Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Economic Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/joep

Antecedents of knowledge sharing – Examining the influence of learning

and performance orientation
Kurt Matzler ⇑, Julia Mueller
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstr. 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Knowledge sharing is an important process in creating competitive advantage. Previous lit-
Received 30 October 2009 erature mainly identifies environmental and organizational factors that influence the effec-
Received in revised form 8 December 2010 tive transfer of knowledge. However, the focus shifts to the analysis of personal
Accepted 15 December 2010
determinants as antecedents for the individual’s engagement in knowledge sharing activ-
Available online 23 December 2010
ities, like personality traits. In this paper, we introduce employees’ goal orientations (i.e.
learning orientation or performance orientation) to the individual antecedents of knowl-
JEL classification:
edge sharing behavior. It is argued that learning orientation positively influences knowl-
M54
edge sharing, whereas performance orientation is a negative influence factor. As goal
PsycINFO classification: orientations are determined by personality traits, we can also confirm existing hypotheses
3120 regarding this relationship. The theoretical model developed in this paper is empirically
3620 tested on a sample of 124 engineers of an internationally operating engineering company,
and significant relationships among the constructs were found.
Keywords:
Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Knowledge sharing
Learning orientation
Performance orientation
Personality traits

1. Introduction

Knowledge management as an important enabler for company success and competitive advantage (see e.g., Grant, 1996;
Spender, 1996) has received considerable attention in recent years from both practitioners and researchers (see e.g., studies
conducted by Matzler, Rier, Hinterhuber, Renzl, & Stadler, 2005; Serenko & Bontis, 2004). In particular, knowledge sharing is
a central process of managing knowledge because it is a prerequisite for innovation (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; Verona,
Prandelli, & Sawhney, 2006), organizational learning (Senge, 2006), and the development of capabilities and best practices
(Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland, 2000; von Krogh, 1998). Consequently, companies capable of transferring knowledge
successfully from one unit to another can be expected to perform better.
In the last few years, research could show that companies’ investments in knowledge management systems (KPMG, 2000)
and the storage and transfer of explicit knowledge and information (Alavi & Leidner, 2001) has not led to smooth knowledge
sharing activities (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). As knowledge sharing can take place on different levels, for instance be-
tween individuals, groups, departments and organizations (for an overview see Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Ipe, 2003),
many influencing factors have been discovered, such as the characteristics of knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) and the properties
of managerial actions (Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006), the environment (e.g., corporate culture; Alavi, Kayworth, &
Leidner, 2005; Ipe, 2003), and the company (Argote et al., 2000).

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 512 507 7181.

E-mail addresses: kurt.matzler@uibk.ac.at (K. Matzler), Julia.Mueller@uibk.ac.at (J. Mueller).

0167-4870/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.joep.2010.12.006
318 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

However, all levels of knowledge sharing require the participation of individuals (Argote & Ingram, 2000) and are there-
fore influenced by individual-level traits (Cabrera et al., 2006; Matzler, Renzl, Müller, Herting, & Mooradian, 2008) and goal
orientations (Swift, Balkin, & Matusik, 2010). In first studies, personality traits, like conscientiousness and openness to
experience (Cabrera et al., 2006; Matzler et al., 2008; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006; Wang & Yang, 2007), as well as
goal orientations, i.e. learning and performance orientation, (Swift et al., 2010) were discovered as individual antecedents
with a direct influence on knowledge sharing. However, as previous studies have shown (see e.g., Harris, Mowen, & Brown,
2005), personality traits affect individual goal orientations, which in turn influences individual behavior. Learning or perfor-
mance orientations have an impact on learning processes (Chen & Mathieu, 2008; Vermetten, Lodewijks, & Vermunt, 2001).
Therefore, we study both – the influence of personality traits on goal orientations and the impact of goal orientations on
knowledge sharing in order to show their relationships.
We assume that an individual’s learning orientation has a positive impact on knowledge sharing because the motivation
to develop one’s own skills to face challenging situations requires learning for which knowledge sharing is the prerequisite.
On the contrary, performance orientation could have a negative impact on knowledge sharing because performance-oriented
employees tend to avoid challenging situations, like the complex action needed for knowledge sharing, and tend to take ac-
tion where they receive an immediate outcome. Thus, this article introduces two rather new individual factors, namely
learning and performance orientation, into the knowledge sharing setting and confirms that the personality traits conscien-
tiousness, openness to experience, competitiveness, and the perceived need for learning influence the learning orientation
and performance orientation of individuals.
For the purpose of this paper, we conducted a survey in an internationally operating engineering company which is posi-
tioned among the world’s leading independent engineering consultants, particularly concerning tunneling, underground
construction and pipeline construction. Based on tested measures, we developed a questionnaire, which was distributed
to 620 members of the company, to examine the relationships of learning and performance orientation, personality traits,
the perceived need for learning, and the individuals’ competitiveness. In the following section, we first define the key con-
cept of knowledge sharing followed by the development of the hypotheses regarding the antecedents for knowledge sharing.
These hypotheses provide the basis for the survey, which is described in the third part of the paper. Finally, we present our
findings and, based on these insights, discuss the implications for the design of knowledge sharing processes within
companies.

2. Knowledge sharing behavior

Knowledge sharing is a central process of knowledge management (see e.g., Eisenhardt & Santos, 2002) and has received
considerable attention (see e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006; Cummings, 2004; Mir & Mir, 2009). The transfer of knowledge can be a
source of competitive advantage due to its implicit dimension and the difficulty to imitate or substitute it (see e.g., Barney,
1991; Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996). Furthermore, effective knowledge sharing is the precondition for innovation
(Leonard-Barton, 1995) and organizational learning (Senge, 2006) because, before the combination of existing and new
knowledge can occur (see ‘‘combinative capabilities’’ Kogut & Zander, 1992), relevant knowledge must be accessed (Almeida,
Phene, & Grant, 2003) and integrated into the existing knowledge base (‘‘absorptive capacity’’; Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
First, companies followed the ‘‘computational paradigm’’ of knowledge management (Hazlett, McAdam, & Gallagher,
2005) by facilitating the transfer of knowledge by investments in information systems (Davenport, De Long, & Beers,
1998). ICT should support the storage and transfer of explicit knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak,
1998) and make it possible for companies to connect employees across time and space constraints (Wasko & Faraj,
2005). However, the introduction of ICT does not automatically lead to knowledge sharing among the employees (Polanyi,
1966), especially since knowledge sharing can take place at different levels – between individuals, groups, and organiza-
tions (Cangelosi & Dill, 1965; Crossan et al., 1999; Foss, 2009; Ipe, 2003). Accordingly, the ‘‘organic paradigm’’ of knowledge
management (Hazlett et al., 2005) draws attention to individual knowledge sharing (for an overview see Eisenhardt et al.,
2002) because individuals are the primary actors in knowledge transfer (Argote & Ingram, 2000). Individual knowledge
sharing is the behavior of dissemination of individual knowledge to another person (Ryu, Ho, & Han, 2003) and ‘‘is basically
the act of making knowledge available to others within the organization’’ (Ipe, 2003: 341). Knowledge sharing is defined as
‘‘. . .the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure’’ (Cummings,
2004). This includes individuals’ willingness to share knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Osterloh & Frey, 2000) and con-
scious actions of making knowledge understood, absorbed, and used (Ipe, 2003). Of course, individuals only absorb and
use only that kind of knowledge that is useful for conducting their work tasks. It is notable that knowledge is not con-
sumed when shared, but rather increased by means of feedback, extension, and modifications in the mutual interaction
of the people involved (Quinn, Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996) and therefore possessed by senders and recipients (Ipe,
2003).
Research about individual knowledge sharing shifted the focus to organizational pre-requisites, like corporate culture,
company structure, and relationships (see e.g., Alavi et al., 2005; Argote et al., 2000; Foss, 2009; Zaidman & Brock, 2009).
Furthermore, people-centric antecedents, like personality traits and motivation, have been discovered to be decisive for indi-
vidual knowledge sharing behavior (Cabrera et al., 2006; Foss, 2009; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Mooradian et al., 2006;
Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Wang & Yang, 2007).
 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 319

3. Individual characteristics and their influence on knowledge sharing behavior

Individual factors affect knowledge sharing in various ways. It is assumed that a common knowledge base enables this
process because the employees involved share a common language and meaning of different terms (see ‘‘common code’’
of Arrow (1974)), which makes knowledge sharing easier (Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Furthermore, the characteristics of
the sender and the receiver are decisive for effective knowledge sharing because they must be willing and capable to actually
share and accept knowledge (Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Szulanski, 2000). Thus, literature suggests that individual characteris-
tics, like personality traits, explain why some employees engage in knowledge sharing whereas others do not. Especially,
openness to experience and conscientiousness are regarded as favorable for knowledge sharing (see e.g., Cabrera et al.,
2006; Mooradian et al., 2006; Wang & Yang, 2007). However, there are also other individual factors that may influence
knowledge sharing. As goal orientations (learning vs. performance orientation) influence individual behavior because they
form the context for interpretation and reactions to situations and behavior (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Legett, 1988), studies
could show that goal orientations have an impact on learning processes (Harris et al., 2005; Vermetten et al., 2001). Conse-
quently, goal orientations might also impact knowledge sharing behavior.

3.1. Goal orientations (learning vs. performance orientation)

Goal orientations are constructs developed in the educational literature that suggests that individuals hold either a
learning (mastery) or a performance orientation toward tasks (see e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986).1
Performance-oriented people are mostly concerned with showing evidence of their ability. Performance-oriented persons want
to be successful, outperform others, demonstrate their competency, and achieve success with very little effort. Consequently,
performance-oriented employees avoid situations showing a lack of competence. In case of negative feedback, performance-
oriented individuals do not continue these activities. These individuals respond with a ‘‘maladaptive response pattern’’ if they
have a low self-concept, which is characterized by a greater tendency to withdraw from tasks (especially in the face of failure),
less interest in complex tasks, and the tendency to seek less challenging material and tasks that are more likely to be successful
(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Dweck, 1991; Ziegler, Schober, & Dresel, 2005). Learning-oriented individuals focus on the develop-
ment of new skills and the mastery of new situations and value the process of learning itself. They know that in order to develop
new practices, a certain amount of effort is required (Ames & Archer, 1988). The difference between these two goal orientations
is that performance-oriented individuals assume that their ability is fixed (‘‘entity theory’’; Dweck, 1986); consequently they
can only demonstrate their ability. Learning-oriented persons see their abilities as shapeable (‘‘incremental theory’’; Dweck,
1986), thus they try to improve their ability. Researchers call this an ‘‘adaptive response pattern,’’ which includes determination
in the face of failure, use of more complex learning strategies, and the search for difficult and challenging material and tasks
(Bell & Kozlowski, 2002).
Initially, research viewed goal orientations as a bipolar construct. Later it was conceptualized as two-dimensional. Recent
research on the number on the dimensionality of goal orientations continues (Zweig & Webster, 2004). For example, Elliot
and Harackiewicz (1996) provided support for the differentiation of performance orientation in a performance approach and
performance avoidance, and Elliot and McGregor (2001) distinguished between mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance
goals – each with different antecedences and consequences.
The goal orientations of individuals influence the interpretation of situations and the reaction to achievement-relevant
information (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Legett, 1988). In prior research, learning orientation could be positively linked to indi-
viduals’ self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Also, goal orientations could explain different
individual learning strategies (Vermetten et al., 2001). In the case of sales persons, a positive relationship between learning
orientation and customer orientation could be demonstrated because learning-oriented sales persons are more willing to
face challenges and engage in deep-level learning strategies to cope with difficult situations and demands (Harris et al.,
2005). In contrast, performance orientation does not have a significant influence on self-efficacy, performance, and knowl-
edge (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Also, customer orientation is affected negatively by the performance orientation of a sales
person because they would rather focus on the success of their selling activities resulting in a withdrawing from challenging
tasks (Harris et al., 2005). Thus, the concept of goal orientations could be integrated into designing the implementation of
training programs or motivation systems (Farr, Hofmann, & Ringenbach, 1993).
Like person-related characteristics, goal orientations influence individual behavior as the summary of previous research
shows. Consequently, learning and performance orientation of employees might have significant impact on their knowledge
sharing behavior because personal goals enhance motivation to engage in certain activities (Bandura, 1986). This is in line
with the control theory, which suggests that goals represent an orientation framework to which all actions are compared.
Discrepancies between the desired goals and the actions taken lead to the motivation to resolve these discrepancies and
stimulate self-regulation processes (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Klein, 1989). Thus, goal orientations form a mental framework
and individuals try to respond to situations according to this framework (Vandewalle, 1997). In this study, we apply the

1
Dweck’s (1986) motivational theory argues that the fundamental motivational force is the theory that individuals implicitly form about the nature of
intelligence. Some form an entity theory conceiving intelligence as fixed and uncontrollable. Others construct an incremental theory and believe that
intelligence is shapeable and controllable. These different theories influence individuals’ goals: learning-oriented people tend to increase their intelligence,
whereas performance-oriented individuals aim at gaining positive judgments about their intelligence.
320 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

concept of goal orientations to the knowledge sharing context by developing hypotheses regarding learning-oriented and
performance-oriented individuals.
We assume that learning-oriented employees might engage more in knowledge sharing activities due to several reasons:
First, learning-oriented people are interested in the development of skills and knowledge enhancement, not only of them-
selves but also of their colleagues. As prior research could show, individuals form these goals of skill enhancement and
act according to this mental framework (Dweck, 1986; Vandewalle, 1997). As knowledge sharing is seen as the prerequisite
for learning (Senge, 2006), this behavior is needed for further personal development. Second, learning orientation is posi-
tively related to self-efficacy, which in turn influences decisions about what behaviors should be undertaken and the mastery
of the behavior (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). If persons know their abilities and skills (self-efficacy about one’s knowledge), they
are more likely to share them with others (Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007), even though the process of knowledge sharing is
difficult, risky, and time-consuming (see e.g., Argote et al., 2000; Polanyi, 1966; Szulanski, 2000). But, as learning-oriented
employees tend to increase their personal work goals over time because they want to challenge themselves as past goals are
achieved (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996), they engage more in knowledge sharing processes, which normally are conducted
in addition to their daily work load. Thus, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 1. Learning orientation positively influences knowledge sharing.

Performance-oriented individuals want to be successful, outperform others and demonstrate their competency. As shar-
ing of one’s unique knowledge is often accompanied with a loss of one’s unique position in the company (Mooradian et al.,
2006), these employees will not be willing to give away their competitive advantage and thus will not take actions in knowl-
edge sharing. Employees who score high in performance orientation are focusing more on short-term achievements than
long-term success (Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994). Knowledge sharing is time-consuming and does not reveal immediate suc-
cess; high performance-oriented persons will tend to other actions to achieve their goals. Further, performance orientation
encourages an individual to fulfill performance standards, production schedules and deadlines (Button et al., 1996). Hence,
knowledge sharing might not be considered a valuable activity by performance-oriented individuals. If managers do not
explicitly communicate that knowledge processes are essential for the company’s success and do not explicitly measure
knowledge sharing (Yeh, Lai, & Ho, 2006), performance-oriented employees will not engage in this activity. Consequently,
we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Performance orientation negatively influences knowledge sharing.

Goal orientations, which in psychological research are seen as relatively stable, are assumed to differ across individuals
due to individual psychological antecedents (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Maehr, 1984; Sujan et al., 1994). These anteced-
ents are personality traits, like openness, conscientiousness, a need for learning and competitiveness, which will be dis-
cussed in the following sections (Harris et al., 2005).

3.2. Personality traits

Despite first results that could not find a satisfying relationship between personality traits and observable behavior, re-
cent studies could confirm their connectedness when the degree of specificity at which traits and actions are assessed were
related (see Funder, 2008). There has been an ongoing debate about the factor structure of personality and their influences
on behavior. Research discovered five broad traits (extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience or intellect, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness) to be essential to clarify individual differences regardless the paradigm used (including ques-
tionnaire and language or ‘lexical’ approaches), the raters involved, the life cycle stage, and the cultural setting (see John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008). That structure of five traits (also called the ‘‘Five-Factor Model’’ or ‘‘Big Five’’) (McCrae, 2007)
has been found to be connected to heredity (see e.g., Krueger & Johnson, 2008), and to underlying neurophysiological and
molecular genetic substrates (see e.g., Canli, 2008) as well as to observable behaviors (see e.g., Hong, Paunonen, & Slade,
2008).
These five domains encompass numerous narrower, more context-specific facets in a hierarchy of individual differences
(John & Srivastava, 1999). Mooradian et al. (2006)relate the high-level domains to workplace knowledge sharing via a hier-
archy of individual differences, from broad personality domains to specific personality facets, focused attitudes and motives,
to overt behaviors like knowledge sharing. The five high-level ‘‘domains’’ are most closely related to underlying biophysio-
logical and genetic structures (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; McCrae & Costa, 2003) whereas the lower-level, narrower, and do-
main-specific ‘‘facets’’ are more closely related to overt, observable behaviors (Paunonen, Haddock, Forsterling, & Keinonen,
2003). In our study, conscientiousness and openness are high-level domain-traits. Need for Learning and Competitiveness
are two narrower, more specific facet-traits.
Several studies showed that personality has a great influence on job satisfaction (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000), cultural
intelligence (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006), work attitudes (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), and behavior (Barrick & Mount,
1991), as well as differences in wage success (Nyhus & Pons, 2005). Also, differences in knowledge sharing behavior were
related to personality traits, like openness to experience and conscientiousness (see e.g., Cabrera et al., 2006; Mooradian
et al., 2006; Wang & Yang, 2007). Nevertheless, the precise mechanisms as to how personality influences organizational
behavior are not precisely understood (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Here, goal orientations could explain this relationship
 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 321

because the goal orientation of individuals is influenced by personality traits (Harris et al., 2005), confirming existing
hypotheses also in the knowledge sharing context.2 We build our hypotheses on Harris et al.’s (2005) model on personality,
goal orientations, and their consequences in a work-related setting. They identify two traits of the Big Five personality traits
that are related to goal orientation in their study of salespeople: Conscientiousness and Openness. In their model they also in-
clude competitiveness, materialism, and need for learning as traits that are strongly related to goal orientations. Materialism is
included by Harris et al. as they believe that materialism is strongly linked to salespeople’s desire for money, which in turn is
strongly linked to a high need for achievement. This rationale is based on the belief that salespeople perceive positive evalua-
tions of performance as a means of obtaining rewards and therefore fulfilling their materialistic needs. As we believe that this
line of argumentation is sales-context-specific and less relevant in our context, we decided not to include materialism in our
study.

3.2.1. Openness
Openness is an important antecedent for goal orientations. People who score high on openness to experience have an ac-
tive imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, original-
ity, and independence of judgment (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Dingman, 1990). They are curious about both inner and outer
worlds and willing to think about new ideas and unconventional values. Open individuals experience both positive and neg-
ative emotions more keenly than individuals which score low on openness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, open people tend
to have more positive attitudes towards learning new things and are keener to engage in the learning experience (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad, 1996) and search for other peoples’ insights (Cabrera et al., 2006). As studies
could show, openness has a significant influence on learning elaboration (Blickle, 1996) and learning orientation (Harris
et al., 2005; Vermetten et al., 2001). Harris et al. (2005) argue that performance orientation is associated with an entity the-
ory of intelligence wherein people hold the belief that their competence cannot be increased. A low score on openness to
experience is revealed by a lack of curiosity in order to discover new ideas and the avoidance of discovering new ideas (Costa
& McCrae, 1992; Dingman, 1990).

Hypothesis 3. Openness positively influences learning orientation.

Hypothesis 4. Openness negatively influences performance orientation.

3.2.2. Conscientiousness
Individuals who have a high conscientiousness score are said to be dependable, reliable, responsible, and organized
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Consequently, conscientious people tend to do what is expected of them to carry out work (Liao
& Chuang, 2004) and engage in organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1994). They try to find new ways to accomplish
their tasks and employ learning strategies (Blickle, 1996), as conscientious people do not surrender in the face of difficulty
(Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). As conscientious employees are unlikely to give up in difficult situations, they score high in
learning orientation (Harris et al., 2005). In contrast, persons with a low conscientiousness score are unreliable and do not
take on significant responsibilities. Thus, they avoid challenging situations, a type of behavior characteristic of performance
orientation (Harris et al., 2005).

Hypothesis 5. Conscientiousness positively influences learning orientation.

Hypothesis 6. Conscientiousness negatively influences performance orientation.

3.2.3. Need for learning

Need for learning is a basic motivating factor that leads employees to find information, to build up a profound under-
standing of the environment, and to engage in high-level information processing (Mowen, 2000). Consequently, the need
for learning positively affects learning orientation, because if employees feel a need for learning they are motivated to take
actions to achieve their learning orientation. If people feel a need for learning, they do not follow the entity theory and per-
formance orientation (Dweck, 1986), which assumes that individuals’ intellectual capabilities are rather stable, cannot be
developed, but only demonstrated (Harris et al., 2005). Performance-oriented people do not engage in activities to enhance
their knowledge and skills, which are complex and time-consuming (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002), but rather in activities that
provide immediate success and show their high performance. Consequently, the need for learning will have a negative effect
on employees’ performance orientation (Harris et al., 2005).

Hypothesis 7. The need for learning positively influences learning orientation.

2
Openness and conscientiousness are two items of the five fundamental traits developed in the 1960s – ‘‘the Big Five’’ (Neuroticism vs. Stability,
Extraversion vs. Introversion, Agreeableness vs. Rudeness, Openness vs. Closeness to experience and Consciousness vs. Non dependability) (Costa & McCrae
1992; Tupes & Christal 1992).
322 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

Hypothesis 8. The need for learning negatively influences performance orientation.

3.2.4. Competitiveness
The trait competitiveness has been conceptualized as an aspect of personality that involves ‘‘the enjoyment of interper-
sonal competition and the desire to win and be better than others’’ (Findlay & Lumsden, 1988). Competitiveness has a po-
sitive impact on performance as various studies could show (Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1998; Brown & Peterson, 1994), as well
as on learning effort and orientation (Harris et al., 2005). However, competitiveness also means that competitive employees
try to outperform their colleagues and competitive employees are more concerned about their task evaluation (Brown &
Peterson, 1994). Consequently, competitiveness has a positive impact on performance orientation as well (Harris et al.,
2005). Thus, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 9. The trait competitiveness positively influences learning orientation.

Hypothesis 10. The trait competitiveness positively influences performance orientation.

4. Study

4.1. Sample

To test the relationships among the constructs, data from employees of an internationally operating engineering company
were collected. The company is positioned among the world’s leading independent engineering consultants, particularly
concerning tunneling, underground construction and pipeline construction. It employs more than 600 members of staff,
mostly civil, mechanical, or electrical engineers. The company’s headquarters are in Germany and Austria, and its employees
are globally dispersed and include various nationalities. Before the main study, five in-depth interviews with engineers and
managers were conducted to get a better understanding of the context and to adapt the survey instruments. A standardized
self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 620 members of the company in German and English language. All 124
returned questionnaires were fully completed and usable. Hence, this corresponds to a response rate of 20 %. Respondents
were requested to provide demographic information as element of the self-report questionnaire, for example, age, job ten-
ure, education level, and professional level. Most of the respondents (79 %) are 45 years old or younger, and 41 % of them
have worked for the company for more than five years; almost 70 % hold a university degree, and more than 70 % of the
respondents are working at the level of a project manager or constructing engineer. The response rate in this survey is below
the typical response rate in organizational research (Baruch, 1999; Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Therefore, questionnaire admin-
istration, and the proportion of usable questionnaires, and non-response bias are of particular importance (Baruch & Holtom,
2008). The questionnaire was not ‘administered,’ i.e. respondents did not fill it in as part of their job, role, etc. The question-
naire was placed in the mailbox of the subjects and a cover letter explained that the purpose of the study was purely aca-
demic and assured anonymity and confidential treatment of the responses.
Response representativeness is more important than response rate in survey research (Cook & Thompson, 2000). To test a
possible non-response bias, the means of early respondents and late respondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977) were com-
pared and no significant differences were found. Hence, non-response bias does not seem to be a problem.

4.2. Measures

All constructs have been measured with existing and tested scales. All items were measured on 5-point-Likert-scales. In
literature, a number of scales have been used to measure individual knowledge sharing behavior (for an overview of different
study designs see Eisenhardt et al., 2002). As we focus on reflections of individuals about past knowledge sharing processes,
we measured knowledge sharing within the work group by using Cumming’s (2004) knowledge sharing scale of five types of
knowledge related to their project work: (1) general overviews (e.g., the projects in general, responsibilities within the
team), (2) specific requirements and data, (3) techniques (e.g., project management, Know-how, training, process, tools),
(4) progress and reports (e.g., updates on project, budget, employees, etc.), and (5) project results (e.g., preliminary and final
reports, etc.). The wording of the items, especially the examples, were adapted to the context of the company after in-depth
interviews with project leaders to guarantee that the relevant types of knowledge for the project teams of this company were
included. The frequency of knowledge sharing within the team was assessed on a five-point-scale (1-never; 2-rarely;
3-sometimes/on request; 4-regularly; 5-a lot). In the company under study, teams consisted on average of 10–15 persons.
They worked together as a team for the duration of a project (from several months to several years) in tunneling, under-
ground construction, or pipeline construction. Depending on the type of project teams consisted of mostly civil, mechanical,
or electrical engineers. Performance orientation and learning orientation were measured using Kohli et al.’s (1998) scales.
Competitiveness and need for learning were measured with scales taken from Mowen (2000). Openness and conscientious-
ness were tested using the German version of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), which was originally developed by
Costa and McCrae (1992) and translated and validated into German by Borkenau and Ostendorf (1993). The NEO-FFI is a
 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 323

well-accepted, widely assessed and extensively used scale to measure the Big Five Personality dimensions (see e.g.,
Mooradian & Olver, 1997; Raja et al., 2004; Renner, 2002).

5. Data analysis and results

The relationships between the constructs were examined with soft modeling using the Partial Least Squares (PLS) ap-
proach. According to Hulland’s (1999) procedure, a PLS model is examined and interpreted in two steps. In the first step,
validity and reliability analyses on each of the measures of the model were conducted. This is needed to guarantee that only
reliable and valid measures of the constructs are used before conclusions about the nature of the construct relationships are
drawn (Hulland, 1999). In the second step, the model was tested.
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to test and uncover the structure of the variables. Items with a factor load-
ing below .4 and items strongly loading on more than one factor (>.4) were excluded, resulting in the seven factors of the
models. Three items were removed because their loading was below .4 (two items from the performance orientation scale,
one item from the learning orientation scale). All other items were removed because of strong cross-loading. The remaining
26 items loaded correctly on the factors and explained 61% of the variance. These items then entered the PLS-analysis.
Reliability and validity were examined using composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and the
Fornell–Larcker-criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) to measure discriminant validity. Two further items had to be removed
due to low loadings (one item from the need for learning scale and one item from the learning orientation scale).
With the exception of five items (one item with a loading of .58, two items with a loading slightly above .6, and two items
with a loading of .68) all items have loadings above the threshold of .7, which shows satisfactory item reliabilities. Composite
reliability and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were calculated with the following values: Conscientiousness (five items,
CR = .84, AVE = .51), Need for learning (two items, CR = .83, AVE = .71), Competitiveness (three items, CR = .86, AVE = .68),
Openness (three items, CR = .81, AVE = .60), Learning orientation (CR = .76, AVE = .51), Performance orientation (CR = .79,
AVE = .56), Knowledge sharing (CR = .91, AVE = .68).
Overall, the reliability examination of the two personality traits did not quite yield the expected results in accordance
with the standardized scales (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993) and therefore had to be purified by eliminating some of the items
with low loadings, making up the scales with the remaining five items on the conscientiousness-scale and four items on the
openness-scale. These results and the required modifications are not surprising, as other researchers described comparable
findings of the German version of the NEO-FFI scales computed in Confirmatory Factor Analyses (see e.g., Renner, 2002).
Discriminant validity means that measures of a given construct differ from the ones of another construct (Hulland, 1999).
Discriminant validity can be measured from the latent variable correlations matrix (Table 1), where the square roots of the
average variance extracted values calculated for each of the constructs along the diagonal are shown. The correlations be-
tween the constructs are shown in the lower left off-diagonal elements in the matrix. Discriminant validity is given when
the diagonal elements (square root AVE) are greater than the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
As Table 1 shows, the constructs competitiveness and performance orientation are strongly correlated (.49). Hence, the
question of discriminant validity arises. These constructs are conceptually different and causally related (H10). As the square
root of these construct’s average variance extracted is greater than the correlations between them, discriminant validity is
given.
As Table 1 shows, discriminant validity is satisfactory. Overall, the measures show good reliability and validity. Table 2
reports the items used with their psychometric properties.

5.1. Path coefficients and predictive ability

All seven constructs were measured using items in a questionnaire completed by a single respondent. Therefore, com-
mon-method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) could be an issue. To test for common-method vari-
ance, Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986) was conducted. In this single-factor test, all items are subject to
an exploratory factor analysis. Common-method variance is assumed if (1) a single factor emerges from unrotated factor

Table 1
Latent variable correlation matrix.

Learn. orient. Cons. Comp. Need for learn. Open. Perf. orient. Know. sharing
Learn. orient. .71
Cons. .42 .71
Comp. .15 .16 .82
Need for learn. .36 .29 .17 .84
Open. .23 .04 .02 .39 .77
Perf. orient. .09 .04 .49 .13 .26 .75
Know. sharing .27 .30 .09 .21 .18 .30 .82
AVE .51 .51 .68 .71 .60 .56 .68

Square root of AVE is on the diagonal.

324 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

Table 2
Psychometric properties of the scale.

Constructs and items Mean SD Loading

Conscientiousness (five items, CR = .84, AVE = .51)
I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously 4.44 .59 .61
I have a clear set of goals and work toward them in an orderly fashion 3.99 .84 .62
I work hard to accomplish my goals 4.03 .81 .77
When I make a commitment, I can always be counted onto follow through 4.56 .75 .79
I am a productive person who always gets the job done 4.25 .79 .76
Need for learning (two items, CR = .82, AVE = .70)
I enjoy working on new ideas 4.35 .68 .93
Information is my most important resource 4.32 .73 .73
Competitiveness (three items, CR = .86, AVE = .68)
I enjoy competition more than others 2.91 .87 .75
I feel it is important to outperform others 2.68 1.06 .87
I feel that winning is extremely important 2.70 1.23 .84
Openness (three items, CR = .81, AVE = .57)
I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas.x 2.50 1.09 .68
I have little interest in speculating on the nature of the universe or the human conditions (R) 2.10 1.05 .85
I find philosophical arguments boring (R) 3.58 1.05 .76
Learning orientation (three items, CR = .76, AVE = .51)
Making a tough project is very satisfying 4.42 .72 .81
An important part of being a good employee is continually improving our skills 4.60 .61 .74
I put in a great deal of effort sometimes in order to learn something new 3.68 .86 .58
Performance orientation (three items, CR = .79, AVE = .56)
I feel very good when I know I have outperformed other employees 2.89 .98 .79
I always try to communicate my accomplishments to my manager 2.92 .88 .68
I spend a lot of time thinking about how my performance compares with others 1.99 1.01 .77
Knowledge sharing (five items, CR = .91, AVE = .68)
On average, how often did you share general topics (e.g.: project goals, estimates, projects) during the project within the 3.92 .84 .84
team/division?
On average, how often did you share project specific requirements (e.g.: project data, deadlines, project rations etc.) 4.04 .87 .82
during the project within the team/division?
On average, how often did you share methods and techniques (e.g.: further training, new techniques, failures) during the 3.58 .96 .73
project within the team/division?
On average, how often did you share progress reports (project updates, resource problems, personnel, etc.) during the 3.61 .98 .87
project within the team/division?
On average, how often did you share project results (e.g.: preliminary results, unexpected outcomes, recommendations) 3.57 .1.00 .85
during the project within the team/division?

Conscientiousness .34***
CR = .84; AVE = .51

.01n.s.

Learning orientation
R² = .26; CR = .76;
Need for learning .20* AVE = .51;
.25***
R² = .15;
CR = .83; AVE = .71 -.15n.s.

Knowledge sharing
R² = .15; CR = .91;
AVE = .68
.06n.s.
-.28***

.39*** Competitiveness .51****

CR = .86; AVE = .68 Performance
orientation
R² = .32; CR =
.14n.s. .79; AVE = .56

-.20**
Openness
CR = .81; AVE = .60 **** p < .001, *** p < .01, ** p < .05, * p < .10

Fig. 1. Structural model and results of partial-least-squares analysis.

 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 325

solutions, or (2) a first factor explains the majority of the variance in the variables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Therefore, 24
items of the seven constructs were entered together into a principal components factor analysis. This analysis produced six
factors (explaining 64% of the variance), with the first factor explaining 22% of the variance. As no single factor emerged, and
as the first factor did not explain the majority of the variance, common-method variance does not seem to be a major issue.
We also tested for difference in knowledge sharing between groups (teams assistants, engineer, and project managers) by
comparing mean values and did not find any significant differences.
Fig. 1 shows the path coefficients, their significance level, and the R2 values. PLS uses the bootstrapping method (Efron &
Gong, 1983) to calculate the standard errors and thereby assesses the significance of the coefficients. Standard errors of
parameters were calculated on the basis of 500 bootstrapping runs.
Hypothesis 1 argues that learning orientation positively influences knowledge sharing and is supported by the data
(b = .25, p < .01), and hypothesis 2 argues that performance orientation has a negative impact (b = .28, p < .01) on knowl-
edge sharing which is also supported. Openness has a negative impact on performance orientation (b = .20, p < .05, hypoth-
esis 4) and a positive yet no significant impact on learning orientation (hypothesis 3). As hypothesis 5 predicts,
conscientiousness significantly influences learning orientation (b = .34, p < .01), but it has no impact on performance orien-
tation (hypothesis 6). Need for learning influences learning orientation (b = .20, p < .10; hypothesis 7). The relationship be-
tween need for learning and performance orientation (hypothesis 8) is negative, as predicted, however it is not significant.
Hypothesis 9 suggests that competitiveness positively influences learning orientation; this relationship however is not sig-
nificant. Competitiveness has a strong impact on performance orientation (b = .51, p < .001) as hypothesis 10 predicted.
Surprisingly, contradictory to our hypothesis, openness was not positively related to learning orientation. As our model
contains another construct (need for learning) that is positively related to both constructs, we conducted a post hoc test of a
mediation effect.
The latent variable correlation matrix (Table 1) shows a relatively strong relationship between openness and need for
learning. As the individuals desire to obtain information, to develop a thorough understanding of the environment, and to
engage in high-level information processing, need for learning is also conceptually closely related to openness (see the pre-
ceding argumentation leading to hypothesis 3 and 4); thus, the relationship between openness and learning orientation
could be mediated by the individual’s need for learning.
We applied Baron and Kenny’s (1986) logic to test mediating effects. A variable is a mediator when it meets the following
three conditions: (1) the independent variable significantly influences the mediating variable (path a), (2) the mediating var-
iable significantly influences the dependent variable (path b), and (3) when path a and path b are controlled, a previously
significant relation between the independent and the dependent variables is no longer significant. Hence, first the direct path
from openness to learning orientation without the variable need for learning was tested. The path is positive and significant
(b = .21, p < .05). When need for learning is introduced as a mediator the path becomes not significant, whereas openness
strongly influences need for learning (b = .39, p < .001), and need for learning significantly influences learning orientation
(b = .20, p < .10). Hence, the relationship between openness and learning orientation is fully mediated by the individual’s
need for learning.

6. Discussion, implications, and conclusion

In this study, a theoretical model explaining how personality traits impact knowledge sharing via goal orientations was
developed. Consistent with goal theory (see e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986) and as our hypotheses predicted, the
two goal orientations, performance orientation and learning orientation, have a significant impact on behavior. It was found
that there is a significant positive relationship between learning orientation and knowledge sharing behavior. Learning-ori-
ented people perceive their and others’ capabilities as shapeable and developable (‘‘incremental theory’’; Dweck, 1986),
which requires the engagement in knowledge sharing processes. On the contrary, we found a significant negative relation-
ship between performance orientation and knowledge sharing behavior. According to ‘‘entity theory’’ (Dweck, 1986), perfor-
mance-oriented persons regard their abilities as fixed and in the case of negative feedback regarding their activities, they
might avoid these situations instead of investing time into learning and knowledge sharing activities (Ziegler et al., 2005).
Furthermore, performance orientation leads to behaviors such as outperforming others (Button et al., 1996) and keeping
their knowledge to themselves.
This is an important contribution to theory and practice as well. First, goal theory, which has a long tradition in research
and has been applied to explain many aspects of work-related behavior, has been extended to explain knowledge sharing,
which is one of the central processes in creating competitive advantages of knowledge-intensive companies. Whereas
previous work on knowledge sharing has mainly looked at organizational and managerial (i.e., environmental) factors as
antecedents, this study extends previous studies aiming at understanding the individual influencers of knowledge sharing.
From a practical point of view, these results highlight the importance of taking one’s goal orientation into account when
selecting employees; for specific tasks where knowledge has to be shared to build competitive advantages learning-oriented
people should be hired. Many firms routinely request or require applicants and employees to submit self-reports regarding
personality and personality-like traits. Based on their goal orientations, boundary spanners, who play an important role in
transferring knowledge from one unit to another, or knowledge sharers can be selected.
326 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

A second contribution of this study lies in the confirmation of personality traits as antecedents of goal orientations.
Conscientiousness and need for learning influence an individual’s learning orientation, which is in line with previous find-
ings (Harris et al., 2005; Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). However, against our expectations, two relationships regarding learning
orientation were not significant, as competitiveness and openness have no significant impact. In contrast to our hypothesis,
competitiveness has no impact on learning orientation. This finding contradicts previous studies that found a positive rela-
tionship between competitiveness and learning effort (Harris et al., 2005; Wang & Netemeyer, 2002). Multiple reasons could
be responsible for this. First, the impact of competitiveness on learning orientation may be a function of several moderators.
Brown et al. (1998) for instance found that competitiveness interacts with organizational climate to influence goal setting.
Organizational climate was not assessed in this study and its moderating effect could not be tested. Another moderator
might be the performance evaluation and compensation system (short- versus long-term, individual versus group, etc.). Sec-
ond, this study examined knowledge sharing of individuals in project teams. As the project members work together only for
a specified, limited period of time, their learning orientation might differ from a non-project-based work setting. The test of
these moderating effects offers opportunities for future research in this area.
Second, openness influenced learning orientation indirectly via need for learning, but not in a direct way as predicted in
our model. This could be explained by the hierarchical structure of personality (Mooradian et al., 2006). It has been argued
that big five traits are related most closely to underlying biophysiological and genetic structures (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001;
McCrae & Costa, 2003), while lower-level, narrower, and domain-specific ‘facets’ are related more closely to overt, observable
behaviors (Paunonen et al., 2003). According to this line of argumentation, openness is a high-level personality domain. Need
for learning might be seen on the second level of the hierarchy as a narrower, specific facet or component of openness. Learn-
ing orientation, finally, can be positioned on the third level of the hierarchy as a ‘‘focused attitude and motive’’ in the work-
place (Mooradian et al., 2006).
Regarding performance orientation, we could show that as predicted by hypothesis 10, competitiveness has a strong and
significant impact on performance orientation, which is in line with previous studies (Brown & Peterson, 1994; Brown et al.,
1998). Openness has a negative impact on performance orientation, which confirms previous studies (Harris et al., 2005). It is
argued that performance-oriented people do not seek input for developing their skills (Dweck, 1986; Sujan et al., 1994;
Vermetten et al., 2001). However, conscientiousness and need for learning do not have an impact. It was expected that con-
scientiousness negatively influence an individuals’ tendency to prove themselves on important performance outcomes to
supervisors and peers. It seems that this relationship is contingent on specific contexts (see also Harris et al., 2005) and thus
subject to several moderating influences such as organizational climate, performance evaluation, compensation packages,
and the project-based setting of our study. Furthermore, one facet of conscientiousness is dutifulness (Costa & McCrae,
1992). High scorers on conscientiousness adhere to their ethical principles and scrupulously fulfill their moral obligation.
Our scale of performance orientation emphasizes individual performance. Hence, if the organizational climate and team
values corroborate teamwork and team values, in this setting conscientiousness might not lead to orientation towards indi-
vidual performance. Future studies therefore should test the role of such moderating variables and their impact on individual
and team performance orientation.
Ziegler, Dresel, and Stoeger (2008) found that individuals hold specific performance goals for different addressees. Hence,
they distinguish to whom they want to appear successful and show their competency. They can hold separate classes of per-
formance goals that are exclusively intrapersonal in nature. In an occupational context, where individuals work in teams,
employees are subordinated to team leaders and may at the same time be assigned to a specific department in the organi-
zation, they may clearly distinguish to whom they want to appear successful and show their competency. Depending on the
addressee they want to impress and what he expects, this might influence their knowledge sharing behavior.
Overall, the findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of knowledge sharing in the workplace and, more
specifically to the impact of goal orientations on the individual’s knowledge sharing behavior with colleagues. It also illumi-
nates the relationship between personality traits and goal orientations. Thus, our results contribute to literature on person-
ality and educational psychology as well as organizational behavior and knowledge sharing. It has been shown that stable
individual differences (personality traits) are related to important orientations of individuals and therefore their behavior in
the workplace. As these orientations are traits and states as well (Button et al., 1996), their personality-related antecedents
could be hypothesized and were also found empirical.
There are many opportunities for future research on this topic. Research on personality and individual differences distin-
guishes between trait-like individual differences (e.g., goal orientations) that are more distal from performance and state-
like individual differences which are more specific to certain situations and tasks and are therefore more malleable over time
(Bandura, 1997). State-like individual constructs are seen as important mechanisms through which trait-like individual dif-
ferences influence task performance (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000). In this study, we analyzed the direct rela-
tionship between goal orientations (i.e. trait-like individual differences) and knowledge sharing without considering
mediating state-like constructs. Previous studies have shown that state-like individual differences, like trust in colleagues
and management (Mooradian et al., 2006) or fear (Renzl, 2008), directly influence knowledge sharing in the workplace.
Another stream of literature discusses the relationship between goal orientations and emotions (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier,
2006), showing that they predict specific positive and negative emotions. Therefore, based on these findings, another inter-
esting research question is how goal orientations influence knowledge sharing via specific emotions.
Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, and Harackiewicz (2008) propose a model where mastery goals by creating a framework
within which individuals focus on the task, influence subsequent interest indirectly via intrinsic and utility value. In other
 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 327

words, the relationship between mastery-approach goals and subsequent interest is mediated by task values. This finding
offers new opportunities for additional research in the context of knowledge sharing by integrating task value in a model
on the relationship between goal orientations and knowledge sharing.
In their meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net, Payne, Youngcourt, and Beaubien (2007) pro-
vide a comprehensive review of antecedents and proximal and distal consequences of goal orientations. According to their
review, the differentiation between performance avoidance and performance approach orientation seems to be an important
and interesting refinement and extension of the model of this study, as they might have differential impacts on knowledge
sharing. Whereas most researchers associated performance orientation with negative outcomes, recently it has been argued
that it is the performance avoidance orientation that is dysfunctional (Brophy, 2004). Individuals with a strong performance
approach orientation, for instance, wish to demonstrate their competence to others (Vandewalle, 2003) which might lead
them to see knowledge sharing as a vehicle to demonstrate their competence, whereas people with a strong performance
avoidance orientation have a tendency to view achievements situations as threatening to their competence and, as a conse-
quence, might more lightly refrain from knowledge sharing as they are more concerned that others could see their incom-
petence when freely revealing what they know (or do not know). Hence, further studies should focus on the differential
effects of these two performance orientations. The differentiation between performance approach and performance avoid-
ance orientation is also relevant for the antecedents of goal orientations, as has been shown by Zweig and Webster (2004). In
their study they find, for instance, that conscientiousness negatively influences performance avoidance but is positively re-
lated to performance approach and that openness is negatively related to performance avoidance but now has a relationship
with performance approach. However, not all hypothesized relationships between the Big Five personality traits and the goal
orientations were significant. Hence, additional research testing the impact of all personality traits in knowledge sharing via
the mediating goal orientations (differentiating into the individual dimensions) seems a valuable topic for future research.
While our results offer insights into the interrelationship between personality traits, goal orientations and knowledge
sharing behavior, we acknowledge some limitations which offer starting points for future research. The limitations of this
study lie in the sample and method, and accordingly in its generalizability. Although non-response bias has been tested
and seems not to affect the results, due to the low sample size the results have to be interpreted with caution. Future re-
search might focus on alternative methods for generating results regarding the relationship between goal orientations
and knowledge sharing behavior. As discussed in the method section, the response rate is relatively low. As however,
non-response bias did not occur, this does not seem to be a major problem. A third limitation comes from the single-source
data. Common-method variance has been tested and does not constitute a serious issue. Nevertheless, future studies should
include multiple sources, especially in the measurement of the outcome variable (knowledge sharing). In our survey, the par-
ticipants reflected on their perceptions of past knowledge sharing behavior, and no objective performance measures were
taken into consideration. Knowledge sharing has been measured with five items. These items address the question ‘‘how of-
ten’’ different types of knowledge are shared. Hence, only the quantitative part of knowledge sharing is measured. The scale
does not capture the ‘‘qualitative’’ dimension of knowledge. Hence, future studies should try replicating this study with
other, more qualitative, measures of knowledge.
Finally, this study investigated antecedents of knowledge sharing in a single company and within project teams. As has
been discussed above, some of the relationships could be influenced by organizational culture, the setting (project teams),
performance, or evaluation systems, etc. Therefore, generalizability issues still remain and future studies should especially
test the influences of these moderating effects in other settings.

References

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. (2005). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191–224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
Almeida, P., Phene, A., & Grant, R. (2003). Innovation and knowledge management: Scanning, sourcing, and integration. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 357–371). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation process. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 260–267.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1),
100–123.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1),
150–169.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the expertise of others. Organisational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1–8.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing, 14, 396–402.
Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organizations. New York: Norton.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitivist theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response ate in academic studies – a comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52(4), 421–438.
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
328 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(3), 497–505.
Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 337–352.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (nach Costa und McCrae). Göttingen, Bern, Toronto, Seattle: Hogrefe.
Bouchard, T. J. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243–273.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (1998). Effects of trait competitiveness and perceived intraorganizational competition on salesperson goal setting
and performance. Journal of Marketing, 62(Fall), 88–99.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2),
343–378.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 70–80.
Button, S., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational behavior research: A conceptual and empirical framework. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 48–86.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(2), 245–264.
Cangelosi, V. E., & Dill, W. R. (1965). Organizational learning: Observations toward a theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), 175–203.
Canli, T. (2008). Toward a neurogenetic theory of neuroticism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1129(1), 153–174.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological
Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J.-A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual
difference, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835–847.
Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and performance trajectories: The roles of supplementary and complementary situational
inducements. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 21–38.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(5), 554–568.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learning during the learning process: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654–665.
Cook, C. H., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,
821–836.
Costa, P. T. J., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Crossan, M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3),
522–537.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352–364.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management project. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43–57.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge – How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Dingman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–4048.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation. Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 99–255). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Legett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 54, 5–12.
Efron, B., & Gong, G. (1983). A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. The American Statistician, 37(1), 36–48.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. (2002). Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In A. Pettigrew et al. (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and
management (pp. 139–164). London: Sage.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology.
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 193–232.
Findlay, C. S., & Lumsden, C. J. (1988). The creative mind – Toward an evolutionary theory of discovery and innovation. Journal of Social and Biological
Structures, 11(1), 3–6.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(February), 39–50.
Foss, N. (2009). Alternative research strategies in the knowledge movement: From Macro bias to micro-foundations and multi-level explanations. European
Management Review, 6(1), 16–28.
Funder, D. C. (2008). Persons, situations, and person-situation interactions. In O. P. John et al. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(pp. 568–582). New York: Guilford Press.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–122.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.
Harris, E. G., Mowen, J. C., & Brown, T. J. (2005). Re-examining salesperson goal orientations: Personality influencers, customer orientation and work
satisfaction. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 19–35.
Hazlett, S.-A., McAdam, R., & Gallagher, S. (2005). Theory building in knowledge management – In search of paradigms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1),
31–42.
Hong, R. Y., Paunonen, S. V., & Slade, H. P. (2008). Big five personality factors and the prediction of behavior: A multitrait–multimethod approach. Personality
and Individual Differences, 45(2), 160–166.
Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and
outcome expectations. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 65, 153–169.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2),
195–204.
Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398–416.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337–359.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.
P. John et al. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6),
869–879.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),
530–541.
 K. Matzler, J. Mueller / Journal of Economic Psychology 32 (2011) 317–329 329

Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1996). Motivation skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Individual
Differences, 8(3), 185–209.
Klein, H. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 150–172.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–398.
Kohli, A., Shervani, T. A., & Challagalla, G. M. (1998). Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing
Research, 35(May), 263–274.
KPMG (2000). Knowlede Management Research 2000. KPMG Consulting Reports.
Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W. (2008). Behavior genetics and personality: A new look at the integration of nature and nurture. In O. P. John et al. (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 287–310). New York: Guilford Press.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge – Building and sustaining the sources of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(1), 41–58.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. Research on motivation in education. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education. New York: Academic Press.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Müller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(3), 301–313.
Matzler, K., Rier, M., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Stadler, C. (2005). Methods and concepts in management: Significance, satisfaction and suggestions for
further research – Perspective from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Strategic Change, 14, 1–13.
McCrae, R. R. (2007). Individual differences. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory perspective. New York: Guilford.
Mir, R., & Mir, A. (2009). Studying knowledge transfer across international boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 90–113.
Mooradian, T. A., & Olver, J. M. (1997). ‘‘I can’t get no satisfaction:’’ The impact of personality and emotion on postpurchase processes. Psychology &
Marketing, 14(4), 379–393.
Mooradian, T. A., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning, 37(4), 523–540.
Mowen, J. C. (2000). The 3M model of motivation and personality: Theory and empirical applications to consumer behavior. Boston: Kluwer.
Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 363–384.
Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20(2), 465–478.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behaviour across
cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413–433.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(1), 128–150.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583–597.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 7–26.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350–367.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48,
240–267.
Renner, W. (2002). A psychometric analysis of the NEO five-factor inventory in an Austrian sample. Review of Psychology, 9(1–2), 25–31.
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega – International Journal of
Management Science, 36, 206–220.
Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113–122.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2004). Meta-review of knowledge management and intellectual capital literature: Citation impact and research productivity
rankings. Knowledge and Process Management, 11(3), 185–198.
Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 45–62.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39–54.
Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Goal orientations and the motivation to share knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 378–393.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1),
9–27.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 225–252.
Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6),
995–1015.
Vandewalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581–604.
Vermetten, Y. J., Lodewijks, H. G., & Vermunt, J. D. (2001). The role of personality traits and goal orientations in strategy use. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26, 149–170.
Verona, G., Prandelli, E., & Sawhney, M. (2006). Innovation and virtual environments: Toward virtual knowledge brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6),
765–788.
von Krogh, G. (1998). Care in knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 133–153.
Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). The effects of job autonomy, customer demandingness, and trait competitiveness on salesperson learning, self-efficacy,
and performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(Summer), 217–228.
Wang, C.-C., & Yang, Y.-J. (2007). Personality and intention to share knowledge: An empirical study of scientists in an R&D laboratory. Social Behavior and
Personality, 35(10), 1427–1436.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 35–57.
Yeh, Y.-J., Lai, S.-Q., & Ho, C.-T. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: A case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 793–810.
Zaidman, N., & Brock, D. M. (2009). Knowledge transfer within multinationals and their foreign subsidiaries. Group & Organization Management, 34(3),
297–329.
Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., & Stoeger, H. (2008). Addressees of performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 643–654.
Ziegler, A., Schober, B., & Dresel, M. (2005). Maladaptive behavioral patterns. Georgian Electronic Scientific Journal: Education Science and Psychology, 1(6),
76–86.
Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and
performance intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1693–1708.