If you are hiring or promoting based on “personality fit” to improve how your team shares knowledge, you might be leaning on flawed science.
A massive structured review of 200 studies by renowned researcher Alexander Serenko has issued a “red alert” for leadership: the connection between personality traits and how employees share or hide knowledge is far more chaotic than we thought. Most studies blindly borrow psychology terms without understanding them, leading to contradictory advice that can actually damage your organizational culture.
The Failure of the ‘Big Five’
For years, the “Big Five” (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) have been the gold standard for HR. However, Serenko’s research reveals that despite thousands of pages of study, the actual impact of these traits on knowledge sharing remains entirely unknown. If you are assuming your “extroverts” are your best knowledge sharers, you are making a gamble unsupported by data.
The Traits That Actually Matter (The ‘Practical Wisdom’ Set)
While the Big Five are inconclusive, the research identified three specific traits that consistently drive productive knowledge behavior:
- Emotional Intelligence (EI): This is the ultimate “Practical Wisdom” trait. Employees who can regulate their own emotions and read others are significantly more likely to facilitate knowledge flow and suppress toxic “knowledge hoarding.”
- Learning-Approach Orientation: These are individuals obsessed with gaining new competencies. They share knowledge naturally because they view the entire office as a collective learning environment.
- Prosocial Cooperation: This is the “win-win” mindset. These employees prioritize maximizing outcomes for both themselves and their peers simultaneously.
Managing the ‘Dark Triad’ (The Knowledge Saboteurs)
The most critical takeaway for leaders involves the Dark Triad: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. These traits lead to devastating “knowledge sabotage.”
However, personality is not destiny; it requires a trigger.
- The Cue: Assigning a person with psychopathic traits to mentor a junior employee is a “situational cue” that can trigger bullying or knowledge withholding.
- The Constraint: Assigning that same person to work with senior, high-authority peers acts as a “constraint” that suppresses those toxic traits.
The Strategy: Don’t just look for “bad” personalities; look for the situational cues in your office, like lack of accountability or power imbalances, that give those traits a place to thrive.
The Bottom Line
Stop treating personality tests as gospel. Most KM research is scattered and contradictory. If you want a smarter organization, stop worrying about whether your team is “introverted” or “extroverted” and start focusing on Emotional Intelligence and the situational triggers that turn a talented employee into a knowledge saboteur.
