Degree Project:

(1)

Degree Project:

Level: Master’s in business studies

Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Cultural Virtual Teams of an NGO

Exploring the motivation for knowledge sharing of individu- als

Authors: Hanna Byström & Marina Jäger Supervisor: Wensong Bai

Examiner:

Subject/main field of study: Business Studies with an International Focus Course code: FÖ3027

Credits: 15

Date of examination: May 24^th

At Dalarna University it is possible to publish the student thesis in full text in DiVA.

The publishing is open access, which means the work will be freely accessible to read and download on the internet. This will significantly increase the dissemination and vis- ibility of the student thesis.

Open access is becoming the standard route for spreading scientific and academic information on the internet. Dalarna University recommends that both researchers as well as students publish their work open access.

I give my/we give our consent for full text publishing (freely accessible on the internet, open access):

Yes ☒ No ☐

Dalarna University – SE-791 88 Falun – Phone +4623-77 80 00

(2)

i

Abstract

Purpose – This master thesis aims to investigate knowledge sharing within two selected

cross-cultural virtual teams of a non-governmental organization. The particular focus of this study is on the motivation for knowledge sharing of the individual team members. Based on the findings, the study provides implications for the development of an organizational knowledge management strategy.

Design/Methodology/Approach – The qualitative research approach of this study was

based on the conceptual framework of this thesis. Said framework was particularly influenced by Swift et al.’s (2010) model on goal orientations and the motivation to share knowledge. After eight semi-structured interviews with participants from the organization, Template Analysis was applied for the data analysis.

Findings – It was possible to categorize the participants in learning-prove, learning-avoid

and performance-prove goal orientations which showed that the motivation stemmed from both learning and demonstrating competence. Furthermore, contributing was a motivating factor in both goal orientations. In the learning goal orientation, it was demonstrated by wanting to contribute to a better life for youth and children and the performance goal orientation focused on contributing to a successful organization. The factors which affected the behaviour towards knowledge sharing were relational and cognitive ones. Structural factors did not have an effect.

Practical Implications – The practical contribution of this study was the development of

managerial implications for the NGO’s HR department. Based on the identified findings, these implications are to be used for the development of a knowledge management strategy within the organization, as it is currently lacking. These implications focus mainly on infra- structural issues as well as on the promotion of organizational culture.

Originality/Value – The value of this study is the focus on cross-cultural virtual teams of

an NGO, an area lacking research regarding the motivation of individuals to share knowledge. The authors put a particular focus on team members from Northern and Eastern Europe as well as Africa.

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Sharing, Motivation, Cross-Cultural, Virtual, NGO, Teams, Motivation, Individuals

(3)

ii

Preface

We would love to thank everyone who contributed to this thesis. First and foremost, a big thanks goes to Reach for Change, willing to participate in our study: Kristina, for giving us the chance and making it all possible and Paula for bringing up the idea and establishing contacts. Thank you to all the anonymous employees who agreed to be interviewed and provided us with tons of insightful knowledge for our study. We could not have done this study without you!

We also want to thank our supervisor Wensong Bai for inspiring discussions and constant support.

Moreover, we want to thank all our (very!) patient friends who were willing to proof-read the thesis and provided us with invaluable tips. Thanks to all our friends and family who constantly supported us and, most importantly, believed in us.

Hanna & Marina

(4)

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Goal orientations and knowledge sharing ... 11

Figure 2: Trust and knowledge sharing ... 48

List of Tables

Table 1: Features of tacit and explicit knowledge ... 5

Table 2: Relationships between goal orientations and knowledge sharing behavior ... 9

Table 3: Overview of study participants ... 15

Table 4: Goal orientations of interviewees ... 43

Table 5: Implications... 52

(7)

vi

List of Abbreviations

ICT Informations and Communications Technology

MNC Multinational companies

NGO Non-governmental organization

RfC Reach for Change

SDT Self-Determination Theory

TPB Theory of Planned Behavior

(8)

1

1. Introduction

This section provides a first overview of the study’s background and problematiza- tion before outlining the research gap. Furthermore, the aim of the study is pre- sented as well as the research question.

1.1 Background and Problematization

In today’s fast changing business world, both employers and employees face various challenges. Often, both the customers as well as the offices of an organization are scattered all around the world which makes it increasingly common to work in virtual teams with colleagues who are based in different offices, often located in different countries (Sołek-Borowska, 2015). Furthermore, there is a trend towards more heterogeneous constellations of teams (Sembdner, 2011). The development of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) led to many organizational changes which are also the reason why a great share of firms established virtual teams within their organization (Davidavičienė et al., 2020). Moreover, the Covid- 19 pandemic accelerated this trend even further and led to led to a great number of employees working remotely in virtual teams at the moment. It is also estimated that this will influence the working world of tomorrow, meaning that many employers will continue to offer flexible workplaces even after the pandemic (Lund et al., 2020).

Applying knowledge is often considered a basic asset to gain a competitive ad- vantage in the branch or industry (Riege, 2005) and selecting a suitable knowledge management strategy is an important managerial issue in many organizations (Earl, 2001). Because of that, knowledge sharing in virtual teams plays a crucial role in the knowledge management processes of organizations. Among the world’s most successful companies are the knowledge-based ones (Bolisani & Bratianu, 2018).

In order to reach an optimal level of knowledge sharing, highly efficient teams are an absolute necessity. In addition to that, it is important to make sure that these virtual teams can function in cross-cultural contexts as teams work on a more global scale than ever before. Firms must understand knowledge sharing in order to be able to create possibilities for global teams to be successful (Wendling et al., 2013).

(9)

2

1.2 Research Problem & Research Gap

For knowledge management strategies to be efficient, one needs to understand the behavior of individuals and their motivation to share knowledge since motivation is considered an important factor for knowledge sharing (Argote et al., 2003;

Barachini, 2009; Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Siemsen et al., 2008; Wittenbaum et al., 2004). If an employee is not motivated to share knowledge or to participate in knowledge management activities within their organization, knowledge transfer cannot be executed (Swift et al., 2010). Prior research has focused on identifying both barriers and enablers for knowledge sharing (Alsharo et al., 2017; Davidavičienė et al., 2020; Goettsch, 2016; Kauppila et al., 2011; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Riege, 2005; Wei, 2010). However, the research often concludes in contradictory findings according to Davidavičienė et al. (2020).

A possible reason for this is that researchers have failed to take the individuals' personal motivation towards knowledge sharing, such as goal orientation, into consideration (Swift et al., 2010). That means that barriers and enablers might stem from something deeper, affecting the individual's behavior towards sharing knowledge.

Most of the research on knowledge sharing in either cross-cultural contexts and/or virtual teams were conducted in multinational companies (MNC) (Kauppila et al., 2011; Oertig & Buergi, 2006; Wei, 2010; Wendling et al., 2013). There is, however, a lack of research in this field on non-governmental organizations (NGO), which is the reason why we aim to conduct qualitative research, focusing on knowledge sharing in cross-cultural virtual teams in the case of a Sweden-based NGO. Furthermore, it is assumed that the motivation might be different in those organizations consider- ing that MNCs work for profit while most NGO are non-profit organizations. Addi- tionally, to our knowledge, research on the motivation behind knowledge sharing in cross-cultural virtual teams is missing. Many studies investigated the barriers and impacts of knowledge sharing in the US and China, amongst others (Kauppila et al., 2011; Wei, 2010; Wendling et al., 2013). In contrast, this study focuses on team members from other parts of the world, such as Northern and Eastern Europe as well as Africa.

(10)

3

Discussions with the selected NGO Reach for Change showed that there is a lack of strategy regarding Knowledge Management. In particular, the motivation of individual team members as well as their goal orientations need to be identified in order to understand the impact of knowledge sharing of individuals on selected cross-cultural virtual teams. While the chosen NGO is a rather small non-profit organization with about 55 employees, it has offices and employees in ten countries. This provides the opportunity to investigate the motivation of the NGO’s employees to share knowledge in their cross-cultural virtual teams, a topic which is already of great relevance and will continue to be in the future. Because of the demographic shift and the globalization as well as the current pandemic, the number of employees working in virtual teams with a cross-cultural context is rising (Lund et al., 2020).

This illustrates the topic’s importance as well as its practical significance. Based on the findings of the study, we will provide managerial implications for the HR department of Reach for Change, focusing on the development of a suitable knowledge management strategy.

Our exploratory study is set out to investigate knowledge sharing in an NGO with a particular focus on the motivations of individual team members and the factors affecting their behavior towards knowledge sharing. Consequently, this study will contribute to the theory of knowledge sharing by bridging the gap in the literature regarding the motivation for knowledge sharing in a non-governmental organization with team members from cross-cultural virtual teams. The practical contribution of the study is the development of managerial implications. These will then be used for the HR department in order to create a knowledge management strategy, derived from the findings.

(11)

4

1.3 Research Question

Derived from the aim, we formulated the following research question for this study:

What are the motivations behind knowledge sharing amongst individu- als of cross-cultural virtual teams of an NGO and which underlying fac- tors affect the behavior towards knowledge sharing?

In order to explore the motivations behind knowledge sharing, selected individuals of two teams of the NGO are investigated in this study. The considered teams are cross-cultural, and their members have been working in a virtual setting since the NGO’s foundation in 2010. Also, we strive to identify the underlying relational, structural, and cognitive factors which affect the individuals’ behavior towards knowledge sharing. Based on the findings, we will provide implications for the organization’s development of an own knowledge sharing strategy, as the organization is currently lacking one.

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is structured as follows: After the introduction follows a chapter on the conceptual framework, based on the existing literature. This is followed by the methodology in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 aims to present the results of this qualitative study.

Then, in Chapter 5, these results will be analyzed and discussed and implications for the development of the organization’s knowledge management strategy will be given. The last chapter will provide the conclusion, including the limitations of the study as well as suggestions for further research.

(12)

5

2. Conceptual Framework

The following chapter aims to provide an overview of the topics involved in this master thesis and develops a conceptual framework on which the study is based upon.

2.1 Knowledge

Knowledgecan be characterized in many dimensions. Two particular dimensions in this regard are the extent to which knowledge is available as well as the extent knowledge is articulated (Augier et al., 2001; Kreiner, 2002; Swift et al., 2010; Uzzi

& Lancaster, 2003). How much knowledge can be articulated depends on the effort it requires to separate a resource from its source. Therefore, there is a distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. While tacit knowledge is difficult to articulate in general and cannot be codified or transferred, explicit knowledge is quite the opposite. Tacit knowledge often has to do with social interactions, observations, and storytelling of employees in a certain situation. This makes it hard to separate said knowledge from the individuals who possess that knowledge (Augier & Thanning Vendelø, 1999). Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is generally easy to convey and pass on. Tacit knowledge is assembled by the experience of individuals and based on that, forms the basis for explicit knowledge (Jasimuddin et al., 2005).

While explicit knowledge is mostly prevalent in documents, codes, and tools, tacit knowledge prevails in employees’ skills and experiences. The following table gives an overview of different features of explicit and tacit knowledge.

Features Tacit knowledge Explicit knowledge

Content Non-codified Codified

Articulation Difficult Easy

Location Human brains Computers, artefacts

Communication Difficult Easy

Media Face-to-face contact, storytelling Information technology and other archives

Storage Difficult Easy

Strategy Personalization Impersonalization Ownership Organization and its members Organization Table 1: Features of tacit and explicit knowledge

Own illustration, based on (Jasimuddin et al., 2005)

(13)

6

Furthermore, the literature distinguishes between the private versus public nature of knowledge. This has to do with “how easily knowledge can be objectively valued, or how universal the value of it is” (Swift et al., 2010, p. 386). Private knowledge is not available on a broad scale. It can result from specific experiences an individual or an organization has had. Because of its rare properties, private knowledge can convey more value for the holder. Nevertheless, these rare properties also make it harder to objectively value knowledge (Swift et al., 2010). Public knowledge, on the other hand, is prevalent within the public domain and consists of knowledge ob- tained from books, best practices, or formal education (Marouf, 2007). Because it is widely disbursed, it can require a lot of time to collect said public knowledge (Swift et al., 2010).

An individual’s own private knowledge can be either explicit or tacit. Public knowledge can be either explicit or tacit as well (Marouf, 2007). Knowledge varies greatly in the context of how easily it can be separated from the individual holding it. This also affects how much effort is needed to share it (Swift et al., 2010).

2.2 Motivation to Share Knowledge

To what extent knowledge management strategies will succeed, depends on the employees’ motivation for knowledge sharing and knowledge acquisition since this affects an individual's behavior to participate in knowledge sharing activities (Gagné, 2009; Swift et al., 2010). For this reason, it is necessary to understand motivation prior to the development of strategies. There are several articles presenting models for measuring knowledge sharing motivation which focus on different aspects of cognitive, social and contextual factors (Gagné, 2009; Jiacheng et al., 2010; Swift et al., 2010).

Gagné (2009) developed a model based on self-determination theory (SDT) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) which intends to test hypotheses related to motivation autonomy and norms. Motivation autonomy means that an individual's motivation is based on internal interest (intrinsic motivation) such as the feeling of en- joyment (Gagné, 2009). According to Stenius et al. (2017), other aspects of personal interest such as rewards (extrinsic motivation) are included as well. The model by

(14)

7

Gagné (2009) was tested by Stenius et al. (2017) and the result showed that an individual's personal attitude regarding knowledge sharing affects their behavior.

Stenius et al. (2017) later modified the model by Gagné (2009) and replaced moti- vation autonomy with the extrinsic identified regulation. He concluded that behavior in line with goal-oriented behavior is possibly the most common type of knowledge sharing behavior at workplaces. Goal oriented behavior means that individuals will act based on how they believe they can reach a goal. For example:

“Consider two marketing managers. One is concerned with maintaining an appear- ance of competence and the other is interested in developing their customer man-

agement capabilities. When faced with an opportunity to share their insights on handling difficult customers, how they each respond is likely to vary as a result of

how they each perceive the risks and benefits of sharing their insights.”

(Swift et al., 2010, p. 378)

Therefore, in order to successfully develop a knowledge management strategy in an organization, it is important to understand the goal-oriented behavior of employees.

Since this thesis aims to identify motivation affecting behavior towards knowledge sharing in a work context, a model focusing on goal orientation is relevant. Such a model was developed by Swift et al. (2010) who stress that there has been extensive research (Bock et al., 2005; Bordia et al., 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kwok &

Gao, 2004; Lin, 2007; Quigley et al., 2007; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Watson &

Hewett, 2006) focusing on identifying motivating factors for knowledge sharing.

However, they also claim that the results often differ between various studies since they do not take individuals' personal goals into consideration. This model includes relational, cognitive and structural factors which affect the individual's behavior towards knowledge sharing relevant for the context of the research being cross- cul- tural and virtual. These factors and the connection to the research context are further explained in Chapter 2.4.

According to Swift et al. (2010), personal goals have an impact on an individual's perception of costs and benefits of knowledge sharing. This means that costs might involve the feeling of loss of personal value, a negative reputation in those cases

(15)

8

where an individual does not share knowledge, or the overall effort it takes to participate. Despite that, it is important to be aware the result will depend on the goal orientation of an individual. The same goes for benefits as individuals can have different perceptions of the benefits of sharing knowledge which effects both the intention to share knowledge and what sort of knowledge is shared (Swift et al., 2010).

2.3 Goal Orientation

The model conceptualized by Swift et al. (2010) outlines the motivation of individuals to share knowledge as a question of a cost-benefit analysis while keeping in mind their goal orientations. Primarily, it is said that individuals can be categorized in two classes of goal orientations:

 Learning goal orientation: Individuals with this type of goal orienta- tion are focusing on acquiring new skills and knowledge. Therefore, they act in a way that enables them to learn new things (DeShon &

Gillespie, 2005).

 Performance goal orientation: Individuals with this type of goal ori- entation act in a way that makes it possible to demonstrate their skills and get positive evaluations. They want to demonstrate competence and at the same time avoid making mistakes (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005).

The learning goal orientation as well as the performance goal orientation can be further divided into two different versions: approach (learning and performance prove) and avoidance (learning and performance avoid). Individuals with learning- prove orientation are motivated by the wish to gain new competences to avoid the decline of their skillset. Also, individuals with this orientation tend to use feedback of performances in the past to evaluate their current performance. Furthermore, they focus on improving their skills and acquiring new knowledge while showing only a little concern about making mistakes in these processes. In contrast to that, the learning-avoid goal orientation represents opposite motivations for learning (DeShon &

Gillespie, 2005). Persons who have a performance-prove orientation desire to reach a high level of performance. They want to achieve this with little effort and are un- willing to take on tasks where making mistakes or failing are likely. Instead, they want to pursue opportunities where it is possible for them to show their competence,

(16)

9

in order to gain positive evaluations (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Individuals with a performance-avoid orientation, on the other hand, want to perform but wish to avoid situations where they are at risk of demonstrating their incompetence or might possibly receive negative feedback. Also, they show behaviors such as “self-handi- capping, task disengagement, and attention to non-task related information”

(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005, p. 380).

For employees within a team, knowledge sharing provides opportunities to both learn and display their own competences. However, this process can also display a person’s potential lack of knowledge and can cost both time and effort. Because of that, individuals reasoning whether to share knowledge or not consists of multiple dimensions. It is proposed that goal orientations are of particularly important in the individuals’ process of cognitively valuing the costs and benefits of knowledge sharing. This is because this, in return, affects their behavior in knowledge sharing (Swift et al., 2010). The following table aims to illustrate an overview of the relationships between goal orientations and knowledge sharing behavior in accordance with Swift et al. (2010). This behavior strongly depends on an individual’s goal orientations as well as on the type of knowledge shared. Also, the characteristics of the relationship between the sender and the receiver of the knowledge play a key role.

Extent of knowledge

sharing

Key considerations in deciding with

whom to share knowledge Primary types of knowledge shared

Cognitive Relatio-

nal Structural

Tacit, private

Tacit, public

Explicit, private

Explicit, public

Learning-prove

orientation Highest + x x x x

Learning-avoid

orientation Moderate + + x x

Performance-

prove orientation Moderate + + x x

Performance-

avoid orientation Lowest + + - x

Table 2: Relationships between goal orientations and knowledge sharing behavior Own illustration, based on (Swift et al., 2010)

(17)

10

2.4 Nature of Relationship

Swift et al. (2010) propose that other factors influence knowledge sharing as well.

Said factors are divided into three themes: relational factors, structural factors, and cognitive factors. For this thesis, it is relevant to understand these factors due to its cross-cultural virtual context. The relational factors refer to the kinds of attributes and qualities which relationships of individuals have. Also, those could affect how much knowledge individuals are willing to share with others (Swift et al., 2010).

Two individuals that trust and respect each other might be sharing more and deeper knowledge than two individuals who are missing those relational attributes. The structural factors focus more on positions in the organization. Depending on which position individuals have, they receive more or less knowledge in comparison to others. And an individual might choose to share knowledge with someone higher in the hierarchy in order to prove oneself. The cognitive factors instead focus on common language and interpretations. While common language refers to linguistic attributes and one’s proficiency, interpretations refer to how individuals understand and therefore interpret something (Swift et al., 2010).

Research on cross-cultural barriers for knowledge sharing (Ahmad, 2018; Bhat et al., 2017; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Oertig & Buergi, 2006; Wei, 2010; Wendling et al., 2013) supports Swift et al.’s (2010) nature of relationship. These studies showed barriers such as cognitive factors like different languages (Ahmad, 2018;

Wei, 2010) as well as barriers through different interpretations of meanings (Oertig

& Buergi, 2006). Other studies (Davidavičienė et al., 2020) focused on barriers in virtual teams. They concluded that trust is a main component. Other researchers (Curado & Vieira, 2019; Haesebrouck et al., 2021; Hashim & Tan, 2015; Rutten et al., 2016) came to the same conclusion. This, in likeness with Swift et al. (2010), means that knowledge sharing is affected by relational factors. However, the lacking possibility for face-to-face interactions while working in virtual teams could have a negative impact on the development of trust (Davidavičienė et al., 2020).

In conclusion, the factors from Swift et al.’s. (2010) model are relevant from a cross- cultural and virtual perspective due to the connections we draw between the factors and prior research (Ahmad, 2018; Bhat et al., 2017; Curado & Vieira, 2019;

Davidavičienė et al., 2020; Hashim & Tan, 2015; Killingsworth et al., 2016; Oertig

(18)

11

& Buergi, 2006; Rutten et al., 2016; Wei, 2010; Wendling et al., 2013). Figure 1 visualizes the goal orientations and knowledge sharing model developed by Swift et al. (2010). The model depicts the extent of knowledge sharing behavior as a result of the individuals’ goal orientations and the social capital such as structural, relational, and cognitive factors, as well as knowledge characteristics. Knowledge characteristics entail if a particular piece of knowledge is explicit or tacit. Also, it states if it is private or public.

Figure 1: Goal orientations and knowledge sharing Own illustration, based on (Swift et al., 2010)

(19)

12

3. Methodology

This chapter presents the study’s research approach as well as its research design.

Additionally, the analyzed NGO is presented, and the interview process is explained.

Lastly, potential data quality issues as well as ethical considerations are elaborated on.

3.1 Research Approach

The thesis aims to explore the motivation of the knowledge sharing behavior of individuals working in selected teams at the NGO Reach for Change. Its intention is to identify the factors which affect behavior towards knowledge sharing. Based on that, we will to provide the HR department of Reach for Change with managerial implications which will then be used for the implementation of its knowledge management strategy as the organization is lacking such a strategy for now. We aim to conduct a qualitative study with an abductive research approach as this provides the possibility of specific-to-general reasoning (Saunders et al., 2009). In detail, this means that we develop a conceptual framework influenced by the work of Swift et al. (2010) with goal orientations and the motivation to share knowledge by going back and forth between theory and collected data (Saunders et al., 2019). Based on the conceptual framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with interview questions influenced by Swift et al.’s (2010) model. The questions in the interview guide (Appendix 3) are directly aimed at key factors like the employees’ knowledge source motivation, as well as the nature of relationships, and characteristics of knowledge. These factors play a role in examining and evaluating the extent of knowledge sharing behavior.

A qualitative approach means that the result of the study will not be generalizable (Saunders et al., 2009). However, with one of the purposes of this study being to understand the individuals’ motivation, there is an interest in conducting in-depth interviews. Since another purpose is to contribute with practical implications for the participating NGO, a quantitative approach would not be ideal due to the sample size. It is also possible to argue that internal motivation amongst employees could not be generalizable either since it is subjective. A qualitative study provides the researchers with the opportunity to get a deeper understanding of motivation in the context of an NGO, which, to our knowledge, has not been researched yet.

(20)

13

3.2 Presentation of the Selected NGO

Reach for Change is an international non-profit, non-governmental organization that, through empowering social entrepreneurs, strives towards improving the lives of youth and children. It was founded in Sweden in 2010 and currently has about 55 employees in ten countries around the world. Reach for Change’s vision “is a world where all children and youth reach their full potential” (Reach for Change, 2021) which they realize by collaborating with social entrepreneurs. By empowering them through development programs, Reach for Change wants to enable these entrepreneurs to find innovative solutions which help children to live better lives. This means that the social entrepreneurs first develop and then offer products which lead to a better situation for a vulnerable target group. Examples of projects that were supported by Reach for Change’s development programs are, amongst others (Reach for Change, 2021):

 Development of educational apps and learning platforms

 Establishment of a national helpline for children in need of protection and help

 Environmental projects that focus on reusing trash

 Health care support and day care centers for disabled children

As of now, the NGO has supported over 1,000 social entrepreneurs in 18 countries in Africa, Asia, and Europe (Reach for Change, 2021). Since its foundation in 2010, the organization has put a high emphasis on remote and virtual work with employees across different countries. Therefore, Reach for Change provides an ideal case and a unique opportunity for the master study about knowledge sharing in cross-cultural virtual teams.

3.3 Sample

One of us has known Reach for Change through a personal contact. During the prep- aration for this master thesis, we sought to contact the organization’s Head of HR Kristina Petkovska Lund who agreed to the proposed collaboration. In accordance with Kristina Petkovska Lund, two different teams of the non-governmental organization were chosen. After a careful evaluation, specific employees were discretely

(21)

14

selected and then contacted without the knowledge of the organization’s HR department. These teams, namely “Partnerships” and “Partnerships & Fundraising – country level” have cross-cultural team constellations and its members work virtually. A big part of their work consists of writing fundraising proposals to potential collaboration partners. A non-probability purposive sampling was used in order to ensure a balance of socio-economic factors (Bryman & Nilsson, 2011). These teams were selected because of their heterogenic team structures, regarding the participants’ na- tionalities, countries of location, age, gender, as well as professional experience.

Initially, we contacted 13 potential participants by email of which eight declared their willingness to take part in the study. In that email, the employees received an information letter with a thorough explanation of the study (Appendix 1). After that, date and time were agreed upon and each participant received a link to a Zoom meeting. Before each interview, the participants received a form of consent (Appen- dix 2) by email which was needed to be signed in order to establish that the participants gave consent to have their interviews recorded, temporarily stored, and then used for this study. The signature was also the participants’ acknowledgement that they had received information about the study which made it possible to make an educated choice whether they wanted to participate or decline.

The following table aims to provide an overview of the employees who eventually took part in the study. The order has been randomized and it is therefore not possible to trace back who was interviewed on which date. Also, it is not possible to match the participants’ position in the table with their statements presented in the results section and in the clustered table (Appendix 4).

(22)

15 Position/Role Time at RFC

Previous experience

Interview Du- ration Cross-cul-

tural teams Virtual teams NGOs

a Country Manager 6 years x x x Written inter-

view

b

Partnership and Fundraising Man- ager

6 weeks x x x 56 min

c Country Manager 3 years x x 40 min

d Program and

Partnership Officer 3 years x 40 min

e Institutional Partner-

ships Manager 6 weeks x x x 35 min

f

Business and Pro- gram Development Director

4 years

(different roles) x x 28 min

g Fundraising and Partnership Manager

7 years

(with breaks) x x x 47 min

h Director of Partner- ships

7 years

(different roles) x 54 min

Table 3: Overview of study participants

(23)

16

3.4 Development of the Interview Guide

Firstly, an initial interview guide which questions focused on barriers and enablers in a cross-cultural and virtual context had been created. Those questions were tested on two individuals working in such contexts. The result of the interviews indicated that the topic was too broad, however, the interviews provided information which led to a shift from barriers and enablers to the motivation behind knowledge sharing.

Then, the model by Swift et al. (2010) was used to develop the final interview guide that was applied during the semi-structured interviews. The questions were based on three areas of the model: Social capital, goal orientations and knowledge characteristics.

Social Capital: Questions with the purpose of detecting relational, structural, and cognitive factors which potentially affect the motivation to share knowledge.

Goal Orientations: Questions focusing on situations that provide information to evaluate the interviewees' goal orientations. These questions were related to perceptions towards learning new skills and demonstrating competence. It also included questions about the participants’ perception towards failure, since failure is related to the avoidance aspect of goal orientations.

Knowledge Characteristics: These questions were used to detect what sort of knowledge was shared.

These themes are, however, not visible by looking at the interview guide since the questions were placed in an order to create a good flow throughout the interviews.

The interview guide also involved introduction questions which served two purposes. They provided information about each interviewee which could be used for the analysis, but they were also necessary to create a comfortable atmosphere by not immediately asking questions about their motivation. Before each recording, the interview participants engaged in informal small talk. The interview guide can be found in Appendix 3.

(24)

17

3.5 Pilot Interviews

The questions of the interview guide were tested on volunteers before the interviews were conducted with employees from the NGO. Its purpose was to detect questions which were not clearly formulated or potentially biased and to evaluate whether they were appropriate to provide sufficient data to answer the research questions. This is, according to Gani et al. (2020), important for the validity of the results, since the conclusions drawn are based on the perception that interviewees fully understand what they are asked. We conducted a total of four pilot interviews with different volunteers to test the new interview guide. All of them had prior knowledge of working in cross-cultural and virtual contexts. These individuals were selected and asked to participate in the pilot study based on a convenience selection.

The questions were evaluated after the first two interviews. They were thereafter reformulated or removed, based on the volunteers’ answers to the questions and the length of the interviews. The interviewees also got the opportunity to express how they experienced the interview and the questions asked. The two following interviews were then evaluated in the same way until it was decided that the interview guide was sufficient.

3.6 Template Analysis

The analysis followed the recommended template analysis described by King and Brooks (2017):

 Familiarization with the interview

 Preliminary coding

 Clusterization

 Production of an initial template

 Application and development of the template

This means that initially, we had to familiarize ourselves with the interviews by first transcribing the interviews and then reading the transcriptions thoroughly in order to engage with the material and reflect on the data collected. After that, preliminary coding took place by hand. For this, the data from the transcriptions was laid out in a way that helped to facilitate the analysis process. The identified themes were or- ganized into meaningful clusters, moving them around the emerging structure until

(25)

18

they fit in a place. We used post-it notes which were then placed on a large board.

This helped to identify specific themes of the interviews. The following topics were used as preliminary codes of the interviews:

 Own motivation/personal attitude (for working at an NGO)

 Type of knowledge mostly shared and received by interviewee

 What is necessary to share and receive knowledge?

 Knowledge sharing barriers, hindrances, difficulties

 Holding/retaining knowledge

 Lost knowledge

 Improvement suggestions (for knowledge sharing within team)

 Impact of knowledge sharing virtually

 Expectations for knowledge sharing

 Expressed motivation behind knowledge sharing

 Motivation on the job

 Demotivating experience for knowledge sharing

 Learning vs. demonstrating competence

 Take on failures

 Relationships

 Language/linguistic factors

 Cultural barriers

 Cultural benefits and advantages

These themes were then presented in a table (Appendix 4). The comments from the interview partners most relevant to these themes were then inserted in the table to gain a deeper overview of the material and to identify potential theme-based clusters. This step should make it possible for the researchers to organize the identified themes into meaningful clusters (King & Brooks, 2017).

Certain methods of thematic qualitative data analysis insist on collecting the entire data before preliminary coding can be initiated. However, this is not the case in the Template Analysis (King & Brooks, 2017), meaning that we could begin with the preliminary coding after having conducted the first four interviews. Furthermore,

(26)

19

the framework was then applied to the data collected from the first interviews. After that, we made minor modifications in our interview guide. Through that, the interviews conducted later could then be adjusted according to the data needed for the initial template as well as the framework. After having formulated the initial template, it was useful to go back to the collected data and review it systematically.

Moreover, potential modifications could then be made, for example when either existing themes had to be redefined or new themes had to be added to the template (King & Brooks, 2017). During the following interviews, the initial template was applied and continuously developed, before continuing with the final template (Ap- pendix 5).

3.7 Data Quality

When conducting qualitative research, there are several limitations such as potential data quality issues (Bryman & Nilsson, 2011). Seeking to interview quite a high number of employees is one way to ensure the validity of the data. Another way to address this potential issue was to record every interview twice (by both researchers) in order to ensure that data did not get lost. Moreover, interviews provide less anonymity than an online survey, which can cause that interviewees might not want to speak freely as they fear potential consequences (Saunders et al., 2009). This was addressed by assuring each interviewee anonymity in a written document. Also, there is a risk of biases since the researchers’ personal judgments can affect the ob- jectivity of the study (Bryman & Nilsson, 2011; Saunders et al., 2009). Moreover, the interview of a previous candidate can influence the interviewees’ perception of the following interview and so forth. We sought to address these potential issues by the fact that we conducted the interviews together. These constellations with two interviewers and one participant were to assure a more neutral and balanced perspective.

There are several technical aspects to take into consideration, amongst those is the online platform which was chosen as the most suitable option for the interviews.

Zoom is not the platform that the participating NGO is using in their daily work, which means that the instructions would need to be very clear. Prior experiences indicate that this could lead to confusion and misunderstandings otherwise. Further- more, technology problems could occur such as lacking internet connection and

(27)

20

problems with the camera or microphone. To prevent these issues from affecting the interview quality, both interviewers were present during each session. If the interviewee would have had severe technological problems, the solution would have been to reschedule the interview, if possible.

There are several benefits to being two interviewers, however, it is necessary to be aware of the power imbalance that could arise from being two when there is only one interviewee and, as Blackstone (2012) described, that the interviewees are asked to share information that might be personal. For that reason, it was important to create a comfortable atmosphere by not immediately starting to ask questions from the interview guide.

3.8 Validity and Reliability

The validity of the research is always important critical, independent of what research strategy is used. An aspect regarding validity of the research is the sample size even though qualitative studies are not generalizable (Bryman & Nilsson, 2011;

Saunders et al., 2019). We interviewed eight out of a total of 16 team members within the selected two teams, in order to receive sufficient data to answer our research question. Regarding the collection of data, an important aspect for the validity and reliability of the result in qualitative research is, according to Gani (2020), to ensure that the participants fully understand what they are being asked. This needs to be ensured in order to collect the data accurately. Therefore, several pilot interviews were conducted to test the questions and receive feedback from the interviewees about how they experienced the interviews, as further explained in Chapter 3.5.

Furthermore, in accordance with Saunders et al. (2019), the entire interviews with participants from Reach for Change were recorded. Saunders et al. (2019) describes that besides collecting the data accurately, it also needs to be collected and stored fully. Meaning that we were not selective and chose only the parts of the interviews aligned with the answers that we wanted but took the entire interviews into consideration. To avoid what Saunders et al. (2009) refers to as interviewer bias, we were two interviewers present during the interviews. This meant that even though one was responsible for asking the formulated questions from the interview guide, the other could also ask follow-up questions. By conducting the interviews this way, it

(28)

21

strengthens the validity of the result since the interpretations of the data as well as the questions asked during the interview were not affected by one individual’s subjective perspective.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

This research has been conducted with the ethical consideration of the Swedish Council. An important part of the research was to ensure that the interviewees were given all the information they needed to decide whether they wanted to participate in the study. According to Bryman (2018), this is achieved by following the criteria regarding information, confidentiality, consent and utilization. The interviewees were therefore sent an information letter about the study, what was intended to research, what the material would be used for, that participants would be anonymous in the thesis and that participation was voluntary. This was again emphasized ver- bally before the interviews started. It was also explained that they did not have to answer all the questions and that it was possible to revoke their participation at any time. Prior to the day of the interview, we emailed a form of consent (Appendix 2) where we asked the participants to sign their name if they wanted to participate.

These consent forms had to be filled in before the interview started. The interviewees were also asked to give their permission for the interviews to be recorded and transcribed prior to the start of the interview. Furthermore, it was explained that no one would access the data without permission and that said recordings and transcriptions would be deleted after the thesis was approved.

(29)

22

4. Results

The following sections present an extensive overview of the data collected from the interviews. The attached table (Appendix 4) provides an overview of the partici- pants’ most essential citations, clustered accordingly. Due to randomization, no conclusions can be drawn from the order presented in the participants' table in Chapter 3.3.

4.1 Expressed Motivation for Knowledge Sharing

The focus of this study is to understand the underlying motivation of knowledge sharing amongst employees of Reach for Change. They were asked to reflect on what motivates them to share their knowledge and insights. The interviewees described different motivations such as helping others. This happens out of an urge to help others develop but also because of personal benefits for the sharing person.

“The main reason is to help the other persons if I know that it could be valuable to make their work more efficient and to avoid mistakes that I have maybe encountered”

(Interviewee 8, personal communication, 2021)

“If some team members learn from me and do their jobs greatly, I will also benefit di- rectly and indirectly from that.” (Interviewee 2, personal communication, 2021)

Furthermore, many interviewees underlined that they feel like they do not own the knowledge and view it more as a common good. However, even though they might be willing to share knowledge with others, they expect something in return. RfC does not reward employees by using a bonus system or extra salary, so the reward comes in the form of recognition and feedback only.

“... it’s the idea of not owning the information, like nobody owns the information. I'm not interested in owning it, but I'm interested in getting recognition and feedback”

“If you're just sitting there with knowledge that potentially could help the team in achiev- ing its goals and targets that's not a thing we do within this organization. So, for me, there

is no question that if I have knowledge, it should be shared”

(30)

23

“Compared to corporate culture, I don't own anything like I don't get more points because I raised more money. I mean, maybe pride... I don't get extra salary in that sense. So,

there's no gain to my colleagues doing poorly and me doing well”

Summarizing, there is underlying sense of wanting the organization to get better, to strive forward. All interviewed individuals expressed their wish to get their team forward. One team member summed it up:

“I want to do well with my job and the team has to do well”

4.2 To Learn or Demonstrate Competence

The participants were asked to reflect on if it was most important for them to learn new things by acquiring new knowledge, or if it was more important to demonstrate their competence. Five of the eight interviewees expressed that learning is a priority.

“I've been very clear with RfC – if I don't feel like I’m learning new things I quit my job, so they are very aware of that. I'm sure I could do a much better job at sharing my learn-

ings” (Interviewee 5, personal communication, 2021)

“I would prefer learning more every day than actually sharing. That’s because I don't want to share, right? I just want to learn” (Interviewee 7, personal communication, 2021)

The participants expressed that there are several colleagues within RfC that have a lot of experience, either from prior jobs or because they have worked within the organization for many years. And the knowledge that said people possess is valuable to acquire as it will help other colleagues and the organization to move forward.

Learning is especially important when you are working with social entrepreneurs who need support, which means that it is important to continue to learn and develop.

“I would say the priority is to learn, also knowing that there are so many colleagues that are more experienced than me and that there are opportunities to learn something new

from them” (Interviewee 8, personal communication, 2021)

(31)

24

“I work with social entrepreneurs that require trainings from me. That means that I need to develop and learn myself constantly to be able to support them in the best possible

way” (Interviewee 8, personal communication, 2021)

Three of the eight participants described that it is a mix, but that it is important to demonstrate their competence. It is still important to learn but they also see the value in sharing that knowledge.

“I guess it goes in waves to be honest, it's always fun to be up and sharing knowledge and in many ways, it is to kind of to show off in a way and it's fun”

“I've been working now for several years professionally, obviously it's important to get to know what you're good at so that you have a sense of, you know, a professional confi- dence, you want to be of value for the team. The reason why people recruit someone is be-

cause they have particular knowledge or particular skills. So, my answer is it has to be a mix” (Interviewee 4, personal communication, 2021)

“...if you don't feel what you have to share is that interesting or you're not really that proud of it because it's not new or not innovative or not relevant then it's no fun so then

you really need to dig deep and learn new things”

It was expressed that there needs to be a continuous ambition to learn and develop.

But it is also important to display competence and demonstrate the competence and skills that are the reason to why they were hired. This is to prove to others that they are a valuable asset to the team.

4.2.1 Demotivating Situations

In order to understand the underlying motivation for knowledge sharing, it was also important to get an understanding of potentially demotivating situations for knowledge sharing. One important factor mentioned by several employees is the potential lack of interest. That means that one’s colleague, the receiver of knowledge in this case, does not want to hear about the knowledge shared.

(32)

25

“If I'm told to share information and I'm pretty sure that the receiver doesn't want it or is not interested, that is obviously not that much fun”

“If someone feels like they're constantly sharing information, or every time they share in- formation, nobody replied back, or nobody sort of engages with that information, it seems

like a waste" (Interviewee 5, personal communication, 2021)

“When someone interrupts and saying: I have to stop you now”

It can also be demotivating when an employee gets the feeling that they have shared a particular piece of information multiple times but it has not been taken into account by the receiver:

“When I feel that I shared that knowledge a zillion times”

Hierarchy can also be a demotivational factor that can eventually lead to refraining from sharing one’s knowledge, as one Reach for Change employee stated:

“Strict hierarchy or kind of having a working culture [in previous jobs] where I don't think that you can speak openly or that it's not worth it because they won't be listened to”

There were also participants who replied that they have not experienced a demotivating situation regarding knowledge sharing so far.

4.2.2 Motivation on the Job/Personal Attitude

In order to further evaluate their motivation to share knowledge, the participants’

personal attitude and motivation for working at an NGO, was further examined.

Several participants explained that there is something else for them than just making a living. For some, it played a role in their career choice to select a job with a purpose and social benefit:

(33)

26

“We're not just here to pick up our pay-check each month, you know. There is something else that ties us to this sort of work. I think for me it's important that what I do has some kind of social benefit. I don't think that I'm that kind of person that would be motivated by

working purely for profit.” (Interviewee 4, personal communication, 2021)

“The motivation for going to an organization with a clear purpose was massive”

On the other hand, however, some participants declared that the social benefit is not a motivating factor for them in the sense that they are more motivated by working for an NGO in comparison to a profit-driven organization. They experience the same kind of motivation and attitude at any chosen job position and workplace.

“I don’t think so. In all my jobs I have been, I applied a lot of engagements and genuine interest in my work” (Interviewee 7, personal communication, 2021)

"No, not really. I don't think so. I approach the jobs, more or less, in the same way re- gardless." (Interviewee 1, personal communication, 2021)

4.3 Knowledge Characteristics

Regarding the knowledge characteristics, the majority of the participants declared that they mostly receive and share a mix of tacit and explicit knowledge, however with a focus on explicit knowledge. Sharing knowledge from fundraising proposals or previous work experiences is also of relevance. They often write down their knowledge and create documents on Google Drive, the company’s cloud, to save and share documents. However, several employees mentioned difficulties with that.

Generally, team members expressed their dissatisfaction:

“...and then we have the big scary hole of Google Drive”

“A messy organization, for example the google drive that my employer has is super messy” (Interviewee 1, personal communication, 2021)

For instance, one interviewee mentioned how documents disappeared, especially after a takeover by a new colleague:

(34)

27

“... so, somebody would hand over their entire drive to the next person so every document that that person has created while they were working got removed from their Google Drive... So, yeah that’s a very simple one... disappearing folders, if it's not well docu- mented between its staff members. They leave the organization and leave with all that in-

formation” (Interviewee 5, personal communication, 2021)

The overall perception is that it is mostly explicit knowledge that is shared, since the virtual context does not leave any possibilities for practical knowledge sharing such as observations.

"It's not practical knowledge, it’s most documents that we share in the teams."

However, prior experiences, both within RfC and other organizations are shared.

This includes different ways of working as well as the participants’ own private knowledge. And in some cases, before Covid-19, RfC enabled employees to visit other offices to make observations in other offices.

4.4 Necessity to Share and Receive Knowledge

In order to be able to fully understand employees’ knowledge sharing patterns, it is crucial to identify the tools necessary for optimal exchange of knowledge. The participants were therefore asked what is necessary for them to be able to both share and receive knowledge. According to several participants, in order to be able to receive knowledge there must be an interest in acquiring the knowledge such as a certain need. It is also important to understand the purpose of the knowledge and why it is relevant. This is important for both directions of the exchange process. If they do not sense a form of confirmation such as the receiver showing an interest in the knowledge, it contributes to a negative feeling and can lead to withholding of knowledge in the future.

Furthermore, time constraints are an important factor which in many cases affect whether an individual shares knowledge and whether it is able to acquire it. This is because time constraints introduce the need to prioritize activities such as knowledge sharing. Additionally, there must be an opportunity such as meetings, informal conversations, observations, chats, phone calls, or time to write down the

(35)

28

knowledge and share it on Google Drive. Something that is missing in the current situation due to Covid-19 is the possibility and forum to reflect together, like one interviewee expressed. That could be to talk about recent happenings, both positive and negative ones, as well as to understand why some things went well or why they did not.

“Well, knowing like I need that knowledge or that they need that knowledge. So that there is a knowledge gap, for sure. And then also, like, time to share that knowledge. Tools to share it with, especially in a virtual setting, like screen-sharing maybe or video to be able

to see if someone is understanding the knowledge”

“... understanding its purpose, why are you or why am I sharing this information, why is it relevant to us” (Interviewee 6, personal communication, 2021)

“There needs to be an opportunity and a need for your knowledge”

Furthermore, one participant also expressed that it is important to have a positive mindset, to be willing to learn, to listen to feedback from others and not view failure as something completely negative but as a learning opportunity.

“Having positive mindset, open for learning, learn from mistake, accept feedbacks posi- tively” (Interviewee 2, personal communication, 2021)

Another necessity for knowledge exchange is access to the right tools. The implementation of suitable tools, preferably a Customer Resource Management (CRM) tool has been mentioned as a possible improvement.

4.5 Experienced Barriers and Difficulties

There are numerous barriers when it comes to knowledge sharing within the teams of Reach for Change. These range from time constraints to malfunctioning platforms. However, the factors that seem to have the biggest impact on knowledge sharing are language barriers and physical distance. Regarding language, participants stated that it can be a particular barrier for knowledge sharing:

Degree Project:

Degree Project:

Level: Master’s in business studies

Knowledge Sharing in Cross-Cultural Virtual Teams of an NGO

Exploring the motivation for knowledge sharing of individu- als

Hanna & Marina

Table of Contents

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Abbreviations

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and Problematization

1.2 Research Problem & Research Gap

1.3 Research Question

1.4 Structure of the Thesis

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1 Knowledge

2.2 Motivation to Share Knowledge

2.3 Goal Orientation

2.4 Nature of Relationship

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Approach

3.2 Presentation of the Selected NGO

3.3 Sample

3.4 Development of the Interview Guide

3.5 Pilot Interviews

3.6 Template Analysis

3.7 Data Quality

3.8 Validity and Reliability

3.9 Ethical Considerations

4. Results

4.1 Expressed Motivation for Knowledge Sharing

4.2 To Learn or Demonstrate Competence

4.3 Knowledge Characteristics

4.4 Necessity to Share and Receive Knowledge

4.5 Experienced Barriers and Difficulties