Knowledge is key to success in the modern business landscape. Firms invest billions of dollars every year in knowledge management systems, which commonly use artificial intelligence to allow within‐firm knowledge transfer to occur automatically. Despite this investment, these systems often fall short of producing expected results. Using psychology theory on goal dilution, we argue that a potential cause of the failure is that the prospect of knowledge transfer has a negative effect on knowledge creation. We further propose a mechanism to mitigate that effect. Specifically, we predict that the negative effect of knowledge transfer on knowledge creation will be mitigated when the linkages among firm‐ and unit‐level goals are communicated. We conduct an experiment and find that while, as predicted, the prospect of knowledge transfer has a negative effect on knowledge creation when the linkages among firm‐ and unit‐level goals are not communicated, it has the predicted positive effect when the linkages among firm‐ and unit‐level goals are communicated due to increased goal congruence. Additional analyses provide support for our underlying theories. Our results suggest that firms can adopt and communicate strategic performance measurement systems to improve the knowledge creation in a firm.

We investigate how performance-to-target (exceeding versus missing prior target) and task type (ability-driven versus effort-driven) affect managers' target-setting decisions in a setting where a manager sets targets for multiple employees. To do so, we use an experiment that involves executives, who average more than 16 years of work experience. We predict and find stronger target adjustments when prior targets are exceeded than when they are missed, especially when tasks are ability-driven. We also predict and find targets are differentiated more between employees within a firm when tasks are ability-driven rather than effort-driven, but this effect is attenuated when prior targets are missed. As prior empirical findings are inconclusive in this area of research, we contribute to the literature by providing controlled experimental evidence about the asymmetric nature of target adjustments. Additionally, we identify an important factor affecting managers' target-setting decisions—task type—that has largely been neglected in prior work.