AO: The analysts note that information sharing embeds the notion of a “willingness to share”. They cite other literature that has found that “the more the person believes that information sharing is ausual, correct, and socially expected workplace behavior, the more they should be willing to share (p. 404). The sharing should also be higher when the technology attributes and conditions decrease the psychological costs of sharing (e.g. user- friendly systems). Finally, the more interdependent a person's work is on others, the higher the needs of self-interest and reciprocity are and hence the more likely the person is to share.” (131). In other words, they see a highlighly structural perspective of why an individual would share.
AO: Citing Constant (1994), the analysts note that information sharing is affected by the organization norms of property rights, arguing that the idea that information, even if a product of the employee's hard labor, is not his or hers to give or withhold selfishly, but must be used for greater organizational benefit.
AO: information as expertise vs information as product: people felt expertise was less of an organizational possession and more of a personal possession. Somewhat counter intuitive, people were willing to share expertise with others more freely than an information product. That is, people felt that expertise was more a personal possession and people appeared to be more willing to share this than an information product that they associated with an organization. Constant et al. (1994) explained the result by suggesting that people are more likely to share something that is theirs than a social good because the sharing of what they possess makes them feel needed, wanted and appreciated. Sharing is motivated by the power of self-expression and self-consistency.
