Advertisement

Developing Transactive Memory Systems

  • Patrick Figge
Chapter
Part of the Innovation und Entrepreneurship book series (INNOV)

Abstract

Prior research has focused on how the social exchange rule of reciprocity can incentivize cooperative behavior in organizations. However, we argue that reciprocity has costs which have so far been largely ignored and which can have an adverse impact on intra-organizational knowledge collaboration. If the costs of reciprocity are perceived to be high in an organization, potential knowledge-seekers may hesitate to ask internal experts for help. This can sub-stantially impede the development of organizational transactive memory systems. Using a unique dataset of 222 German companies, we find that the costs of reciprocity do indeed restrict the development of organizational transactive memory systems. We also theorize and find empirical evidence of ways in which organizations can counter this adverse effect: formalization of procedures for knowledge collaboration and organizational slack resources moderate the negative effect of the costs of reciprocity. Using information technology to facilitate knowledge retrieval, however, is not shown to have any effect.

Keywords

transactive memory systems reciprocity organizational design social exchange theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. 1968. Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review, 33(6): 912–930.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3): 396–402.Google Scholar
  3. Atuahene-Gima, K. 2005. Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4): 61–83.Google Scholar
  4. Bamberger, P. 2009. Employee help-seeking: Antecedents, consequences and new insights for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 28: 49–98.Google Scholar
  5. Belmi, P., & Pfeffer, J. 2015. How ‘organization’ can weaken the norm of reciprocity: The effects of attributions for favors and a calculative mindset. Academy of Management Discoveries, 1(1): 93–113.Google Scholar
  6. Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4): 432–445.Google Scholar
  8. Caimo, A., & Lomi, A. 2015. Knowledge sharing in organizations. Journal of Management, 41(2): 665–691.Google Scholar
  9. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6): 874–900.Google Scholar
  10. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. DeVellis, R. F. 2012. Scale development (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bachrach, D. G. 2012. Role expectations as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating effects of work context. Journal of Management, 38(2): 573–598.Google Scholar
  13. Dosi, G., Faillo, M., & Marengo, L. 2008. Organizational capabilities, patterns of knowledge accumulation and governance structures in business firms. Organization Studies, 29(8–9): 1165–1185.Google Scholar
  14. Emerson, R. M. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2: 335–362.Google Scholar
  15. Fehr, E., & Gaechter, S. 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3): 159–181.Google Scholar
  16. Fjeldstad, Ø. D., Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Lettl, C. 2012. The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6): 734–750.Google Scholar
  17. Gittel, J. H., & Douglass, A. 2012. Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37(4): 709–733.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. 2011. Reciprocity by proxy: A novel influence strategy for stimulating cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3): 441–473.Google Scholar
  19. Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2): 161–178.Google Scholar
  20. Gouldner, A. W. 1962. Organizational analysis. In R. K. Merton & L. Broom (Eds.), Sociology today. Problems and prospects (5th ed.): 400–428. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109–122.Google Scholar
  22. Greenberg, M. S., & Shapiro, S. P. 1971. Indebtedness: An adverse aspect of asking for and receiving help. Sociometry, 34(2): 290–301.Google Scholar
  23. Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. 2015. Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1): 136–168.Google Scholar
  24. Haeussler, C. 2011. Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study. Research Policy, 40(1): 105–122.Google Scholar
  25. Haeussler, C., Jiang, L., Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. 2014. Specific and general information sharing among competing academic researchers. Research Policy, 43(3): 465–475.Google Scholar
  26. Hair, J. F. 2010. Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River [etc.]: Pearson.Google Scholar
  27. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. 2015. To invest or not? Journal of Management, 41(6): 1628–1650.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. 2017. Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity: The influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43(3): 919–945.Google Scholar
  30. Hecker, A. 2012. Knowledge beyond the individual? Making sense of a notion of collective knowledge in organization theory. Organization Studies, 33(3): 423–445.Google Scholar
  31. Hollingshead, A. B. 2000. Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3): 257–267.Google Scholar
  32. Hollingshead, A. B., & Brandon, D. P. 2003. Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29(4): 607–615.Google Scholar
  33. Jackson, P., & Klobas, J. 2008. Transactive memory systems in organizations: Implications for knowledge directories. Decision Support Systems, 44(2): 409–424.Google Scholar
  34. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98.Google Scholar
  35. Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 587–604.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, K. 2004. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11): 1519–1533.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. 2011. Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22(5): 1254–1265.Google Scholar
  38. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. 2005. Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6): 581–598.Google Scholar
  39. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4): 384–393.Google Scholar
  40. Liao, J., Jimmieson, N. L., O’Brien, A. T., & Restubog, S. L. D. 2012. Developing transactive memory systems: Theoretical contributions from a social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 37(2): 204–240.Google Scholar
  41. Moreland, R. L. 1999. Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations. The management of knowledge: 3–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. 1996. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups: 57–84. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. 2000. Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 117–133.Google Scholar
  44. Nadler, A., Peri, N., & Chemerinski, A. 1985. Effects of opportunity to reciprocate and selfesteem on help-seeking behavior. Journal of Personality, 53(1): 23–35.Google Scholar
  45. Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1): 100–130.Google Scholar
  46. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. 2006. The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32(4): 575–594.Google Scholar
  47. Peltokorpi, V. 2008. Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12(4): 378–394.Google Scholar
  48. Peltokorpi, V. 2012. Organizational transactive memory systems. European Psychologist, 17(1): 11–20.Google Scholar
  49. Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. 2012. Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1115–1166.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1): 539–569.Google Scholar
  52. Porter, C. M., & Woo, S. E. 2015. Untangling the networking phenomenon. Journal of Management, 41(5): 1477–1500.Google Scholar
  53. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. 2006. Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4): 437–448.Google Scholar
  54. Ren, Y., & Argote, L. 2011. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5: 189–229.Google Scholar
  55. Richardson, H. A., & Taylor, S. G. 2012. Understanding input events: A model of employees’ responses to requests for their input. Academy of Management Review, 37(3): 471–491.Google Scholar
  56. Seong, J. Y., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Park, W.-W., Hong, D.-S., & Shin, Y. 2015. Person-group fit. Journal of Management, 41(4): 1184–1213.Google Scholar
  57. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3): 456–476.Google Scholar
  58. Song, J. L., Tsui, A. S., & Law, K. S. 2007. Unpacking employee responses to organizational exchange mechanisms. Journal of Management, 35(1): 56–93.Google Scholar
  59. Su, C. 2012. Who knows who knows what in the group? The effects of communication network centralities, use of digital knowledge repositories, and work remoteness on organizational members’ accuracy in expertise recognition. Communication Research, 39(5): 614–640.Google Scholar
  60. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. 1959. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Tsoukas, H. 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 11–25.Google Scholar
  63. Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3): 613–624.Google Scholar
  64. van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Joireman, J. 2008. In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6): 1195–1207.Google Scholar
  65. Volberda, H. W., van der Weerdt, N., Verwaal, E., Stienstra, M., & Verdu, A. J. 2012. Contingency fit, institutional fit, and firm performance: A metafit approach to organization–environment relationships. Organization Science, 23(4): 1040–1054.Google Scholar
  66. von Hippel, E. 1987. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6): 291–302.Google Scholar
  67. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1): 82–111.Google Scholar
  68. Wegner, D. M. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior: 185–208. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Wegner, D. M. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13(3): 319–339.Google Scholar
  70. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. 1985. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships: 253–276. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FB WirtschaftswissenschaftenUniversität PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations