Advertisement

Information Technology and Management

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 291–304 | Cite as

Ambidextrous information search: linking personal and impersonal search routines with individual performance

  • Dong-Hee Shin
  • Min Jae Choi
Article

Abstract

Organizations invest resources to develop information capabilities, to utilize personal and impersonal information. While the utilization of knowledge is likely to improve organizational performance, it is unclear what the consequences of utilizing personal and impersonal sources of information are for individuals. This study sought to increase understanding of the performance implications of using personal and impersonal information, by examining four business units of a large financial institution. Utilizing competing theoretical models, we tested whether personal and impersonal sources of information substituted for, or complemented each other. The results indicated that individuals who utilized information from personal and impersonal sources of knowledge in a complementary fashion had superior performance. Parsing impersonal knowledge sourcing, we found that the use of specific impersonal information repositories increased performance, while the use of general impersonal information decreased performance. In general, this study shed light on the origins of individual knowledge capabilities, and indicated that individuals gain advantages, by engaging in particular knowledge-sourcing routines.

Keywords

Information search Personal search Impersonal search Individual performance Information seeking behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Samsung Research Fund, Sungkyunkwan University, 2014.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahn D, Shin D (2013) Is the social use of media for seeking connectedness or for avoiding social isolation? Comput Hum Behav 29(6):2453–2462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alavi M, Leidner D (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems. MIS Q 25(1):107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allison PD (2010). Missing data. In Wright JD, Marsden PV (eds) Handbook of survey research. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Bingley, UK, pp 631–657Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltar F, Brunet I (2012) Social research 2.0: virtual snowball sampling method using Facebook. Internet Res 22(1):57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barua A, Ravindran S, Whinston A (2007) Enabling information sharing within organizations. Inf Technol Manage 8(1):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett K, Frain M, Brady M (2009) Differences between employees’ and supervisors’ evaluations of work performance and support needs. Educ Train Dev Disabil 44:471–480Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergman O, Beyth-Marom R, Nachmias R (2008) The user-subjective approach to personal information management systems design. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 59(2):235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance. MIS Q 24(1):169–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Birkinshaw J, Sheehan T (2002) Managing the knowledge life cycle. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 44(1):75–83Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Byström K (1999) Task complexity, information types and information sources. In: Doctoral dissertation. Tampere, University of Tampere (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 688)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Byström K (2002) Information and information sources in task of varying complexity. J Am Soc Inf Sci 53:581–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Byström K, Hansen P (2002) Work tasks as units for analysis in information seeking and retrieval studies. In: Bruce H, Fidel R, Ingwersen P, Vakkari P (eds) Emerging frameworks and methods. Libraries Unlimited, Greenwood Village, CO, pp 239–251Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Byström K, Järvelin K (1995) Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Inform Process Manag 31(2):191–213Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cao W, Xu L, Liang L, Chaudhry S (2012) The impact of team task and job engagement on the transfer of tacit knowledge in e-business virtual teams. Inf Technol Manage 13(4):333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chuang S, Liao C, Lin S (2013) Determinants of knowledge management with information technology support impact on firm performance. Inf Technol Manage 14(3):217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ (2004) My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Measur 64(3):391–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Crowston K, Scozzi B (2008) Bug fixing practices within free/libre open source software development teams. J Database Manage 19(2):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Vos A, Freese C (2011) Sensemaking during organizational entry. J Occup Organ Psychol 84(2):288–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donaldson L (2001) The contingency theory of organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CaliforniaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Erdelez JLM, He W (2007) The search experience variable in information behavior research. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 58(10):1529–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fairchild A (2006) Decision management: role and effect of using an intelligent intermediary to aid in information sharing. Inf Technol Manage 7(4):249–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fernet C, Austin S, Trépanier SG, Dussault M (2013) How do job characteristics contribute to burnout? Eur J Work Organ Psychol 22:123–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fidel R, Green M (2004) The many faces of accessibility: engineers’ perception of information sources. Inf Process Manage 40(3):563–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goffin K, Koners U (2011) Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and new product development. J Prod Innov Manage 28(2):300–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH (2001) Knowledge management. J Manage Inf Syst 18(1):185–214Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greener I (2002) Theorizing path-dependency: how does history come to matter in organizations? Manag Decis 40(6):614–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guo B (2011) The scope of external information-seeking under uncertainty. Int J Inf Manage 31(2):137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Haas MR, Hansen MT (2005) When using knowledge can hurt performance. Strateg Manag J 26(1):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin Sci Quart 44:82–111Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hansen MT, Mors ML, Lovas B (2005) Knowledge sharing in organizations: multiple networks, multiple phases. Acad Manag J 48(5):776–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hatch N, Dyer J (2004) Human capital and learning as a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 25(12):1155–1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    He W, Erdelez S, Wang FK, Shyu CR (2008) The effects of conceptual description and search practice on users’ mental models and information seeking in a case-based reasoning retrieval system. Inf Process Manage 44(1):294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hwang Y, Shin D, Kim Y (2012) Structural change in search engine news service. Asian J Commun 22(2):160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jansen BJ, Booth D, Smith B (2009) Using the taxonomy of cognitive learning to model online searching. Inf Process Manage 45(6):643–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Karunakaran A, Reddy M, Spence P (2013) Toward a model of collaborative information behavior in organizations. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64(12):2437–2451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kimble C (2013) Knowledge management, codification and tacit knowledge. Inf Res 18(2) paper 577. http://InformationR.net/ir/18-4/paper577.html
  37. 37.
    Kovach B (2010) Blur: how to know what’s true in the age of information overload. Bloomsbury, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Foss E, Druin A, Brewer R, Lo P, Sanchez L, Golub E, Hutchinson H (2012) Children’s search roles at home. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 63(3):558–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Langfred C, Moye N (2004) Effects of task autonomy on performance. J Appl Psychol 89(6):934–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lenox M, King A (2004) Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strateg Manag J 25:331–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McDonald ML, Westphal JD (2003) Getting by with the advice of their friends. Adm Sci Q 48(1):1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McGee J, Sawyerr O (2003) Uncertainty and information search activities: a study of owner-managers of small high-technology manufacturing firms. J Small Bus Manage 41(4):385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Morgan N, Kaleka A, Katsikeas C (2004) Antecedents of export venture performance. J Mark 68(1):90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 5(1):14–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertiusiungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Adm Sci Q 50(1):100–130Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rawley E, Simcoe T (2013) Information technology, productivity, and asset ownership. Organ Sci 24(3):831–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rowley T, Behrens D, Krackhardt D (2000) Redundant governance structures. Strateg Manag J 21(3):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Saane N, Sluiter K, Verkbeek J, Frings-Dresen M (2003) Reliability and validity of instruments measuring job satisfaction. Occup Med 53:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sansnee J, Wallin M (2002) Use of formal and informal methods to gaininformation among faculty at an Australian regional university. J Acad Librariansh 18(1/2):68–73Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shin D (2013) User experience in social commerce: in friends we trust. Behav Inf Technol 32(1):52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shin D, Lee CW (2011) Disruptive innovation for social change: how technology innovation can be best managed in social context. Telematics Inform 28(2):86–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simon H (1947) Administrative behavior, 2nd edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stenmark D (2000) Leveraging tacit organizational knowledge. J Manage Inf Syst 17(3):9–24Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Su C, Contractor N (2011) A multidimensional network approach to studying team members’ information seeking from human and digital knowledge sources in consulting firms. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 62(7):1257–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tansel O, Kianmehr K, Tan M (2012) Recent trends in information reuse and integration. Springer Publishing, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tsai W (2000) Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strateg Manag J 21(9):925–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vakkari P (2008) Trends and approaches in information behavior research. Inf Res 13(4) paper 361. http://InformationR.net/ir/13-4/paper361.html
  59. 59.
    Weick KE (2009) Making sense of the organization (volume 2) the impermanent organization. Blackwell, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wetherbe C, Turban E, Leidner E, McLean R (2007) Information technology for management: transforming organizations in the digital economy, 6th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Williamson OE (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach. Am J Sociol 87:548–577Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Xie I, Joo S (2012) Factors affecting the selection of search tactics. Inf Process Manage 48(2):254–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang H, Smith L, Twidale M (2010) Four epistemological views of information organization behavior on personal computers of information workers. Proceedings of the 73rd ASIS&T annual meeting on navigating streams in an information ecosystem, vol 47 (19), pp 1–19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interaction ScienceSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Korea Press FoundationSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations