The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes

Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes

Jader Zelaya

Graduate School of Knowledge Science, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST),

Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Human Factors, Knowledge Creation, Personality.

Abstract: In organizations, knowledge is mainly created by individuals in interaction. What individuals do is

determined not only by external influences (the main focus of other studies), but also by their own intrinsic

characteristics. As a consequence, it is important to elucidate how some of these characteristics can

potentially impact knowledge creation (KC) in organizations. Based on previous research and on empirical

data collected from two business organizations operating in Japan, this study found that certain personality

traits of the human resources can significantly affect specific KC processes. This finding is discussed in the

final section, where the paper concludes emphasizing the possibility to optimize KC in teams through a

synergistic scheme that considers not only the technological aspects, but also the human aspects.

1 INTRODUCTION

When one considers the basic definition of a system

(a set of interrelated elements forming a collective

entity to accomplish a specific function or goal), it is

easier to see that any kind of organization can be

viewed as a knowledge system. The human

components of organizational systems have certainly

knowledge, and there is also knowledge embedded

in routines, procedures, culture, products, processes,

technology, and structures (Horvath, 2000; Gamble

and Blackwell, 2001). As a consequence, the

management of all this knowledge, spread

throughout the organization, is indispensable to

ensure the organization’s survival and success in

highly competitive contexts.

Thus knowledge management (KM) has become

an influential field of study helpful to improve the

competitiveness of organizations by promoting the

creation and application of knowledge. Among

many factors positively affecting KM, information

and communication technologies have

conspicuously achieved a preeminent status quo.

This study recognizes the importance of the

technology-oriented perspective, but it intends to

bring the attention toward the soft side of knowledge

management. This is because organizations are not

merely mechanical systems, but to a great extent

they are biological systems. The fact that knowledge

is primarily created by ‘individuals in social

interaction’ has been pointed out in the KM

literature (e.g. Nonaka et al., 2008). But still there

seems to be a tendency to forget that a

comprehensive KM strategy is not only technology-

oriented, but also people-oriented. Specifically, this

paper uses quantitative data collected from two

different business organizations to empirically show

that, among several attributes of the human

resources, the personality dimension can

significantly impact knowledge creation in

organizations.

2 THEORETICAL

BACKGROUND AND

HYPOTHESES

2.1 Human Attributes and KM

Human-related aspects can be harnessed to promote

knowledge creation and innovation. Recognizing

that individuals are the principal repository of

knowledge, and that knowledge is created by people

in their interaction with each other and the

environment (Grant, 1996; Nonaka et al., 2008),

ample research have shown that organizational

members’ commitment (Zelaya-Zamora and Senoo,

Zelaya, J..

The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes - Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes.

In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2015) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 62-69

ISBN: 978-989-758-158-8

2012; Chiang et al., 2011; van den Hooff and de

Ridder, 2004), cooperation and trust (Zelaya-Zamora

and Senoo, 2012; Casimir et al., 2012; Lee and Choi,

2003), national culture (Moller and Svahn, 2004;

Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2010), motivation

(Martín Cruz et al., 2009), skills (Lee and Choi,

2003), attitudes (Yang, 2008), and several other

human-oriented factors (Heisig, 2009) can positively

influence knowledge management processes in

organizations. Since KM is about the

interconnection of content, context and the people

involved, very often KM efforts focusing only on

developing a technological capability fail because

they neglect vital attributes in the human resources

(Ruggles, 1998).

2.2 Personality

One of the most difficult challenges in KM is to

influence the behavior of organizational members

(Ruggles, 1998). But in trying to influence the

behavior of people in organizations, it is often

forgotten that not everything human beings do is due

to external influences. The theory of organizational

behavior and the theory of personality suggest that

underneath adaptations (e.g. values and attitudes,

commitment, motivation, memory, skills) and

external influences (e.g. experiences and life events,

the situation or context, cultural norms,

organizational investments) there are enduring basic

traits that can largely explain, ceteris paribus,

human behavior (Robbins, 1998; McCrae and Costa,

1996).

These widely recognized personality traits are

typically known as the Big Five and originate from a

robust theory that provide a practical model for

research (Funder, 2001). A general definition of

each of the Big Five is presented in Table 1.

Evidence shows that these factors have external

validity and predictive utility. For example, it is

reported that low agreeableness and low

conscientiousness predict juvenile delinquency;

conscientiousness and openness predict school

performance (John et al., 1994; Robins et al., 1994);

extraversion predicts success in sales and

management positions; agreeableness and low

neuroticism predict performance in jobs involving

team work (Barrick and Mount, 1991). As these

personality traits are stable across cultures (Gosling,

2001), permanent during adulthood (McCrae, et al.,

2000), highly heritable (Loehlin et al., 1998) and are

fundamentally explanatory of human behavior

(Goldberg, 1993; McCrae and Costa, 1999), they

have also been studied in relationship with

organizational aspects such as job satisfaction

(Judge et al., 2000), organizational commitment

(Erdheim et al., 2006), and knowledge sharing

(Matzler et al., 2008).

2.3 Knowledge Creation

The capability to continuously create and materialize

knowledge in innovative products, services, and

processes can lead to organizational success. The

revisited version of the knowledge creation theory

posits that knowledge creation (KC) occurs when

tacit and explicit knowledge interact repeatedly at

the individual, group, organizational and inter-

organizational levels in a spiral fashion. The type of

interaction composes four distinct KC processes

(formerly called conversion modes): socialization,

externalization, combination, and internalization

(Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). These are described

further in section 2.4 below.

In light of the increasing amount of overlapping

concepts and terminologies frequent in the literature

of KM, it merits noting that “knowledge creation” is

a broad concept that encompasses several KM

processes. For in socialization and externalization,

knowledge sharing and knowledge generation

occurs; and in combination and internalization,

knowledge accumulation and knowledge

exploitation essentially takes place (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995).

These processes (sharing, generation,

accumulation and exploitation) broadly correspond

to the labels other researchers have come up with,

e.g. dissemination, acquisition, storage and

application, respectively (Lee and Yang, 2000; Shin

et al., 2001; Holsapple and Singh, 2001; Heisig,

2009).

Among other KM frameworks, the theory of

knowledge creation is used in this study because it

has stood the test of time and has been extensively

applied and validated in several fields and contexts

(e.g. Lee and Choi, 2003; Rice and Rice, 2005;

Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009), has been

singled out as the most influential theory in the

knowledge management literature based on citation,

network and factor analytical techniques (Ma & Yu,

2010), and has been identified as the most-

frequently-applied theory in the citation classics of

knowledge management (Serenko and Dumay,

2015). Some studies have examined the relationship

between personality traits and knowledge sharing in

general (Matzler et al., 2008; Cabrera et al., 2006),

but the association between personality and specific

KC processes has never been analyzed empirically.

The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes - Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes

Table 1: General definition of the Big Five factors of personality.

Big Five factors Definers

Extraversion (E) Active, assertive, energetic, enthusiastic, outgoing, talkative, skilled in play and humor, rapid

personal tempo, facially and gesturally expressive, gregarious

Agreeableness (A) Appreciative, forgiving, generous, kind, sympathetic, trusting, not critical or skeptical,

behaves in a giving way, considerate, arouses liking, warm, compassionate, basically trustful

Conscientiousness (C) Efficient, organized, planful, reliable, responsible, thorough, dependable, productive, able to

delay gratification, not self-indulging, behaves ethically, has a high aspiration level

Neuroticism (N) Anxious, self-pitying, tense, touchy, unstable, worrying, thin-skinned, brittle ego defenses,

self-defeating, concerned with adequacy, fluctuating moods

Openness (O) Artistic, curious, imaginative, insightful, original, has wide interests, introspective, has

unusual thought processes, values intellectual matters, judges in unconventional terms,

aesthetically reactive

2.4 Hypotheses

2.4.1 Extraversion and KC Processes

Research has demonstrated that the personality trait

of extraversion is significantly associated with

performance in positions involving the interaction

with others–such as sales and management positions

(Barrick and Mount, 1991; Ashton, 1998; Mount et

al., 1998). Given that people who have high level of

extraversion tend to be sociable, gregarious,

adventurous, enthusiastic, and enjoy any kind of

close interaction with other people (John, 1990;

Costa and McCrae, 1992), it is reasonable to expect

that extravert employees tend to spend more time in

socialization activities, where tacit knowledge is

transferred to others (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

For this reason, the first hypothesis is:

: There is a positive association between

Extraversion and knowledge Socialization (E–S).

Extraversion also defines individuals who speak

their minds and are assertive, talkative and non-

reserved (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Costa and

McCrae, 1992). These attributes are crucial to

convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, i.e.

the externalization process (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). Then, we can expect that extrovert employees

will be inherently predisposed to externalize their

ideas, thoughts and feelings with more frequency and

ease. Consequently:

: Extraversion is positively associated with

knowledge Externalization (E–E).

2.4.2 Agreeableness and KC Processes

Highly agreeable individuals are especially friendly,

sympathetic, cooperative, helpful, collaborative and

generous (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Costa and

McCrae, 1992). Mount et al. (1998) found that

agreeableness is related to performance in

occupations where collaborative and cooperative

interactions are necessary. And Digman (1997)

concluded that agreeableness is related to

socialization and communion. But Jensen-Campbell

and Graziano (2001) explain that the social behavior

associated with agreeableness is different from

extraversion. Extraversion is related to the impact of

social behaviors (i.e., extraverts are more likely to

make an impact on others during social situations),

whereas agreeableness is related to desires to

preserve harmonious social relationships. Because

knowledge socialization is characterized by sharing

experience (tacit knowledge) unselfishly (Nonaka &

Takeuchi, 1995), it is hypothesized that the

personality trait of agreeableness facilitates the

socialization of knowledge in organizations.

Formally stated:

: Agreeableness is positively associated

with knowledge Socialization (A–S).

2.4.3 Conscientiousness and KC Processes

Conscientiousness describes individuals who are

hardworking, achievement-oriented, dutiful,

responsible and organized (Barrick and Mount,

1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992). Not surprisingly,

research shows that conscientiousness significantly

explains job performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991;

Hurtz and Donovan, 2000) and is related to

knowledge sharing in general (Matzler et al., 2008).

These characteristics seem to indicate that

conscientious individuals have more predisposition

to carry out intellect-and-time-demanding activities

such as collection, analysis and reconfiguration of

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

useful information and data, that is to say, to perform

the systematization and combination of

organizational knowledge. Thus:

: Conscientiousness is positively associated

with knowledge Combination (C–C).

Internalization also requires dutifulness, self-

discipline and deliberation (definers of

conscientiousness) for the employees to engage in

explicit-to-tacit knowledge conversion through

consideration of or reflection on success stories,

organizational experiences and goals (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995). Accordingly, the fifth hypothesis is:

: Conscientiousness is strongly associated

with knowledge Internalization (C–I).

2.4.4 Neuroticism and KC Processes

Neuroticism characterizes individuals with the

propensity to experience distress and negative affect

(McCrae and John, 1992; Emmons et al., 1985).

Representative behaviors coupled with neuroticism

include being depressed, angry, worried, insecure,

emotionally unstable and anxious (Barrick & Mount,

1991) as well as being inclined to feel more strongly

negative life events (Magnus et al., 1993). High

neuroticism has not been found positively related to

any beneficial organizational outcome. To the

contrary, research has found that neuroticism is

negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Judge et

al., 2002) and negatively related to performance in

jobs involving group work (Mount et al., 1998). Due

to the negative nature of this trait, no positive

associations are expected between neuroticism and

KC processes. Hence:

: Neuroticism is not positively associated

with any of the KC processes.

2.4.5 Openness and KC Processes

The personality trait ‘openness’ involves active

imagination, intellectual curiosity, predilection for

variety, originality, unconventionality and sensitivity

for aesthetics (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Openness

is related to creativity, flexibility, broad-perspectives

and intelligence (Judge et al., 2002; Digman, 1990).

Other studies have found that openness has a

significant relationship with knowledge sharing in

general (Cabrera et al., 2006; Matzler et al., 2008).

But, how is openness associated with specific KC

processes?

Openness to new ideas and curiosity are

important conditions for socialization, where the

conversion of tacit-to-tacit knowledge occurs

primarily through observation, imitation, practice or

direct experience (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

Employees who score high in openness are more

likely to acquire knowledge via socialization due to

their intrinsic tendency to be curious, flexible and

experimental (Costa and McCrae, 1992). Therefore,

it is hypothesized that:

: Openness is strongly associated with

knowledge Socialization (O–S).

The active imagination and creativity of those

who have a high degree of openness can be useful

for the conversion of tacit-to-explicit knowledge

(externalization) because this KC process takes place

through the ability to generate metaphors and

analogies, and by “intuitively understanding one

thing by imagining another” (Nonaka and Takeuchi,

1995). Therefore, it is expected that individuals with

high level of openness are more prone to effectively

externalize their knowledge. In other words:

: Openness is strongly associated with

knowledge Externalization (O–E).

Openness is also characterized by the intellectual

capacity, the broad-perspective orientation and the

originality of individuals. These features are likely to

be associated with knowledge combination, because

the conversion of explicit-to-explicit knowledge

requires the creative use of existing explicit

knowledge to generate more of it by being able to

see the interaction between concepts and to

reconfigure organizational knowledge in original

ways (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Accordingly:

: Openness is significantly associated with

knowledge Combination (O–C).

No hypotheses were developed for other pairs of

personality trait and KC process because a

theoretical basis to support them could not be

sufficiently elaborated. However, they were still

considered in the analysis as explorative, latent

associations. Figure 1 presents a summary of the

main hypotheses introduced in this study.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sample and Operationalization of

Constructs

In order to empirically test the theoretical model

developed in this study, data was collected from two

Japanese companies, one dedicated to the

manufacturing and commercialization of

pharmaceutical products, the other dedicated to the

construction and commercialization of real estate.

Personality traits were measured using the 44-

item, Big Five Inventory (BFI) originally developed

by (John et al., 1991) and refined subsequently by

The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes - Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes

Figure 1: A model on the relationship between personality and knowledge creation processes.

(Benet-Martinez and John, 1998). The BFI is more

practical for research studies than other scales

available in the literature (e.g. TDA and NEO) and its

reliability and convergent and discriminant validity

have been documented (John and Srivastava, 1999).

KC processes were assessed using the SECI

scale originally developed by Nonaka (1994) and

subsequently revised collaboratively by several

professors and practitioners of KM. This 24-item

scale consists of six tested indicators for each KC

process. Reliability and validity evidence has also

been provided in detail by Nonaka (1994) and

subsequently corroborated by studies in diverse

research settings, e.g. (Magnier-Watanabe and

Senoo, 2009; Riera et al., 2009). Both personality

and KC were measured with question-items using 5-

point Likert scales in Japanese language which were

responded anonymously by individuals working in

sales. Out of 150 questionnaires submitted, 142

contained usable data for the subsequent analysis.

3.2 Quantitative Analysis and Results

After the mandatory steps regarding data

preparation, confirmation of adequate level of

reliability and validity of the scales, and assessment

of the basic requirements for the statistical

procedures, correlation and regression analyses were

conducted. Due to space limitations, only the results

of the regression analysis for the independent

variables with the greatest explanatory power (high

R-Square contribution) are presented in Table 2.

Generally speaking, the results indicate that the

personality traits openness and extraversion are

significantly associated with both knowledge

socialization and knowledge externalization (H1,

H7, H2 and H8 are supported; but not H3). This

means that individuals scoring high in these

personality traits are more likely to contribute to the

socialization and externalization processes in

organizations. In addition, openness and

conscientiousness are significantly associated with

knowledge combination (H4 and H9 are supported).

As expected, neuroticism was not found

significantly associated with any KC process (H6 is

supported) and openness, rather than

conscientiousness, was found significantly

associated with knowledge internalization (H5 is not

supported). In all, seven out of nine hypotheses in

the research model were supported empirically.

Initially, stepwise regression was conducted, but

in light of the unanimous influence of openness on

all KC processes, hierarchical regression was also

conducted in order to confirm that openness indeed

explains most of the variance of the dependent

variables above and beyond the other personality

traits. The results revealed the same conclusions.

Knowled

e Creation

(SECI model)

Extraversion

reeableness

Conscientiousness

Neuroticism

enness

Socialization

Externalization

Combination

Internalization

Personality

(Big Five model)

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

Table 2: Main results of the regression analysis.

Dependent

(KC)

Independent

(Personality)

Std. coeff. Sig. Adj. R-Square

Socialization Openness

Extraversion

.346*

.239*

.000

.007

20.3%

4.7%

Externalization Openness

Extraversion

.424*

.253*

.000

.002

34.5%

6.3%

Combination Openness

Conscientiousness

.292*

.255*

.000

.001

11.3%

5.7%

Internalization Openness 374* .000 26.2%

4 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

4.1 Findings

The theoretical background and the empirical

analysis performed in this study indicate that human

resources with high level of openness and

extraversion can contribute more to the socialization

and externalization processes of KC. Both sharing

tacit knowledge (in socialization) and producing

explicit knowledge (in externalization)

understandably require the assertive and interactive

propensity of individuals scoring high in

extraversion as well as the curious tendency of

individuals scoring high in openness.

Agreeableness was not found sufficiently

associated with any KC process, not even with

socialization as hypothesized. This could be because

agreeableness, in contrast to extraversion, has to do

more with a desire to preserve harmonious social

relationships rather than making an impact on others

during social interactions (Jensen-Campbell and

Graziano, 2001)

But socialization in the KC theory entails impact

on others (i.e. individuals must effectively share tacit

knowledge and/or absorb it from others). It seems

that agreeableness cannot create an adequate level of

impact necessary for the socialization of knowledge.

This study also found that openness and

conscientiousness are significantly associated with

knowledge combination. The organizing and

dutifulness tendency of conscientious individuals

together with the intellectual and insightful

characteristics of high openness can explain

individuals’ involvement in the systematization of

knowledge (i.e. combination of explicit-knowledge).

The trait openness additionally appears to influence

the internalization of knowledge in organizations

because the widely-interested and curious

individuals are naturally prone to try out and

experiment with what they have learned in different

contexts.

4.2 Implications and Further Research

In general, the findings of this study suggest that

personality, like many other variables related to

people in organizations (such as leadership, culture,

commitment, trust, motivation, etc.), is important for

KC. Technological aspects undisputedly support

KM activities, but this should not obscure the fact

that other aspects related to the human elements in

organizations also require managerial attention.

There are two main sides or perspectives of KM: the

hard/technological and the soft/biological. Normally

it is not wise to over-emphasize one at the expense

of the other. Ruggles (1998) broadly suggests

getting an approximate 50/25/25

people/process/technology balance right from the

outset of any KM endeavor.

In particular, the findings of this study indicate

that the personality traits more important for KC in

organizations are openness, extraversion and

conscientiousness. Because personality can

influence the behavior of people independently of

adaptations and external influences, managers can

apply the findings of this study to affect KC without

making significant investments. It is possible to

select individuals (either from the same

organizational unit, from different units, or recruited

from outside the company) with high scores in these

three important personality traits and form with them

teams assigned to knowledge-intensive projects.

This is an implication worth experimenting within a

controlled setting. Do teams composed of members

scoring high in openness, extraversion, and

conscientiousness actually perform significantly

better in KC than teams randomly formed without

care for the personality of the members? This is an

agenda for further research, which can serve as a

The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes - Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes

stepping-stone toward the optimization of KC in

teams based on human-attributes considerations.

As it happens with most research papers, this

study has limitations related to the size and variety

of the sample surveyed, as well as the ceteris

paribus condition assumed. When further research is

done overcoming these limitations, the findings of

the study will be much more generalizable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author greatly appreciates the support of

Professor Dai Senoo at the Tokyo Institute of

Technology to conduct this research a few years ago.

REFERENCES

Ashton, M. (1998). Personality and job performance: The

importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational

Behaviour, 19, 289-303.

Barrick, M., and Mount, M. (1991). The Big Five

personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Benet-Martinez, V., and John, O. (1998). Los Cinco

Grandes accross cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait

multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and

English. Journal of Pesonality and Social Psychology,

75, 729-750.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W., and Salgado, J. (2006).

Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge

sharing. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 17(2), 245-264.

Casimir, G., Lee, K., and Loon, M. (2012). Knowledge

sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost.

Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740-753.

Chiang, H., Han, T., and Chuang, J. (2011). The

relationship between high-commitment HRM and

knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators.

International Journal of Manpower, 32(5/6), 604-622.

Costa, P., and McCrae, R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Digman, J. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the

five-facor model. Annual Review of Pshychology, 21,

417-440.

Digman, J. (1997). High-order factors of the Big Five.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1246-1256.

Emmons, R., Diener, E., and Larsen, R. (1985). Choice of

situations and congruence models of interactionism.

Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 693-702.

Erdheim, J., Wang, M., and Zickar, M. (2006). Linking the

Big Five personality constructs to organizational

commitment. Personality and Individual Differences,

41, 959-970.

Funder, D. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52, 197-221.

Gamble, P., and Blackwell, J. (2001). Knowledge

Management: A state of the art guide. London, UK:

Kogan Page.

Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic

personality traits. American Pshychologist, 48, 26-34.

Gosling, S. (2001). From mice to men: What can we learn

about personality from animal research? Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 45-86.

Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the

firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.

Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge

management -comparing 160 KM frameworks around

the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4),

4-31.

Holsapple, C., and Singh, M. (2001). The knowledge

chain model: activities for competitiveness. Expert

Systems with Applications, 20, 77-98.

Horvath, J. (2000). Working with Tacit Knowledge. In J.

Cortada, and J. Woods (Eds.),

The Knowledge

Management Yearbook 2000-2001 (pp. 34-51).

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hurtz, G., and Donovan, J. (2000). Personality and job

performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.

Jensen-Campbell, L., and Graziano, W. (2001).

Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal

conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362.

John, O. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy:

Dimensions of personality in the natural language and

in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of

Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 66-100). NY:

Guildford Press.

John, O., and Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait

taxonomy: History, measures and theoretical

perspectives. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and

Research (pp. 102-138). NY: Guildford Press.

John, O., Caspi, A., Robins, R., Moffitt, T., and

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The little five:

exploring the nomological network of the five-factor

model of personality in adolescent boys. Child

Development, 65, 160-178.

John, O., Donahue, E., and Kentle, R. (1991). The Big

Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA:

University of California.

Judge, T., Bono, J., and Locke, E. (2000). Personality and

job satisfaction: The mediating role of job

characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6),

869-879.

Judge, T., Heller, D., and Mount, M. (2002). Five-factor

model of personality and job satisfaction:A meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Pshychology, 87, 530-

541.

Lee, C., and Yang, J. (2000). Knowledge value chain.

Journal of Management Development, 19(9), 783-793.

Lee, H., and Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management

enablers, processes and organizational performance:

an integrative view and empirical examination.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1),

179-228.

Loehlin, J., McCrae, R., Costa Jr., P., and John, O. (1998).

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

Heritabilities of common and measure-specific

components of the Big Five personality factors.

Journal of Research in Psychology, 32, 431-453.

Ma, Z., and Yu, K. (2010). Research paradigms of

contemporary knowledge management studies: 1998-

2007. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 175-

189.

Magnier-Watanabe, R., and Senoo, D. (2009). Congruent

knowledge management behaviors as discriminate

sources of competitive advantage. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 21(2), 109-124.

Magnier-Watanabe, R., and Senoo, D. (2010). Shaping

knowledge management: organization and national

culture. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2),

214-227.

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., and Pavot, W. (1993).

Extraversion and neuroticism as perdictors of

objective life events. Journal of Pesonality and Social

Psychology, 65, 1046-1053.

Martín Cruz, N., Martín Pérez, V., and Trevilla Cantero,

C. (2009). The influence of employee motivation on

knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 13(6), 478-490.

Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting, S., and

Mooradian, T. (2008). Personality traits and

knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology,

29(3), 301-313.

McCrae, R., and Costa, P. (1996). The five factor model of

personality. (J. Wiggings, Ed.) New York, NY: The

Guilford Press.

McCrae, R., and Costa, P. (1999). A five-factor theory of

personality. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and

Research (pp. 139-153). NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R., and John, O. (1992). An introduction to the

Five-Factor Model and its applications. Journal of

Personality, 60, 175-215.

McCrae, R., Costa, P., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,

Hrebickova, M., Avia, M., . . . Smith, P. (2000).

Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and

life span development. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 78(1), 173-186.

Moller, K., and Svahn, S. (2004). Crossing East-West

boundaries: knowledge sharing in intercultural

business networks. 33(3), 219-228.

Mount, M., Barrick, M., and Stewart, G. (1998). The Five-

factor Model of personality and performance in jobs

involving interpersonal interaction. Human

Performance, 11, 145-165.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational

knowledge creation. Organizational Science, 5(1), 14-

37.

Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-

creating company: how Japanese companies create

the dynamic of innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Nonaka, I., and Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-

creating theory revisited: knowledge-creation as a

synthesizing process. Knowledge Management

Research and Practice, 1, 2-10.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Hirata, T. (2008).

Managing

flow: a process theory of the knowledge-based firm.

Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rice, J., and Rice, B. (2005). The applicability of the SECI

model to multi-organisational endeavours: An

integrative review. International Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 9(8), 671-682.

Riera, C., Senoo, D., and Iijima, J. (2009). A study of the

effect of knowledge creating capabilities on corporate

performance. International Journal of Knowledge

Management Studies, 3(1), 116-133.

Robbins, S. (1998). The Individual. In Organizational

Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications

(8th ed., pp. 40-202). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Robins, R., John, O., and Caspi, A. (1994). Major

dimensions of personality in early adolescence: The

Big Five and beyond. In The developing structure of

temperament and personality from infancy to

adulthood (pp. 267-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: knowledge

management in practice. California Management

Review, 40(3), 80-89.

Shin, M., Holden, T., and Schmidt, R. (2001). From

knowledge theory to management practice: towards an

integrated approach. Information Processing and

Management, 37, 335-355.

van den Hooff, B., and de Ridder, J. (2004). Knowledge

sharing in context: the influence of organizatinal

commitment, communication climate and CMC use on

knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 8(6), 117-130.

Yang, J. (2008). Individual attitudes and organisational

knowledge sharing. Tourism Management, 29, 345-

353.

Zelaya-Zamora, J., and Senoo, D. (2012). Recent Trends

in Business Management and Information Systems. In

A. Nag (Ed.), ICBMIS, (pp. 431-437). Singapore.

Zelaya-Zamora, J., and Senoo, D. (2013). Synthesizing

seeming incompatibilities to foster knowledge creation

and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management,

17(1), 106-122.

The Effect of Personality on Knowledge Creation Processes - Toward KC Optimization in Teams based on Human Attributes