Wiley Journal of Organizational Behavior: This Content Downloaded From 41.13.228.54 On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:01:27 UTC

Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological
interactions
Author(s): TIMOTHY D. GOLDEN and SUMITA RAGHURAM
Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 8 (NOVEMBER 2010), pp. 1061-1085
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41683964
Accessed: 09-07-2016 11:01 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41683964?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational
Behavior
This content downloaded from 41.13.228.54 on Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:01:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
Published online 2 September 2009 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.652
Teleworker knowledge sharing and the

role of altered relational and technological
interactions^
TIMOTHY D. GOLDEN1* AND SUMITA RAGHURAM2

lLally School of Management & Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, U.S.A.
2Labor Studies & Employment Relations, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Summary Given the growing importance and complexities of telework and the challenges associated with
knowledge sharing, in this study we investigate teleworkers and their propensity to share
knowledge. We do so by investigating if the relational qualities of teleworkers in the form of
trust, interpersonal bond, and commitment, act to impact teleworker knowledge sharing. We also
investigate how telework' s altered spatial and technical interactions shape knowledge sharing, by
testing the contingent role of technology support, face-to-face interactions, and electronic tool
use. Results using matched data from 226 teleworkers support the role of teleworker trust,
interpersonal bond, and commitment in predicting knowledge sharing. Moreover, the impact of
trust on knowledge sharing is found to be moderated by technology support, face-to-face
interactions, and use of electronic tools, whereas the impact of commitment is contingent upon
the use of electronic tools. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Fostering knowledge sharing among individuals within an organization has become a key concern for
managers. Indeed, the necessity for professionals today to locate and exchange knowledge with others
in the organization has become ubiquitous for individuals and organizations seeking to solve complex
problems and remain competitive (Hansen, Mors, & Lovas, 2005; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Individuals often confront challenging situations in their work and seek to exchange knowledge with
those in their work unit, since pertinent knowledge often resides within individuals and is heavily
context dependent (Nonaka, 1994). While research has begun to address knowledge sharing between
organizations and across organizational departments (e.g., Hansen et al., 2005; Reagans & McEvily,
2003), we know relatively little about the role of relational factors between individuals in a work unit
which increase the likelihood that knowledge will be shared (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Kim, 1993).
Knowledge sharing requires not only interacting with others to recognize what is available and where it
* Correspondence to: Timothy D. Golden, Lally School of Management & Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1 10 8th
Street, Troy, NY 12180-3590, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]
timothy D. Golden and Sumita Raghuram contributed equally to this work.
Received 5 August 2008

Revised 19 June 2009
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 29 June 2009
1062 T. D. GOLDEN AND S. RAGHURAM
resides, but also a willingness to jointly exchange the knowledge and bring it to bear to solve work
problems (Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001; Kim & Mauborgne, 1997; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
While knowledge sharing is difficult enough within traditional offices, it is particularly challenging
for those who telework away from others (Raghuram, 1996). Telework as a form of virtual work
involves using computer technology to work from home or another location away from the traditional
office for a portion of the workweek (Bailey & Kurland, 2002). Telework is rapidly increasing in
popularity, comprising over 15% of the U.S. workforce (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002) and growing by
upwards of 30% per year in the U.S. and around the world (Mamaghani, 2006; Office of National
Statistics, 2005; WorldatWork, 2007). These upward trajectories seem likely to continue, considering
volatile fuel prices (MSNBC, 2008; New York Times, 2008), growing pressures to reduce work-family
conflict (Golden, Veiga, & Simsek, 2006; Raghuram & Wiesenfeld, 2004), and continued corporate
initiatives to save real-estate costs (Roitz & Jackson, 2006). Despite telework's rapid growth, as well as
research addressing how it alters important work outcomes (Golden & Veiga, 2005; Kossek, Lautsch, &
Eaton, 2006; Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, Garud, & Gupta, 2001), any effect telework might have on
knowledge sharing is surprisingly underexplored (Belanger & Allport, 2008; Siha & Monroe, 2006).
Telework's inherent separation from others and increased reliance upon technology to interact may
influence how relationships are carried out (Golden, 2006b), with important consequences for
knowledge sharing. Given the relational nature of knowledge sharing, in combination with research
suggesting individuals working in virtual environments find it difficult to maintain relationships and the
shared interpretations needed to interact effectively together (Baba, Gluesing, Ratner, & Wagner, 2004;
Cramton, 2001; Golden, 2006b; Sole & Edmondson, 2002), understanding knowledge in the virtual
work context takes on added importance.
Our goal, therefore, is to shed insights into knowledge sharing among individuals engaged in
telework. More specifically, we first investigate the central role that relational qualities play in
determining a teleworker's propensity for knowledge sharing, by considering the impact that trust,
interpersonal bond, and commitment have on knowledge sharing. Previous research has examined
other antecedents of knowledge sharing for traditional workers, such as monetary incentives (Taylor,
2006) and inter-organizational relationships (Malhotra, Gosain & Sawy, 2005), in addition to
individual relational qualities (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cross et al., 2001; Thompson & Heron, 2006).
However the role of relational qualities for teleworker knowledge sharing is especially important
considering their geographic separation from others, and yet has received little attention from scholars
(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Usoro, Sharratt, Tsui, & Shekhar, 2007). We hope to contribute to this
growing literature, while also expanding the research lens by taking into account the altered spatial and
technological interactions inherent in telework. We do this by investigating how technology support,
face-to-face interactions, and electronic tool use, influence the impact of teleworker relational qualities
on knowledge sharing. Drawing upon insights from the literatures on telework and knowledge sharing,
we propose relational qualities foster a greater propensity to share knowledge, but that the teleworker's
altered ability to interact shapes and constrains knowledge sharing.
Theory and Hypotheses
Individual knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing entails conditions that promote the giving and receiving of "know-how" and other
insights, and a willingness to exchange wisdom and acquired experiences with others in the work unit
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
TELEWORKER KNOWLEDGE SHARING 1063
(Polyani, 1962). Through the interpretation of information and data, knowledge is acquired and
disseminated (Usoro et al., 2007) during exchanges in which mutual understandings are explored and
reflected upon (Argyris & Schon, 1978). These exchanges take place with or without the use of
technology. Encompassing both sharing and seeking, the propensity for knowledge sharing by an
individual includes not only the availability of knowledge and discourse to recognize who has
particular knowledge that might be useful (Ipe, 2003), but an engagement in the process and the
motivation to develop mutual understandings grounded in shared interpretive contexts (Weick &
Roberts, 1993; Usoro et al., 2007). As defined by Davenport and Prusak (1998), knowledge is "a fluid
mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provide a
framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is
applied in the minds of knowers" (p. 5). To engage in knowledge sharing then implies that the
opportunity for a shared interpretive context exists between individuals, so that meaningful exchanges
can occur.
While knowledge exists at multiple levels within organizations, we focus here on the individual
teleworker, since knowledge is "anchored on the commitment and beliefs of its holder" (Nonaka,
1994, p. 15). Moreover, increasingly there is a recognition that knowledge sharing is dependent upon
the connections between individuals within the organization (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Earl, 2001; Ipe,
2003). Although notions of knowledge sharing have been addressed at the team and organizational
levels under various terminologies such as team mental models (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994),
expertise coordination (Faraj & Sproull, 2000), and shared cognition (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001),
knowledge sharing at its essence is an individual activity. Owing to mounting empirical evidence
pointing to this critical role that individuals play in knowledge sharing (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000;
Hansen et al., 2005; Ipe, 2003), the individual's willingness and ability to share knowledge is at the
heart of subsequent group and organizational knowledge sharing activities (DeLong & Fahey, 2000;
Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Lewis, 2003).
Knowledge sharing by individuals is a often made more difficult since it is highly discretionary,
especially considering its tacit aspects. Classically defined in terms of either tacit or explicit knowledge
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polyani, 1962), explicit knowledge can be codified
into documents, web-accessible databases, and the like, while tacit knowledge in contrast is not easily
captured. Tacit knowledge involves implied understandings, acquired wisdom and experience, and
judgment about the use and value of information, which during exchanges with others occurs willingly
(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lin, 2006; Nonaka, 1994). Whereas explicit knowledge can reside and be
easily downloaded off of corporate intranets, the sharing of tacit knowledge is highly relational and
"sticky," due to the social and cognitive constraints that require both an understanding of the context
and the individuals involved. While knowledge sharing involves both tacit and explicit knowledge, we
place greater emphasis here on tacit knowledge, whereas it is highly dependent upon the individual and
is particularly susceptible to the pitfalls of the separation from others found in telework (Krauss &
Fussell, 1990; Raghuram, 1996). If knowledge sharing is to occur, conditions must then facilitate
relational exchanges in which individuals willingly disclose their acquired insights and wisdom to
others.
In addition to the discretionary aspect of knowledge sharing, an important but often overlooked
characteristic involves its informal and impromptu nature. Knowledge is often shared between
individuals through the telling of stories or other personal experiences, which provide vivid
descriptions of prior observations, behaviors, and corresponding consequences (Nonaka, 1994). Rather
than being planned or programmatic, these stories are instead generally relayed to others on an
impromptu basis, whereby individuals feel comfortable spontaneously disclosing personal experiences
(Cross et al., 2001). With the rich recalling of prior events, context, or courses of action, individuals are
able to share and "indwell" nuanced understandings and other knowledge that is otherwise simply not
DOI: 10.1002/job
possible (Nonaka, 1994; Polyani, 1962). Moreover, through such informal and impromptu encounters,
participants in the exchange acquire not only insights about the topic at hand, but also knowledge about
other topics they may have an interest in exploring in the future in order to uncover sought-after
expertise or judgment.
Complexity of teleworker knowledge sharing
Teleworkers encounter an array of factors in their work environment that complicate knowledge
sharing activities, which alter the ability and willingness to engage in knowledge sharing exchanges.
While rooted in the literature on knowledge sharing for individuals in traditional work contexts (e.g.,
Brown & Duguid, 1991; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Nonaka, 1994; Thompson & Heron, 2006), the
literature on telework and virtual work suggests substantial complexities that fall into two main areas.
First, due to their separation from the office, teleworkers are apt to lack a shared interpretive context
through which to fully understand interactions with others (Cramton, 2001; Golden, Veiga, & Dino,
2008; Usoro et. al., 2007). This hinders the ability to easily appraise communication and behaviors
(Perez, Sanchez, & Carnicer, 2003), and adds complications to the ability to fully comprehend and
harness the know-how embodied within others (Siha & Monroe, 2006). Whereas in traditional offices
individuals who are collocated are comparatively able to observe colleagues and their behaviors,
identify salient information and cues, and comprehend the meaning of information and actions,
teleworkers in contrast are not afforded such opportunities (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Kraut, Fussell,
Brennan, & Seigel, 2002; Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003). By working in different contexts
separated by geographic location, mutual understandings are difficult to develop (Fussell & Krauss,
1992), problem solving becomes cumbersome (Kraut et al., 2002), and misattributions regarding the
behavior of others becomes more commonplace (Hinds & Bailey, 2003; Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).
Teleworkers are therefore especially challenged when attempting to co-orient to a particular
perspective or approach taken by others (Schober, 1998), and experience difficulty fully understanding
the context of statements and events so as to derive appropriate meanings (Golden, 2006b). Research
suggests teleworkers feel "cut off" and isolated from others (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden et al.,
2008; Raghuram et al., 2001), and generally tend to lack awareness of what others in their work unit are
doing (Allen & Renn, 2003). Moreover, studies suggest that even when individuals working in
distributed settings are aware of the importance of conveying context so as to aid interpretation and
knowledge sharing, they often forget or do not adequately communicate relevant aspects (Cramton, 2001).
Second, knowledge sharing in telework must often be accomplished while taking into account the
planning and formality necessary to accommodate interactions with others over geographical distances
(Allen & Renn, 2003; Golden, 2007). This alters the give and take of knowledge sharing and the
inherent informality discussed above, particularly when conveying tacit understandings (Nonaka,
1994). Whereas knowledge sharing often stems from informal and free-flowing cooperative exchanges,
teleworking complicates this process since teleworkers are absent from the office and tend to miss out
on casual conversations in common areas such as hallways and by elevators (Cooper & Kurland, 2002;
Golden, 2006a). The absence of impromptu story-telling and shared experiences that often occur
during such unplanned casual conversations may therefore cast a shadow over the comfortable give and
take of knowledge sharing (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Instead, due to the limited
time in the office and fewer chance encounters, teleworkers rely more heavily on scheduled meetings to
interact with coworkers and managers (Golden, 2007; Greenhill & Wilson, 2006). Teleworkers
therefore lose out on such opportunities and the insights they provide. Since knowledge sharing occurs
by being closely intertwined through heedful interrelating (Dunbar & Garud, 2009; Weick & Roberts,
1993), the formality and structure in teleworker interactions is apt to hinder successful sharing.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz . Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Taken together, telework imbues layers of complexity to the intricate give and take required for
knowledge sharing, which literature to date has not addressed conceptually or empirically. Through the
lack of a shared interpretive context, as well as increased scheduling and formality during interactions
with others, telework presents a challenging environment within which organizational members share
and seek knowledge.
Linking teleworker relational qualities with knowledge sharing
Given the central role of relationships in knowledge sharing, and research in varying fields suggesting
that relational quality and associated interactions are at the heart of integrating workers who are
geographically dispersed (Espinosa, Slaughter, Kraut, & Herbsleb, 2007; Golden, 2006b; Wiesenfeld,
Raghuram, & Garud, 1999), we turn our attention now to how teleworker relational qualities spur the
propensity for knowledge sharing. Relational qualities such as trust, interpersonal bonding, and
attachment to the organization help in creating conditions such as approachability, mutual empathy,
and the individual motivation to engage in knowledge sharing (Thompson & Heron, 2006). While these
relational qualities are apt to be associated with knowledge sharing for workers in traditional settings as
well as teleworkers (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Cross et al., 2001; Thompson
& Heron, 2006; Usoro et al., 2007), in this study we apply these more traditional indicators of relational
quality to teleworkers. Due to the geographic separation from others, for teleworkers relationship
quality is apt to be especially significant as they strive to solve complex problems and accomplish
cognitively complex tasks from a distance. Without sufficient relational attachment and the motivation
to participate in the exchange, teleworker knowledge sharing is unlikely to occur.
Trust and knowledge sharing

Trust involves "expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that another's future actions
will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to one's interests" (Frost, Stimpson, &
Maughan, 1978). Although various definitions exist, generally "trust is a psychological state comprised
of the intention to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the intentions or the behavior
of another" (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998, p. 395). Trust is not only fundamental to
collaboration (Child, 2001), it also provides the lubricant with which many close interpersonal
interactions occur (Bijlsma-Frankema & Costa, 2005). Evidence suggests trust affects the belief in the
positive motives of others, information openness and close coordination (Currall & Judge, 1995).
As a probable antecedent to teleworker knowledge sharing, interpersonal trust involves a belief in
information received from others and the acceptance of being influenced by them (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002). It also involves a belief that seeking solutions, sharing know-how and paying heed to colleague's
insights will not be taken advantage of, nor will a relative lack of knowledge be ridiculed or criticized
(Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003). For teleworkers, trust is "critical" (Kowalski & Swanson, 2005,
p. 243; Usoro et al., 2007), since less frequent and more formal contact with supervisors and peers
creates uncertainties regarding the intentions of others' behavior (Handy, 1995; Raghuram et al., 2001).
It is less likely teleworkers will seek help or get necessary information if the intentions of others are not
clear, or if the free-flowing exchange of information and ideas is thwarted by low trust (Kowalski &
Swanson, 2005). Whereas high trust is apt to be characterized by openness, honesty, and respect,
knowledge sharing is likely to occur through open and unfiltered communication, as well as willing
coordination and collaboration (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). With low or minimal trust, such
interactions may be filled with greater doubt and treated with suspicion, which may preclude close
coordination and the sharing of cognitive interdependencies characteristic of interactions with greater
DOI: 10.1002/job
knowledge sharing (Faraj & Sproull, 2000). Thus, teleworkers with higher interpersonal trust will have
a greater propensity for knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 1 : Trust will be positively related to knowledge sharing.
Interpersonal bond and knowledge sharing

Interpersonal bond or common bond refers to the attachment and cohesion that an individual has with
his or her coworkers, which stems from the extent to which one knows, likes, and feels similar to them
(Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994; Sassenberg, 2002). Interpersonal bonding is an essential aspect of
affective relationships whereby individuals experience affinity and felt responsibility towards others
(Prentice et al., 1994; Sassenberg, 2002). Interpersonal bond is likely to play an important role in
determining knowledge sharing, due not only to the voluntary nature of the give and take needed for
acquired insights (Polyani, 1962), but also the affective ties that play such a vital role (Levin, Whitener,
& Cross, 2006). Affective ties between individuals reflect mutual socioemotional support (Baker,
Cross, & Wooten, 2003), liking and positive regard (Walter & Bruch, 2008), and sensitivity towards
others' needs (Nelson, Klein, & Irvin, 2003), which are apt to encourage knowledge sharing with others
in the work unit (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Without such high levels of interpersonal bonding,
individuals are less likely to share hard-earned experience and acquired wisdom characteristic of
effective knowledge sharing (Cross et al., 2001). For teleworkers in particular interpersonal bond may
be a key ingredient for knowledge sharing, since separation from others makes bonding less salient and
harder to detect due to limited exchanges and lack of a shared context (Cramton, 2002). Because
individuals with high interpersonal bond engage more willingly in reciprocal exchanges (Blau, 2004),
teleworkers with high interpersonal bond will be more willing to provide appropriate help on a timely
basis, and empathize with the need to acquire sought-after know-how (Ren, Kraut, & Kiesler, 2007).
Moreover, the familiarity and shared friendships that characterize high interpersonal bonding include
familiarity with other's expertise and know-how, enabling the accurate expectations of coworker's
willingness to provide needed help on a timely basis (Sassenberg, 2002). Thus, teleworkers with high
interpersonal bond will have a greater propensity for knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 2 : Interpersonal bond will be positively related to knowledge sharing.
Organizational commitment and knowledge sharing

Organizational commitment refers to the strength of an individual's identification with and
involvement in an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1991 ; Steers, 1977). Individuals
with high levels of organizational commitment exhibit a belief in the organization's goals, a willingness
to exert discretionary effort, and a desire to maintain organizational membership. Since coworkers and
others in the organization embody and represent the organization, individuals with high organizational
commitment engage in pro-social behavior intended to achieve positive outcomes for their colleagues
and organization (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Research suggests that those who are committed to the
organization engage in organizational citizenship behaviors and other voluntary interactions intended
to help others and their organization (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovich, &
Topolnytsky, 2002), which are not part of a formal reward system (Organ, 1997). Considering the
highly discretionary nature of knowledge sharing, teleworkers with high levels of organizational
commitment are therefore likely to be associated with more extensive knowledge sharing (Lin, 2008;
McDermott, 1999), as helpful insights and know-how are willingly exchanged in an effort to help
DOI: 10.1002/job
achieve overall organizational goals. Since evidence suggests that individuals attach ownership to their
expertise and insights (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001), teleworkers who wish for positive outcomes for the
organization and others within it will be motivated to share their knowledge, rather than hoarding it or
promoting their self interests (e.g., Thompson & Heron, 2006). Without sufficient commitment to
organizational goals and attention to the needs of others, teleworkers are less apt to expend extra effort
and personal resources to promote the greater good, and knowledge sharing is likely to suffer. Thus,
teleworkers with high organizational commitment will have a greater propensity for knowledge
sharing.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational commitment will be positively related to knowledge sharing.
The moderating role of teleworkers' altered spatial and technological interactions
Telework alters the very nature of organizational member interactions and the manner in which
individuals must carry out work (Cooper & Kurland, 2002; Golden, 2006b; Raghuram et al., 2001).
Although the quality of relationships as indicated by trust, interpersonal bond, and commitment
may impact the willingness to engage in knowledge sharing, the teleworker's ability to do so may
be contingent upon factors associated with their altered spatial and technological interactions. While
there are a number of such factors that reflect teleworker's interactions, based on a review of
the literature we focus here on three prominent ones: the level of technology support, use of face-to-face
interactions, and use of electronic communication tools. These three factors capture the changed spatial
and technological nature of interactions inherent in teleworker knowledge sharing, and which literature
suggests form a crucial portal through which teleworkers are able to engage in knowledge sharing
activities (Cross et al., 2001; Kurland & Cooper, 2002; Sarbaugh-Thompson & Feldman, 1998;
Venkatesh & Speier, 2000). We explore these contingencies in the hypothesized relationships between
our three indicators of relational quality and knowledge sharing.
Technology support
The level of technology support characterizes how available, reliable, and useful individuals view
advanced technologies that permit them to remain connected with others and conduct work activities,
including the level of service and support received from 'helpdesks' and other assistance functions
(Hoffman, 1999; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2006). Indeed, for individuals who are separated
by physical distance, reliable technology has been frequently suggested as a critical factor for success
(Venkatesh & Speier, 2000). Teleworkers with higher levels of technology support are likely to be
better able to coordinate closely with others, resolving ambiguities and conflicts that might occur by
being better able to communicate (Daft & Lengel, 1986), and thereby enhance their ability to interpret
interactions with others (Montoya- Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). Moreover, teleworkers may be able
to do so without the consequent frustration and misunderstandings that occur with unreliable
equipment and delays that typically accompany interactions carried out with low levels of technology
support (Caldwell, 1997). With fewer obstacles to collaboration and a greater ability to easily develop
shared interpretive contexts, greater knowledge sharing is likely to occur as existing levels of relational
trust, interpersonal bond, and commitment, are reinforced and enhanced. Compared to those with low
technology support, teleworkers who have high technology support are therefore likely to engage in
greater knowledge sharing, as they interact with relative ease, fewer frustrations, and generally less
obstacles to collaboration (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005; Kraut et al., 2002). Thus, we propose that the
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J . Organiz. Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
relationship between teleworker relational quality (trust, interpersonal bond, commitment) and
knowledge sharing will be conditional upon the level of technology support.
Hypothesis 4 : Technology support moderates the impacts of trust, interpersonal bond, and
organizational commitment on knowledge sharing, such that the greater the perceived technology
support, the stronger the positive impacts on knowledge sharing.
Face-to-face interactions
Face-to-face interactions enable the broadest set of contextual cues and indicators to be transferred,
such as gestures, tone of voice, and expressions, which facilitate comprehension and the sharing of
ideas (Daft & Lengel, 1986). When individuals have more extensive face-to-face interactions, research
suggests they are better able to develop shared interpretations and more easily bridge periods when they
are away from others (Cramton, 2001, 2002; Montoya- Weiss et al., 2001). Face-to-face interactions
such as lunches, periodic meetings, or hallway conversations reinforce feelings of attachment and
connectedness with others (Burtha & Connaughton, 2004; Kiesler & Cummings, 2002). By helping to
aid the fuller interpretation of exchanges, teleworkers with more extensive face-to-face interactions are
better able to co-orient to a common perspective and assign meaning to ideas (Cramton, 2001, 2002),
bolstering the ability to carry out the appropriate give and take inherent in knowledge sharing. With
greater ease in comprehending the ideas of others and understanding the utility of their know-how,
greater knowledge sharing is likely to occur as existing levels of relational trust, interpersonal bond,
and commitment, are further reinforced and enhanced. In comparison to teleworkers with little or no
face-to-face interactions, teleworkers with extensive face-to-face interactions are apt to be better able
to relate to others, understand important nuances during interactions, and recognize useful information
that aid collaboration and knowledge sharing (Cramton, 2002; Sole & Edmondson, 2002). In situations
with lower levels of trust, interpersonal bond, or commitment, extensive face-to-face interactions may
be especially crucial for achieving high levels of knowledge sharing, since with poor relational qualities
all available informational cues may be necessary for verifying and interpreting interactions with
another individual. Thus, we propose that the relationship between teleworker relational quality (trust,
interpersonal bond, commitment) and knowledge sharing will be conditional upon the extent of face-to-
face interactions.
Hypothesis 5 : Face-to-face interactions moderate the impacts of trust, interpersonal bond, and
organizational commitment on knowledge sharing, such that the more extensive the face-to-face
interactions, the stronger the positive impacts on knowledge sharing.
Electronic tool use

The use of electronic technology to communicate has been frequently suggested as a critical factor for
successfully working from distant locations (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999; Venkatesh & Johnson, 2002;
Wiesenfeld et al., 1999). Although evolving, these tools include email, blended web meeting software,
electronic data bases, and other tools that attempt to facilitate social interactions and information
exchange (Watson-Fritz, Narasimhan, & Rhee, 1998). While minimal use of electronic tools by
teleworkers may introduce more ambiguities and make it difficult to interact effectively for knowledge
sharing, greater use of electronic tools provides enhanced information and cues with which to interpret
behaviors, ideas, and events. Compared to teleworkers with little or no use of electronic technology,
those with extensive technology use are better able to anticipate the needs of others (Belanger, Collins,
DOI: 10.1002/job
& Cheney, 2000), and more fully and easily interpret both overt and subtle messages others may convey
(Hinds & Mortensen, 2005). Rather than operating in blind isolation, those who use technology more
extensively are better able to develop detailed cognitive understandings of others with whom they work
(Venkatesh & Speier, 2000), and to anticipate the weaknesses and strengths of individuals and their
ideas (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005). Whereas those with strong relationships with others may require less
clarification via email or web software in order to effectively engage in knowledge sharing, teleworkers
with weaker quality relationships may derive significant benefit from using electronic tools more
extensively. In this way extensive use of electronic tools decrease ambiguity, provide greater cues for
developing shared interpretive contexts, and strengthen the impact of relational quality. Thus, we
propose that the relationship between teleworker relational quality (trust, interpersonal bond,
commitment) and knowledge sharing will be conditional upon the extent of electronic tool use.
Hypothesis 6: Electronic tool use moderates the impacts of trust, interpersonal bond, and
organizational commitment on knowledge sharing, such that the more extensive the electronic tool
use, the stronger the positive impacts on knowledge sharing.
Methods
Organizational context
Participants in our study worked for a global technology company with revenues exceeding $5 billion
and employing over 25 000 employees. The company provides software and management services for a
variety of uses in the financial, healthcare, retail, and travel industries. The introduction of the voluntary
telework program was viewed by corporate managers as a way to meet employee flexibility desires
while saving office space and overhead expenses. Corporate executives formally endorsed the study,
and encouraged employees to participate. In support of the telework initiative, employees were
provided computer equipment at home to facilitate their work and their communication with other
employees. Equipment training was provided to employees, with technical support and assistance also
provided as needed. Individuals worked in close collaboration in their work units with both peers as
well as supervisors, to service clients as they identified needs, developed software, and provided
support. In these work units individuals were all professional-level employees, and typical of many
software-based companies, all were college educated with at least a bachelor's degree. We were able to
track employees during a 6-month period, and gathered data at the beginning of the period and then
again 6 months later. Interviews suggested telework was perceived positively by employees, who
desired to minimize commutes and avoid the stresses of travel to and from the office each day. During
the course of data collection the environment within the company was stable, with no other major
program initiatives undertaken.
Sample and procedure
With the assistance of the human resources department we gathered self-report survey data from the
teleworkers at two time periods 6 months apart. Measuring the dependent variable at a different time
than the independent variables helped us avoid response bias. Specifically, we measured relationship
DOI: 10.1002/job
qualities at time 1 (i.e., trust, interpersonal bond, and organizational commitment). We measured
knowledge sharing, technology support, face-to-face interactions, and use of electronic tools at time 2.
Participant responses were anonymous and confidential, and were matched via an alphanumeric
employee identification number. Because the questionnaire was hosted on the researchers' university
website, the organization itself did not have access to these employee IDs, nor were the researchers able
to access any identifying information of the respondents (e.g., name, telephone numbers). This enabled
us to match the responses across both times and yet maintain the necessary research protocol. As noted
above, respondents worked in highly collaborative work units with coworkers, customers, and
supervisors in order to deliver work products, and participants were instructed to consider their work
unit when answering survey questions. We received an overall response rate of 37%, resulting in a
matched sample of 226 responses from both time periods. Respondents filled a variety of positions,
including engineering, finance, operations, and sales. Respondents chose to telework an average of
48% of their workweek. Seventy-seven percent of respondents were male, and averaged 35-44 years of
age.
Measures
All measures had a 7-point response scale unless otherwise noted.
Trust
We assessed trust based on the measure developed by Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, and Martin (1997),
focusing on interpersonal trust within a work unit (Dirks, 1999). Since interpersonal trust has been
viewed as a complex and dynamic construct (Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975), our measurement
strategy focused on utilizing an overall measure of trust rather than assessing specific determinants of
trust. The three items measured the extent to which the individual had an overall trusting relationship
with peers, trusting relationship with their supervisor, and the extent to which they perceived their
supervisor trusted them. Items were averaged to form an overall measure (alpha = .83).
Interpersonal bond
We used three items developed by Prentice, Miller, and Lightdale (1994) to assess interpersonal bond.
Respondents reported the extent to which they: (1) felt close to their coworkers; (2) were personal
friends with coworkers; and (3) coworkers influenced their thoughts and behaviors. Items were
averaged to form the overall measure (alpha = .73).
Organizational commitment
We measured affective organizational commitment using three items from the commonly used measure
by Allen and Meyer (1996) and Meyer and Allen (1991). These measured the extent to which
respondents felt proud to be a part of the organization, talked about it as a great workplace, and were
glad to have chosen to work for the organization. Items were averaged to form the overall measure
(alpha = .89).
Knowledge sharing
Given the lack of a previously established measure, based on theory and research we developed a
measure of individual knowledge sharing. As we sought to assess the propensity for knowledge sharing
within the telework context, items were based on an awareness of distributed expertise and resources
(Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Lewis, 2003), ease of coordination across geographic distances (Cross et al.,
2001; Lewis, 2003) and comfort in approaching distributed others for help (Edmondson, 2003; Lewis,
DOI: 10.1002/job
2003). Consistent with accepted practices for measure development and rooted in existing research
addressing knowledge sharing (Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Lewis, 2003), items were included that
encompassed knowledge sharing conditions and behaviors within an individual's work unit. These
items included not only conditions such as knowing where necessary knowledge is embedded (Cannon-
Bowers & Salas, 2001; Lewis, 2003), but also assessed engagement in and a willingness to exchange
knowledge with others in the work unit (Cross et al., 2001 ; Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Usoro et al., 2007). A
list of possible items was generated and subsequently narrowed down based on coherence with the
literature and following consultation with several colleagues. We then further assessed content validity
through a separate sample of respondents (N= 39) who were provided a definition of knowledge
sharing and asked to independently categorize items, as well as to provide the extent to which they had
confidence in each categorization. Confidence ratings ranged from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (totally
confident). The items were categorized on a consistent basis with an average agreement level of 82%
and an average confidence rating of 3.9.
To gain greater confidence in our measure and its properties, we took several additional steps. First,
in addition to item reliability, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the items in our measure, which
revealed a good fit with our data, x2 (5, N = 226) = 31.80, p<. 01, comparative fit index = .94,
incremental fit index = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.84, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation = 0.08, normed fit index = 0.93. Second, we also correlated our measure with others
assessing related constructs, such as the one developed by Faraj and Sproull (2000), and found as
anticipated our measure evidenced a significant positive relationship (r = .79, p < .01).
Additionally, to assess the discriminant validity of our measure, we sought evidence as to the extent
to which our measure differed from measurements of dissimilar constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). We collected additional data from a separate group of respondents
(N=81), in which we asked about the knowledge sharing measure and two comparison constructs,
namely work autonomy (Breaugh, 1985) and tolerance for ambiguity (Norton, 1975). We first
conducted an exploratory factor analysis and found that the three measures loaded on to three distinct
factors (DeVellis, 1991). We then correlated the knowledge sharing measure with the comparison
constructs. Knowledge sharing had low correlations with tolerance with ambiguity (r = -.04, n.s.) and
with work autonomy (r = . 19, n.s.). Taken together, these analyses provided additional evidence for the
appropriateness of our measure.
Our final measure consisted of five items. Respondents were asked to consider their work group
when answering the following questions: (1) In my work group we discuss work-related problems and
solutions; (2) I can easily contact those who can help me when I need them; (3) In my work group, we
share work-related success and failure experiences; (4) I can get solutions to problems from people who
work from other locations; (5) I feel comfortable in seeking help from people in my group. Items were
averaged to form an overall measure (alpha = .83).
Technology support
Based on the approach taken by others in assessing available technology (Prezza, Pacilli, & Dinelli,
2003; Venkatesh & Speier, 2000), we measured technology support using five items assessing the
adequateness of technology applications and equipment support. Respondents indicated the extent to
which they had: (1) the necessary equipment and applications; (2) teleconferencing tools available;
(3) help-desk support; (4) reliable connections; and (5) needed connection speeds to applications. Items
were averaged to form the overall measure (alpha = .83).
Face-to-face interactions
Based on prior research (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004), respondents were asked to indicate
the extent of face-to-face interactions they had with others in their organization. Respondents indicated
DOI: 10.1002/job
the extent to which they had face-to-face meetings with coworkers and with their manager. These two
items were averaged to form the overall measure (alpha = .75).
Electronic tool use

Building upon previous approaches to assessing electronic tool use (Belanger et al., 2000; Grover &
Goslar, 1993; Straub, Limayem, & Karahanna-Evaristo, 1995), respondents indicated how extensively
they used available electronic tools to connect with others and gather information. Respondents
indicated the extent of use of email, web meeting software, and intra-corporate applications. These
items were averaged to form an overall measure (alpha = .74).
Control variables
Based on previous telework research, we controlled for tenure, gender and age of the respondents.
Tenure in the organization was calculated in months; gender was coded as 1 = males and 2 = females.
Age was measured in years on an interval scale whereby 1 = 18-24 years; 2 = 25-34 years; 3 = 35-
44 years; 4 = 45-54 years; 5 = 55+ years.
Confirmatory factor analysis

To examine the distinctiveness of our scales we also conducted a CFA on our measures of knowledge
sharing, trust, interpersonal bond, and organizational commitment. We empirically tested the fit of our
data to this four factor model and examined whether it fit the data better than did competing models
(Kelloway, 1998). As anticipated our four factor model indicated an adequate fit with the data, x2 (71,
N= 226) = 175.1, p < .01, comparative fit index = 0.94, incremental fit index = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis
index = 0.90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.08, normed fit index = 0.90. All items
loaded significantly on their underlying constructs ( p < .001), with factor loadings ranging from 0.62 to
0.98. In contrast, other conceivable models with fewer factors did not exhibit adequate fit statistics. For
instance, a two factor model that included knowledge sharing and combined commitment, trust, and
interpersonal bond into one factor exhibited a poor fit, x2 (76, N= 226) = 608.4, p < .01, comparative
fit index = 0.66, incremental fit index = 0.67, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.53, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation = 0.18, normed fit index = 0.64. A one-factor model exhibited a similarly poor fit, x2
(77, Af= 226) = 882.1, p <.01, comparative fit index = 0.49, incremental fit index = 0.50, Tucker-
Lewis index = 0.30, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.22, normed fit index = 0.48. These
analyses provided further support that our measures are empirically distinguishable.
Results
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics of the variables used in our analysis. The average tenure in our
sample is approximately 12 years and the average age is approximately 35-44 years. Hierarchical
stepwise regression was used to test our hypotheses. To minimize concerns of multicollinearity, we
calculated variance inflation factors during the regressions, and found all values to be below 2.0, which
are well below the cutoff of 10 (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Moreover, all variables were
centered prior to constructing the interaction terms (Cohen et al., 2003). Finally, although our
independent and dependent variables were collected at two different time periods 6 months apart, we
none-the-less sought to reduce concerns over common method bias and conducted a Harmon's single
factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Since factors separated cleanly and no factor accounted for
the majority of variance, common method variance did not seem to be a problem in this study.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organic Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 34567 89
1. Tenure 144.72 132.97

2. Gender 1.22 0.41 -.21**
3. Age 3.30 0.98 .47** -.24**
4. Trust 4.93 1.33 -.05 .02 -.07
5. Interpersonal bond 4.39 1.09 .01 -.06 -.06 .37**
6. Commitment 4.93 1.31 .01 .05 .02 .49** .31**
7. Knowledge sharing 5.25 1.07 .13 .04 .08 .39** .27** .30**
8. Technology support 4.61 1.24 -.03 .21** -.01 .34** .00 .34** .26**
9. Face-to-face interactions 3.02 1.18 -.25** .16* -.13 .14* .05 .13 .02 .13**
10. Electronic tool use 4.72 0.89 .07 .08 -.04 .13 .21** .05 .04 -.03 .12
N =226.
><.05; *><.01.
While preliminary support for our hypotheses can be found in the correlation table, to test
Hypotheses 1-3 we conducted regression analysis utilizing the main effects and the control variables as
predictors. Hypothesis 1 predicted that trust would be positively associated with knowledge sharing,
which was supported iß = .27, p < .001), indicating that higher trust among teleworkers is associated
with greater knowledge sharing. Hypothesis 2 predicted that interpersonal bond would be positively
related to knowledge sharing, which was also was supported (ß=.ll , p<.01). Furthermore,
Hypothesis 3, which predicted that organizational commitment would be positively related to
knowledge sharing, was also supported (ß = .15, p < .05). The overall R-square was .20 ( p < .001) for
the model (Table 2).
Interaction effects
To test Hypotheses 4-6, we conducted hierarchical regression in which we tested for moderation of
each independent variable by the three moderators (technology support, face-to-face interaction, and
electronic tool use). Hypothesis 4 predicted that technology support would moderate the impact of
trust, interpersonal bond, and commitment on knowledge sharing. As shown in Table 2, technology
support moderated the impact of trust on knowledge sharing (ß = .18,/? < .01), but did not moderate the
impact of interpersonal bond on knowledge sharing. Technology support was marginally significant as
a moderator of the impact of organizational commitment on knowledge sharing (ß = A3, p < AO).
Following accepted procedures (Cohen et al., 2003), to interpret the significant moderation effect of
technology support with trust we plotted the interactions, given conditional values of technology
support (±1 standard deviation). As shown in Figure 1, for teleworkers who had high trust in their
relationships, knowledge sharing was higher when they had high levels of technology support, relative
to those whose technology support was lower. Conversely, for individuals with low trusting
relationships, high technology support was less important for knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 5 predicted that face-to-face interactions would moderate the impact of trust,
interpersonal bond, and commitment on knowledge sharing. As shown in Table 2, face-to-face
interactions moderated the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing (ß = - .14, p < .05), but did
not moderate the relationship between interpersonal bond and knowledge sharing nor did it moderate
the relationship between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing. Again, following
established procedures (Cohen et al., 2003) we plotted the interaction of trust and face-to-face
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis (dependent variable is knowledge sharing)
Interpersonal Organizational
Trust and bond and commitment
All main effects moderators moderators and moderators
Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Step 1: control variables

Tenure .11 .10 .11 .08 .08 .07 .11 .12
Gender .08 .06 .04 .01 .05 .05 .02 .04
Age .02 .04 .08 .04 .10 .10 .07 .06
Step 2
Trust .27*** .36*** .37***
Interpersonal bond .16* .28*** 29***
Commitment .15* .29*** .33***
Step 3
Technology support .09 .11 .22** .23** .11 .10
Face-to-face interactions .01 .01 .01 -.01 -.01 .01
Electronic tool use -.06 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.03 -.05
Step 4
Trust X technology support .14**
Trust X FTF interactions -.15*
Trust X electronic tool use -.18**
Bond X technology support -.05
Bond X FTF interactions .06
Bond X electronic tool use .05
Commitment x technology support .10
Commitment x FTF interactions -.04
Commitment x electronic tool use -.16*
Change in R2 .02 .20*** .01 .09*** .05* .01 .01 .04*
R2 .02 .22 .17 .26 .15 .16 .15 .19
Adjusted R2 .00 .20 .14 .22 .12 .12 .11 .14
F 1.15 8.87*** 5.04*** 5.74*** 4.24*** 3.12*** 4.15*** 3.90***
N= 226; T <.10; ><.05; *><.01; **><.001.
interactions on knowledge sharing (Figure 2). As shown, for teleworkers with low trust in their
relationships, more extensive face-to-face interactions facilitated greater knowledge sharing.
Conversely, face-to-face interactions seem less necessary for teleworkers with high trusting
relationships in order to facilitate their knowledge sharing. Consistent with predictions, under
conditions of low trust, individuals with more extensive face-to-face interactions may be better able and
more willing to engage in knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 6 predicted that electronic tool use would moderate the impact of trust, interpersonal
bond, and commitment on knowledge sharing. As shown in Table 2, electronic tool use moderates the
impact of trust on knowledge sharing (ß = - .16, p < .05) and moderates the impact of commitment on
knowledge sharing (ß = - .16, p < .05). No moderation effect was found for the relationship between
interpersonal bond and knowledge sharing. Figure 3 depicts the moderating effect of electronic tool use
on the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. As shown, for those with high trusting
relationships, less extensive electronic tool use is needed to facilitate higher levels of knowledge
sharing, whereas for those with low levels of trust, more extensive electronic tool use is necessary.
Perhaps individuals with low trust in their relationships feel the need to utilize electronic tools more
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz . Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
Figure 1. Interaction of trust and technology support
frequently in order to verify information and mutual understandings as they share knowledge. Figure 4,
which depicts the interaction of organizational commitment and electronic tool use on knowledge
sharing, suggests that under conditions of low commitment, more extensive electronic tool use may be
necessary to facilitate greater knowledge sharing. Under conditions of high commitment, however, less
extensive electronic tool use seems necessary to facilitate greater knowledge sharing.
Figure 2. Interaction of trust and face-to-face interactions
DOI: 10.1002/job
Figure 3. Interaction of trust and electronic tool use
Figure 4. Interaction of commitment and electronic tool use
Discussion
In this study we investigate the central role that the quality of a teleworker's relationships plays in the
propensity for knowledge sharing. Our results suggest that relational factors such as trust, interpersonal
bond, and commitment to the organization contribute to teleworker knowledge sharing, highlighting
the importance of interpersonal affective-based connections for individual knowledge sharing within
DOI: 10.1002/job
organizations. By investigating knowledge sharing among teleworkers, we help to fill much needed
gaps in the telework literature (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and encompass
knowledge sharing that is quickly becoming a dominant source of competition and survival (Hansen
et al., 2005). Given the separation teleworkers experience from others in the organization, our results
indicate relational qualities clearly play a vital role in teleworker knowledge sharing, adding credence
to suggestions in earlier research (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) and
shedding insight into a rapidly growing form of virtual work. Whereas trust, interpersonal bond, and
organizational commitment were all found to be significantly related to teleworker knowledge sharing,
future research should consider additional aspects of relational quality, such as coworker exchange
quality or leader-member exchange quality (LMX) (Sherony & Green, 2002). Future assessments
might also consider measures of relational quality that target specific individuals within a work unit,
rather than the overall work unit that was considered here, so as to pinpoint the impact of the type of
relationship on knowledge sharing. Such undertakings could broaden our understanding of the many
facets of relationships that appear so vital to knowledge sharing activities.
Our findings also suggest that teleworker knowledge sharing needs to be understood not only in
terms of the direct impact of relational factors but also in terms of the conditional effects stemming
from differences in the nature of altered spatial and technical interactions. Results indicate that
technology support, face-to-face interactions, and electronic tool use moderate the impact of
teleworker relational factors on knowledge sharing, though their influence was not universal. As shown
in Figure 1, trust's impact on knowledge sharing was conditional on the level of technology support,
such that higher levels of technology support fostered greater knowledge sharing among those with
high trusting relationships. Consistent with research showing the importance of technology support
(e.g., Kiesler & Sproull, 1992), teleworkers may be better able to harness trusting relationships to give
and take know-how when facilitated by a full complement of technology support than if support was
more limited.
The impact of teleworker trust on knowledge sharing was also conditional upon the extent of face-to-
face interactions and electronic tool use. Extensive face-to-face interactions appear to facilitate
knowledge sharing especially for those with low trusting relationships, whereas face-to-face
interactions seem less beneficial for those with relationships characterized by high trust. These results
depicted in Figure 2, suggest that face-to-face interactions are likely to reinforce relationships which
may have limited trust and yield greater knowledge sharing, yet face-to-face interactions are less
helpful for teleworkers with high trusting relationship. It may be that the full richness and interpretive
context offered by face-to-face interactions (Daft & Lengel, 1986) are less needed under conditions of
high trust, but are heavily relied upon to verify and gain confidence for teleworker with low trust. In this
regard teleworkers with low trust may feel greater comfort and safety in the rich interactions of face-to-
face communication to share and seek knowledge, especially for tacit aspects of their job. Similarly,
considering knowledge sharing depicted in Figure 3, our results suggest electronic tool use may be
relied upon less by those with high trusting relationships, whereas electronic tools may be used more
extensively under conditions of low trust. Again, it appears that extensive use of electronic tools may
be made in order to develop and maintain shared interpretive contexts and eliminate ambiguity under
conditions of low trust, yet be less necessary for knowledge sharing among teleworkers with high
trusting relationships.
Our findings also support the moderating role of electronic tool use on the relationship between
organizational commitment and knowledge sharing. As shown in Figure 4, for teleworkers with low
commitment, knowledge sharing is greater among those who use electronic tools more extensively,
while knowledge sharing is less when teleworkers make less use of electronic tools. Conversely, for
teleworkers with high organizational commitment, extensive electronic tool use does not appear to
facilitate knowledge sharing in comparison to those who use electronic tools less extensively. It may be
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 7. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
that for individuals who are highly committed to the organization and the individuals who reside within
it, knowledge sharing is driven by the inherent obligations in their felt commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1991), and therefore occurs without extensive use of electronic tools. These teleworkers may simply
freely share and acquire needed information, know-how, and expertise with others despite the more
limited electronic contact, feeling less a need to electronically communicate and coordinate extensively.
This may also explain the lack of influence that technology support and face-to-face interactions have
on the commitment - knowledge sharing relationship. Future researchers may therefore wish to
investigate additional dimensions of commitment, such as normative and continuance commitment
(Allen & Meyer, 1996; Meyer & Allen, 1991), so as to determine a more precise understanding of how
commitment's impact on knowledge sharing might be fostered.
Contrary to expectations, our findings did not support a moderating role for technology support,
face-to-face interactions, or electronic tool use on the relationship between interpersonal bond and
knowledge sharing. While surprising, it may be that the affective-based nature of interpersonal bond
drives a powerful desire to engage in the give and take of knowledge sharing, and this is relatively
unaffected by the altered nature of a teleworker's spatial and technical interactions as exemplified in our
three moderators. Said differently, the impetus provided by interpersonal bond may be such that
teleworkers selflessly engage in knowledge sharing without regard to the altered interactions found
it telework, preferring to share openly and willingly rather than give any indication of hoarding or
hiding stemming from the 'safety' provided by their separation from others (Allen & Renn, 2003;
Napier & Ferris, 1993). Clearly, further research is needed to determine if this is indicative of
interpersonal bond's impact on knowledge sharing, or more deeply rooted in particular aspects of a
teleworker's altered work environment. Future researchers may wish to include more refined
considerations of teleworker interactions, including aspects of both quality as well as quantity, which
may shed additional insights.
In this study we focused on three factors associated with the altered spatial and technological
interactions found in telework (technology support, face-to-face interactions, and electronic tool use) in
order to begin understanding the implications for knowledge sharing among teleworkers, although
future researchers might examine additional characteristics. While we examine knowledge sharing
among a group of teleworkers in this study, it might be interesting to examine knowledge sharing by
comparing teleworkers to traditional workers. Through comments made to us during the course of data
collection, teleworkers in our study alluded to the additional challenges associated with knowledge
sharing in their context, and the crucial role of technology. Some also reflected on the difficulty
associated with easily approaching others for help, the loss of ad hoc discussions, and the longer time
taken to resolve problems, whereas others noted the increased frustration associated with a heavy
reliance upon communication technology. While our study was quantitative in nature, future research
may benefit by designing both quantitative and qualitative studies to compare the knowledge sharing
process between teleworkers and non-tele workers. As we suggest earlier in our paper, telework offers a
host of complexities in order to engage effectively in knowledge sharing, which are increasingly
important to understand given its widespread adoption and growth.
Future researchers might also consider studying additional aspects that drive or facilitate teleworker
knowledge sharing, such as reward structures, that may yield greater levels of exchange for teleworkers
and other virtual workers who work separated from others. Based on case studies in distributed settings
(Cramton, 2001), avoiding knowledge problems is key to dispersed collaboration, so that appropriate
reward structures may help drive desirable behaviors. For instance, Garud and Kumaraswamy (2005)
provide the example of Infosys, an organization that awards "knowledge currency units" to individual
who post their know-how on a digital platform, which can later be exchanged for monetary rewards.
Although emphasizing explicit rather than the tacit knowledge considered predominantly here, such
reward systems may serve to drive the free flowing exchange of ideas and information inherent in
DOI: 10.1002/job
knowledge sharing. Additionally, as the vast literature on teams demonstrates, team-level rewards may
help motivate pro-social behaviors like knowledge sharing by providing sufficient rewards contingent
upon helping build collective knowledge.
Managerial implications
Investigating the role that relationships and altered interactions play in teleworker knowledge sharing
has important implications for managers. First, this research highlights the complexity inherent in
telework and other forms of virtual work, whereby separation, increased ambiguity, and the lack of a
shared interpretive context present significant challenges to individual knowledge sharing. Managers
may therefore need to be especially cognizant of such additional complexities inherent in telework, and
remain vigilant to any signs that knowledge sharing may be adversely impacted. Second, this study
helps to demonstrate the crucial impact that relational qualities have on teleworker knowledge sharing,
so that managers should take active steps to ensure teleworkers sustain coworker relationships of the
highest quality. Considering knowledge sharing's voluntary nature (Lin, 2006, 2008), managers need to
actively promote conditions that instill trust, interpersonal bonding, and commitment, so that ideas and
know-how are freely exchanged. In addition to reward systems noted earlier, managers might design
opportunities and forums for informal conversations whereby the exchange of stories and expertise can
take place and warm affective-based relationships may be nurtured and reinforced.
This study also illustrates the importance of managers paying careful heed to supporting and
enriching interactions that teleworkers have with others, so that relationships are reinforced and
knowledge more easily exchanged. As exemplified by our results for technology support, face-to-face
interactions, and electronic tool use, managers need to be aware that the nature, type, and extent of
interactions that teleworkers have with others plays an important role in the level of knowledge sharing
that is apt to occur. These interactions may facilitate knowledge sharing by providing opportunities to
build further ties, self-disclose, and learn more about others (Ren et al., 2007; Sassenberg & Postmes,
2002), and therefore uncover commonalities that promote the easy exchange of knowledge. The
variety, speed, and reliability of communication media available to teleworkers may be especially
crucial for teleworkers with low trust and organizational commitment, so that managers need to ensure
adequate budgets and organizational norms for the use of technology are encouraged within their
organization (Perez, Sanchez, Carnicer, & Jimenez, 2004). Supporting and enriching personal
connections formed through electronic or face-to-face interactions should therefore be a priority for
managers and their teleworkers. Managers who fail to remove barriers to interaction brought about by
the separation in telework face the potential for degradation in knowledge sharing that may have
important adverse consequences, not the least of which may be fewer career development opportunities
and restrictions on career advancement (Baruch, 2000; Guimaraes & Dallow, 1999).
Limitations
Although we believe this study makes important contributions to the telework and knowledge sharing
literatures, since this study was based on correlational data rather than experimental manipulation, care
should be taken when inferring causality between study variables. Moreover, although the data was
collected at two points in time to minimize the possibility of common method variance, the potential for
bias still exists since we rely on self-report at both survey points. Additionally, while our measure of
knowledge sharing exhibits sound psychometric properties, further validation of the measure on other
samples would provide added confidence in our results. Given the dearth of appropriate individual
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 7. Organiz. Behav. 31, 1061-1085 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/job
knowledge sharing measures for teleworkers, this study modified items that had been previously used in
the literature (e.g., Lewis, 2003) based on respondent's perceptual assessments. While perceptual
measures of knowledge sharing have been widely used (e.g., Hansen, 2002; Lewis, 2003; Reagans &
McEvily, 2003), objective measures would lend greater validity to knowledge sharing assessments
(Garud & Kumaraswamy, 2005). Finally, although data was collected in one organization to minimize
differences in organizational norms for interaction and communication between individuals, care
should be taken when generalizing these findings to other settings. Through replication in other
organizations greater confidence can be gained that may help shed further insights into teleworker
knowledge sharing.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Batia Wiesenfeld and Raghu Garud for their help with the data collection for
this study.
Author biographies
Timothy D. Golden, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Management in the Lally School of

Management and Technology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). His research examines the
behavioral, relational, and attitudinal implications of technological innovations in the way individuals
work. This research focuses on telework and other forms of virtual work to help explain work-family
conflict, exhaustion, coworker relationships, and job satisfaction. His research on this topic has
appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Human Relations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, and other outlets.
Sumita Raghuram is an associate professor of Human Resource Management at Pennsylvania State
University, U.S.A. She received her Ph.D. from University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on
different aspects of telework that make it successful. This research provides empirical evidence for
individual differences (e.g., need for affiliation, self efficacy and gender) and organizational practices
(e.g., evaluation criteria, communication media and mentoring) in determining knowledge sharing,
telework adjustment, organizational identification and work family conflict. Some of these studies have
been published in Journal of Management, Organization Science, Human Resource Management,
Journal of Vocational Behavior and Information Systems Research.
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: An
examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 49 , 252-276.
Allen, D. G., & Renn, R. W. (2003). The impact of telecommuting design on social systems, self-regulation, and
role boundaries. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management , 22, 125-163.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The
psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies , 37 , 2322-2380.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-
sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management , 7, 64-77.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The contexts of knowing: Natural history of a
globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 547-587.
Bailey, D. E., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions, and lessons for the
study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 , 383-400.
Baker, W., Cross, R., & Wooten, M. W. (2003). Positive organizational network analysis and energizing
relationships. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship.
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 328-342). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New
Technology ; Work and Employment , 75, 34-49.
Belanger, F., & Allport, C. D. (2008). Collaborative technologies in knowledge telework: An exploratory study.
Information Systems , 18 , 101-121.
Belanger, F., Collins, R. W., & Cheney, P. H. (2000). Technology requirements and work group communication for
telecommuters. Information Systems Research , 72, 155-176.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K., & Costa, A. C. (2005). Understanding the trust-control nexus. International Sociology , 20,
259-398.
Blau, P. M. (2004). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Breaugh, J. A. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations , 38 , 551-570.
Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of
outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 558-583.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of
working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science. Special Issue: Organizational learning: Papers in
Honor of (and by) James G. March , 2, 40-57.
Burtha, M., & Connaughton, S. L. (2004). Learning the secrets of long-distance leadership. KM Review, 7, 24-27.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices.
International Journal of Human Resource Management , 7(5, 720-735.
Caldwell, B. S. (1997). Sociotechnical factors affecting communication and isolation in complex environments. In
M. Mouloua, & J. J. Koonce (Eds.), Human-automation interactions: Research and practice (pp. 298-304).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin , 5(5, 85-105.
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22,
195-202.
Child, J. (2001). Trust - The fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational dynamics , 29, 274-288.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover:
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology , 83 , 922-931.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences , 3rd ed. New Jersey: LEA Publishers.
Cooper, C., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isolation and employee development in public
and private organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 511-532.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration.
Organization Science , 72, 346-371.
Cramton, C. D. (2002). Finding common ground in dispersed collaboration. Organizational Dynamics , 30 , 356-
367.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation
and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics , 30 , 100-120.
Currall, S. C., & Judge, T. A. (1995). Measuring trust between organizational boundary role persons. Organ-
izational behavior and human decision processes , 64, 151-170.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural
design. Management Science , 32 , 554-571.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Executive Excellence , 75, 10.
DOI: 10.1002/job
DeLong, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14 , 113-127.
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual
organizations. Organization Science , 10 , 693-703.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
84, 445-455.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and
practice. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 611-628.
Dunbar, R. L. M., & Garud, R. (2009). Distributed knowledge and indeterminate meaning: The case of the
Columbia shuttle flight. Organization Studies , 30 , 397-421.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, &
R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 263-278). San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Towards a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information
Systems , 18 , 215-233.
Edmondson, A. (2003). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective.
Organization Science , 13, 128-146.
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team
performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science , 18, 613-630.
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science , 46,
1554-1568.
Frost, T., Stimpson, D. V., & Maughan, M. R. (1978). Some correlates of trust. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied , 99, 103-108.
Fussell, S. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1992). Coordination of knowledge in communication: Effects of speakers'
assumptions about what others know. Journal of Personality Social Psychology , 62 , 378-392.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-
analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92, 1524-
1541.
Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2005). Vicious and virtuous circles in management of knowledge: The case of
Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly , 29, 9-33.
Golden, T. D. (2006a). Avoiding depletion in virtual work: Telework and the intervening impact of work
exhaustion on commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69, 176-187.
Golden, T. D. (2006b). The role of relationships in understanding telecommuter satisfaction. The Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 27, 319-340.
Golden, T. D. (2007). Coworkers who telework and the impact on those in the onice: Understanding the
implications of virtual work for coworker satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human Relations , 60 , 1641-
1667.
Golden, T. D., & Veiga, J. (2005). The impact of extent of telecommuting on job satisfaction: Resolving
inconsistent findings. Journal of Management, 31, 301-318.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance
and turnover intentions: Does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communi-
cation enhancing technology matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1412-1421.
Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting's differential impact on work-family conflict: Is
there no place like home? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1340-1350.
Golembiewski, R., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group process. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of group process (pp. 131-185). New York: Wiley.
Greenhill, A., & Wilson, M. (2006). Haven or hell? Teleowrk, flexibility and family in the e-socieity: A Marxist
analysis. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 379-388.
Grover, V., & Goslar, M. D. (1993). The initiation, adoption, and implementation ot telecommunications
technologies in U.S. organizations. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10, 141-163.
Guimaraes, T., & Dallow, P. (1999). Empirically testing the benefits, problems, and success factors for
telecommuting programmes. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 40-53.
Handy, C. (1995). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73, 40-50.
Hansen, M. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies.
Organization Science, 13, 232-248.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovàs, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple
phases. Academy of Management Journal , 48 , 776-793.
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of synch: Understanding conflict in distributed teams.
Organization Science , 14 , 615-632.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating
effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science , 16 , 290-307.
Hoffman, C. (1999). Technical support knowledge systems: An overview of the problem resolution industry
(webcast presentation), http://www.itresearch.com/alfatst4.nsf/unitabsx/w204 19.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development
Review , 2, 337-359.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science,
Special Issue : Communications Processes for Virtual Organizations , 10, 791-815.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Staples, D. S. (2001). Exploring the perceptions of organizational ownership of information and
expertise. Journal of Management Information , 18 , 151-183.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISRELfor structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy
of research. In P. J. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57-80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior
and Communication Processes , 52, 96-123.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review , 35 , 37-50.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1997). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business
Review , 75, 65-75.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team
performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 175-192.
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancing the transfer of computer-assisted
training proficiency in geographically distributed teams. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97, 706-716.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20 ,
403.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management:
Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational
Behavior , 68, 347-367.
Kowalski, K. B., & Swanson, J. A. (2005). Critical success factors in developing teleworking programs.
Benchmarking , 72, 236-249.
Krauss, R., & Fussell, S. (1990). Mutual knowledge and communication effectiveness. In J. Galegher, R. Kraut, &
C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 111-
146). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Seigel, J. (2002). Understanding the effects of proximity on
collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work. P. J. Hinds, & S. Kiesler
(Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 137-162). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting environments.
Journal of High Technology Management Research , 75, 107-126.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Levin, D. Z., Whitneer, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The
moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97, 1163-1171.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal
of Applied Psychology , 88 , 587-604.
Lin, C. (2006). To share or not to share: Modeling tacit knowledge sharing, its mediators and antecedents. Journal
of Business Ethics , 10, 41 1^428.
Lin, C. (2008). Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors, gender, and knowledge
sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business Psychology , 22, 241-250.
Mamaghani, F. (2006). Impact of information technology on the workforce of the future: An analysis. International
Journal of Management, 23, 845-943.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver: Knowledge management.
California Management Review, 41, 103-117.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management Review , 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovich, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior , 61 , 20-52.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., & Sawy, O. A. E. (2005). Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: Gearing
for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly , 29, 145-187.
Montoya- Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict
management in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 1251-1262.
MSNBC. (2008). Gas Prices Encourage Telecommuting: Employers reconsider traditional in-the-office work-
week. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25007346/.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The
Academy of Management Review , 23 , 242-266.
Napier, B. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1993). Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 321-357.
Nelson, D. W., Klein, C. T. F., & Irwin, J. E. (2003). Motivational antecedents of empathy: Inhibiting effects of
fatigue. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 25, 37-50.
New York Times. (2008). Pajama Life. N.B. Goluboff, June 29, 2008.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science , 5, 14-37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment , 39, 607-619.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Office of National Statistics. (2005). Labor Market Trends (October, 2005). Retrieved June 13, 2008 from http://
www. statistics .gov.uk/about/platforms/lmt/
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance , 10 ,
85-97.
Perez, M. P., Sanchez, A. M., & Carnicer, P. L. (2003). The organizational implications of human resources
mangers' perception of teleworking. Personnel Review , 32, 733-755.
Perez, M. P., Sanchez, A. M., Carnicer, P. L., & Jimenez, M. J. (2004). A technology acceptance model of
innovation adoption: The case of teleworking. European Journal of Innovation Management , 7, 280-291.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12 , 531-544.
Polyani, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Toward a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL/NT: The University of
Chicago Press/Basic Books.
Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries m attachments to groups and to their
members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin. Special Issue: The Self and the Collective , 20, 484-493.
Prezza, M., Pacilli, M. G., & Dinelli, S. (2003). Loneliness and new technologies in a group of Roman adolescents.
Computers in Human Behavior , 20, 691-709.
Raghuram, S. (1996). Knowledge creation in the telework context. International Journal of Technology Manage-
ment , 77, 859-870.
Raghuram, S., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2004). Stress and work-family conflict among virtual workers. Human Resource
Management , 43 , 259-277.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., & Garud, R. (2003). Technology enabled work: The role of self-efficacy in
determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 63 , 180-198.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B., Garud, R., & Gupta, V. (2001). Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment.
Journal of Management, 27 , 383-405.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.
Administrative Science Quarterly , 48 , 240-267.
Ren, Y., Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Applying common bond and identity theory to design of online
communities. Organization Studies , 28 , 377-408.
Roitz, J., & Jackson, E. (2006). AT&T adds business continuity to the long list of telework's advantages. Journal of
Organizational Excellence , 25, 3-12.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, S. B., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: Across-discipline view
of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23, 393-404.
Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., & Feldman, M. S. (1998). Electronic mail and organizational communication: Does
saying 'hi' really matter? Organization Science , 9, 685-698.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the internet: Attachment and normative
behavior in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. Special Issue:
Groups and Internet , <5, 27-37.
Sassenberg, K., & Postmes, T. (2002). Cognitive and social processes in small groups: Effects of anonymity of the
self and anonymity of the group on social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology , 41 , 463-480.
Schober, M. F. (1998). Different kinds of conversational perspective-taking. S. R. Fussell, & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.),
Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication (pp. 145-174). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
Sherony, K. M., & Green, S. G. (2002). Coworker exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader-member
exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 542-548.
Siha, S. M., & Monroe, R. W. (2006). Telecommuting's past and future: A literature review and research agenda.
Business Process Management , 72, 455-482.
Sole, D., & Edmondson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of
Management. Special Issue: Organizational learning: New directions , 13 , S17-S34.
Steers, R. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly , 22,
46-56.
Straub, S., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implications for IS theory
testing. Management Science , 41, 1328-1342.
Taylor, E. Z. (2006). The effect of incentives on knowledge sharing in computer-mediated communication: An
experimental investigation. Journal of Information Systems , 20, 103-116.
Thompson, M., & Heron, P. (2006). Relational quality and innovative performance in R&D based science and
technology firms. Human Resource Management Journal , 16 , 28-47.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002. The National Data Book, Section 12,
Labor Force, employment, and earnings , Table No. 578, Persons Doing Job-Related Work at Home: 2001.
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual
communities of practice. Knowledge Management and Research Practice , 5, 199-212.
Venkatesh, v., & Johnson, P. (2002). Telecommuting technology implementations: A within and between subjects
longitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology , 55, 661-687.
Venkatesh, V., & Speier, C. (2000). Creating an effective training environment for enhancing telework.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 52, 991-1005.
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive
affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29, 239-261.
Watson-Fritz, M. B., Narasimhan, S., & Rhee, H. (1998). Communication and coordination in the virtual office.
Journal of Management Information Systems , 14, 7-29.
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective minds in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks.
Administrative Science Quarterly , 38 , 357-381.
Wiesenfeld, B., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. (1999). Communication modes as determinants of organizational
identity in a virtual organization. Organization Science , 10 , 777-790.
WorldatWork. (2007). Telework Trendlines, press release February 8, 2007. Retrieved from http://www.working-
fromanywhere.org/news/pr020707 .html .
DOI: 10.1002/job

Wiley Journal of Organizational Behavior: This Content Downloaded From 41.13.228.54 On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:01:27 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiley Journal of Organizational Behavior: This Content Downloaded From 41.13.228.54 On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:01:27 UTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wiley Journal of Organizational Behavior: This Content Downloaded From 41.13.228.54 On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:01:27 UTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teleworker knowledge sharing and the role of altered relational and technological

Teleworker knowledge sharing and the

TIMOTHY D. GOLDEN1* AND SUMITA RAGHURAM2

Received 5 August 2008

Theory and Hypotheses

Individual knowledge sharing

Complexity of teleworker knowledge sharing

Linking teleworker relational qualities with knowledge sharing

Trust and knowledge sharing

Hypothesis 1 : Trust will be positively related to knowledge sharing.

Interpersonal bond and knowledge sharing

Hypothesis 2 : Interpersonal bond will be positively related to knowledge sharing.

Organizational commitment and knowledge sharing

Hypothesis 3: Organizational commitment will be positively related to knowledge sharing.

The moderating role of teleworkers' altered spatial and technological interactions

Electronic tool use

Sample and procedure

All measures had a 7-point response scale unless otherwise noted.

Electronic tool use

Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

Variables Mean SD 1 2 34567 89

1. Tenure 144.72 132.97

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis (dependent variable is knowledge sharing)

Predictor Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Step 1: control variables

N= 226; T <.10; ><.05; *><.01; **><.001.

Figure 1. Interaction of trust and technology support

Figure 2. Interaction of trust and face-to-face interactions

Figure 3. Interaction of trust and electronic tool use

Figure 4. Interaction of commitment and electronic tool use

Timothy D. Golden, Ph.D., is an associate professor of Management in the Lally School of

You might also like