This paper explores obstacles to knowledge sharing motivations within organizations. The author conducted interviews with 14 employees of a research organization. Preliminary results identified two major themes: organizational structure and social interaction. At the project level, strong identification formed through shared goals and experiences motivated knowledge sharing. However, at the team level, deidentification due to unclear roles and objectives hindered motivations. Additionally, lack of feedback, work pressures, and inflexible policies presented further obstacles by failing to acknowledge or support knowledge sharing behaviors. The results indicate that organizational structures can both encourage and hinder motivations through identification and feedback, highlighting the need for organizations to understand how social contexts influence knowledge sharing.

1. Obstacles to Motivations for Knowledge Sharing
Ebere Dike-Ugwu (PhD Researcher)
Organizational Psychology
Birkbeck, University of London

2. Introduction
This paper, which is part of my PhD, explores how social and organisational factors hinder
identification, and prosocial and proactive motivations for knowledge sharing. Literature on
prosocial and proactive motivation and the role of identification in motivation for knowledge
sharing largely focus on creating opportunities. The obstacles to identification and motivation
for knowledge sharing have been overlooked. This paper seeks to examine these obstacles
in order for organisations to enhance and support knowledge sharing.
Exploring Identification formation is vital as identification sets the social context necessary
for knowledge sharing among employees (Bapuji & Crossan, 2005; Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998) and has been linked to employee motivation (Johnson, Johnson, & Heimberg, 1999).
Knowledge sharing is a form of prosocial behaviours (Gagné, 2009) which has been shown
to be vital for overall employee performance (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Similarly, research
has also shown that when employees are proactively motivated they are more likely to seek
knowledge and opportunities for improving things (Crant, 2000).
Literature review
According to Social Influence Theory, identification occurs “when an individual accepts
influence because [they want] to establish or maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship
to another person or a group (Kelman, 1958). This is attributed to the “need to maintain a
favourable image within a reference group” (Malhotra & Galletta, 2003).
Proactive motivation theory purports that employees are motivated to act proactively when
the job offers increased autonomy. The rationale is that autonomy increases employees
flexible role orientation and role breadth self-efficacy which leads to increased confidence in
their ability to take on extra roles (Parker, 1998, 2000)
Based on prosocial motivation employees are motivated to make a prosocial difference
when the job offers opportunities for contact with the beneficiaries. The rationale is that
contact with beneficiaries elicits a affective commitment as employees are more likely to
receive feedback about the impact of the action (Grant, 2008).
Design
The study was conducted in a technology focussed research organisation with a network
type structure. Each of the 14 participants, 9 males and 5 females, belong to teams of 10 to
15 members and works on at least one project at a time. A qualitative approach was used.
60-90 minute semi-structured interviews were conducted and template analysis was carried
out on data. The preliminary results identified two major themes: Organisational structure
and social interaction.
Results
Organisational structure:
All participants viewed knowledge sharing as part of their role, however organisational
structures influenced participants’ motivations for sharing knowledge. Most participants had
strong project identification which was attributed to the common goals shared, clear
understanding of project member roles and their daily interactions. Participants worked
together over significant periods of time, had shared experiences often going on trials
together and were motivated to share knowledge. At the project level, identification formed
the basis of motivations for knowledge sharing.
In contrast, most participants experienced deidentificaition at the team level. This was due to
organisational changes which saw a slow and steady migration to non-functional teams.

3. These teams comprised of a loose group of people who, in theory, had common skills,
attributes and common objectives. However, in practice, these skills, attributes and
objectives were not clearly identified or understood. Teams were fragmented and most
participants suggested the term ‘team’ was inappropriate but rather “a mixed bag of people”
with no common goal. At this level, deidentification hindered motivations for knowledge
sharing as participants had limited understanding of roles and hence the needs of team
members.
Social interaction:
Poor feedback leads to demotivation. Although social interaction mainly occurred at the
project level, feedback occurred largely at the team level. Team managers performed yearly
personal development assessments where employees received feedback on their
performance on projects. Acknowledgement of knowledge sharing activities was “transient”
and “easily forgotten down the line”. There was no acknowledgement for the “spark that set
something off” as the focus was very much on the end result. Lack of feedback presented
obstacles to motivations for knowledge sharing because “If it disappears into a black hole
you say ‘what is the point in doing it’”.
Poor feedback, work overload, project deadlines and lack of free time hinders proactive
motivation. Employees were offered opportunities to embark on mini projects of their own
choice. However, the knowledge generated for these mini projects was largely “not acted
upon” and “their impact” not shared across the organisation. Participants also cited work
pressures as a reason for not being motivated to take up these offers.
Project practices and policies hinder prosocial motivation. The drive for all employees to be
fully utilised meant that they were booked on project activities for the year reasonably early.
All project activities were allocated a project code and consent from team leaders was
required to embark on extra role activities beyond a couple of hours. Consequently,
providing a day or weeks’ assistance to someone in need was often met with a “there is no
budget for it” response.
Discussion
Although the analysis is still at an early stage, these preliminary results highlight some very
interesting findings. Results show how organisational structures can encourage as well as
hinder motivation through identification and deidentification, which is a break in identification
(Pratt, 2001) respectively. They also show that when employees do not have shared
knowledge they are less likely to develop shared identity which can be explained by identity
formation being based on shared interest (Johnson et al., 1999). Furthermore when
employees do not have shared identity they are not motivated to share knowledge which can
be seen as the context within which motivation occurs (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
The demotivating effect of poor feedback can be explained by the need for reciprocity where
acknowledgement is seen as a form of a conditional gain (Hung, Durcikova, Lai, & Lin,
2011).
Taken together these results show how organisations on one hand provide opportunities for
motivation and on the other hand hinder motivation. They also show the need for
organisations to identify their social structures and understand how these structures
influence motivation.