Special Interview with Author of Management Revue Dr. Georg-Friedrich Göhler: Exploring Prosocial Motivation, Work Design, and Knowledge Sharing
25 March 2026
Dr. Georg-Friedrich Göhler is a Research Associate at Helmut Schmidt University in Hamburg, Germany, affiliated with the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences. His research focuses on work design, prosocial motivation, and knowledge sharing within organizations. Recently, Dr. Göhler published a significant article entitled "The Influence of Relational Aspects of Work Design on the Willingness to Share Knowledge Mediated by Subtypes of Prosocial Motivation" in Management Revue (MRev). This study makes important theoretical contributions by integrating principlism-based and collectivism-based prosocial motivation into a three-level model examining how relational aspects of work design affect employees' willingness to share knowledge. To provide our readers with deeper insight into the motivation behind this work and the research journey, we interviewed Dr. Göhler, who shared his perspectives on the research process, findings, and future directions.
Part 1: Research Journey and Innovative Contributions
1. Could you briefly summarize the most central discovery of this research in simple terms for everyone?
Collectivism-based prosocial motivation acts as a mediator between social support and initiated task interdependence on the one hand and willingness to share knowledge on the other. This shows that when prosocial motivation is based on motives resulting from belonging to a group, such as reciprocity, this subtype of prosocial motivation can be influenced by selected relational aspects of work design and, in turn, influences the willingness to share knowledge. The calculations show significant positive indirect effects of social support and initiated task interdependence on the willingness to share knowledge, which are enabled by collectivism-based prosocial motivation.
2. Your research model employed the "segmentation approach" to test mediation effects—a method not commonly seen in management research. Could you explain to our readers why this approach is more suitable than the traditional Baron & Kenny stepwise method for testing your multiple mediation hypotheses?
Two areas come into play here: firstly, the empirical testing of mediation effects and, secondly, the development of mediation hypotheses. In business research literature, the empirical testing of mediation effects often takes place using the Baron and Kenny method. This method is one of the implicit procedures. A significant mediation effect is concluded if partial paths are significant. For example, if the aim is to investigate whether B mediates the effect of A on C and a significant effect of A on B and of B on C can be determined, then it is concluded that B mediates the effects of A on C. In addition, it is then tested whether C is directly influenced by A in order to determine the type of mediation. In my article, however, I have chosen the bootstrapping method as an explicit procedure for testing mediation effects. Whether a significant mediation effect is present is tested here by determining whether the product of two path coefficients, the path coefficient of the path connection from A to B and the path coefficient from B to C, differs significantly from zero. This method, therefore, has the advantage that the existence of a mediation effect is tested directly. This method also has great statistical power and can therefore detect even small mediation effects as significant, provided they actually exist.
With regard to the development of mediation hypotheses, I have chosen the ‘segmentation approach’ in my article. In management literature, research models with a hypothesised mediation effect, e.g. B mediates the effect of A on C, usually contain a single mediation hypothesis on the one hand and standard hypotheses on the other, such as A has a positive effect on B and B has a positive effect on C. Regarding the justifications for the individual mediation hypotheses in practice, the assumed mediation effect is in the majority of cases largely justified by arguments that A has a positive effect on B and B has a positive effect on C, i.e. with arguments that either already exist in other hypotheses of the model or could theoretically justify them. On the one hand, this can lead to the reader being presented with information multiple times in different hypotheses. On the other hand, it can also lead to information provided in individual mediation hypotheses simultaneously representing plausible arguments for the standard hypotheses, but these arguments are avoided in the standard hypotheses because they would otherwise be included in the reasoning behind several hypotheses. This dilemma can be avoided by applying the segmentation approach, as this approach forms the mediation hypothesis by stating that the mediation hypothesis is represented by a specific combination of standard hypotheses. In the segmentation approach, the mediation hypothesis is only presented as a combination of other hypotheses and is not formulated in writing, which avoids overlaps in content.
3. Looking back at the development of this research, what was the most difficult stage—conceptualizing the differentiated mediation model, operationalizing the constructs, or validating the mediation empirically? Did any results challenge your initial expectations?
Conceptualising the mediation model took some time. First, it was necessary to consider how feelings of obligation and reciprocity, as demanded by Foss and his co-authors, could be taken into account in a model that examines the effects of relational aspects of work design on motivation and the influence of motivation on knowledge sharing. Batson's literature on the main motives for prosocial motivation laid the foundation for pursuing the call for research by integrating principlism-based and collectivism-based prosocial motivation into the research model. Since the research model has three different levels, which differ significantly from each other in terms of content, it involves a certain degree of complexity. The intersections between the levels represent different areas of research, for which the current state of research in these areas must be presented individually. Formulating a reasonably concise overview of the state of research in the introduction to the article is also one of the challenges when the research model includes different areas of research.
With regard to the results, I was particularly surprised that the construct ‘contact with beneficiaries of work’ had no significant effect on principlism-based prosocial motivation. Since there are studies that show that ‘contact with beneficiaries of work’ increases people's willingness to help, it can be concluded that, in this case, the willingness to help is probably not motivated by a sense of obligation but rather by empathy or even self-centred motives such as avoiding encounters with people whose requests for help have been denied or rejected.
4. Given the rise of digitalization and remote work, how do your findings help organizations redesign work to sustain knowledge sharing?
The research findings show that organisations can benefit from either direct or indirect positive effects on knowledge sharing. They can benefit from direct positive effects by promoting principlism-based and collectivism-based prosocial motivation, and they can benefit from indirect effects by promoting social support or initiating task interdependence within their organisation. With this knowledge, organisations can design work in such a way that knowledge sharing is promoted, even in times of digitalisation and remote work. To promote social support, organisations can, for example, ensure that a sufficient number of contact persons are available digitally for new employees, e.g., via video conferencing tools if necessary. In addition, organisations can ensure that work processes are designed in such a way that employees are not exclusively exposed to received task interdependence, but experience a minimum of initiated task interdependence at their workplace, wherever possible. Employees' work processes should therefore be designed in such a way that employees are not exclusively dependent on the work results of other employees, but are mutually dependent wherever possible. According to the research findings, this also promotes collectivism-based prosocial motivation, which had a direct positive effect on knowledge sharing in the results.
Part 2: Future Outlook and Academic Career
1. Based on your findings, what would be the next logical step in this line of research? What areas do you plan to focus on next?
The article addresses a very specific research gap. I do not consider it useful to expand this specific research model further. In theory, however, it would be possible to create a two-level research model that takes into account all of Batson's main motives for prosocial motivation, i.e., altruism, egoism, collectivism, and principlism, and examines their impact on knowledge sharing. This could potentially reveal which of the motives are particularly important for knowledge sharing. Instead of knowledge sharing, help behaviour could also be chosen as a dependent variable, thereby potentially revealing which of the four motives most strongly motivates people to support others.
My next academic paper will focus on the term ‘actionable knowledge’. This term is not used consistently in the literature, which makes it difficult to compare the results of research papers related to actionable knowledge. Together with another researcher, I plan to write a conceptual paper that will help to establish a uniform understanding of the term ‘actionable knowledge’ in research.
2. At present, many young scholars encounter difficulties in theoretical integration and method adaptation when doing interdisciplinary research. Your research integrates organizational behavior, work design theory, and social psychology. What specific suggestions do you have for young researchers who want to carry out such interdisciplinary research?
Young researchers who want to conduct research at the intersection of different research areas should ideally be very curious and open-minded. In my opinion, reading scientific articles is a great help. This allows you to learn how different researchers approach different research questions. It is possible to specifically read articles that publish interdisciplinary research. This literature often reveals how other researchers manage to present complex, cross-disciplinary issues in a structured, clear, balanced, and concise manner. Personally, I have also found it very helpful in the past to engage in regular dialogue with experienced researchers. A good book recommendation is worth its weight in gold, for example, as it saves time and makes work more enjoyable, since good books are often enjoyable to read. Discussing challenges in research leads to new ideas or tips on helpful tools for everyday research. It can be very beneficial not to limit these discussions to researchers in the field of organisational science. For example, I also enjoyed exchanging ideas with researchers from the field of psychology, not only because of the intersections between my research and social psychology, but also because there are many excellent statistics experts among researchers in the field of psychology. I am generally very grateful for what I have learned through dialogue with other researchers.
Part 3: Collaboration with the Journal
1. Why did you choose to submit this important research result on work design and knowledge sharing to MRev? What do you think is the most attractive highlight of our journal?
A number of different factors contributed to the decision to choose MRev. The first important factor is the journal's publication profile. MRev is open to topics such as quality of working life, organisational well-being, and topics from the field of organisational theory in general. It is therefore well known among readers interested in these topics. Furthermore, MRev allows for the publication of longer articles of up to 10,000 words without imposing an additional standard word deduction for each table and figure in the article. Due to the three-level research model, a certain minimum length is necessary for the article in order to present all the necessary variables and the relationships between them. I am therefore grateful to have found MRev, a journal whose guidelines for article submissions match the length requirements for my article, which result from the nature of the research question I am addressing. In general, I would like to see more management science journals either adopt a 10,000-word limit or allow authors 10 to 20 per cent more words for the publication of articles with more complex research models.
2. How would you describe your overall experience with the peer review process at MRev? Did the reviewers’ feedback help improve your manuscript?
The overall experience with MRev was pleasant. The helpful and friendly people I was in contact with from the submission to the publication of the article and beyond made me feel that the decision to publish in MRev was the right one. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone on the MRev team who responded to my requests patiently and promptly. I also found the review process at MRev highly professional. In general, I have learned a lot from review processes in the past. The feedback I received often helped me to improve the quality of my articles. This was also the case in the review process at MRev. Among other things, I received valuable advice on how to make the theoretical background more concise and streamline the text without compromising its theoretical depth. The suggestion to highlight the most important results more clearly was also valuable.
3. What kinds of topics or methodological approaches would you like to see more frequently featured in MRev?
As my research focuses primarily on motivation and knowledge management, I look forward to seeing numerous future publications from these two research areas in MRev. In my opinion, these two research areas have an above-average influence on the competitiveness of organisations and therefore play an important role in organisational science. As I particularly enjoy quantitative research, I also look forward to publications with research questions that are examined quantitatively. I am thinking especially of articles with structural equation models, but also simulation models, provided that the simulation model in question can be presented in a comprehensible, clear, compact, and reproducible manner in a scientific article.
4. What are your thoughts on our current article promotions on social media? We would greatly appreciate your valuable feedback.
In my opinion, promoting articles on LinkedIn through MRev is a win-win situation for both the authors of MRev and the journal itself. Authors have the opportunity to repost the article published by MRev, thereby making the article known to their network. I think that many researchers are probably reluctant to draw attention to their scientific research through posts they write themselves on LinkedIn. This may be due to concerns that LinkedIn is more of a platform for posts about business news and that such a post could be seen as a form of self-praise. The fact that MRev writes the post about the article's publication alleviates or dispels these concerns. A post published by a scientific journal tends to be given high importance within the network, as many people are aware that behind a scientific journal, there is a team of experts who critically review contributions. The fact that a scientific journal decides to promote the publication of an article on LinkedIn is therefore an honour for the author, from which the author can benefit. The author can also increase the reach of the post and thus its benefits by reposting it. MRev can, in turn, benefit from the fact that the journal itself gains recognition through regular references to MRev articles within various networks on LinkedIn.
In this interview, Dr. Georg-Friedrich Göhler not only elaborated on the core findings, methodological innovation, and practical enlightenment of his research on work design and prosocial motivation in detail but also shared his forward-looking planning for future research directions and valuable suggestions for young interdisciplinary researchers. Meanwhile, his positive evaluation of MRev's publication positioning, review process, and editorial service, as well as his constructive views on the journal's content planning and academic promotion, provide important reference for the journal's future development. We sincerely thank Dr. Göhler for his wonderful sharing and valuable insights in this interview. His research not only enriches the academic connotation of MRev but also provides important theoretical and practical reference for the research and practice of organisational management in the digital age. MRev will continue to adhere to the academic positioning of openness and innovation, focus on cutting-edge research in the field of management, provide a high-quality academic communication platform for global management researchers, and continue to promote the development and application of management science research results.