IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/gx6d3_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beraten statt archivieren. Wie öffentlich Beschäftigte ihr Wissen am Arbeitsplatz teilen

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Caroline

Abstract

Dieser Artikel untersucht das Teilen von Wissen durch Beschäftigte im öffentlichen Sektor. Wissensteilung ist die zentrale Voraussetzung für das organisationale Wissensmanagement. Es wurde eine Typologie entwickelt, die als Analyseraster vier Verhaltensweisen, Wissen zu teilen, unterscheidet (Berichten, Archivieren, Beraten, Hinweisen). Mithilfe von Daten aus drei Studien (qualitativ und quantitativ) wird beschrieben, wie Mitarbeiter im öffentlichen Sektor ihr Wissen teilen. Dies wurde in der Literatur bisher außer Acht gelassen. Die identifizierten Verhaltensweisen sind mehrheitlich responsiv, statt proaktiv, und richten sich direkt an Wissensnehmer, statt an ein Trägermedium. Sie können daher in der vorgeschlagenen Typologie als beratendes Verhalten eingestuft werden. Das ist weniger ressourcenaufwändig für die Wissensgeber, wirkt sich aber negativ auf die langfristige Speicherung und Auffindbarkeit von Wissen in einer Organisation aus.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Caroline, 2018. "Beraten statt archivieren. Wie öffentlich Beschäftigte ihr Wissen am Arbeitsplatz teilen," OSF Preprints gx6d3_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gx6d3_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/gx6d3_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ba8a3699108ce0015f691c4/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/gx6d3_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jialin Yi, 2009. "A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: scale development and validation," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 65-81, March.
    2. G Anthony Gorry, 2008. "Sharing knowledge in the public sector: two case studies," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 105-111, June.
    3. Michael Theil, 2002. "The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 177-186, April.
    4. John J Rodwell & Stephen TT Teo, 2004. "Strategic HRM in for-profit and non-profit organizations in a knowledge-intensive industry," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 311-331, September.
    5. Carla Curado & Mírian Oliveira & Antonio Carlos Gastaud Maçada & Felipe Nodari, 2017. "Teams’ innovation: getting there through knowledge sharing and absorptive capacity," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(1), pages 45-53, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fischer, Caroline, 2018. "Beraten statt archivieren. Wie öffentlich Beschäftigte ihr Wissen am Arbeitsplatz teilen," OSF Preprints gx6d3, Center for Open Science.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    3. Meena, Abhilasha & Dhir, Sanjay & Sushil, Sushil, 2024. "Coopetition, strategy, and business performance in the era of digital transformation using a multi-method approach: Some research implications for strategy and operations management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    4. Marie Juanchich & Karl Halvor Teigen & Am'elie Gourdon, 2013. "Top scores are possible, bottom scores are certain (and middle scores are not worth mentioning): A pragmatic view of verbal probabilities," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(3), pages 345-364, May.
    5. Boman, Mattias, 2009. "To pay or not to pay for biodiversity in forests - What scale determines responses to willingness to pay questions with uncertain response options?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 79-91, January.
    6. Robert N. Collins & David R. Mandel, 2019. "Cultivating credibility with probability words and numbers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(6), pages 683-695, November.
    7. Luigino Bruni & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani & Matteo Rizzolli, 2020. "The Pied Piper: Prizes, Incentives, and Motivation Crowding-in," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 643-658, October.
    8. Ahti Salo & Edoardo Tosoni & Juho Roponen & Derek W. Bunn, 2022. "Using cross‐impact analysis for probabilistic risk assessment," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), June.
    9. Haoyan Li & Hui Jiang, 2024. "Stable Social Knowledge Creation to Solve the Contract Failure Dilemma in International Construction Engineering: A Liquid Crystal Metaphor," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 6937-6968, June.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:6:p:683-695 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Rozeen Shaukat & Shakil Ahmad & Muhammad Asif Naveed & Shafiq Ur Rehman, 2023. "Impact of Personality Traits on Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Academicians: A Case of University of Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    12. Yu Li & Hao Li, 2024. "Examining the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Tacit Knowledge Sharing using a Moderated Mediation Model," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(3), pages 21582440241, September.
    13. Riege, Anine H. & Teigen, Karl Halvor, 2013. "Additivity neglect in probability estimates: Effects of numeracy and response format," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 41-52.
    14. Garima Mathur & Abhijeet Singh Chauhan, 2021. "Teacher Evaluation of Institutional Performance: Managing Cultural Knowledge Infrastructure in Knowledge Organisations," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, October.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:345-364 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Teigen, Karl Halvor & Juanchich, Marie & Løhre, Erik, 2022. "What is a “likely” amount? Representative (modal) values are considered likely even when their probabilities are low," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:gx6d3_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.