Ezzedeen, 2013). 

Q10. Why do the authors think that such cues are likely present in a mastery climate?

The authors propose that such cues are also likely present in a mastery climate because norms signal the importance of interpersonal trust (and its results, cooperation, and help). 

Q11. What is the role of trust in the knowledge sharing process?

As trust is necessary for knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010), the extent to which employees feel that their colleagues trust them may be decisive in their motivation and willingness to share their expertise in these collaborative contexts. 

Q12. What are the consequences of feeling trusted?

In contrast, although research into feeling trusted has received limited attention, such studies have shown it to have important beneficial consequences for employees’ work behaviors, including improved task performance, increased levels of sales and customer service, boosts to citizenship behaviors and loyalty, reduced counterproductive behaviors, and lower intention to leave (Brower et al., 2009; Deng & Wang, 2009; Lau et al., 2014; Lau et al., 2007; Lester & Brower, 2003; Salamon & Robinson, 2008). 

Q13. Why did the authors control for their possible concurrent existence?

Because the two climate structures are suggested to be interdependent and likelyoperate more or less simultaneously, the authors decided to control for their possible concurrent existence (Ames, 1992b; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). 

Q14. Why would it be inhibiting to test for mediation on only one level of analysis?

Because it would be inhibiting to test for mediation on only one level of analysis (cf. Preacher et al., 2010), their sample enabled a multilevel SEM testing that is a quite novel contribution to the field.