I do not think experience is related to this . It is the attitude and or mentoring willingness or ability that counts . Moreover with ever increasing complexities of  intelligent Gadgets reverse may become true or mentoring each other may become the norm.Well I am also interested in research articles for this topic.

Dear Nirmal, thank you for sharing your point of view.

Dear Nirmal, the length of working years in my point of view refers to the years one works at a given organization, not necessarily all the years one has spent working at different organizations. However it can also be equal to experience: the longer the length of working years is the more experience one can have. Mentoring, mentoring willingness or ability also seems a really good idea. In your oppinion, could a middle manager be a good mentor and be willing or able to mentor other colleague(s) properly? Or the middle managers do not have time and the willingness to mentor someone? Does it have anything to do with the area (marketing, HR, production, logistics, finance etc.) were they work?

Although we are always looking for new paradigms, I recently was alerted by a friend about a good and old book called " The Evolution of Cooperation" - Robert Axelrod. The book treats the human being reality. It uses game theory and analyses if the unforced cooperation is possible. Your approach about time is very interesting.

Dear Anikó Csepregi

Take a look at the saying

If the boss is secure , you are insecure! I f you are secure the bos is insecure!

Here lies the attitude and mentoring ability. In my personal experience for three decades and climbed the ladder from junior,  , middle , senior etc and interacted with Marketing, HR, production, logistics R&D etc, there has been gradual erosion of middle managers role, partly due to advancement in technology &IT to ICT. Explicit and Tacit knowledge too are under continuous improvement.Now with collective or group dynamics what cannot be achieved by a motivated individual ?

Dear Aniko,

I think that TIME as a variable is not related directly to the WILLINGNESS of sharing knowledge. Time may be related to the process of integration of a new person into the cultural web of a new job. Assuming that a certain person has got enough experience to share, the process of sharing is a direct result of the willingness to share, that means of a inner field of forces. The willingness depends on the personality of each person and on the cultural atmosphere built up in a specific working place. If you enjoy your new colleagues and the working spirituality is not based on a fierce competition, then chances are you would like to share your knowledge with your new colleagues. Sharing knowledge depends strongly on education and organizational culture. From my own experience I can say that in USA there is basically individualistic competition and sharing knowledge may happen occasionally in a team. In the American culture there is the tradition of Do it yourself ! By comparison, in the Japanese culture, people work in teams and sharing knowledge is part of their work and life. Once again, TIME may be related to knowledge sharing but not directly; only through organizational culture.

I strongly agree with the statement that knowledge sharing depends on organizational and also national culture.

I like the approach that time is not related directly to knowledge sharing. (It is related through the integration process to knowledge sharing or to the willingness to share knowledge.)

In deed, it takes time for new employees to integrate into an organization (into the cultural web of the job, the area or the organization). After the integration process when they feel that they are part of the new organization they will be willing to share their knowledge and experience. This of course highly depends on the organizational culture and/or the employees' personality.

Although the length of the integration process depends on the emplyoee's personality, in your oppinion how long does it take someone to integrate into a new orgazation (let's suppose that the culture of the new organization differs a bit from the previous one)? Do you have personal experience concerning the length of the integration process?

I also agree that knowledge sharing is related to organisational and national culture. A variable that is also true related to the perception of the need to share in the tools vs. technology connection. Although dated, I believe that my findings of 2001 may we still be in play in most organisations that "the longer that the respondent has been in his/her position the more likely they are to believe that Knowledge Management is an extended function of information technology." That sharing is not their responsibility.   I attach a copy of the Technical Report for your information and would be happy to share the research instrument if you think it would be useful.

Dear Aniko,

You asked me about my own experience. I changed organizations both in my country and abroad. The integration time depends on the set of cultural values a person has vs. the organizational cultures in organization. If there are small differences, than the integration time could be small as well, a week or a month, depending on the motivation a person has. If you feel like being at home with your new colleagues, adaptation is almost immediately. If there is a significant difference in cultural values, then integration may takes years until the person accepts new values. Sharing knowledge is a personal attitude unless there is a strong organizational culture stimulating it, like in Japan. I was surprized how well sharing knowledge works there because of education and organizational culture able to stimulate it. It is the difference between individualistic competition (e.g. American education) and team competition (e.g. Japan) that makes the difference in organizational cultures. I believe that in Hungary there is a middle situation since cooperation comes from socialism while individualistic competition from the new business environment. Sharing knowledge is wonderful if it is educated in schools and universities since team work may solve many problems individualistic work cannot. However, cooperation culture should not suffocate individual capacity for creation.

Dear Garet,

Thank you for the suggestion, however I am interested in the length of working years (the length of the integration process) and its connection to knowledge sharing, instead of age. In deed, the literature of age and knowledge sharing is quite big.

Dear Lilian,

Thank your for drawing my attention on the book of Robert Axelrod. I will check it.

Dear Suzanne,

Thank you for the report. It seems to have useful results in it. Do you have publications (papers in proceedings, or journal articles) connected to this report?

Dear Constantin Bratianu,

I really appreciate you shared your experience concerning the integration time in two different cultures.

Obviously, culture / cultural values being similar or very different have a significant effect on cooperation / competition. People in highly individualistic culture are less willing to share knowledge, however knowledge sharing has several benefits.

Dear Aniko,

I would suggest to test your ideas in two groups of companies: a) a group of companies where there is a certain policy to encourage and stimulate knowledge sharing, and then to see the relationship you are interested in, and b) a group of companies where there is no managerial policy for knowledge sharing, that means that knowledge sharing is just an individual attitude, and you put again your question.

The results will be significant for your country culture and for the former socialist countries. Only partially they will be significant for Western European culture. It is good to try doing it.

The quantum of knowledge acquired, or knowledge shared is not directly proportional to either the length of total experience gained in different organizations, or the length of time spent in one organization. It depends on the type of experience gained in a particular position, in a particular organization, for a considerable period of time as per the ability, attitude and skill of the person. Knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing is also encouraged in a conducive organization culture, where human talents are recognized. Hence, optimum period of time to be spent for gaining and sharing useful knowledge,  will depend on individual and organizational factors as stated earlier. Development of subordinates and succession planning, are important responsibilities of a manager in an organizational set up.

 You could link this to the discussion  regarding when a person is a newcomer or an oldtimer in the litterature of communities of practice. Some say 3 years others say 7 years, it all depends on the organization, professions and knowledge types involved or  you can experience problems across the newcomers and old-timers

Dear Anikó Csepregi.

I will like to believe that you are trying to come up with a relativity principle on years of work experience and knowledge sharing. But on going through the contributions on this thread, I observed that the topic has already been confined to activities within a company or an organization. In this way, persons are considered as objects that just dropped in their respective companies or organizations. I would rather like to consider this topic in the light of humanoids, that is, robot human beings. Of good importance is a study on human behavioral systems. It is also important to know that persons come from families and orphanages. Whatever they learn at these stages of their lives mostly end up influencing them for the rest of their live. If you have watched this film. "Karate Kid 1", Mr. Japkie Chan told the karate kid that the other martial students are not bad students, but that they are under a bad master. The willingness to share information not to talk of knowledge has taken a national and even racial faces and become more prohibitive. Overall, it good to know that the willingness to share knowledge goes deeper that the mind if you by chance have knowledge of spiritual science. It is a the pull between the GREED to hold on tight for self glorification and the TRUST IN GOD to let go for the good of all. One thing still stands out though; that the REALITY of missed opportunities of being useful to others tend to dawn on persons as they grow older.

I really like the newcomers and old-timers categories. Would love to read more of it.

Testing two different groups of organizations seems to be the solution to test knowledge sharing.

It is true that managers are responsible for the development of their subordinates. What managerial responsibilities would any of you mention concerning knowledge sharing? Are there working areas where managers do not feel the need to help the development of their subordinates? If yes, why not? What are they afraid of? Besides the culture of the organization, does it have anything to do with other influencing factors?

Dear Wolfgang,

thank you for sharing your oppinion.

Taking into consideration only time (the length of working years) is obviously not enough, other factors should also be investigated.

What do you think about the usefulness of the shared knowledge and its connection to the length of working years?

Dear Aniko,

You raise a very relevant issue with regards to Tacit Knowledge transfer & knowledge sharing.

Although not in direct response to your question but nevertheless related to tacit knowledge transfer, you (and others in this thread) may like to peruse/cite my papers on this topic.

I hope they are of some help. Good luck!

Regards,

RC

Dear Aniko,

You raise a very relevant issue with regards to Tacit Knowledge transfer & knowledge sharing.

Although not in direct response to your question but nevertheless related to tacit knowledge transfer, you (and others in this thread) may like to peruse/cite my papers on this topic.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274377935_Mandating_the_Transfer_of_Tacit_Knowledge_in_Australian_Universities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274465463_Workplace_Dimensions_Tacit_Knowledge_Sharing_in_Universities

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241631264_Knowledge_sharing_with_enhanced_learning_and_development_opportunities

I hope they are of some help. Good luck!

Regards,

RC

Article Mandating the Transfer of Tacit Knowledge in Australian Universities

Article Workplace Dimensions: Tacit Knowledge Sharing in Universities

Article Knowledge sharing with enhanced learning and development opportunities

For data in this area, suggest you look at the work of Rob Cross (University of Virginia0 on social network analysis. His research numbers in the 100's of examples and is quite rigorous.  He collected data re the knowledge sharing (with whom, trustworthiness in terms of response, how often, etc.) and in some cases collected the characteristics of his responders such that you might have some data to help answer your questions.

Let me present only my logical beliefs here. When an employee spends more time on working he or she will be able to know new things through experience and training. Also it is possible to enhance one’s knowledge because of social learning (peer group etc.). Enhanced knowledge will increase the employee’s self-efficacy to teach/advise. Then, the employee will have a higher willingness to share his or her knowledge with others. Hence, it is possible to argue that there is a positive relationship between the length of working years and knowledge sharing willingness. The length of working years can be labeled as the independent variable (which occurs at time 1) while knowledge sharing willingness can be labeled as the dependent variable (which occurs at time 4). Degree of knowledge (which occurs at time 2) and self-efficacy to advise (which occurs at time 3) can be labeled as mediating variables. However, high competition for limited promotion opportunities, no respect given by others, no recognition given by superiors etc can moderate the theorized positive relationship between the length of working years and knowledge sharing willingness.

Enjoyed reading Henarath Opatha's response to this. And how we wish 1) and 2) were true! And, indeed, in some cases they are. Unfortunately, referring to 3), there are strong remnants from the past environment focused on competitive advantage and knowledge as power. from this focus and development on the mental without the balancing of the holistic human (physical, mental, emotional, spiritual), many business people and organizations have moved from egotism (I'm right) to arrogance (I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm not listening). Thus, their "knowledge sharing" from that baseline is about "broadcasting" with listening and learning a lost art!  In these cases, where rewards are achieved by using and controlling others, there is a hardening and diminishing of value over time. Thus, individual attributes such as beliefs and values, openness to learning, attention and intention, and many other variables come into play. As an optimist, I do believe that eventually if there is life there is learning, although it may not be conducive to sharing! It is through deepening our relationships with others--the expansion from sympathy to empathy to compassion to unconditional love--that we begin to understand fully the highest virtue of the physical plane, cooperation and collaboration, and that individuation (development of our mental faculties) has its greatest value through connecting with others.

     See The Profundity and Bifurcation of Change (a book in five Parts available on this research site) which details the Intelligent Social Change Journey, a developmental journey of the body, mind and heart, moving from the heaviness of cause-and-effect linear extrapolations, to the fluidity of co-evolving with our environment, to the lightness of breathing our thought and feelings into reality. Grounded in development of our mental faculties, these are phase changes, each building on and expanding previous learning in our movement toward intelligent activity.