Research on organizational interventions needs to meet the objectives of both researchers and participating organizations. This duality means that real-world impact has to be considered throughout the research process, simultaneously addressing both scientific rigour and practical relevance. This discussion paper aims to offer a set of principles, grounded in knowledge from various disciplines that can guide researchers in designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions. Inspired by Mode 2 knowledge production, the principles were developed through a transdisciplinary, participatory and iterative process where practitioners and academics were invited to develop, refine and validate the principles. The process resulted in 10 principles: 1) Ensure active engagement and participation among key stakeholders; 2) Understand the situation (starting points and objectives); 3) Align the intervention with existing organizational objectives; 4) Explicate the program logic; 5) Prioritize intervention activities based on effort-gain balance; 6) Work with existing practices, processes, and mindsets; 7) Iteratively observe, reflect, and adapt; 8) Develop organizational learning capabilities; 9) Evaluate the interaction between intervention, process, and context; and 10) Transfer knowledge beyond the specific organization. The principles suggest how the design, implementation, and evaluation of organizational interventions can be researched in a way that maximizes both practical and scientific impact.

Knowledge sharing is vital for organizational success. Yet, most research treats it as a static behaviour, overlooking its fluctuations within individuals over time. Drawing on role theory and a cost-benefit framework, we argue that knowledge sharing expectations conveyed by supervisors and co-workers on a given day positively predict employees' actual knowledge sharing on that day. Furthermore, we propose that learning goal orientation and task interdependence - key between-person characteristics - moderate this within-person relationship. We tested these hypotheses in two preregistered 10-day diary studies among UK employees (Study 1: 557 daily surveys from 101 respondents; Study 2: 401 daily surveys from 88 respondents). The results showed that daily knowledge sharing expectations are positively related to employees' daily knowledge sharing, with the strongest effect size for co-worker knowledge sharing expectations. While perceived task interdependence did not moderate this day-level relationship, learning goal orientation showed varying moderating effects across studies: At higher levels of learning goal orientation, the positive day-level relationship was stronger in Study 1 but weaker in Study 2. Our study offers novel insights into the short-term nature of knowledge sharing and its boundary conditions, highlighting the importance of both daily knowledge sharing expectations and individual differences in shaping knowledge sharing in organizations.