Purpose

This study aims to adopt the microfoundation perspective to investigate undesirable knowledge rejection by individuals in organizations in the context of counterproductive knowledge behavior (CKB). The paper advances a conceptual framework of the conditions of knowledge rejection by individuals and their respective knowledge rejection behavior types.

Design/methodology/approach

This study reviews the limited literature on knowledge rejection and outline a set of antecedents leading to rejecting knowledge as well as a set of different types of knowledge rejection behaviors. This study reviews and synthesizes articles on knowledge rejection from a microfoundation perspective.

Findings

The proposed conceptual framework specifies four particular conditions for knowledge rejection and outlines four respective knowledge rejection behavior types resulting from these conditions. Recipients’ lack of capacity leads to ineptitude, lack of motivation leads to dismissal of knowledge, lack of alignment with the source leads to disruption and doubts about the validity of external knowledge lead to resistance. The authors treat these behaviors as variants of CKB, as they can hinder the productive use of knowledge resources in the organization.

Research limitations/implications

Further investigation of both knowledge rejection causes and the resulting knowledge rejection behaviors will ensure a more thorough grasp of the relationships between them, both in terms of the inherent nature of these relationships and their dynamics that would likely be context-sensitive. Although this study focuses only on the individual level, future studies can conduct multi-level analyses of undesirable knowledge rejection, including team and organizational levels.

Practical implications

Practitioners can use the framework to identify, diagnose and manage knowledge rejection more meaningfully, accurately and purposefully in their organizations. This study offers valuable insights for managers facing undesirable knowledge rejection, and provides recommendations on how to address this behavior, improves the constructive use of knowledge resources and the effectiveness of knowledge processes in their organizations. Managers should be aware of undesirable knowledge rejection, its potential cost or concealed cost to their organizations and develop strategies to reduce or prevent it.

Originality/value

The paper contributes toward understanding the relatively neglected topic of knowledge rejection in the knowledge management field and offers a new way of conceptualizing the phenomenon. It proposes that there are two types of knowledge rejection – undesirable and desirable – and advances a more precise and up-to-date definition of undesirable knowledge rejection. Responding to calls for more research on CKBs, the study examines a hitherto unresearched behavior of knowledge rejection and provides a foundation for further study in this area.

中文翻译：

---

知识拒绝：基于微观基础的框架

目的

本研究旨在采用微观基础的视角来调查组织中个人在适得其反的知识行为（CKB）背景下的不良知识拒绝。本文提出了个人拒绝知识的条件及其各自的知识拒绝行为类型的概念框架。

设计/方法论/途径

本研究回顾了有关知识拒绝的有限文献，并概述了一组导致拒绝知识的前因以及一组不同类型的知识拒绝行为。本研究从微观基础的角度回顾和综合了有关知识拒绝的文章。

发现

所提出的概念框架规定了知识拒绝的四种特定条件，并概述了由这些条件产生的四种相应的知识拒绝行为类型。接受者缺乏能力会导致无能，缺乏动力会导致放弃知识，缺乏与来源的一致性会导致干扰，对外部知识有效性的怀疑会导致抵制。作者将这些行为视为 CKB 的变体，因为它们可能会阻碍组织中知识资源的有效利用。

研究局限性/影响

对知识拒绝原因和由此产生的知识拒绝行为的进一步调查将确保更彻底地掌握它们之间的关系，包括这些关系的固有性质及其可能与上下文相关的动态。虽然本研究仅关注个人层面，但未来的研究可以对不良知识拒绝进行多层面的分析，包括团队和组织层面。

实际影响

从业者可以使用该框架在其组织中更有意义、更准确、更有目的地识别、诊断和管理知识拒绝。这项研究为面临不良知识拒绝的管理者提供了宝贵的见解，并就如何解决这种行为、提高组织中知识资源的建设性使用和知识流程的有效性提供了建议。管理者应该意识到不良的知识拒绝、其对组织的潜在成本或隐性成本，并制定策略来减少或预防这种情况。

原创性/价值

本文有助于理解知识管理领域中相对被忽视的知识拒绝主题，并提供了一种概念化该现象的新方法。它提出存在两种类型的知识拒绝——不需要的和需要的——并提出了对不需要的知识拒绝的更精确和最新的定义。为了响应对 CKB 进行更多研究的呼吁，该研究检查了迄今为止尚未研究的知识拒绝行为，并为该领域的进一步研究奠定了基础。