The Mediating Effects of Trustworthiness on Social‑Cognitive Factors and Knowledge Sharing in a Large Professional Service Firm
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract: This paper extends the findings of a large empirical study of organizational information and knowledge sharing that examined the interplay of several notable social and cognitive factors, including trust, shared language, shared vision, tie strength, homophily, and relationship length. Initial data analysis examined the direct, relative, and collective effects of these social and cognitive factors on organizational knowledge sharing factors (Evans, 2012). The results of this analysis demonstrated that co‑worker trust influences, in a statistically significant way, each factor used to operationalize organizational knowledge sharing, namely: willingness to share knowledge, willingness to use knowledge, and perceived receipt of useful information/knowledge (Evans, 2013). This study presents the results of a secondary data analysis, which examines whether perceived trustworthiness in co‑workers acts as a mediating variable between the previously mentioned social‑cognitive variables and knowledge sharing factors. Data were collected from 275 knowledge workers (legal professionals and paralegals) engaged in shared legal project work, at one of Canadas largest multijurisdictional law firms. The nature of their work requires a significant reliance on co‑workers, across offices nationwide, for both explicit and tacit information and knowledge. The nature of projects allows respondents to objectively evaluate the outcomes, gaining a better sense of the perceived effects of knowledge shared. A method put forward by Baron and Kenny (1986), which includes hierarchical multiple regression analysis, was used to test for the mediating effects of perceived co‑worker trustworthiness. The results of the study showed that the relationship between shared language and shared vision on information and knowledge sharing is mediated through perceived trustworthiness. Moreover, this mediation is subject to the nature of the relationship between co‑workers. For shared language, the role of co‑worker relationship is still more nuanced as perceived trustworthiness was found to have a mediating effect between shared language and knowledge sharing in relationships between co‑workers with whom they worked well together on projects only. There is no apparent mediation of trust for shared language in negative co‑worker relationships, which demonstrates one of the few interesting effects found to be dependent on the nature of the co‑worker relationship.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle