A structured literature review of personality traits research in the knowledge behavior context: synthesis of the findings and practical recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to present a structured literature review of personality traits research in the context of knowledge behavior. Design/methodology/approach A total of 200 empirical articles published in knowledge management-centric journals and other journals indexed by Google Scholar were discovered and analyzed. Findings It was found that many knowledge management researchers are inadequately aware of the personality psychology literature. More than two-thirds of the proposed nomological networks exclude trait-relevant situational cues, without which the trait–behavior relationship may not exist. Consequently, their conclusions on the predictive power of many personality traits are contradictory and inconclusive. Particularly unclear is the role of the Big Five traits, performance-approach/avoidance goal orientation and personal motivation traits. Personality trait constructs cannot simply be blindly borrowed from the psychology literature and recklessly added to knowledge management causal models. Practical implications Journal editorial teams should declare a moratorium on publishing empirical studies in which researchers carelessly add personality trait constructs to their causal models without proper conceptualizing that uses relevant theories and cites the original sources. Practitioners need to exercise caution when applying the recommendations of the studies reporting the impact of employee personality traits on knowledge behavior. Organizations should favor employees possessing emotional intelligence, learning-approach goal orientation and prosocial cooperative value orientation – and avoid those with the Dark Triad traits. Managers should explore their workplace and understand what situational cues activate the desirable and undesirable personality traits of their workers. Originality/value This study draws the attention of various stakeholders of the knowledge management discipline to a vital, yet possibly derailed, research area.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".