Is Introversion an Obstacle in Tacit Knowledge Sharing through Socialization? A Study on how Personality Traits Influence Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s knowledge-based economy, efficient management of an organization’s intellectual capital is becoming increasingly important. Tacit knowledge, as opposed to explicit knowledge, is an organization’s most vital knowledge, and this knowledge should be shared among co-workers in an efficient way. It is therefore crucial for managers to be aware of which factors that have an either positive or negative impact on the sharing of tacit knowledge. Personality is a factor that influence tacit knowledge sharing. Tacit knowledge is best shared through practices that require social interaction. This paper investigates the relation between tacit knowledge sharing and introversion in particular. Introverts are perceived to be withdrawn, quiet, and to have poorer social skills than extraverts, and therefore might have an inhibiting effect on knowledge sharing. However, by examining existing literature, this paper shows that typical introverted personality traits serve as both motivators and obstacles in tacit knowledge sharing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it