Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.Dynamics of knowledge sharing in professional service teams.
Rationale
In the knowledge economy, knowledge sharing sits at the heart of firm growth and success (Cavaliere & Lombardi, 2015; Prusak & Davenport, 1998) As a central component of knowledge management (Riege, 2005), it enables individuals to contribute to knowledge application, spur innovation, and build a sustainable competitive advantage (Jackson et al., 2006) Empirical evidence shows that knowledge sharing is associated with lower production costs, faster development of new products, stronger team performance, enhanced firm innovation capabilities, and improved firm performance, including sales growth and revenue from new offerings (Arthur & Huntley, 2005; Collins & Smith, 2006; Cummings, 2001; Lin, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) Consequently, a substantial body of research has developed extensive explanations of the knowledge sharing processes, using diverse perspectives, multiple levels of analysis, and attention to various aspects (Bruton et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2008; Lin, 2011; Ma & Yu, 2010; Sechi et al., 2011; Kepczyk, 2000; Sergeeva & Andreeva, 2016).
Extensive research has advanced our understanding of knowledge sharing within organizations In knowledge-based settings, teams are the essential building blocks, and knowledge sharing is a critical determinant of team performance because members with diverse expertise must interact and depend on each other to achieve common goals In professional service firms, where project teams deliver customized client services, project teams are increasingly used to leverage resources and enhance competitive advantage These firms have drawn widespread attention from practitioners and researchers as a major driver of economic activity in the knowledge economy, and knowledge-sharing processes are identified as a key source of competitive advantage Over the past decade, attention has focused on how project teams coordinate resources to solve problems, implement procedures, and complete tasks, with growing emphasis on productive knowledge-sharing behavior that significantly affects team performance and project delivery.
Professional service firms are knowledge-intensive, with low capital intensity and a professionalized workforce They can be categorized into technology developers, professional campuses, neo professional service firms, and classical professional service firms On the technical dimension, technology developers and professional campuses are technical professional service firms that possess sufficient capital to invest in unique machinery, tools, or equipment to deliver services, whereas neo professional service firms and classical professional service firms are nontechnical and rely more on the internal and external management of knowledge However, most empirical studies of knowledge sharing have focused on technical professional service firms or from a technological perspective (Wang & Noe, 2010).
Among non-technical professional service firms, audit firms exhibit the most comprehensive set of characteristics that define the sector Knowledge sharing is especially vital in auditing because the quality of services hinges on the expertise and collaboration of professionals When knowledge is effectively exchanged, audit outcomes improve, clients receive higher-quality services, and firms enhance their overall performance, a view supported by Curtis & Taylor (2018) and Vera Munoz et al.
Audit firms face ongoing pressure to improve the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of the audit process due to the regulatory environment, evolving auditing standards, and high-profile financial fraud scandals In each engagement, knowledge about the client’s environment, industry, business model, and operations is typically unevenly distributed among audit team members, making effective knowledge sharing essential Specifically, sharing industry-specific trends, accounting practices, auditing techniques, and regulatory issues largely determines the audit outcome Despite its potential importance, practitioners and scholars have made limited progress in understanding the anatomy of knowledge sharing in auditing.
Knowledge sharing and related team processes are inherently dynamic, yet most prior research explains them with static models that focus on a single project stage rather than across the project life cycle Studies rarely track teams over time to uncover work processes in real-life settings, leaving managers with insufficient understanding of how knowledge sharing should be supported at different project stages In professional service teams, members engage at all stages to generate solutions and deliver customized client services, making effective interactions essential for knowledge sharing and new knowledge generation This raises the question of how team knowledge sharing evolves as a project moves from one stage to the next Among the most studied dimensions is why people share knowledge, a dimension criticized for lacking clear delineation and for being managerially impractical Therefore, research and practice should examine the dynamic, stage-dependent nature of knowledge sharing to tailor interventions accordingly.
Motivating professionals to share knowledge remains challenging, especially in professional service teams Since knowledge sharing is both goal-driven and socially mediated, an individual’s willingness to contribute during a project depends on how team goals, task nature, and social interactions among members align with one another Therefore, a comprehensive motivation framework should integrate economic, sociological, and psychological perspectives to explain and enhance knowledge sharing within project teams.
Research suggests that the types of knowledge shared—the other important dimension of knowledge sharing—vary across different project stages (Gomes et al., 2018) Although knowledge within team processes occurs in multiple typologies, the team knowledge sharing literature has largely treated it as a single construct (Ahmad & Karim, 2019) This is problematic, because the nature and relevance of knowledge shared for a given task are critical to achieving team goals (Ahmad & Karim, 2019) Consequently, failing to account for distinct knowledge types can lead to an inadequate explanation of team knowledge sharing.
Based on the theory of groups as complex systems (Arrow et al., 2000), team knowledge sharing is understood as a dynamic process with temporal development patterns along the group life cycle The theory identifies three interacting levels—the constituent elements of the group, the group as an entity, and the contexts in which it operates—through which knowledge sharing unfolds It also contends that a group's functional priorities are not static; they co-evolve over time, shaping how knowledge is exchanged As a result, knowledge sharing among team members changes across project stages to support task completion, meet members' needs, and maintain team cohesion However, it remains unclear how specific team elements interact to influence knowledge sharing and how these interactions evolve as projects progress from one stage to another.
Knowledge sharing practices demonstrate a significant advantage for organizations, especially in developing countries where resources are limited (Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016) However, knowledge sharing in professional service firms has been studied mostly in developed countries, prompting calls for further research in developing contexts (Asrar-ul-Haq & Anwar, 2016) In Vietnam, the thirty-year-old audit sector operates in an environment with distinctive characteristics and remains in reform to create a comprehensive accounting and auditing system and a regulatory framework harmonized with international standards The Vietnamese business environment has been ranked as having a low level of market-institution strength across many indices (Klonowski, 2013) Under weak corporate governance laws, Vietnam lacks valid controls to protect against related-party transactions and management conflicts of interest (Le et al., 2020) Furthermore, corruption and fraudulent scandals have involved top audit firms, illustrating the problem of information asymmetry in the country (Klonowski, 2013) In short, amid underdeveloped market institutions and ongoing changes in the auditing regulatory environment, auditors’ decision-making becomes more challenging and circumspect, requiring audit teams to possess solid technical knowledge, an understanding of businesses and contexts, and a strong ability to make sound judgments in grey areas, which urges cohesive and frequent knowledge sharing in audit teams Despite the pivotal role of knowledge sharing, there have been very few studies on knowledge sharing in audit firms in Vietnam, and to date there is no study focusing on the dynamics of knowledge sharing in audit teams in Vietnam.
Research objectives and research questions
This dissertation investigates the dynamics of team knowledge sharing across the diverse stages of a professional service team’s work process, examining how information is exchanged at each phase to reveal patterns that influence collaboration and performance The findings are expected to enrich the literature on the complex, dynamic nature of team knowledge sharing and to advance the theory of groups as complex systems.
In details, the dissertation aims at achieving the following research objectives:
- Developing the dynamic model of team knowledge sharing in professional service teams; and
- Examining the developed dynamic model of team knowledge sharing in professional service teams
These objectives are reified into two research questions:
Research question 1: What and how do types of knowledge shared change as the professional service project team moves from stages to stages?
Research question 2: What and how do motivations to share knowledge change as the professional service project team moves from stages to stages?
Subjects and scope of the research
This study investigates how team knowledge sharing evolves across audit project stages, analyzing changes in the types of knowledge shared and the motivations to share among team members as projects transition from planning to fieldwork and then to completion Audit projects unfold through planning, fieldwork, and completion, each with distinct objectives In the planning stage, the aim is to design an effective audit plan that collects sufficient and appropriate evidence, controls costs, and avoids misunderstandings with the client In the fieldwork stage, auditors carry out specific procedures to gather sufficient appropriate evidence to support a conclusion of reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement In the completion stage, results are evaluated, findings are aggregated, conclusions are drawn, the auditor’s opinion is formed, and the audit report is prepared and approved.
Among the four types of professional service firms proposed by Von Nordenflycht (2010)—classic professional service firms, professional campuses, neo-professional service firms, and technology developers—this dissertation centers on the classic type, audit firms Auditing was chosen because classic professional service firms embody all three defining features of professional service teams: knowledge intensity, low capital intensity, and a professionalized workforce The study adopts an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design to develop and examine a dynamic model of team knowledge sharing within audit teams in Vietnam Participants were selected via purposive sampling to include diverse audit firms—Big Four, international firms, and local firms certified by the Ministry of Finance to provide auditing services in Vietnam The sample also reflects gender balance and includes audit teams from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam’s two largest cities.
An audit project is an engagement in which the auditor examines a client’s accounting records and financial statements, with work allocated among a project team that includes Partners, Managers, Seniors, and Associates based on their knowledge and experience Audit Partners, who are typically equity owners in the firm and must be CPAs, sit at the top of the hierarchy and bear ultimate responsibility for the audit, agreeing with the client on the scope of services, ensuring proper planning and that the team has the required skills, supervising fieldwork, reviewing working papers, and signing the final audit report Managers, generally with 5–10 years of audit experience, ensure thorough planning, including scheduling team members, reviewing working papers and financial statements and the audit report, handling invoicing and collection of fees, and informing the partner of any auditing or accounting issues encountered Seniors, with 2–5 years of experience, help develop the audit plan and budget, assign tasks to juniors, direct day‑to‑day audit activities, supervise and review juniors’ work, and report problems to managers Associates at the bottom of the hierarchy typically have up to two years of experience and perform routine audit procedures, document completed work adequately, and inform seniors of any issues encountered.
Original contributions of the research
An exploratory sequential mixed-methods design was employed to capture the complexity of team knowledge-sharing dynamics in professional service teams In the first phase, a qualitative study was conducted through interviews with 36 auditors to explore how knowledge is shared, interpreted, and applied within audit work and to identify the factors that influence effective collaboration among team members.
In Vietnam, 12 audit teams were analyzed, and in the second phase a survey-based study with a sample of 263 Vietnamese audit teams tested the proposed model The findings show that motivations to share knowledge exist across the dimensions of cost/benefit calculation, normative conformity, and affective bonding A surprising result is that professionals within audit teams share not only client-based and technical knowledge but also their practical judgement The integrated results from the two studies demonstrate that team knowledge sharing is not homogeneous as often assumed, and it shifts as a professional team project moves from stage to stage, changing both motivations to share knowledge and the types of knowledge shared.
This study advances the team management literature by addressing gaps related to the complex and dynamic nature of team knowledge sharing and its evolution across project stages Departing from the traditional treatment of knowledge as a single construct, it distinguishes knowledge into distinct types in response to scholarly calls for nuance An unexpected finding from interview data is the emergence of a new type of knowledge shared in professional service project work, referred to as practical judgement To comprehensively understand motivation to share knowledge, the study integrates theoretical perspectives from economics, sociology, and psychology and applies Knoke and Wright-Isak's incentive theory.
A foundational 1982 study found that team members are motivated to share knowledge through different combinations of calculative, normative, and affective motivations It was one of the early efforts to develop and test a dynamic model of team knowledge sharing that highlights changes over time, moving beyond static explanations The research identifies three knowledge-sharing modes—transferring, integrating, and role-modeling—that teams use as projects progress through stages, with each mode representing a unique mix of knowledge types and motivational drivers for sharing.
Building on Arrow et al (2000), who argued that teams are complex, dynamic, and adaptive systems, this dissertation empirically examines the temporal dynamics of team knowledge sharing as a core process shaping team effectiveness within professional service teams in Vietnam Although Arrow et al.’s view has gained broad acceptance, there is comparatively less management literature applying this perspective This study applies the theory to trace how knowledge sharing evolves over time, highlighting its critical role for overall team performance Moreover, while many prior studies using complex systems theory to analyze groups overlook temporal dynamics, this research develops a dynamic model that tracks qualitative patterns of team knowledge sharing across the project duration, revealing three global modes—transferring, integrating, and role-modelling—that emerge from local coordination among team members, project tasks, and knowledge as teams carry out their functions Finally, addressing the predominance of lab-based experiments in earlier work (Ramos-Villagrasa et al., 2017), this study employs a sequential exploratory mixed-method design that integrates qualitative and quantitative data to audit real project teams in Vietnam.
This study provides actionable implications for professional service firms seeking to improve knowledge sharing, highlighting that knowledge sharing is multi-dimensional and evolves across project stages Managers must recognize the dynamic, multidimensional nature of team knowledge sharing and how each dimension changes as projects progress To foster effective knowledge sharing, leaders need to tailor conditions and interventions to the specific stage of the project, monitor evolving needs, and apply stage-specific strategies that support collaboration and knowledge exchange.
Structure of the dissertation
Besides the Introduction and Conclusion, there are five chapters in this dissertation, as follows:
Chapter 1 surveys and synthesizes the literature on knowledge sharing, teams, project teams, motivations, and professional service firms It begins by defining, classifying, and outlining the characteristics of work teams and project teams It then explains what knowledge is and how knowledge is categorized The chapter next reviews the concepts of knowledge sharing, team knowledge sharing, and the dynamics of knowledge exchange within teams It also analyzes motivation and the drivers that encourage knowledge sharing The definitions, categories, and importance of knowledge sharing in professional service firms are presented, highlighting its strategic role The discussion then examines the roles of team knowledge sharing and the factors that influence knowledge sharing Finally, the chapter acknowledges the limitations of the current literature and discusses implications for future research.
Chapter 2 provides the theoretical foundation and serves as the overall orienting lens for understanding how knowledge sharing evolves over time in team projects It begins by showing why Groups as complex systems theory and Incentive theory offer a solid theoretical foundation for this study It then traces the origins and key ideas of these theories The next section surveys how these theories have been applied in the team literature The chapter concludes with a section explaining how Groups as complex systems theory and Incentive theory are used to study knowledge sharing as a critical team process in professional service project teams.
Chapter 3 outlines an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach, justifying the use of mixed methods, and describes the research context and overall design; it then details the qualitative first phase, including the qualitative research design, the abductive approach to theory development, participant selection, data collection, and the interview guide, followed by qualitative analysis that covers data preparation, thematic analysis, and data quality procedures Based on the qualitative findings, six hypotheses are proposed about how knowledge types evolve and what motivates knowledge sharing in professional service project teams The subsequent quantitative phase tests these hypotheses in a sample of Vietnamese audit project teams, and this second section of the chapter describes the quantitative methodology, including the sample, data collection, measures, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 analyzes two study phases—qualitative and quantitative The qualitative section presents findings by themes that emerged from interviews, detailing for each project stage the main objectives and tasks, the dominant knowledge types shared, and the motivations driving knowledge sharing, and it concludes by showing how interactions among knowledge-sharing elements generate stage-specific team knowledge modes The following section then ties these elements together and illustrates how these modes evolve as the project progresses from stage to stage, proposing a model of temporal dynamics of team knowledge sharing in professional service project teams The second part presents six hypotheses about how the types of knowledge shared and the motivations for sharing evolve in professional service project teams, grounded in the qualitative findings, and the quantitative study tests these hypotheses on a larger sample of Vietnamese audit project teams A strong association between the dimensions of team knowledge sharing and project stages would support the model and deepen understanding of how team knowledge sharing changes in professional service team contexts.
Chapter 5 concludes this dissertation by presenting an overview of the research and detailing its contributions to the body of knowledge on team knowledge sharing and groups as complex systems theory It offers a discussion of the results and their linkages to the background literature discussed in earlier chapters, highlighting how the findings advance understanding in team knowledge sharing within complex systems The discussion is aligned with the study objectives to provide a concise and coherent interpretation of the findings The chapter is organized into four sections—discussion, theoretical implications, practical implications, and limitations and recommendations for future research—to guide readers through the analysis and its implications Overall, these sections articulate theoretical and practical implications for researchers and practitioners seeking to improve team knowledge sharing and to manage groups as complex adaptive systems.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of work teams and project teams
1.1.1 Definitions and types of work teams
Under the pressure of rising global competition, consolidation, and innovation, teams have become the core building blocks of modern organizations Seen as complex, dynamic systems, teams operate within a broader context, develop through ongoing member interaction, and continually adapt as situational demands unfold In relation to the organization, a team is a group of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, share responsibility for outcomes, and are recognized both by themselves and others as an intact social unit that spans organizational boundaries The defining features of a work team include formal establishment, assigned autonomy, and interdependence Additionally, teams function within an organizational context that shapes their performance, and they are sophisticated systems where members collaborate to pursue shared goals.
In work settings, researchers delineate two trends in defining a team versus a group: one approach treats teams and groups as distinct concepts, while the other uses the terms interchangeably Some scholars do not distinguish between work teams and work groups and use these terms interchangeably (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2013; Parks & Sanna, 2018; Sundstrom et al.).
Many theorists regard a team as a distinct type of group and focus on how team behaviors differ from those of groups (Arrow et al., 2000; Forsyth & Elliott, 1999; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993) A team is a structured group that works together and coordinates interactions to achieve defined common goals (Forsyth & Elliott, 1999) The main differences between teams and groups lie in application, size, interdependence, and power: teams are typically used in sports or work organizations and exist within larger organizations where members bring specialized knowledge and skills to their roles and tasks; in research, team studies rely on field data from workplace settings whereas group studies are often conducted in laboratory conditions (Kerr & Tindale, 2004) In terms of size and interdependence, groups can range from two to thousands of members, while teams have a narrower size range; group members jointly carry out similar tasks without necessarily integrating and coordinating, whereas team members with complementary skills are mutually accountable for achieving common performance goals (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993) A third distinction concerns power, with Hayes highlighting how power dynamics differentiate teams from groups.
(1997), for achieving the team goals, the team must be empowered and have authority to control part of their operations
Sundstrom et al (2000) classify six team categories based on the functions teams perform: production teams, service teams, management teams, project teams, action and performing teams, and advisory teams Production teams consist of core employees who repeatedly manufacture or assemble tangible products through long periods of routinized tasks Service teams conduct repeated transactions with customers who have varying needs Management teams are composed of managers who work together to plan, develop policies, direct, and coordinate lower-level units Project teams execute specialized tasks within a defined period Action and performing teams comprise experts with specialized skills and engage in complex, time-constrained performances Advisory teams are temporary groups that provide recommendations for an organization.
1.1.2 Definitions and characteristics of project teams
Among the various types of teams discussed above, this dissertation concentrates on project teams, which are widely used to leverage resources and strengthen competitive advantages in modern organizations (Batistič & Kenda, 2018; Fu et al.) By examining how project teams mobilize diverse resources and coordinate cross-functional efforts, the study sheds light on their contribution to organizational performance in today’s dynamic competitive landscape.
Project teams are cross-functional groups formed to complete a specialized project within a defined time frame and disband after project termination They comprise people with assigned roles and responsibilities, including the project manager, the project management team, and sometimes a project sponsor Internally, they are composed of department representatives who stay from start to finish to direct the work across functions; externally, they are standing teams with relatively stable memberships that solve problems, make plans, or interact with clients From a broader perspective, a project team unites people with varied knowledge, expertise, and experience who, over the project’s life cycle, must acquire and pool substantial information to define or clarify their purpose, adapt or create means to progressively elaborate an incrementally or radically new concept, service, product, or activity, or to generate change Consequently, many industries rely on project teams to deliver outcomes to external clients, including professional services, construction, information systems, research and development, manufacturing, and telecommunications.
Project teams have three distinguishing features, as noted by Drouin & Sankaran (2017) One key feature is that team members work together from a known start date to an anticipated end date of the project, establishing a defined project duration Throughout the project, team members are responsible for executing and completing the project stages—from initiating and planning to executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing— in alignment with PMI standards.
Core project teams provide specialized task contributions at specific times, enabling focused expertise exactly when it is needed (Chiocchio et al., 2015) To address knowledge gaps, organizations can add more specialized individuals at different project stages (Hoegl et al., 2004) These teams are embedded in complex and dynamic organizational systems, operating autonomously while coordinating closely with other units to accomplish their tasks (Zaccaro et al., 2012).
Project teams are the building blocks of modern organizations, and extensive research has explored factors that drive effective team management (Carter et al., 2019; de Poel et al., 2014; Mathieu et al., 2019) A central explanation for why some teams perform better than others is the quality of team processes, with knowledge sharing emerging as a vital mechanism for exchanging task-relevant ideas, information, and suggestions among team members (Ambos et al., 2016; Gong et al., 2013; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006) In project teams, knowledge sharing links members with complementary skills, enabling coordinated effort and synergy to achieve better project outcomes (Mueller, 2014).
Overview of knowledge, knowledge sharing, team knowledge sharing
1.2.1 Definitions and Types of knowledge
While the role of knowledge has been emphasized in the resource-based (Spender
Despite its central role in management research and its wide recognition among scholars, there is ongoing debate about how knowledge is defined, bridging knowledge-based views of the firm (Grant, 1996; Bock et al., 2005) with earlier epistemological insights In classical epistemology, knowledge has been defined as justified true belief (Russell, 1949) Although this definition gained wide acceptance in Western philosophy, critics argued that knowledge was static, absolute, and nonhuman Building on the notion of justified true belief, Nonaka (1994) recast knowledge as a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs in pursuit of truth In terms of its components, knowledge comprises information, ideas, and expertise that individuals, teams, work units, and organizations need to perform tasks (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002) Regarding its outcomes, knowledge emerges from people collaborating, sharing experiences, and creating meaning from their activities (Choo, 2000) More broadly, Davenport and Prusak (2000) describe knowledge as a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information, noting that knowledge is often embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.
Researchers have proposed various typologies of knowledge over the years (Anderson, 2005; Nonaka, 1994) These classifications can be based on two core dimensions: epistemological and ontological The epistemological dimension concerns the nature and possibility of knowledge—how we find out about the world (Richards, 2003; Snape & Spencer, 2003) The ontological dimension, by contrast, deals with what actually exists in the world that humans can know In the literature, much more emphasis has been placed on the epistemological dimension than on the ontological one (Akehurst et al., ).
2011) Table 1.1 summarizes the classifications of knowledge in the extant literature
Table 1.1: Summary of representative studies on taxonomy of knowledge
(Cook & Brown, 1999; Kimmerle et al., 2010; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Lứwendahl et al., 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Spender & Grant,
De Jong and Ferguson-Hessler, 1996; Sanchez and Heene, 1997; Schraw,
Embrained Embodied Encoded Embedded Encultured
Lứwendahl et al., 2001; Quinn et al., 1998; Ryle, 1949)
Ki (knowledge embedded in the individual)
Ko (knowledge embedded in the organizational structure)
Kp (knowledge embedded in physical assets)
(Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Vincenti,
Polanyi’s (1966) distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is the most widely recognized framework in knowledge theory Tacit knowledge rests on the idea that we can know more than we can tell, a notion Polanyi expresses as "we can know more than we can tell" (Polanyi, 1966, p 4) The acquisition of tacit knowledge typically requires personal demonstration, hands-on experience, practice, and imitation, which makes it closely linked to experiential learning and forms of understanding that are not fully articulated.
Learning-by-doing, as Arrow (1962) proposed, shows that much knowledge is tacit, embedded in the habitual practices and mental models of individuals (Kimmerle et al., 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Polanyi, 1966) Tacit knowledge is not easily articulated because it is subconsciously understood and applied, residing in people’s minds as intuitions, insights, beliefs, or values (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001; Ancori et al., 2000) By contrast, explicit knowledge can be codified, categorized, stored, articulated, and easily communicated in written language.
Within professional service firms, knowledge is categorized into technical knowledge and client-specific knowledge, emphasizing substance over form (Empson, 2001; Løwendahl et al., 2001) Technical knowledge encompasses the ability to perform defined tasks in a given field and can be sector-wide, organizational, or individual in scope Sector-specific knowledge is generic and broadly shared across firms, often codified in professional exam syllabi; organizational knowledge is firm-specific, tied to particular processes, procedures, or products, whether codified or tacit; and individual knowledge arises from a professional’s experience, education, and unique mix of client engagements (Morris & Empson, 1998) Client knowledge includes general industry knowledge, detailed knowledge of a specific client firm, and personal knowledge of key client personnel (Empson, 2001) It is crucial for applying technical knowledge to address clients’ problems (Løwendahl, 2005) In this study, these knowledge types serve as the starting point for examining team knowledge sharing dynamics, because the classification underpins the distinctive identity of professional service firms (Morris & Empson, 1998).
Technical knowledge in financial statement auditing comprises general accounting and auditing knowledge, subspecialty knowledge, and general business knowledge (Tan & Libby, 1997) All professional audit staff must possess core general accounting and auditing expertise, most of which is gained through formal college study More detailed technical understanding is developed in functional areas (such as tax and computer auditing) and in accounting issues (e.g., leases and pensions), with much of this learned on the job and through continuing professional education beyond college Rarely does any single auditor hold all the specialized knowledge required for a major engagement, making knowledge sharing across team members essential Industry-specific knowledge interacts with higher forms of accounting knowledge when client industries have unique rules or applications, and broader industry-specific business knowledge is needed to identify potential problems and to communicate effectively with client personnel.
1.2.2 Definitions of knowledge sharing, team knowledge sharing, and dynamics of team knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing can be understood through two theoretical lenses: the single‑way perspective, where knowledge flows from a knowledge provider to a recipient, either as an individualized process—comprising the personal behaviors through which an individual makes work‑related knowledge and expertise available to others (Huang et al., 2010; Ipe, 2003; Wang & Noe, 2010)—or as a broader process that extends from individuals to the firm level (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Lam & Lambermont Ford, 2010) In contrast, the dual‑way perspective views knowledge sharing as a reciprocal exchange between providers and recipients, a process in which individuals mutually exchange knowledge to jointly create new knowledge, supported by the sub‑processes of knowledge donating (sharing one's personal intellectual capital) and knowledge collecting (seeking others’ intellectual capital) (Bosua & Scheepers, 2007; De Vries et al., 2006; Van Den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004; Yang & Chen, 2007) This study defines knowledge sharing as the process by which individuals exchange knowledge to jointly create new knowledge and solve practical problems (Carmeli et al., 2013; Cockrell & Stone, 2010; Gagné, 2009).
Knowledge sharing is often conflated with knowledge exchange and knowledge transfer, yet these processes are distinct, even if somewhat blurry in the literature Knowledge exchange involves both individuals providing knowledge to others and individuals seeking knowledge from others (Wang & Noe, 2010) In contrast, knowledge transfer is a broader process where knowledge is contributed by a source and then acquired and applied by a recipient Traditionally, knowledge transfer has been used to describe knowledge moving between larger entities—such as units, departments, sections, or divisions within an organization or between organizations—rather than solely between individuals (Chakravarthy et al., 1999; Lam, 1997; Szulanski et al., 2004).
Although most empirical research treats knowledge sharing as a single-dimensional construct, a subset of studies classifies knowledge sharing by different knowledge dimensions or types Many works distinguish explicit knowledge, which can be written, codified, and easily communicated, from tacit knowledge, which is context-specific, semi-conscious or unconscious and therefore harder to articulate Sharing tacit knowledge demands more time and effort, can undermine the perceived authority of the knowledge provider, and relies heavily on personal interaction and trust Beyond the explicit–tacit dichotomy, researchers have proposed additional knowledge dimensions, such as Machlup’s categories (propositional, descriptive, historical, theoretical, procedural knowledge), Hew and Hara’s (book, practical, cultural knowledge), and Child and Faulkner’s (technical, systemic, strategic knowledge) Moreover, prior studies suggest that different kinds of knowledge must be shared and integrated at different phases of a project and face distinct challenges across the project lifecycle.
Knowledge sharing is a multilevel phenomenon nested within different layers of the organization (Ahmad & Karim, 2019; Ipe, 2003) It can occur between individuals, from individuals to a group, within a group, between groups, across departments, and even between organizations (Noor & Salim, 2011; Weinberg et al., 2014; Barão et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2021) This research focuses on knowledge sharing within teams formed to develop strategy, design new products, deliver services, or execute other key tasks.
Firms increasingly rely on teams to carry out business activities and gain competitive advantage, with project teams serving as the building blocks of modern organizational design Knowledge sharing is a critical team process that enhances team effectiveness by enabling task-relevant ideas, information, and suggestions to be exchanged among members to improve performance Sharing knowledge within teams allows cognitive resources to be utilized, exploited, and capitalized to advance organizational goals Team knowledge sharing also acts as a linchpin between individual and organizational learning, since knowledge exchange essential for product and service development mainly occurs at the team level The heterogeneous and complementary knowledge and experience of team members are shared to form synergy, and through cooperation, the integration of diverse skills and perspectives transcends the sum of individual contributions.
This study centers on knowledge sharing within teams as its main focus Team knowledge sharing refers to activities through which team members share task-relevant ideas, information, and suggestions with each other to achieve goals (Lin & Lee, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011).
1.2.2.3 Dynamics of team knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is a dynamic, complex process (Alajmi, 2008; Heizmann, 2011; Kwok & Gao, 2005; Szulanski, 1996) However, the extant literature remains silent on its dynamics, with prior studies typically evaluating knowledge sharing at a single time point or relying on static models Some studies have mentioned aspects of its evolution, but a comprehensive, longitudinal understanding of how knowledge sharing unfolds over time is still lacking.
Research on knowledge sharing dynamics has often concentrated on factors influencing knowledge sharing (Cyr & Choo, 2010; Lodhi & Coakes, 2012), while less attention has been given to how the nature of knowledge sharing changes over time There is a recognized need to investigate the varying frequency and types of knowledge shared across different stages of team development (Marks et al., 2001) and to explore how team characteristics relate to knowledge sharing as time progresses (Sawng et al., 2006).
The dynamics of knowledge sharing can be inferred from studies of knowledge sharing in project-based organizations that coordinate production functions within temporary project settings, such as professional service firms, across different stages In particular, while professional service teams share knowledge among members through standard stages that last for a certain period, the evolution of knowledge sharing across these stages has not been studied Accordingly, this study defines the dynamics of knowledge sharing as the changes in its multiple dimensions across successive stages of a project in professional service firms.
1.2.3 Roles of team knowledge sharing
In team literature, knowledge sharing within teams has been found to associate with positive outcomes in individual-level and team-level
Overview of motivation and motivations of team knowledge sharing
Motivation, defined as the driving force behind behavior that leads people to act in ways that satisfy their needs, underpins why individuals seek to fulfill their goals (Bennett, 1977) Knowledge-sharing motivation describes the force shaping individuals’ desire to share information (Tang et al., 2016) Understanding why team members share knowledge centers on the knowledge-sharing motivation within teams In the knowledge-sharing literature, motivation is widely recognized as a key determinant of knowledge sharing (Osterloh et al., 2002; Prusak & Davenport, 1998; Tang et al., 2016; Wang & Noe, 2010) Despite extensive research, the nature of knowledge-sharing motivation in organizations remains ambiguous and debated (Lam & Lambermont Ford, 2010; Nguyen et al., 2019; Stenius et al., 2016).
In prior studies, knowledge sharing motivation has been usually divided into two categories of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Gong et al., 2017; Malka & Chatman, 2003) Extrinsic motivation comes from expected consequences or a goal-driven reason when performing an activity (Osterloh et al.,
2002), whereas intrinsic motivation in knowledge sharing implies that individuals find the activity in and of itself interesting, enjoyable, effective and stimulating (Foss et al.,
Research on knowledge-sharing motivation presents mixed findings and debates across the literature Most studies suggest that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation positively influence individuals’ knowledge-sharing attitudes, which in turn shape their knowledge-sharing behavior; however, some studies report that extrinsic rewards can have a negative effect on knowledge sharing, and others find no clear relationship between extrinsic motivation and sharing intentions or attitudes The literature is also criticized as impractical and offering limited managerial implications for governing knowledge-sharing behaviors in organizations Intrinsic motivation has gained dominance in knowledge-sharing research due to its purported stability and effectiveness in sustaining sharing behavior, but this dominance is itself criticized as impractical since both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be functional in performance contexts.
Overview of professional service firms
1.4.1 Definition and types of professional service firms
Globally, the professional services sector has long been regarded as one of the most rapidly growing and profitable sectors over the last three decades (Empson et al., 2015) Its essential role is underscored by the claim that, without professional service firms, “business as we know would come to a grinding halt” (Sharma, 1997: 758) Yet, despite its significance, there is little consensus among scholars on the exact definition of a professional service firm (Empson et al., 2015).
In its narrow sense, a professional service firm is an organization where the majority of income-generating staff belong to an established profession, characterized by knowledge intensity, low capital intensity, and a professionalized workforce Von Nordenflycht (2010) outlines a four-type taxonomy of professional service firms: classic professional service firms (e.g., law and accounting firms); professional campuses (e.g., hospitals); neo-professional service firms (e.g., management consultants); and technology developers (e.g., R&D firms and biotechs) However, Zardkoohi et al (2011) argue that defining professional service firms is problematic because contextual changes over time can render a fixed definition obsolete.
Von Nordenflycht (2010) extended and refined the concept of professional service firms by identifying four key factors—knowledge, customization, governance, and identity—and a professional service firm embodies these traits to varying degrees (Empson et al., 2015) Among them, customization is the central characteristic, as specialist knowledge is applied to create tailored services for different clients (Empson, 2007) The core asset of a professional service firm is its employees’ knowledge, especially their deep understanding of clients In governance terms, experienced professionals demand a high level of autonomy over both ends and means, while also expecting relatively low managerial authority and intervention (Empson, 2007; Faulconbridge & Muzio, 2008) The fourth factor, professional identity, derives from prolonged formal education, professional training, and qualifications.
1.4.2 Importance of team knowledge sharing in professional service firms
Professional service firms face highly diverse client demands and project types, requiring credible ideas and knowledge embedded in long-tenured professionals Capitalizing on the intellectual capital of experienced staff is essential for delivering high-quality, knowledge-based services Knowledge intensity and adherence to professional standards shape how these firms operate To provide superior knowledge-based services that meet professional norms, firms must harness the tacit knowledge held by their professionals.
Knowledge management is crucial in knowledge-intensive professional service firms for exploiting expert knowledge, as Disterer (2006) notes Moreover, Tsui et al (2009) argue that knowledge sharing is the most influential process that can shape and enhance the performance of professional service firms, a claim supported by Andreeva.
When professionals in professional service firms are unwilling to share knowledge, the development of organizational knowledge is negatively affected (Lu et al., 2006; Kianto, 2011) Despite its importance, motivating professionals to share knowledge remains the key challenge for professional service firms (Witherspoon et al., 2013) For instance, the accounting firm KPMG shifted from rewarding individual performance to fostering a culture of knowledge sharing, aiming to persuade professionals to consistently share their knowledge and insights within the firm (Alavi et al., 2005).
From the perspective of professional service firms, services are delivered through teamwork that emphasizes knowledge sharing Audit firms, in particular, rely on teams as the primary mechanism to coordinate diverse skills needed for a project An audit project is delivered by a team consisting of a partner, manager, senior, associate, and intern, spanning planning, execution, and completion Throughout these stages, team members with different levels of knowledge and experience are assigned tasks of varying complexity To ensure task completion and audit quality, accounting, auditing, and regulatory knowledge must be shared among team members because expertise is unevenly embedded in individuals Prior literature shows that intra-team knowledge sharing fosters mutual learning and is associated with superior auditing performance For these reasons, professional service firms provide a useful context to understand the elements that stimulate a professional’s readiness to share knowledge.
Research Gaps in Team knowledge sharing literature
Despite the great progress made by the scholars to understand knowledge sharing within teams (Wang & Noe, 2010; Witherspoon et al., 2013), some issues can hinder further investigations
Only a few scholars recognize the complex nature of team knowledge sharing, which involves distributing different types of knowledge In the team knowledge sharing literature, knowledge is often treated as a single construct despite evidence of multiple knowledge typologies Sharing various kinds of knowledge is driven by different motivational factors and is required for distinct tasks, leading to varying impacts on individual performance, team effectiveness, and organizational goals This oversight is problematic, because the relevance and nature of the knowledge shared for a given task are crucial for achieving team goals (Ahmad & Karim, 2019).
Several team knowledge-sharing studies distinguish knowledge types by adopting the tacit–explicit knowledge dichotomy (Hu & Randel, 2014; Wang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2013) In a sample of 65 knowledge-intensive work teams in China, researchers applied this framework to examine how tacit and explicit knowledge are created, shared, and leveraged to support collaboration, learning, and performance in knowledge-driven environments.
Yu et al (2013) show that individual social capitals, including betweenness centrality, shared cognition, and affective commitment, are positively associated with both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing, while team social capital effects differ by knowledge type; specifically, cognitive commonality and cooperative norm—two team social capitals—primarily influence tacit knowledge sharing because they reduce uncertainty and competitiveness, making team social capital more important for promoting tacit than explicit knowledge sharing Hu and Randel (2014) find that tacit knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between cognitive social capital in teams and team innovation, whereas explicit knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between relational social capital in teams and team innovation Wang et al (2021) report that team reflexivity directly and positively relates to both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing but with different intensities, and that, in terms of indirect effects, authoritarian leadership moderates the relationship between team reflexivity and tacit knowledge sharing.
Critics contend that the explicit–tacit knowledge classification fails to define what knowledge actually is, merely illustrating that knowledge can be expressed or left undeclared (Biggam, 2001) Keane and Mason (2006) argue that using this dichotomy to categorize knowledge misinterprets Polanyi (1966): tacit is a dimension of knowledge, not a type; hence all knowledge consists of both tacit and explicit dimensions rather than two separate types (p.1) As organizations increasingly recognize the strategic importance of knowledge, different types of knowledge are valued differently, and knowledge itself can have multiple classifications and meanings (Ipe, 2003) Furthermore, while various knowledge transfer mechanisms play roles for different knowledge types, studies on the most appropriate mechanisms to share distinct knowledge types remain limited (Balle et al., 2019); without considering the diversity of knowledge types, our explanations of team knowledge sharing may be incomplete.
Second, knowledge sharing motivation is among the most commonly studied antecedents in the literature, yet its findings are criticized for not being clearly delineated and for being managerially impractical Researchers such as Lam & Lambermont Ford (2010), Nguyen et al (2019), and Stenius et al (2016) argue that the boundaries of knowledge sharing motivation are unclear, while Alvesson & Kọrreman (2001) and Foss et al (2010) question its managerial usefulness To address these concerns, knowledge sharing motivation has been divided into extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Abuhamdeh).
Foundational work by Csikszentmihalyi (2009), Gong et al (2017), and Malka & Chatman (2003) has shaped our understanding of knowledge sharing motivation, yet empirical findings across studies remain inconsistent (e.g., Bock et al., 2005; Gooderham et al., 2011; Gururajan & Fink, 2010; Huang et al., 2013; Jeon et al., 2011; Kwok & Gao, 2005) As a result, the literature still shows gaps in explaining what motivates individuals to share knowledge (Lin).
From a theoretical standpoint, organizational theories have typically tied knowledge sharing to a single motivational mechanism, offering only partial explanations for why individuals share knowledge (Lam & Lambermont Ford, 2010) Earlier studies have leaned on motivation theories that overemphasize individualistic-hedonistic assumptions and cognitive-calculative processes (Shamir, 1990) Such deficiencies reveal a bias toward the rational, self-interested individual, with intrinsic motivation often treated as task-specific or hedonistic while affective and normative factors receive scant attention (Shamir, 1990) Moreover, most research has focused on single motivators, neglecting other important drivers; a more holistic, simultaneous analysis could yield deeper insights (Nguyen et al., 2019) There is limited synthesis across theoretical perspectives, and scholars continue to call for an integrated, interdisciplinary approach—drawing on economics, sociology, and psychology—to better understand knowledge sharing motivation (Tsay et al., 2014).
Most studies have relied on static models to explain team knowledge sharing, a central team process, but a growing body of work emphasizes the dynamic nature of team processes and calls for moving beyond analyses at static moments Researchers urge examining how the frequency and types of knowledge sharing vary across different stages of team development and how the link between team characteristics and knowledge sharing evolves over time Since many team processes unfold over extended periods, effectiveness depends not only on the presence of a knowledge-sharing process but also on the timing and sequencing of these processes.
Understanding how team processes evolve during a team's existence is essential for guiding teams toward high performance Although knowledge sharing is recognized as dynamic, the existing literature has paid limited attention to the time‑varying, team‑level processes through which knowledge is shared If we fail to grasp these knowledge‑sharing dynamics, our theoretical conclusions about the drivers and outcomes of knowledge sharing remain inconclusive The mixed evidence on how team characteristics affect knowledge sharing may reflect that studies were conducted at different stages of team development, creating ambiguity for both theory and practice Practically, this ambiguity hampers measurement and intervention, because managers may need different strategies at different points in time to foster effective knowledge sharing and sustained performance.
Chapter 1 discussed the concepts of teams, project teams, team knowledge sharing, dynamics of knowledge sharing, motivations, and professional service firms The discussion was followed by the consequences and the antecedents of knowledge sharing among individuals in general and among individuals within teams Based on the reviewing of the current studies on team knowledge sharing, the research gaps of the literature related to the complex and dynamic nature of team knowledge sharing were acknowledged.