1. The Difference of Being Similar: Competence Similarity and Knowledge Sharing in Workgroups Enno SiemsenUniversity of Illinois Aleda V. RothClemson University Sridhar BalasubramanianUniversity of North Carolina

2. INFORMS 2006 Agenda I.Introduction II.Theory III.Empirical Test IV.Conclusion

3. INFORMS 2006 Specialists vs. Generalists Specialists are -Focused -Experienced -Innovative -Informed Generalists are Flexible- More Motivated- Innovative- Skinner (1978) Argote (1999) For example: Hopp and van Oyen (2004) Hackman and Oldham (1980) Schilling et al. (2003) For example: Schultz et al. (2003)

4. INFORMS 2006 Agile Production Systems Workforce Flexibility (Hopp and van Oyen 2004) Knowledge Transfer and Learning (Roth et al. 1994; Schroeder at al. 2002; Ferdows 2006)

5. INFORMS 2006 Research Question Key Construct: Competence Similarity “The ability of an employee to perform the tasks of a coworker” Research Question: “Does competence similarity enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing within a dyad?”

6. INFORMS 2006 Uniqueness Theory Snyder and Fromkin (1980); Maslow (1962) Performance Feedback Theory Feistinger (1954) Theoretical Model Motivation to Share Competition (-) Competence Similarity (+) Social Interdep. Theory Deutsch (1949)

7. INFORMS 2006 Theoretical Model Motivation to Share Competition Help Linkage (-) (+) Competence Similarity (+) Worksharing Systems Buzacott (2004); Hopp and van Oyen (2004) Job Design Kiggundu (1981) Self Efficacy Gist and Mitchell (1992)

8. INFORMS 2006 Theoretical Model Motivation to Share Competition Help Linkage (-) (+) Workgroup Identification Competence Similarity Outcome Linkage (+) (-) (+) Diversity in Workgroups Northcraft et al. (1995) Social Identity Theory Henessy and West (1999) Uncertainty Reduction Theory Hogg et al. (2005)

9. INFORMS 2006 Theoretical Model Motivation to Share Competition Help Linkage (-) (+) Workgroup Identification Competence Similarity Outcome Linkage (+) (-) (+) Optimal Distinctiveness Theory Brewer and Weber (1994)

10. INFORMS 2006 Data Collection Survey Based Research Knowledge Sharing Incident Auxiliary Network Data Four Different Sites –Design Engineers (Pilot, N=130) –IT Specialists (N=58) –Line Workers (N=101) –Assembly Technicians (N=31)

11. INFORMS 2006 Knowledge Sharing Vertical vs. Horizontal Flow Vertical Knowledge Sharing Workgroup Management Horizontal (within Group) Knowledge Sharing Focus of this Research! Workgroup Horizontal (between Group) Knowledge Sharing

12. INFORMS 2006 Tribal Knowledge Work-related knowledge, mostly generated from the experience of employees engaged in organizational tasks involving their daily work. (adapted from Dixon 2000) "Design ideas for creating a system which would force more project requirement documentation before software engineers could begin programming." "I discovered that if pallets of product were turned a certain way, more product could be put on the railcars." "When building an engine, our day shift has a flow which allows us to get further on building the engine."

13. INFORMS 2006 Empirical Analysis Reliability/Validity Multiple Imputation Tobit Models –Hypothesized Relationships –Direct Effects –Square Terms –Control Variables Company Age, Gender, Education Tenure, Management Responsibility Group Leadership, Group Pay Total Compensation, Paid per Hour Robustness Tests

14. INFORMS 2006 Empirical Results * Indicates significance at.1 level ** Indicates significance at.05 level *** Indicates significance at.01 level Motivation to Share Competition Help Linkage -.26***.44*** Workgroup Identification Competence Similarity Outcome Linkage.03.13* -.19/ -.20** -.08 -.58***.57***

15. INFORMS 2006 Empirical Results (for low-friendship relationships) * Indicates significance at.1 level ** Indicates significance at.05 level *** Indicates significance at.01 level Motivation to Share Competition Help Linkage -.26***.44*** Workgroup Identification Competence Similarity Outcome Linkage.03.12* -.21* -.20* -.34** -.50***.57*** Warning Exploratory Results

16. INFORMS 2006 Empirical Results

17. INFORMS 2006 Conclusion Competence similarity generally seems to have a positive impact on cooperative behaviors like knowledge sharing. Only for low levels of friendship, competence similarity may trigger a need for uniqueness and performance comparisons that lead to competition.