Leveraging Tacit Organizational Knowledge

By Dick Stenmark. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2000

444 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d008ce0875bc53ee1a1c94fb2a296274dd7d0345

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Knowledge Sharing in Teams (2014, background): “Another factor besides trust that has been discussed in the literature as contributing to knowledge sharing is extrinsic incentives (Stenmark, 2001).”
Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Resarch: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions (2002, background): “Nevertheless, some of the research in this discourse asks questions specifically directed at knowledge processes , e.g., how individuals most effectively retrieve knowledge (Stenmark 2000-2001).”
Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework (2003, background): “According to Stenmark (2001), people are not likely to share knowledge without strong personal motivation.”
Knowledge management in a public organization: a study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer (2004, background): “People do not share knowledge without a strong personal motivation, and they would certainly not give it away without concern for what they may gain or lose by doing so (Stenmark, 2000- 2001, p. 21).”
Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational performance: what structural relationship do they have in hotels? (2013, background): “There has been an increasing attention in the “people perspective” of knowledge in organizations and a growing recognition of individuals’ role in knowledge management processes (Stenmark, 2001).”
Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use (2010, background): “Sharing tacit knowledge may involve risks to an individual, such as loss of competitive advantage over peers (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998; Stenmark, 2000, 2002).”