The Antecedents to Knowledge Exchange in Organisations: A Psychological Contract
Perspective
Ultan P. Sherman
School of Management & Marketing
University College Cork
ultan.sherman@ucc.ie
Abstract
Purpose: Evidence suggests how knowledge is managed by organisations is an important
source of competitive advantage. This theoretical paper makes the case for a psychological
contract perspective to help explain knowledge exchange in organisations. Specifically, it
examines two key areas of psychological contract theory and their prospective influence on
knowledge exchange (knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing): (1) the psychological
contract formed and; (2) psychological contract fulfilment or violation. Arising from this we
offer a number of linked propositions to help direct future researchers along this line of
enquiry.
Approach: The literature broadly categorises the antecedents to knowledge sharing and
knowledge seeking as individual or organisational. To better understand how knowledge
circulates in an organisation researchers need to consider different theoretical frameworks.
With this in mind, by adopting psychological contract theory as an analytical framework to
explore knowledge exchange, this paper seeks to harvest new insights into this domain area.
Research Implications: This paper seeks to provide a route-map for future researchers
investigating knowledge exchange. By understanding the multi-faceted nature of the
psychological contract researchers can better predict the likelihood of employees engaging
with the exchange process.
Practical Implications: This paper suggests that by paying closer attention to the
information communicated to new recruits at organisational entry, managers can help shape
newcomers’ expectations of the importance of knowledge seeking and sharing. Similarly,
delivering on promises made to employees can facilitate a deeper commitment to knowledge
exchange amongst the workforce.
Originality/Value: This paper aims to open up new lines of enquiry into what is an
underdeveloped area of research in the organisational development field.
Keywords: knowledge exchange; psychological contract; formation; fulfilment; violation
2
Introduction
Knowledge management is a growing research area in the organisational development field
(Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). Evidence suggests how organisations use knowledge is an
important source of competitive advantage (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Accordingly, how
knowledge is passed from employee to employee in the organisation and how management
can shape this circulation process is an important research issue in the organisational
development field. The challenges of knowledge management have received a deal of
attention in the literature, with issues relating to structure (Kim & Lee, 2006), employeesupervisor relationships (King & Marks, 2008), and personality characteristics (Cabrera,
Collins & Salgado, 2006) among significant factors found to influence this process.
Nonetheless, given the central role of knowledge management in organisational development
it is necessary to unearth new antecedents of knowledge exchange. Indeed, Wang & Noe
(2010) call for an expanded view of knowledge exchange using different interpretive
frameworks. Therefore, this theoretical paper explores how psychological contract theory can
offer fresh insights into how knowledge is exchanged in organisations.
Knowledge Exchange: Sharing & Seeking
This paper examines two of the main processes identified in knowledge exchange research:
knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking. Knowledge sharing refers to the provision of task
information and know-how (tacit knowledge) to help others and to collaborate with others to
solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement policies or procedures (Wang & Noe,
2010). Knowledge seeking refers to planned behaviour to acquire sufficient information so as
to enable successful functioning in the organisation (Feldman, 1976).
3
A multitude of factors have been found to influence both knowledge seeking and
knowledge sharing. In reviewing the literature on knowledge exchange, Wang & Noe (2010)
broadly categorise its antecedents as organisational and individual. That knowledge is
exchanged ‘within’ an organisation it follows that various organisational factors are likely to
influence how knowledge is shared and sought. Among the most prominent organisational
forces is ‘culture’. Indeed, Ruppel & Harrington (2001) argue that firms who emphasise
innovation tend to have cultures that facilitate the sharing and transfer of knowledge such
cross-departmental teams. The structure of the organisation is likely to shape knowledge
exchange too (Morley & Heraty, 2008). Kim & Lee (2006) found that a less centralised
structure that awarded greater autonomy across units encouraged knowledge sharing.
Organisations employing an open workspace see greater interaction among the workforce
which facilitates knowledge exchange (Jones, 2005). It has also been suggested that a lack of
incentives is a major challenge to knowledge exchange (Liebowitz & Megbolugbe, 2003; Hu
& Randel, 2014). However, the evidence from the literature supporting this contention is
mixed. For example, Kim & Lee (2006) found that performance-related pay contributed to
knowledge sharing. However, Bock & Kim (2002) found that extrinsic rewards had a
negative effect on levels of knowledge sharing. Much more work is needed in this area. The
general point here is that the organisation itself influences knowledge exchange. By making
necessary cultural, structural or design changes, knowledge can circulate more readily around
the organisation.
Wang & Noe (2010) highlight the importance of understanding knowledge exchange
at the individual level. Individuals are the fundamental repositories of tacit knowledge and
dispositional characteristics influence knowledge exchange. Among the most significant
individual factors is ‘personality’. Cabrera et al (2006) found that ‘openness’, an inherent
welcoming of new experiences was positively associated with knowledge seeking and
4
sharing. Similarly, Lin (2007) identified a relationship between perceived efficacy and
knowledge sharing. A recent study by Wang, Noe & Wang (2014) found that
conscientiousness and emotional stability also influenced knowledge sharing. Another
prominent individual factor found to shape the knowledge exchange process is ‘willingness to
share’. Indeed, Bock & Kim (2002) argue that employees are differentially motivated to share
or guard knowledge and understanding underlying motivations can predict their behaviour
around the exchange of knowledge. Given the importance of the ‘person’ to sharing and
seeking knowledge in an organisation, much more research is required exploring the
individual factors that shape the exchange process.
As explained, research demonstrates that individuals have different expectations and
beliefs concerning their role in exchanging knowledge with their co-workers (Hu & Randel,
2014). This calls attention to how individual employees understand their relationship with the
organisation. Researchers have explored this ‘understanding’ using a psychological contract
lens. The psychological contract is an individual’s interpretation of the exchange agreement
they have with another party, typically the organisation (Rousseau, 1995). The last quartercentury has seen significant research into the employment relationship around the concept of
the psychological contract (e.g. Rousseau, 1990; Anderson & Schalk, 1998; Guest, 2004; Ng
& Feldman, 2009). Psychological contract theory has provided useful explanations for
important concepts in the management field such as organisational commitment (e.g. Sturges,
Conway, Guest & Liefooghe, 2005), job satisfaction (Zhao, Wayne, Glibowski & Bravo,
2007) and intention to leave (Clinton & Guest, 2014). Very few researchers have examined
knowledge exchange from a psychological contract perspective with the notable exception of
O’ Neill & Adya (2007), O’ Donohue, Sheehan, Hecker & Holland (2007) and Bal, Chiaburu
& Diaz (2011) among others. From a practical point of view, these studies highlight the
importance of effectively managing the psychological contract as a means of ensuring
5
knowledge is exchanged in the organisation. Despite these encouraging studies, considerable
more research is required to better understand the relationship between the psychological
contract and knowledge exchange. The remainder of this paper lays down a framework for
future researchers investigating knowledge exchange from a psychological contract
perspective. Specifically, we focus on two key areas within the literature: psychological
contract formation and; psychological contract fulfilment/violation. Arising from this we
advance a series of linked propositions to direct future research in these domain areas.
1: Psychological Contract Formation
Fully understanding the dynamics of the psychological contract is difficult without insight
into how it is created in the first instance. The antecedents of the psychological contract have
received moderate attention from organisational researchers (e.g. Rousseau, 2001, Shore &
Tetrick, 1994). Recent work by Sherman & Morley (2015) explore how expectations
established early in the employment relationship act as a filter for future interactions with the
employer. That is, once established, initial expectations have an enduring quality and are only
changed at certain episodes in the employment relationship (Rousseau, 2001). Therefore, the
early period of socialisation is a critical time for the new employee to create a realistic picture
of organisational life but also for the employer in terms of communicating accurate and
useful information to that employee (Feldman, 1976). The information used by the new
employee to form a new psychological contract can be obtained from a variety of sources.
The organisation is likely to communicate relatively consistent information to new recruits
through formal processes such as the selection interview, the employment contract, and the
induction for example. If an organisation has a culture of knowledge exchange and
6
purposefully conveys this information to new recruits at organisational entry it follows that
these expressions of organisational policy should all communicate the same message.
However, information used in the psychological contract creation process also comes
from unofficial sources (Rousseau, 1995). Co-workers, work groups and supervisors also
relay important contract-related information to new recruits. However, this information is
likely to be inconsistent and subject stemming from the individual biases inherent in each
information source (Sherman & Morley, 2015). It follows that members of the work group
will each present a subjective view of organisational reality to the new recruit which is likely
to differ with the official view presented by the organisation. For example, during induction a
new recruit may be told that the organisation encourages newcomers to arrange meetings
with more tenured colleagues as a means of acquiring important work-related knowledge.
The workgroup on the other hand may tell the same recruit that such a practice rarely happens
and will not be well received by the veteran employees. In this scenario, the new recruit is
confronted with two contrasting views of the organisation’s approach to knowledge
exchange. Research suggests that individuals are less likely to pay attention to confusing
information (Sherman & Morley, 2015). Interpreting the above example from a psychological
contract perspective, contributing to knowledge exchange is unlikely to be an element of the
newly formed psychological contract as the information provided is not clear. Rousseau
(2001) asserts that the provision of clear and unambiguous information helps the individual to
create more accurate and realistic psychological contracts. Therefore, it follows that more
closely aligning information from official organisation sources and informal sources such as
the workgroup is more likely to result in a more accurate psychological contract. Indeed,
communicating symmetrical information is an integral part of early socialisation (Suazo,
Martinez & Sandoval, 2009).
7
Proposition P1A: The provision of symmetrical information regarding
knowledge exchange at organisational entry will see new recruits explicating
obligations concerning knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing
Exploring how the psychological contract is created is an important issue in the
literature on the formation process. However, beyond understanding the formation process
researchers need to explore the content of the newly formed psychological contract. The
content of the psychological contract refers to the perceived obligations of the two parties to
the agreement (Herriot, Manning & Kidd, 1997) and fulfilment of these obligations is the
driving force of behaviour in the organisation (Conway & Briner, 2005). Due to its subjective
nature, the psychological contract is influenced by a countless number of individual factors.
Therefore, each psychological contract will contain idiosyncratic and personal content
dimensions. In an attempt to bring clarity to what potentially is a complex field of research,
Rousseau (1990) broadly asserts that there are two distinct types of psychological contracts:
A ‘transactional psychological contract’ (employer obligations concerning high pay, rapid
promotion and performance-based pay and employee obligations concerning advance notice,
accepting transfers, no competitor support and protection of proprietary information); and a
‘relational psychological contract’ (employer obligations concerning training, long-term job
security, career development and personal support and employee obligations concerning
working overtime, loyalty and extra-role behaviour). The transactional-relational
categorisation has been used in countless numbers of psychological contract studies (e.g.
Millward & Hopkins, 1998; De Vos, De Stobbeleir, Meganck, 2009 etc.).
Those employees who hold a transactional psychological contract at the beginning of
employment view their relationship with the organisation in narrow terms. Often their
8
relationship is founded on very specific terms. For example, this employee would only
engage in extra role behaviours (working additional hours) as long as they were rewarded for
it. Therefore, the performance-reward contingency for these employees is high. Within the
context of knowledge exchange in organisations it is unlikely that a transactional
psychological contract would contain employee obligations relating to knowledge sharing
and knowledge seeking. Indeed, research suggests that development opportunities and the
obligations of both parties relating to it are of little relevance to an employee with a
transactional psychological contract (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994).
Proposition P1B: Employees holding a transactional psychological contract at
organisational entry will be less likely to report obligations concerning
knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing
Conversely, employees holding a relational psychological contract typically perceive a
broader relationship with the organisation. These employees typically have an open-ended
arrangement with the employer and are looking to increase their levels of employability
throughout their stay with the organisation (Guest, 2004). To this end, they seek opportunities
for development and are willing to contribute to effective team dynamics in return (Conway
& Briner, 2005). Indeed, a relational psychological contract is often associated with prosocial employee behaviours (Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler & Purcell, 2000). We propose that
employees with this type of arrangement with the organisation will be more willing to
contribute to knowledge exchange in organisations.
Proposition P1C: Employees holding a relational psychological contract at
organisational entry will be more likely to report obligations concerning
knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing
9
Based on the contingent and reciprocal principles inherent in psychological contract theory
(Rousseau, 1995) those employees who report obligations relating to knowledge sharing and
knowledge seeking will expect something in return from the employer. Research suggests
that in return for extra role behaviours employees often expect the organisation to provide
opportunities for development and also to improve their employability (De Vos et al, 2009).
Proposition P1D: Employees who explicate obligations concerning knowledge
seeking and knowledge sharing will expect opportunities for development and
improved employability in return from the organisation
2: Psychological Contract Fulfilment/Violation
The vast majority of research on the psychological contract concerns evaluating the
psychological contract (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). That is, most studies examine the
‘state’ of the psychological contract, the extent to which it has been fulfilled or violated. As
the employment relationship develops over time the employee reflects on the psychological
contract at certain episodes in the relationship (e.g. performance appraisal, contract
renegotiation etc.). Violation refers to the belief that the other party has not upheld their side
of the agreement. Fulfilment refers to the belief that the other party has upheld their side of
the agreement (Rousseau, 1995). When the psychological contract is fulfilled, the employee
perceives that the organisation is delivering on the inducements promised to the newcomer at
the beginning of employment. When the psychological contract is in a ‘positive’ state the
employee is obliged to ensure their side of the agreement is upheld, in line with the reciprocal
nature of the theory.
10
Psychological contract fulfilment has been associated with a number of positive
outcomes in previous psychological contract research (e.g. citizenship (Turnley, Bolino,
Lester & Bloodgood, 2003); satisfaction (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000)). These studies
demonstrate that the employee is more likely to demonstrate prosocial behaviours in the
organisation when the psychological contract is fulfilled (Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2000). Most
contemporary organisations recognise the importance of knowledge exchange to
organisational learning (Heraty & Morley, 2008). Addressing the antecedents of these
behaviours is an important organisational issue.
Proposition P2A: Psychological contract fulfilment will be positively associated
with knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing
Robinson & Rousseau (1994) argue that violations of the psychological contract are almost
inevitable in exchange relationships. Indeed, considerable research on the psychological
contract is concerned with the outcomes of violation. For example, reduced contributions
(Tomprou & Rousseau, 2015), reduced loyalty (Turnley & Feldman, 1999), and less
commitment (Cassar & Briner, 2011) have all been identified in the literature as negative
behaviours in response to psychological contract violation. Within the context of
organisational learning, it seems likely that employees would less likely to make the effort to
seek out information from their colleagues or, indeed, share knowledge with their
counterparts.
Proposition P2B: Psychological contract violation will be negatively associated
with knowledge seeking and knowledge sharing
11
Summary
This theoretical paper advances a psychological contract theory perspective to better
understand knowledge exchange in organisations. Exploring the antecedents of why
knowledge is sought and shared are important research areas in the organisational
development field. Specifically, this paper identifies two distinct areas for future researchers
to explore. First, addressing the early stages of the psychological contract facilitates deeper
insights into newcomers’ expectations of their role in the organisation (Sherman & Morley,
2015). Additionally, identifying the type of psychological contract formed in the first instance
allows us to predict future behaviour in relation to knowledge exchange in the organisation.
Second, the extent to which the psychological contract is fulfilled or violated is an important
research issue given the associated outcomes with these variables. How the employees
perceives the employers contributions to the exchange agreement is likely to shape their
behaviour around knowledge seeking and sharing.
Overall, this paper adds to the growing body of research investigating knowledge
exchange in organisations. Psychological contract theory is a significant exploratory
framework in the broad management field. Within the context of human resource
development, it has the potential to open up new lines of enquiry into how knowledge is
sought and shared in organisations.
References
12
Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). Editorial: The psychological contract in
retrospect and prospect. Journal of organizational behavior, 19(1), 637-647.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Bal, P. M., Chiaburu, D. S., & Diaz, I. (2011). Does psychological contract breach decrease
proactive behaviors? The moderating effect of emotion regulation. Group & Organization
Management, 36(6), 722-758.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of
attitudes about knowledge sharing. Pacis 2001 proceedings, 78.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the
creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of management review, 27(4), 505-522.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement
in knowledge sharing. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2),
245-264.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people
management practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5),
720-735.
Cassar, V., & Briner, R. B. (2011). The relationship between psychological contract breach
and organizational commitment: Exchange imbalance as a moderator of the mediating role of
violation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,78(2), 283-289.
Clinton, M. E., & Guest, D. E. (2014). Psychological contract breach and voluntary turnover:
Testing a multiple mediation model. Journal of occupational and organizational
psychology, 87(1), 200-207.
13
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A
critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford University Press. UK.
Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. M., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring Organizationally
Directed Citizenship Behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It's my Job’. Journal of Management
Studies, 41(1), 85-106.
Coyle‐Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the
employment relationship: A large scale survey*. Journal of management studies, 37(7), 903930.
De Vos, A., De Stobbeleir, K., & Meganck, A. (2009). The relationship between careerrelated antecedents and graduates’ anticipatory psychological contracts. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 24(3), 289-298.
Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative science
quarterly, 433-452.
Guest, D. E. (2004). The psychology of the employment relationship: An analysis based on
the psychological contract. Applied psychology, 53(4), 541-555.
Heraty, N., & Morley, M. (2008). Dimensionalizing the architecture of organization-led
learning: A framework for collective practice. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10(4), 472-493.
Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). The content of the psychological
contract. British Journal of management, 8(2), 151-162.
Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic
incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, (in press)
1059601114520969.
14
Jones, M. C. (2005). Tacit knowledge sharing during ERP implementation: a multi-site case
study. Information Resources Management Journal (IRMJ),18(2), 1-23.
Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2006). The impact of organizational context and information technology
on employee knowledge‐sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385.
King, W. R., & Marks, P. V. (2008). Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge
management system. Omega, 36(1), 131-146.
Liebowitz, J., & Megbolugbe, I. (2003). A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in
conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management initiatives. International Journal
of Project Management, 21(3), 189-198.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge
sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149.
Millward, L. J., & Hopkins, L. J. (1998). Psychological contracts, organizational and job
commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(16), 1530-1556.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Age, work experience, and the psychological
contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1053-1075.
O'Donohue, W., Sheehan, C., Hecker, R., & Holland, P. (2007). The psychological contract
of knowledge workers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 73-82.
O'Neill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract:
Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment.Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22(4), 411-436.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations:
A study of psychological contracts. Journal of organizational behavior, 11(5), 389-400.
15
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the
psychological contract. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(4), 511541.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: Issues,
alternatives and measures. Journal of organizational Behavior, 19(S1), 679-695.
Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written
and unwritten agreements. Chicago. Sage.
Ruppel, C. P., & Harrington, S. J. (2001). Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of
organizational culture and intranet implementation. Professional Communication, IEEE
Transactions, 44(1), 37-52.
Sherman, U. P., & Morley, M. J. (2015). On the formation of the psychological contract: A
schema theory perspective. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 160-192.
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory
framework in the employment relationship. Trends in organizational behavior, 1(91), 91-109.
Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Liefooghe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: The
psychological contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational
commitment and work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 821-838.
Suazo, M. M., Martínez, P. G., & Sandoval, R. (2009). Creating psychological and legal
contracts through human resource practices: A signaling theory perspective. Human Resource
Management Review, 19(2), 154-166.
Tomprou, M., Rousseau, D. M., & Hansen, S. D. (2015). The psychological contracts of
violation victims: A post‐violation model. Journal of Organizational Behavior. (in press).
16
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The impact of psychological contract violations on
exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Human relations, 52(7), 895-922.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of
psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 60(3), 647-680.
17