• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

The relationship between workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge: The moderating effects of collaborative climate and personality traits

Dissertation
Author: JiHyun Shim
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Additionally, this study explores the moderating effect of collaborative climate and individual personality traits on the relationship between them. The data were obtained from twenty-two Korean companies. The survey consisted of five sections used to measure the experience of workplace incivility, the intention to share knowledge, collaborative climate, individual personality, and demographics. In total, 494 surveys were returned out of 600, and 476 were cleaned for data analysis (79.3%). Reliability tests, correlations, hierarchical multiple regressions and ANOVAs were employed to investigate the research hypotheses. The results of this study showed a negative relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Additionally, this study showed the moderating effect of an individual personality trait, conscientiousness, on the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. More specifically, conscientious people are more likely to share knowledge, in spite of the experience of workplace incivility. Implications for future research include further development of workplace incivility measurement tools for Korean settings. Additionally, there are plenty of areas to be explored in order to show the ill effects of workplace incivility, such as leader-member relationships, employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. In addition, implications for practitioners include providing orientation and training sessions about the concept of workplace incivility, and developing interventions for workplace incivility to prevent its prevalence in organizations. For victims to report incidents of workplace incivility, the 360-degree feedback system should be considered.

Table of Contents

List of Tables …………………………………………………………………………... ix List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………… x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION.....…………………………………………………….. 1 Research Problem ……………………………………………………………………… 1 Research Purpose and Research Question …………………………………………….. 4 Qualifications of the Researcher ……………………………………………………….. 5 Significance of Study ………………………………………………………………….. 6 Definitions of Terms …………………………………………………………………... 7 Overview of Methodology …………………………………………………………….. 9 Organization of the Study …………………………………………………………….. 10 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 10 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………… 12 Workplace Incivility ……………………………………………………………….….. 13 Knowledge Sharing …………………………………………………………………… 18 Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses of the Research …………………………… 23 Collaborative Climate: Situational variable …………………………………………... 25 Personality Traits: Individual variables ………………………………………………. 30 Hypothesized Model ………………………………………………………………….. 33 Employee Segregation in Korean Companies .……………………………………….. 34 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 36 CHAPTER III: METHOD ……………………………………………………………... 38 Research Methodology ……………………………………………………………….. 38 Data Collection Procedure ……………………………………………………………. 38

vii

Sample Demographics ………………………………………………………………... 39 Measurement Instrument ……………………………………………………………... 41 Workplace Incivility ………………………………………………………………… 41 Intention to Share Knowledge ………………………………………………………. 42 Collaborative Climate …………………………………………………………..…… 43 Personality ……………………………………………………….………………….. 44 Translation Procedure ………………………………………………………………… 47 IRB Approval ……………………………………………………………………….… 48 Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………………. 49 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 50 CHAPTER IV: RESULTS …………………………………………………………….. 51 Measurement Model Assessment …………………………………………………….. 52 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations ………………………………… 53 Hierarchical Multiple Regressions Analysis ……………………………………….…. 54 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ……………………………………………………… 57 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 59 CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS ……….………………………… 60 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………….. 60 Workplace Incivility …………………………………………………………………. 61 Collaborative Climate and Individual Personality …………………………………... 62 Moderating Effect of Individual Personality- Conscientiousness …………………… 63 Workplace Incivility in Korean Companies …………………………………………. 65 Limitations ……………………………………………………………………………. 66 Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 67 CHAPTER VI: IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS …………………………… 69

viii

Implications …………………………………………………………………………... 69 Academic Implications ……………………………………………………………… 69 Practical Implications ……………………………………………………………….. 70 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………... 73 REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………….…….. 76 APPENDIX ………………………………………………………………….………… 90 APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………….………... 90 APPENDIX B ……………………………………………………………..………….. 94 APPENDIX C ………………………………………………………………..……… 104

ix

List of Tables Table 1. Demographic Information …………………………………………………… 40 Table 2. Survey Questions used to answer the Research Questions ………………….. 45 Table 3. Evaluation of the Measurement Model ……………………………………… 52 Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Subscale Zero-order Inter Correlations ...…………………………………………………………………. 53 Table 5. Hierarchical multiple regression results for intention to share knowledge ….. 55 Table 6. Post-Hoc Test Results for Employee Type and Company Size ……………... 58

x

List of Figures Figure 1. Research Model …………………………………………………………….. 33 Figure 2. Moderating Effect of Conscientiousness on the relationship between the Experience of Workplace incivility and Intention to Share Knowledge …… 64

1

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Research problem Increasing numbers of researchers are paying attention to the causes and consequences of workplace incivility, with Baron and Neuman’s (1998) work serving as a classic study. These researchers found that most violence in the workplace does not take the form of direct and physical assault, but rather operates on a subtle and indirect or direct level of action. Defined as low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intentions to harm the target, workplace incivility is characteristically rude discourse, oftentimes displaying a lack of regard for others in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Due to both the current interest and the practical limitations of conducting field research in the area of management, the majority of works related to workplace incivility are theoretical. According to Andersson and Pearson (1999), social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides a theoretical framework for studying workplace incivility, which is seen as escalating and reciprocal in nature, namely a “tit-for-tat” pattern. Following the work of Andersson and Pearson (1999), other researchers such as Pearson, Andersson, and Porath (2000), Johnson and Indvik (2001), Lim and Cortina (2005), and Pearson and Porath (2005) tried to provide a theoretical framework in order to identify the antecedents and consequences of workplace incivility. Their works are significant in terms of reporting its seriousness to the public and capturing researchers’ attention to investigate the issue further. However, there are very few empirical studies

2

that report how workplace incivility distorts organizational dynamics and functions. Consequently, very few practitioners have realized the critical need to manage workplace incivility and to design and implement active prevention efforts in the workplace. Therefore, there is an urgent need to conduct an empirical research study on the effects of workplace incivility on organizational functioning, which is critical to organizational survival. This study investigates the relationship between workplace incivility and knowledge sharing, in order to show how workplace incivility affects critical organizational functions. This study focuses on knowledge sharing: as a source of competitive advantage, knowledge sharing is a critical element for an organization’s survival. In contrast to workplace incivility, knowledge sharing has received a great deal of attention. Comparing the quantity of studies focusing on the facilitators of knowledge sharing, however, there are few studies that attempt to determine the barriers to knowledge sharing in the workplace (Riege, 2005). Most previous studies in knowledge sharing automatically assume a positive and friendly workplace that produces trust and intimacy, which are important in facilitating knowledge sharing between members; however, trust and intimacy are not normally given without any effort (Guzman, 2008). Therefore, it is important to determine the barriers to knowledge sharing and to prevent them from developing in organizations so that more active knowledge sharing can take place. In this study, workplace incivility is studied as one of the possible barriers that prevents active knowledge sharing among members by destroying optimal social relationships among employees and by reducing trust and intimacy.

3

Additionally, this study considers the effects of individual and situational variables on the consequences of workplace incivility, based on the implications and results of workplace aggression studies. Since workplace incivility is held to be a subset of workplace aggression (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), the results and implications of previous research on workplace aggression should also be applicable to this research model, including workplace incivility. Previously, Armour (1998) and Grimsley (1998) investigated the effects of situational factors, such as rigid rules and oppressive working conditions on workplace aggression and found significant effects of situational factors. Additionally, Lee, Ashton, and Shin (2005), Silverstein (1994) and Stuart (1992) explored individual factors, such as personal characteristics in the study of workplace aggression and found that specific personality characteristics are related to an individual’s antisocial behaviors. More recently, the combined contribution of individual and situational variables on workplace aggressive behaviors has been investigated, with the result being that various forms of aggression often result from an interaction between individual and situational factors (Aquino, Grover, Bradfield, & Allen 1999; Martinko & Zellars,1998; Neuman & Baron, 1998). Thus, it is reasonable to consider individual and situational factors together in this study in order to obtain a clearer picture of the relationship between workplace incivility and knowledge sharing.

Research purpose and research question

4

Thus, on the basis of the previous research studies on workplace aggression and the potential roles of situational variables (Armour, 1998; Grimsley, 1998), individual variables (Silverstein, 1994; Stuart, 1992) and the integrated combination of situational and individual variables (Martinko & Zellar, 1998; Neuman & Baron, 1998), the predictive power of workplace incivility and knowledge sharing models can increase by considering individual, situational and integrated variables. The purpose of the present study is: first, to explore the relationship between workplace incivility and knowledge sharing and; second, to explore individual and situational differences found to be related to the rise of workplace aggression. The major research question addressed in this study is as follows: What is the relationship between workplace incivility and knowledge sharing? Considering the main purpose of this study, three main research questions and seven sub-questions are identified. Hypothesis 1: There will be a negative relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Hypothesis 2: A collaborative climate moderates the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge, such that the experience of workplace incivility will have a weaker negative relationship with the intention to share knowledge for individuals who are in a collaborative climate. Hypothesis3a: A conscientious individual personality trait moderates the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge, such

5

that the experience of workplace incivility will have a weaker negative relationship with the intention to share knowledge for individuals who are conscientious. Hypothesis3a: An agreeable individual personality trait moderates the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge, such that the experience of workplace incivility will have a weaker negative relationship with the intention to share knowledge for individuals who are agreeable. Hypothesis3a: An emotionally stable individual personality trait moderates the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge, such that the experience of workplace incivility will have a weaker negative relationship with the intention to share knowledge for individuals who are emotionally stable. Qualifications of the Researcher The researcher is a Ph.D. candidate in the Work and Human Resource Education program at the University of Minnesota. This individual has met all of the requirements of the research credentials for the doctoral program. Additionally, as a Korean national, I have familiarity with the country; its culture and business culture.

Significance of Study

6

This study provides several contributions to the practical and academic field of HRD. Firstly, as the first study of workplace incivility conducted in Korea, the results of this study reveal the current situation of incivility in the Korean workplace. Previous studies on workplace incivility were conducted mainly in Scandinavian countries and North America, so that nothing about workplace incivility has been found in an Asian context. The results of this study are expected to introduce the concept of workplace incivility to Korean HRD practitioners and researchers and to inform them of the need to actively manage it. Additionally, the results can inform researchers of the differences due to national culture. Second, this research can produce rich information about knowledge sharing by revealing its potential barriers, as well as the effects of organizational climate and individual personality. Since few studies have tried to determine the relationship between organizational climate or individual personality and knowledge sharing intentions or behaviors, the results of this study will contribute to previous findings. Additionally, the results will provide a more thorough understanding to researchers of workplace incivility by showing them the relationship between workplace incivility and knowledge sharing. Previously, no study has been conducted to show the relationship between these two variables. Since there has been no study showing the ill effect of workplace incivility on any forms of organizational dynamics, the severity of this issue has been undervalued. Thus, the results of this study are expected to attract the attention of researchers and practitioners alike.

7

Finally, by using the Uncivil Workplace Behavior Questionnaire (UWBQ) developed by Martin and Hine (2005) and the Collaborative Climate Scale (CCS) developed by Sveiby and Simons (2002), this study will contribute to providing validity and reliability to these instruments. Furthermore, the results of this study are expected to contribute to future studies involving workplace incivility using the UWBQ and knowledge sharing using the CCS. Definitions of Terms Definitions of key words related to the present study are as follows. Workplace Incivility Workplace incivility refers to low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard toward others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). It is distinguished from other various forms of deviant behaviors such as workplace violence, workplace aggression, workplace bullying, and workplace harassment. Workplace incivility includes verbal abuse and nonverbal behaviors such as glaring, ignoring, or excluding colleagues (Lim, Cortina, & Magely, 2008).

Knowledge Sharing

8

Knowledge sharing is defined as the degree to which one actually shares one’s knowledge with others across an organization. It refers to the provision of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure (Hansen, 1999) through both verbal and nonverbal communication. It is a voluntary action, distinguished from reporting (Davenport, 1997). Collaborative Climate Collaborative climate refers to mutually shared elements of an organization’s culture that influence the behaviors and willingness to share knowledge (Sveiby & Simons, 2002). The degree of collaboration in organizations is measured by how collaboration and trust are incorporated into the climate of a business unit, an immediate supervisor and coworkers in a workgroup. Individual Personality Individual personality can be defined as the intrinsic organization located within an individual’s mental world and is not imposed by the environment. Personality is stable over time so that some specific attributes of individuals remain consistent throughout their lives and are present from one situation to another (Piedmont, 1998). In this study, emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness are selected as moderating variables.

Emotional Stability

9

Emotional stability assesses affective adjustment versus emotional instability. Individuals who score high in this domain are prone to experience psychological distress, unrealistic ideas, excessive cravings or urges, and maladaptive coping responses. The six facets for this domain include anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability (McCrae & Costa, 1992). Agreeableness Agreeableness examines the attitudes an individual holds toward other people. Agreeable people are very pro-person, compassionate, trusting, forgiving, and soft- hearted toward other people. The facets for this domain include trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness (Piedmont, 1998). Conscientiousness Conscientiousness assesses the individual’s degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-directed behavior. It also represents the amount of personal control and the ability to delay gratification of needs. Competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation are included facets in this domain (Piedmont, 1998). Overview of Methodology The main purpose of this study is to find the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Additionally, it aims to find moderating effects of collaborative climate and individual personality, emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, on this relationship. After a rigorous literature review, ten hypotheses were developed.

10

To explore the relationships, this study was designed as a non-experimental survey. The survey was distributed to Korean employees and was then collected and analyzed. The reliability and validity were tested, and hierarchical multiple regressions were ran to test the hypotheses. Additionally, an ANOVA was run to analyze the data in depth. Organization of the Study This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provides an explanation of the research problem, purpose and question, and definition of key terms. Chapter Two reviews the literature related to the topics of workplace incivility, knowledge sharing, collaborative climate and individual personality. In this chapter, the research hypotheses will be provided. Chapter Three provides a detailed description of the research method. Chapter Four presents the statistical results of the survey and findings from the data analysis. Chapter Five discusses the findings from each research question, conclusions drawn from the findings, implications for the field of Human Resource Development, and recommendations for future research. Summary After Baron and Newman’s (1998) groundbreaking work, which found that most violence in the workplace is, in fact, not in the form of direct and physical assault, but rather subtle and indirect action, the concept of workplace incivility was introduced to define these subtle violent behaviors in the workplace. Some previous researchers have

11

focused on workplace incivility and have conducted empirical studies to identify its antecedents and consequences. Yet, very few attempts have been made, in spite of its potential ill effects on organizational functions. Thus, this study aims to find out how the experience of workplace incivility affects critical organizational functions, such as the intention to share knowledge. In addition, this study considers the effects of individual personality traits and collaborative climate on the consequences of workplace incivility, based on the implications and results of studies on workplace aggression. This study is expected to make foundational contributions to research devoted to workplace incivility and knowledge sharing.

12

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter consists of a literature review from four aspects: workplace incivility, knowledge sharing, collaborative climate, and individual personality traits. First, the background of the rise of workplace incivility and an identification of how workplace incivility differs from other deviant behaviors in the workplace will be reviewed. Its consequences, along with previous research studies on workplace incivility, will be reviewed. Second, the importance of knowledge and knowledge sharing will be reviewed, as well as research surrounding knowledge sharing, per se. Third, a comparison between organizational culture and climate will be made. This review will include posing theories of collaborative climate as being a moderating predictor of the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Fourth, a review of individual personality traits will be presented. Three main individual personality traits—emotional stability, agreeableness, and conscientiousness—will be reviewed separately, along with assumptions of the moderating roles of individual personality traits on the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Finally, a summary of this chapter will be provided.

Workplace Incivility

13

Workplace incivility is a newly introduced concept of antisocial behavior in various disciplines, such as management, nursing, and education. Characterized as disrespect, thoughtlessness, or rudeness, workplace incivility can is defined as follows: Workplace incivility is low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard of others (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). According to this definition, workplace incivility is lower in intensity than other various forms of deviant behaviors, such as workplace violence (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Jackson, Clare, & Mannix, 2002; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002), workplace aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Glomb, 2002), workplace bullying (Liefooghe & Davey, 2001), tyranny (Ashforth, 1994), and workplace harassment (Spry, 1998; Rospenda, 2002). Despite the low intensity of incivility, it does have an important impact. Incivility is not limited to verbal abuse; indeed, it can also be nonverbal. Disrespectful nonverbal behaviors include glaring, ignoring, or excluding colleagues (Lim, Cortina, & Magley, 2008). Not turning off mobile phones during meetings, leaving a jammed printer, gossiping, and snapping at coworkers are suggested as examples of uncivil behaviors in organizations (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). While workplace incivility represents low intensity behavior, it should not be considered as harmless or trivial. No matter how low the intensity, workplace incivility can take on a wide variety of nuanced behaviors and can possibly cause discomfort and anxiety for those targeted (Vickers, 2006). Because of its low intensity, it is hard to notice and easy to ignore; however, disregarding these

14

tendencies allows incivility in the workplace to exacerbate into more severe types of workplace mistreatment. In modern society with more complexity and more frequent interaction, the demand for civility increases the need for better communication and cooperation. However, due to prevailing thoughtlessness and rudeness, the informality of society is reflected in the workplace; consequently, acknowledged civility in the workplace is decreasing (Anderrson & Pearson, 1999). Scholars in management have tried to find factors affecting the spread of incivility. The revealed factors can be categorized into two areas: social and organizational changes. Gonthier and Morrissey (2002) suggests various sociological changes that cause rudeness in society. The term “affluenza” was first selected as one of the reasons causing rudeness in society. Affluenza can be characterized as addiction to consumption or a need to make more and more money. Under affluenza, one’s worth is intrinsically tied to one’s income, and success is almost always equated with money. This trend creates an attitude of “whatever I want, I will get.” The reckless mentality derived from affluenza leads to incivility. Giovinella also points to the chaotic era of the 1960s as a reason for prevailing incivility. During the turbulent 1960s, society metaphorically “threw out the baby with the bath water.” Younger generations lost respect for tradition and were disappointed with a government caught up in lies. When these young generations became parents and raised their children while still angry about society, rudeness became more serious. The next generation grew up without learning about manners, formal rules of etiquette and civility. Additionally, they suggest diversity as a source of incivility. Changing roles of

15

minorities and women and an increasing rate of immigration affected people who were angry about losing their prestige or standing that they once had. Some in the feminist movement during the 1970s rejected all kinds of manners as signs of weakness, and this also contributed to incivility. A growing population with a decline in family life and community also accelerated the spread of uncivil behavior. Thus, social factors causing incivility should be considered as important as organizational factors causing incivility because changes in norms outside of the workplace seep into offices and factories (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000). Other researchers, such as Baron and Neuman (1996) and Johnson and Indvik (2001) assert that organizational change has caused workplace incivility. Baron and Neuman (1996) suggest that recent organizational changes, such as downsizing or increased workplace diversity, are accelerating the spread of incivility. Johnson and Indvik (2001) conducted very rigorous research to find out the causes of incivility in the workplace. Various causes such as anger, stress, lack of communication, increased workloads, job insecurity, organizational changes, and poor work organization were suggested in their study. These are also found in the work of Pearson, Andersson and Porath (2000). The participants of their study reported that improved technologies, such as voice mail, e-mail, and teleconferencing, facilitated the complexity and fragmentation of workplace relationships. Participants added that due to overwhelming workloads, there was no time to be nice to coworkers, colleagues, and subordinates. Re-engineering, downsizing, budget cuts, and pressure for productivity all force employees to work more with less money and fewer resources. Additionally, increased part-time and temporary

16

employees are viewed as a potential cause for the increase in uncivil workplace behaviors. In their study, participants reported that the increased use of part-time and temporary workers creates weaker connections to the organization and facilitates workplace rudeness and discourtesy. More importantly, changes in organizational structure are pointed in their study. Flattened organizational structures, aiming at faster decision- making and efficient communication, have led organizations to become excessively casual. Consequently, what constitutes proper business behavior has disappeared, and the overly casual atmosphere fosters disrespect and discourtesy among employees. Since these organizational changes are happening in organizations very commonly, it is expected that more and more organizations will notice various degrees of incivility. Prevailing incivility first destroys meaningful interactions among people, which can create organizational disasters. Coworkers slowly, but surely do not feel the need for cooperation or cohesiveness. Disrespect, distrust and dissatisfaction will prevail in the organizational culture, and workers will become accustomed to very unfriendly and unforgiving organizational cultures. Good people who cannot adjust to the aggressive culture will leave the organization, and those remaining will be unhappy and unsatisfied (Johnson & Indvik, 2001). For business, this culture or condition is harmful and destructive (Hallowell, 1999). Thus, while workplace incivility tends to be characterized as a less intense form of harm, the outcomes for organizations and individuals can be very serious. For organizations, incivility can contaminate organizational culture by creating an unfriendly, rude, paranoid, cliquish and stressful work climate (Vickers, 2006). In

17

Pearson’s (1999) study, 53 percent of the participants reported that they had lost work time worrying about particular incident and future interactions, 12 percent actually changed jobs to avoid instigators, and 37 percent of employees reported declining organizational commitment. Increased absenteeism, reduced commitment, and decreased productivity were also found as results of incivility (Pearson, Anderrson, & Porath, 2000). For individuals, the consequences of incivility vary from the psychological to the physical. It is suggested by Vickers (2006) that incivility can reinforce feelings of isolation and alienation while reducing cooperation and mutual understanding. Cortina (2001) found a correlation between incivility and poor health in the workplace. Victims of incivility experience feelings of hurt, anxiety, depression, nervousness, sadness, moodiness, and worrying; also, increased colds and flu were reported. Cortina’s results are very important because she demonstrates the effect of personal wellbeing on performance and profit. This shows that the effect of incivility does not remain on the individual level, but diminishes the effectiveness of the entire organization.

Knowledge Sharing Although this study focuses on knowledge sharing, it cannot be explored without seeing the multidimensional aspects of knowledge because of the complexity of knowledge. Thus, the literature review starts with the importance of knowledge and its

18

definition. Two types of knowledge and knowledge management are also introduced as the groundwork for the discussion concerning knowledge sharing. It is difficult to define what knowledge is. Basically, unlike technology, knowledge is a competitive asset in organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Due to its self-canceling advantage of technology, once it becomes a source of competitive advantage, the technology soon disappears. Knowledge itself remains and is sustained after it becomes a source of advantage; furthermore, knowledge increase its volume in organizations via sharing because new ideas and knowledge created are based on previous knowledge. Thus, knowledge is a source of competitive advantage because the use and transfer of knowledge is not consumed or lost; rather, it is used to create new knowledge (Dalkir, 2007). With the spread of perception of “knowledge as a source of competitive advantage,” the term knowledge started to be used indiscriminately. However, due to misunderstandings toward knowledge, in many cases when knowledge is mentioned, not only does it refer to pure knowledge, but also data or information. Both data and information are also important in current business, but the values inherent in them are not compatible to those of knowledge. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), data are a set of discrete, objective facts about events, usually described as structured records of transaction. In business, data concerning unemployment, productivity, currency, and stock are updated every second and are used frequently when organizations make decisions. Data help make decisions, but data are only part of the decision; thus, data cannot have their own permanent meaning or value because data change too fast.

Full document contains 116 pages
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Additionally, this study explores the moderating effect of collaborative climate and individual personality traits on the relationship between them. The data were obtained from twenty-two Korean companies. The survey consisted of five sections used to measure the experience of workplace incivility, the intention to share knowledge, collaborative climate, individual personality, and demographics. In total, 494 surveys were returned out of 600, and 476 were cleaned for data analysis (79.3%). Reliability tests, correlations, hierarchical multiple regressions and ANOVAs were employed to investigate the research hypotheses. The results of this study showed a negative relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. Additionally, this study showed the moderating effect of an individual personality trait, conscientiousness, on the relationship between the experience of workplace incivility and the intention to share knowledge. More specifically, conscientious people are more likely to share knowledge, in spite of the experience of workplace incivility. Implications for future research include further development of workplace incivility measurement tools for Korean settings. Additionally, there are plenty of areas to be explored in order to show the ill effects of workplace incivility, such as leader-member relationships, employee engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. In addition, implications for practitioners include providing orientation and training sessions about the concept of workplace incivility, and developing interventions for workplace incivility to prevent its prevalence in organizations. For victims to report incidents of workplace incivility, the 360-degree feedback system should be considered.