C O L L A B O R AT I O N

How Reputation Affects

Knowledge Sharing THE LEADING
QUESTION
How does
reputation

Among Colleagues affect a

scientists
decision to
share knowl-
edge with a
When it comes to knowledge sharing among R&D employees, coworker?
professional reputations matter but the chances of
FINDINGS
successfully garnering information from a colleague increase Assessment of a co-
if the information is important. workers reputation
affects whether
BY PRESCOTT C. ENSIGN AND LOUIS HBERT knowledge is shared.
R&D workers, on
the whole, remem-
ber knowledge
exchanges; those
SOCIAL NETWORKS ARE a defining feature of 21st-century information exchange. Within re- who have taken
more than given are
search and development-intensive industries, in particular, social networks have always been key to less likely to receive
information.
fostering innovation. But what lies at the heart of a researchers decision to share information within a
Know-how that is
network of fellow researchers? unique and impor-
Answering this question has the potential to separate organizations with a true culture of inno- tant is most likely
to be shared with a
vation from those who are destined to be also-rans. One important factor in knowledge sharing coworker.
within social networks particularly the
sharing of personal, noncodified technical
knowledge that scientists and other re-
searchers possess is reputation. In this
context, reputation is essentially one indi-
viduals assessment of how a coworker has
acted and will act after receiving assistance.

The Importance of Reputation

Reputation plays a role in interpersonal
sharing of individually controlled knowl-
edge in two ways. First, the motivations of
two R&D workers may not be compatible
even though they both work for the same
organization. As a result, how one worker
perceives the other may be the deciding
factor in a decision to offer information.
Reputation also plays a role where rules or
systems are unable to spur sharing. Because
critical information is often held privately

Even among scientists who work for the same

company, knowledge is not always shared freely.

COURTESY OF ASTRA ZENECA WINTER 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 79

C O L L A B O R AT I O N
by individuals, workers often can choose to share or
withhold such information in their interactions with
colleagues without fear of sanction. That leaves rep-
utation as a key motivator in any decision to share
or withhold information.
The benefits of understanding the role of reputa-
tion in knowledge sharing stem from the fun-
damental tension between the importance of
noncodified technological knowledge in a
knowledge-intensive company and the difficulty
of coordinating and controlling these private, frag-
mented resources. This tension is especially
relevant in multidivisional, multinational busi-
nesses that depend on technology and innovation
for competitive advantage. Our research there-
fore explored the question: What effect does an
R&D workers reputation have on a second R&D
workers decision to share technological knowl-
edge with the first individual, when both work in
the same company?
RELATED To investigate this question, we surveyed more
RESEARCH than 200 pharmaceutical scientists working in the
P.C. Ensign,
Knowledge R&D operations of 63 different pharmaceutical
Sharing Among companies in Canada and the United States. The
Scientists:
Why Reputation complete results and analysis of the study are de-
Matters for R&D
in Multinational scribed in the book Knowledge Sharing Among
Firms (New Scientists. In the study, we asked scientists about
York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2009). their knowledge-sharing activities within their
own companies a seemingly optimal environ-
ment for sharing information. Interestingly, the
study findings suggest that even among scientists
who work for the same company, knowledge is not
always shared freely. Instead, a potential knowl-
edge sources assessment of a knowledge seekers
reputation affected whether or not information
was offered.
This study applied a lens of past and future to
the concept of reputation. We looked at past per-
sonal and professional interactions, past coworker
and colocation interactions, and the duration and
frequency of such interactions. The aspects of po-
tential future interactions that we studied were
driven by predictability (how the source of knowl-
edge anticipates the knowledge seeker will behave
in the future), reciprocity (the knowledge holders
expectation that a knowledge-sharing favor will be
returned, either to the individual source or to the
larger organizational community) and obligation
80 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW WINTER 2010
(the indebtedness the knowledge seeker already
has to the knowledge holder).
Not surprisingly, a number of the findings un-
derscored the importance of reputation in
interactions among colleagues. For instance, the du-
ration of two parties past interaction is positively
related to the likelihood of current knowledge shar-
ing occurring between them. Predictability and
reciprocity were also positively related to knowl-
edge sharing; but a knowledge seekers level of
obligation how much the knowledge seeker was
already indebted to the potential knowledge
source was negatively related. But our research
also yielded surprising findings. In particular, fre-
quency of previous interaction, on its own, was not
significantly related to the likelihood of information
sharing, and previous personal and professional in-
teraction was actually negatively associated with
knowledge sharing as was past coworker and co-
location interaction. However, proximity influenced
how positively reputations were perceived. In other
words, seekers of information tended to be most suc-
cessful when making requests from coworkers in the
same city or, failing that, the same state or province.
Implications Within Organizations
The research has a number of practical implica-
tions for individuals interested in enhancing their
access to knowledge within their organizations. For
the R&D scientist hoping to receive knowledge
from a colleague, an awareness of the factors that
influence whether or not sharing takes place could
increase the chances of receiving technological
knowledge. Our research suggests that seekers of
assistance should be advised that physical distance
poses a barrier. As a result, the best course of action
is to seek help from someone who is in the same
city or at least the same state or province. Its also
best to make requests of other researchers with
some shared connection within the organization,
such as fellow members of a team or unit.
Seekers of knowledge should also recognize that
other scientists within the same company are most
likely to share scientific know-how that is unique
and not easily replicated and that provides a greater
contribution. Thus, the one seeking assistance is
more likely to be successful if he or she can make
the case to the potential source that the knowledge
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU
sought is vital to accomplishing a task and that the
source has the expertise to provide it perhaps
uniquely so. Additionally, and not surprisingly, the
burden lies on the knowledge seeker to make the
sharing of technological knowledge as little work
for the source as possible. Finally, knowledge seek-
ers are more likely to be successful if they appeal to
people with whom they have had a long-standing,
meaningful relationship.
For the most part, researchers who are acting as
a source of information are not concerned about
whether sharing does or does not take place. But
they should be mindful of a few issues. The study
shows that a sources chances of receiving future as-
sistance is dependent on not being obliged to the
recipient and not being seen as taking more than
giving. Sources can reduce their own obligations to
a colleague with whom they share knowledge
and even increase the obligation of that recipient
colleague by sharing technological knowledge.
The bottom line is that knowledge sources, as po-
tential future recipients of knowledge, should
recognize the fact that potential receivers of knowl-
edge on the whole remember prior interactions. In
other words, they tally exchanges.
Implications for Managers
Predictability and reciprocity were two of the main
characteristics that were positively associated with
reputations in this study. How can these traits be
encouraged in the workplace? Division-wide social
events, team-building exercises and other opportu-
nities for reciprocity seem likely places to start.
Because proximity and organizational ties both
positively influenced knowledge sharing, these
findings suggest that teams of knowledge workers
may be more innovative the more closely they are
connected. The study even lends support to the idea
that rotating knowledge workers across subgroups
or intracompany boundaries could in some cases
be appropriate. However, our empirical findings
also support studies and related international busi-
ness literature that show there is already a great deal
of integration of technological activity across geo-
graphic boundaries.
Using this work will allow management to set
expectations more realistically about the circum-
stances under which knowledge sharing is likely
SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU
REPUTATIONAL FACTORS THAT
INFLUENCE KNOWLEDGE SHARING
N Past behavior by individual scientists, and the groups they belong to,
influences whether knowledge is shared.
NLonger duration of interaction positively influences the flow of
information.
NFrequency of interaction does not influence the flow of information;
quality appears to matter more than quantity.
NSurprisingly, superficial personal and professional interaction as
well as cowork and colocation interaction had a negative effect
on knowledge sharing.
NHowever, personal and professional relationships added to
predictability, which was determined to contribute to requests
being granted.
NFrequency of interaction did contribute to reciprocity, which
contributed to sharing.
NIndividuals who were already obliged to another person were
less likely to be helped by that person than someone who was
less obligated, not obligated or owed a favor.
to occur. Social mechanisms, in this case reputa-
tions, are critical elements in the governance of
informal transactions within a company, such as
knowledge sharing. Consequently, the research
suggests that implementing some form of formal
incentive structure to encourage knowledge shar-
ing would neither complement, nor substitute
for, the social mechanisms of governance that
reputations provide.
The power of knowledge sharing is not, of
course, restricted to R&D scientists at pharmaceu-
tical companies. In fact, in an era marked by
open-source software, open innovation and tools
for online collaboration such as Wikipedia and
Facebook, it is more important than ever to un-
derstand the factors that govern knowledge
sharing across a range of settings. Then, too, as
R&D becomes ever more complex and interdisci-
plinary in a variety of industries, grappling with
the impact of reputation and knowledge sharing
may help unlock a whole new way to collaborate
in the interests of innovation.
Prescott C. Ensign is an associate professor of
management at the Telfer School of Management,
University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Louis Hbert
is a professor of management at HEC Montral in
Qubec, Canada. Comment on this article or contact
the authors at smrfeedback@mit.edu.
Reprint 51213. For ordering information, see page 7.
Copyright Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010.
All rights reserved.
WINTER 2010 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 81