Conquering knowledge exchange barriers with age differences: A stress appraisal perspective on the consequences of upward social comparisons

IF 4.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1111/joop.12545
Laura Rinker, Ulrike Fasbender, Fabiola H. Gerpott, Anne Burmeister
{"title":"Conquering knowledge exchange barriers with age differences: A stress appraisal perspective on the consequences of upward social comparisons","authors":"Laura Rinker, Ulrike Fasbender, Fabiola H. Gerpott, Anne Burmeister","doi":"10.1111/joop.12545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge exchange is crucial for organizations, but interpersonal dynamics can entail stress, affecting whether and how knowledge flows. Integrating social comparison and stress appraisal research, we propose that upward social comparison can be appraised as challenging or hindering. We suggest a dual pathway model involving an approach pathway via challenge appraisal and an avoidance pathway via hindrance appraisal with consequences on three knowledge exchange behaviours (i.e., knowledge sharing, knowledge seeking and knowledge hiding). Additionally, we examine age differences (vs. no age differences) to the comparison target as a buffer. We conducted two preregistered experimental online studies with employees (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic><jats:sub>Study 1</jats:sub> = 206, <jats:italic>N</jats:italic><jats:sub>Study 2</jats:sub> = 414), utilizing a 2 (social comparison; upward, lateral) × 3 (target age; younger, same‐age, older) between‐subject design. Participants received bogus task performance feedback (Study 1: cognitive ability test; Study 2: typing ability test). Both studies show that upward social comparison (but not other social comparison directions) fosters knowledge hiding via hindrance appraisal. This effect is weakened by an age difference (vs. no age difference) to the comparison target. However, our results do not support the approach pathway via challenge appraisal. Our research highlights social pitfalls in knowledge exchange and emphasizes the benefits of age differences between colleagues.","PeriodicalId":48330,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12545","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Knowledge exchange is crucial for organizations, but interpersonal dynamics can entail stress, affecting whether and how knowledge flows. Integrating social comparison and stress appraisal research, we propose that upward social comparison can be appraised as challenging or hindering. We suggest a dual pathway model involving an approach pathway via challenge appraisal and an avoidance pathway via hindrance appraisal with consequences on three knowledge exchange behaviours (i.e., knowledge sharing, knowledge seeking and knowledge hiding). Additionally, we examine age differences (vs. no age differences) to the comparison target as a buffer. We conducted two preregistered experimental online studies with employees (NStudy 1 = 206, NStudy 2 = 414), utilizing a 2 (social comparison; upward, lateral) × 3 (target age; younger, same‐age, older) between‐subject design. Participants received bogus task performance feedback (Study 1: cognitive ability test; Study 2: typing ability test). Both studies show that upward social comparison (but not other social comparison directions) fosters knowledge hiding via hindrance appraisal. This effect is weakened by an age difference (vs. no age difference) to the comparison target. However, our results do not support the approach pathway via challenge appraisal. Our research highlights social pitfalls in knowledge exchange and emphasizes the benefits of age differences between colleagues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
克服年龄差异带来的知识交流障碍:从压力评估的角度看向上社会比较的后果
知识交流对组织至关重要,但人际动态可能带来压力,影响知识是否流动以及如何流动。结合社会比较和压力评估研究,我们提出,向上的社会比较可以被评估为挑战性或阻碍性。我们提出了一个双途径模型,包括通过挑战评价的接近途径和通过阻碍评价的回避途径,这对三种知识交流行为(即知识共享、知识寻求和知识隐藏)产生了影响。此外,我们还研究了年龄差异(与无年龄差异)对作为缓冲的比较目标的影响。我们对员工(研究 1 = 206 人,研究 2 = 414 人)进行了两项预先注册的在线实验研究,采用了 2(社会比较;向上、横向)×3(目标年龄;年轻、同龄、年长)的受试者间设计。受试者会收到虚假的任务绩效反馈(研究 1:认知能力测试;研究 2:打字能力测试)。这两项研究都表明,向上的社会比较(而非其他社会比较方向)会通过阻碍评价促进知识隐藏。这种效应会因比较对象的年龄差异(相对于无年龄差异)而减弱。然而,我们的研究结果并不支持通过挑战评价来接近的途径。我们的研究突出了知识交流中的社会陷阱,并强调了同事间年龄差异的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology aims to increase understanding of people and organisations at work including: - industrial, organizational, work, vocational and personnel psychology - behavioural and cognitive aspects of industrial relations - ergonomics and human factors Innovative or interdisciplinary approaches with a psychological emphasis are particularly welcome. So are papers which develop the links between occupational/organisational psychology and other areas of the discipline, such as social and cognitive psychology.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information How much do family‐supportive supervisor behaviours matter? A meta‐analysis based on the ability‐motivation‐opportunity framework Uneventful days? A cautionary tale about the underestimated role of triggering events in employee silence research Presenteeism pressure: The development of a scale and a nomological network Supervisor‐directed anger as a link between work–family conflict and unethical pro‐family behaviours: An attributional perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1