Moorman & Jaworski,1991), and another in which motivationdirectly affects the behaviour while opportu-nity and ability act as moderators (Olander &Thøgersen, 1995). In this study we endorse thefirst form, as it has been more frequentlyadopted theoretically, and validated empiri-cally, for knowledge sharing behaviours (e.g.,Reinholt, Pedersen & Foss, 2011; Siemsen,Roth & Balasubramanian, 2008). Accordingly,we state the following hypothesis:Hypothesis 3: Employees’ motivation, opportu-nity and ability to share knowledge are posi-tively related to their knowledge sharingbehaviours. Innovative Work Behaviour and theMOA FrameworkThe contingencies that drive knowledgesharing – ability and opportunity – can beexpected to enable IWB as well. The correla-tion between ‘ability to share’ and ‘ability toinnovate’ has never been demonstrated.However, past research indirectly supports thenotion that innovativeness invokes the sameset of skills required to share knowledge:elaborating, recombining and translating tacitknowledge into novel forms (Nonaka, 1994;Quintane et al., 2011; Smith, Collins & Clark,2005) for innovating; versus elaborating,recombining and translating tacit knowledgeinto a form that is understandable andeffective for recipients (Ipe, 2003; Reinholt,Pedersen & Foss, 2011; Siemsen, Roth &Balasubramanian, 2008; Szulanski, 1996;Wang & Noe, 2010) for sharing. If the skillscharacterizing the ability to share knowledgeoverlap with those brought to bear duringinpidual innovation, employees with ahigher ability to share will also be facilitatedin enacting their own IWBs. Furthermore,employees never generate and implement newideas in isolation from the rest of the organi-zation, but need to exchange information,opinions and experiences with others (Ford,1996; Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009;Kanter, 1988). The ability to share knowledgeprovides a heightened capacity to attract andinvolve other organizational stakeholders inprospective inpidual and organizationalinnovation (Zhou & Li, 2012). Drawing uponthis, we hypothesize the following:Hypothesis 4: Employees’ ability to shareknowledge is positively related to their owninnovative work behaviours.The opportunity to share is created by anadequate workload and an open climate(Siemsen, Roth & Balasubramanian, 2008).Workload and open climate are likewiserelevant contingencies for employees’ engag-ing in innovation. Extensive research hasdemonstrated that a high workload does notgive employees the opportunity to innovatetheir current practices, especially with respectto idea generation (Amabile et al., 1996;Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006; Janssen, 2001;Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004; Taylor &Greve, 2006). As innovation involves therecombination and translation of complexknowledge that is often tacit in nature,employees need time to elaborate new ideasand manage their implementation in theorganization. Furthermore, high workloadsgenerate stress (Gillespie et al., 2001;MacDonald, 2003) and, as Elsbach andHargadon (2006) argue, employees ‘maymove from a state of mindful work, whichmay increase creativity, to a state of relent-lessly mindful work, which may actuallydecrease creativity’ (p. 472). Finally, highworkloads create work environments that donot stimulate employees to perform extra-rolebehaviours (Amabile et al., 1996).Likewise, extensive research indicates thatinnovation is facilitated in work environmentswhere extra-role initiatives are supported –and not just tolerated (Anderson &West, 1998;Baer & Frese, 2003; Ekvall, 1996). Employeeswho are embedded in a climate of opennessand proactivity can be expected to exhibitmore in IWBs because they are more likely toreflect on the quality of the knowledge theypossess, to be more aware of external opportu-nities, and to feel safer experimenting withnew ideas (Amabile et al., 1996; Anderson &West, 1998; Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado,2009).Drawing from these arguments, wehypothesize that work environments withlower workload pressures and a climate ofopenness and proactivity might represent apositive opportunity to engage in innovativebehaviours.Hypothesis 5: Employees’ opportunity to shareknowledge is positively related to their innova-tive behaviours.Past research provides no reason to expect adirect link between ‘motivation to share’ andIWBs, i.e., that employees will tend to intro-duce innovations because they aremotivated toshare knowledge. Neither is there any reasonto expect ‘motivation to share’ to be a proxyfor ‘motivation to innovate’. We might arguethat knowledge sharing and innovationare two manifestations of an over-archingorganizational-citizenship behaviour (Organ,1997), so that a motivation to act as a ‘goodsoldier’ (Organ, 1988) will affect both behav-iours. Still, this argument does not justifyexpecting ‘motivation to share’ to be a proxyfor ‘motivation to innovate’ or, more specifi-cally, that an employee who is motivated toshare is also motivated to innovate. Motivationto innovate is underpinned by an array offactors (e.g., goals, personal innovativeness,extrinsic motivators, return expectations) thatare different, or even independent, from thoserelevant to knowledge sharing (Bhaduri &Kumar, 2011; Fernandez & Pitts, 2011; Lam &Lambermont-Ford, 2010; Radaelli, Lettieri &Masella, 2013). With no apparent reason toexpect a direct or approximated cause–effectlink, we formulate no hypothesis.Figure 1 summarizes our overall conceptualframework.  The study setting was palliative care organiza-tions (PCOs) for dying cancer patients. 医疗保健中的知识共享和创新工作行为英文文献和中文翻译(3):http://www.youerw.com/fanyi/lunwen_63504.html