Knowledge Sharing of Academic Staff
Knowledge Sharing of Academic Staff
Knowledge Sharing of Academic Staff
Article information:
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm
Naser Khani
Knowledge
sharing intention
413
Received 15 March 2013
Revised 12 June 2013
Accepted 20 June 2013
Rosman Md Yusoff
Department of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors affecting knowledge sharing among
academic staff in universities. Utilizing the theory of reasoned action (TRA) as the underlying research
framework, the main objective of this study was threefold. First, was to examine the relationship
between attitude, subjective norm, and trust with knowledge sharing intention. Second, was to
examine the relationship among factors, i.e., self-efficacy, social networks and extrinsic rewards with
attitude toward knowledge sharing intention and the third objective was to find out the relationship
between organizational support and subjective norm.
Design/methodology/approach A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed among academic
staff at three social science faculties in one public university in Malaysia. Collectively, 117 usable
responses were returned. Partial Least Square analysis was utilized to analyze the data.
Findings The results indicated that of the two components of the TRA, only attitude was positively
and significantly related to knowledge sharing intention. The findings also show that social network
and self-efficacy significantly affect attitude and organizational support showed a strong influence on
subjective norms toward knowledge sharing intention.
Research limitations/implications Future research should consider type of knowledge that is
being shared. Besides, it would also be interesting to investigate potential differences of the knowledge
sharing intention between academic staff in the private and public universities.
Practical implications This study offers a more clear vision of the factors that affect knowledge
sharing intention among academic staff. Therefore, managers can implement practical plan to support
those factors.
Originality/value Factors affecting knowledge sharing among academic staff in universities were
reviewed to suggest a framework to explain this behavior in a specific context.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Attitude, Subjective norm, University, Academic staff
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
According to Riege (2005), knowledge sharing is the corner stone of many
organizations. Organizations might be unable to function well as knowledge based
entities due to their knowledge sharing disabilities. Knowledge, especially tacit,
is difficult to be shared particularly whenever the individual refused to do so. Even
though knowledge sharing among individuals has been recognized as a positive
force for the survival of an organization, the factors that promote or discourage
knowledge sharing intention in the organizational context are still poorly understood
(Bock et al., 2005).
IJEM
28,4
414
Individuals do not always share their knowledge and they may not be willing to
share as much as the organization would like them to. From both a research and
a practical standpoint, it is important to understand what make employees to share their
knowledge and how an organization can facilitate this type of intention and behavior.
Knowledge sharing in organizations is of great interest to researcher and practitioner
alike because it improves organizational performance (Lesser and Storck, 2001), promotes
competitive advantage (Argote and Ingram, 2000), organizational learning (Argote, 1999),
and innovation (Powell et al., 1996).
Many studies have been conducted to examine factors that influence knowledge
sharing intention in various organizational settings (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
Bresman et al., 1999; Kim, 2000; Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Ipe, 2003; Kim and
Lee, 2006; Ryu et al., 2003; Chatzoglou and Vraimaki, 2009; George, 2004). Similar to
other organizations, academic institutions tend to rely more on knowledge sharing; but,
interestingly, very little empirical research have investigated the knowledge sharing
intention of academic staff in higher institutions (Bock and Kim, 2002; Ryu et al., 2003),
especially in Malaysia (Ahmad, 2003; Ariffin, 2004). Universities play the role to
provide insights and ideas (Martin and Marion, 2005). In the university, academic
staffs intention and attitude toward knowledge dissemination is important and is
the major component of knowledge management success (Rowley, 2000). However,
Kong (1999) identified that faculty members emphasize more on their individual
achievements rather than the attainment of common organizational objectives and
goals. This issue weakened the willingness of achieving the common goal through
knowledge sharing.
In general, the role of academic staff includes teaching, researching, consulting, and
publishing. Besides, through teachings, academic staffs also play their role as
knowledge disseminator to their students. They are knowledge producers and better
knowledge sharing practices will definitely help the development of quality education
and also improve the performance of organization. Tacit knowledge that the academic
staffs create is embedded in their minds and constitutes the storehouse of an
educational institutions intellectual capital. Generally, lack of knowledge sharing
among academic staff not only leads toward the underutilization of resources but also
shrinks the learning opportunities. Therefore, investigating knowledge sharing among
academic staff is important.
This study intends to examine factors that influence knowledge sharing intentions
among academic staff of social sciences faculties at one Malaysian university.
More specifically, based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA), and social capital
theory (SCT), we examine the role of influential factors that form the intention of
academic staff to share their knowledge.
2. Literature review
2.1 Previous research on knowledge sharing
Previous researches have shown many factors that influence knowledge sharing.
These factors include attitude (So and Bolloju, 2005; Bock et al., 2005), extrinsic
rewards (Bock et al., 2005; Kim and Lee, 2006), organizational climate with fairness and
trust, innovativeness and affiliation (Bock et al., 2005; Sun and Scot, 2005), subjective
norm (Bock et al., 2005), social networks (Kim and Lee, 2006), fear of loss of control and
ownership of knowledge (Sun and Scot, 2005), and anticipated reciprocal relationships
and co-operative behavior (Bock et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2006). The above mentioned
studies were conducted on various group of employees; for instance, among IT
managers (So and Bolloju, 2005), and among managers of organizations (Bock et al.,
2005; Sun and Scot, 2005; Ma et al., 2008), and among employees of organizations
(Kim and Lee, 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Binz-Scharf, 2003; Chuck and Eric, 2008).
According to the previous researches, very little research has been conducted in
academic institutions (Li et al., 2008; Shah et al., 2009; Sivaporn, 2009; Lu et al., 2006).
Among these studies, few of them were conducted among students (Shah et al., 2009;
Sivaporn, 2009) and others were among university staff (Lu et al., 2006; Li et al., 2008).
Interestingly, there is no study that examines factors among academic staff especially
in social sciences faculties.
2.2 Theory selection
Two theories of behavior, TRA and theory of planned behavior (TPB) have been
used by many researchers to explain knowledge sharing behavior. Both TRA and TPB
are considered applicable in knowledge sharing research (Bock et al., 2005; So and
Bolloju, 2005).
2.2.1 TRA. The TRA was introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). TRA assumes that
individuals to be rationale and suggests that their behavior is being influenced by three
elements namely attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and behavioral intention.
According to TRA, individuals attitude and subjective norms affect their intention which
consequently affects the actual behavior. According to Miller (2005), attitude accounts for
the sum of a persons beliefs about a behavior, with specific weights given to each aspect of
that behavior, the subjective norm consists of the opinions of people in a persons
environment, and behavior intention is a function of both attitudes and the subjective
norm. According to the theory, these three factors are the predictors for actual behaviors.
In many studies, attitude and subjective norms, independently and collectively, have
shown positive relations with actual knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005; Kim and Lee,
1995; Koys and Decotiis, 1991; Kurland, 1995; Mathieson, 1991; Thompson et al., 1991).
2.2.2 TPB. According to the theory, human behavior is guided by three kinds of
considerations: beliefs about the normative expectations of others and motivation to
comply with these expectations (normative beliefs), beliefs about the likely results of
the behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes (behavioral beliefs), and beliefs
about the presence of factors that may facilitate or impede performance of the behavior
and the perceived power of these factors (control beliefs). Ajzen (2002) believe that in
their respective aggregates, behavioral beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable
attitude toward the behavior; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure
or subjective norm; and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioral control.
In combination, attitude toward the behavior, subjective norm, and perception of
behavioral control lead to the formation of a behavioral intention. According to Ajzen
(2002) the more favorable the attitude and subjective norm, and the greater the
perceived control, the stronger should be the persons intention to perform the behavior
in question. Finally, given a sufficient degree of actual control over the behavior, people
are expected to carry out their intentions when the opportunity arises.
2.2.3 SCT. Social capital was introduced by Bourdieu (1984), Coleman (1988), and
Putnam (1993). They defined social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition. Generally, social
capital can be seen in terms of five dimensions: trust; reciprocity-expectation; networks
associations; social norms; and personal and collective efficacy (Bullen and Onyx, 2000;
Bourdieu, 1984; Coleman, 1988; Paxton, 2002). According to the dimensions of SCT, trust is
Knowledge
sharing intention
415
IJEM
28,4
416
a social mechanism that exists in the structure of social relations. Many researchers believe
that, social capital depends on trust. The communitys mutual commitment, relationships,
and cooperation that describe social capital could not exist without a rational of trust.
In addition, without some foundation of trust, social capital cannot improve. In light of the
above discussion it can be assumed that people build social network with others who they
have some reciprocal relations (Thibault and Kelley, 1952). In the context of knowledge
sharing, it can be assumed that people share their knowledge with those who trust them.
Therefore, trust as another important factor that influences knowledge sharing was
incorporated in this study (Hislop, 2005; Huber, 2001; Riege, 2005; Lucas, 2005).
Self Efficacy
Social
Networks
Attitude
Perceived
Extrinsic
Rewards
Intention to Share
Knowledge
Organizational
Support
Figure 1.
Research model
Subjective
Norm
Trust
Knowledge
sharing intention
417
IJEM
28,4
418
3. Research method
3.1 Data collection
We tested the research model with data collected through a cross-sectional
survey of academic staff of three social science faculties at one university in
Malaysia. The paper questionnaire was personally distributed to office of the
respondents along with a letter requesting their participation and cooperation.
Based on stratified random sampling technique, researcher distributed 200
questionnaires from which 117 questionnaires returned giving the survey
a response rate of 58.5 percent. In total, 55 percent of the respondent were below
the age of 45 years, females represented 47 percent and males 53 percent of the
respondents, and 54 percent of the respondents had more than ten years academic
experience.
3.2 Measurements
In this study, a paper-based questionnaire was the instrument. The questionnaire was
in English (Appendix) as it is broadly used as academic language in Malaysian
universities. Previously validated items were used to measure the intention to share
knowledge (Bock et al., 2005), attitude (So and Bolloju, 2005; Bock et al., 2005),
subjective norm (Bock et al., 2005; Lu et al., 2006), trust (Kim and Ju, 2008), self-efficacy
(Bock et al., 2005), social networks (Kim and Lee, 2006), extrinsic rewards (Bock et al.,
2005), and organizational support (Sveiby and Simons, 2002).
The pretest of the measures was conducted by a panel of four senior academic staff
from participating faculties. After participants completed the pre-testing, we modified
the survey according to their feedback and the procedure was repeated again
using five other participants. To further validate the instrument, a small pilot survey of
randomly selected participants was carried out. The pilot test results showed
Cronbach as of the variables were adequate (i.e. bigger than 0.7).
4. Results
The PLS approach of the structural equation modeling was employed to validate the
research model. The PLS places minimal restrictions on sample size and residual
distributions and utilizes a component based approach for estimation (Chin, 1998).
As is usual in reporting structural model, data analysis of this study is presented in
two stages. First, the validity of the measurement model and then the structural model
were tested and reported.
4.1 Validity and reliability of the measures
PLS examines convergent validity by checking whether a measurement loads highly
on its assigned construct (Gefen et al., 2000). Factor loading and t-value of the
measurement items are shown in Table I.
Table I indicates that all items were highly loaded on their construct indicating
the condition of convergent validity is met (for all t-values reported in Table I,
p-value o0.05). For discriminant validity, first, items must load more considerably on
their related construct compared to other constructs. As shown in Table II, this
condition was met and item loadings are stronger on their assigned construct.
Second condition for discriminant validity is met when the correlation of each
construct with other constructs is smaller than the square root of the average variance
extracted (AVE) of that construct (Gefen et al., 2000). This condition is also met as is
shown in Table II.
Knowledge
sharing intention
419
IJEM
28,4
420
Table I.
Factor structure of loading
(along with t-value) and
cross-loadings
Scale itemsa
INT
ATT
EXR
INT-1
INT-2
INT-3
ATT-1
ATT-2
EXR-1
EXR-2
EXR-3
SON-1
SON-2
SON-3
SLE-1
SLE-2
SLE-3
SUN-1
SUN-2
SUN-3
ORS-1
ORS-2
ORS-3
TRS-1
TRS-2
TRS-3
0.73
0.84
0.87
0.28
0.25
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.22
0.28
0.22
0.25
0.34
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.19
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.12
0.10
0.15
0.23
0.23
0.28
0.87
0.88
0.21
0.15
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.38
0.13
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.22
0.02
0.22
0.06
0.13
0.27
0.29
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.17
0.15
0.94
0.92
0.80
0.16
0.25
0.35
0.24
0.15
0.06
0.19
0.16
0.23
0.07
0.27
0.11
0.35
0.30
0.23
SUN
ORS
TRS
t-valueb
0.11
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.33
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.67
0.71
0.93
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.07
0.003
0.18
0.12
0.23
0.20
0.37
0.31
0.36
0.004
0.03
0.11
0.20
0.22
0.23
0.16
0.26
0.12
0.01
0.10
0.32
0.26
0.19
0.77
0.88
0.88
0.08
0.24
0.18
0.30
0.35
0.36
0.05
0.001
0.10
0.20
0.09
0.16
0.25
0.24
0.13
0.24
0.23
0.36
0.34
0.35
0.09
0.26
0.23
0.67
0.87
0.75
0.26
0.36
0.34
0.06
0.13
0.18
0.3
0.21
0.27
0.34
0.36
0.29
0.34
0.44
0.49
0.33
0.30
0.38
0.36
0.38
0.31
0.47
0.17
0.71
0.73
0.74
5.17
7.66
7.82
17.86
20.95
8.49
5.74
4.14
4.13
5.06
24.88
6.65
8.08
5.90
7.72
18.75
16.65
3.96
11.58
5.94
3.52
4.30
3.81
0.09
0.24
0.28
0.21
0.19
0.08
0.19
0.29
0.09
0.29
0.22
0.83
0.89
0.76
0.25
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.41
0.27
0.32
0.37
0.30
Notes: INT, intention; ATT, attitude; EXR, extrinsic rewards; SON, social network; SLE, self-efficacy;
SUN, subjective norm; ORS, organizational support,;TRS, trust. aFive items were dropped due to low
or cross-loading. bt-value bigger than 1.96 means that item loadings (italics items) are significant
within the 0.05 level
Construct
Table II.
Correlations matrix of
constructs, composite
reliability, and AVE
Factor
SON
SLE
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Intention (1)
0.76 a
Attitude (2)
0.30 0.72 a
Extrinsic Rewards (3)
0.01 0.18 0.88 a
Social Networks (4)
0.28 0.34 0.35 0.72 a
Self-efficacy (5)
0.30 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.78 a
Subjective norm (6)
0.16 0.24 0.23 0.11 0.3 0.71a
Organizational support (7) 0.08 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.42 0.25 0.76 a
Trust (8)
0.19 0.29 0.34 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.42 0.70 a
0.86
0.76
0.76
0.84
0.78
0.87
0.88
0.78
0.85
0.85
0.91
0.81
0.86
0.88
0.80
0.80
0.59
0.52
0.78
0.52
0.62
0.84
0.58
0.50
Notes: CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted. aDiagonal items are square root
of AVE
Knowledge
sharing intention
421
0.153*
0.278**
Attitude
Social
Network
0.265**
0.063
0.06
Subjective
Norm
Extrinsic
Rewards
0.251**
Organizational
Support
Intention to
share
knowledge
0.09
R 2= 0.11
Trust
Figure 2.
Hypothesis testing result
Path coefficient
t-statistics
Result
0.265
0.603
0.094
0.063
0.278
0.153
0.251
3.156
0.638
0.994
0.845
3.368
2.106
4.152
Supported
Not supported
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Table III.
Hypothesis testing result
( path coefficients
and t-values)
IJEM
28,4
422
Nevertheless, we do not deny the need for further investigation regarding the role of
trust in knowledge sharing among academic staff.
5.4 Self-efficacy
In this study, self-efficacy refers to self-perceived ability to provide valuable
contributions for organization through knowledge sharing. The result of this study
shows that self-efficacy has positive effect on attitude toward knowledge sharing.
This result is consistent with previous studies such as Hsu and Chiu (2004), Bock et al.
(2005), Kankanhalli et al. (2005), Kulkarni et al. (2006), Shin et al. (2007), Wasko and
Faraj (2005), and Jarvenpaa and Staples (2001). Indeed, when people think that their
expertise can improve work efficiency and increase productivity, they will be more
interested to share their knowledge with others. This positive influence implies that,
individuals attitude is strongly influenced by ones confidence to perform it. In other
words, if academic staffs have greater self-efficacy to contribute valuable knowledge,
they have more favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing.
5.5 Social networks
Social networks refer to the extent of individuals contact with other people. This result
supports previous findings (Yang and Chen, 2007) which suggest that social
interaction help to enhance community members attitude toward knowledge sharing.
In this study, social networks appear to be positively and significantly associated with
attitude toward knowledge sharing. This implies that, once an individual builds up
relationships with other members that he or she feels comfortable to share his/her ideas
and thoughts with; his/her attitude to perform such behavior will be stronger.
Moreover, if academic staffs extend their social networks, this may create tendency to
have positive attitude toward knowledge sharing.
5.6 Extrinsic rewards
In the context of this study, extrinsic reward was defined as the individuals belief
that monetary incentives will be given for knowledge sharing activities. The result of
this study appears to reject the hypothesis that extrinsic reward has positive effect
on the attitude toward knowledge sharing. This is inconsistent with the findings of
other researchers such as Liebowitz (1999), OReilly and Pondy (1980), and Quinn et al.
(1996) as they found a significant relationship between extrinsic rewards and attitude
toward knowledge sharing. This inconsistency might be due to several factors as
discussed below. First, taking the context of this study into consideration, in academic
context and for academic staff, monetary and tangible rewards may not significantly
contribute to formation of attitude to share their knowledge. As Gustad (1960) noted,
academic staff may value intangible rewards, such as course reductions and additional
sabbatical leave dedicated to research. Moreover, the study was conducted in a public
university in Malaysia, where the respondents were predominantly Muslims.
Taking into account Islamic beliefs, knowledge sharing is encouraged by religion.
Hence, the respondents may think about sharing their knowledge without looking to
monetary rewards.
5.7 Organizational support
In the present study, organizational support refers to the level of support that organization
provides for knowledge sharing. Results of the study showed that organizational support
has a significant relationship with subjective norm. The result of this study is
Knowledge
sharing intention
423
IJEM
28,4
424
consistent with the study of Igbaria et al. (1996). They indicated that organizational
support is positively related to subjective norm. Moreover, in another study by
Cabrera et al. (2006) indicated that support from organization could influence positively
staffs perception, attitude and their understanding of activities and their values.
The reason might be related to the importance of appropriate technology, and formal
and informal networks that an organization can provide for encouraging knowledge
sharing among its staff.
6. Contribution and implications
From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the literature in several ways.
First, our study combined TRA and SCT to investigate knowledge sharing intentions
in the academic context. This study provided a clear view on the relationship between
the dependents variables, independent variables and theory that contribute to the body
of knowledge. We classified antecedents of attitudes into self-efficacy, social networks,
and extrinsic rewards. Moreover, organizational support was considered as
antecedents of subjective norm. This offers a more clear vision of the factors that
affect knowledge sharing intention among academic staff.
Practically, a significant positive relationship between attitude and knowledge
sharing intention means that academic staffs share their knowledge when they have
positive attitude about knowledge sharing. Therefore, in an effort to make academic
staff share their knowledge, management should implement supportive knowledge
management culture, norms and practices that build positive attitude in the
organization. Meanwhile, self-efficacy and social networks were two factors that affect
positive attitude significantly. The influential role of self-efficacy implies that
a persons attitude is strongly influenced by ones confidence to perform it. If academic
staffs have greater self-efficacy, they have more favorable attitude toward knowledge
sharing. In other words, if academic staff perceived that they have the ability to
contribute valuable knowledge, they have a positive attitude toward knowledge
sharing. Besides, the importance of social network in the research model of the present
study implies that, once academic staff build up relationships with other members that
they feel comfortable to share their ideas and thoughts; their attitude to perform such
behavior will be stronger. Moreover, if academic staffs extend their social networks by
collaborating with other academic staff, this may create tendency to have positive
attitude toward knowledge sharing. Therefore, management should try to implement
the practical plan to support these two factors. The important role of social networks in
shaping attitude toward knowledge sharing implies that academic staffs who have
a more extensive social network with their colleagues would perceive greater social
pressure for sharing their knowledge, because a good relationship results in high
expectations of colleagues, including favorable knowledge sharing actions. Therefore,
management should provide such structure that would increase academic staff
interactions with each other. This can be achieved through a positive social interaction
network such as scheduled periodic formal and informal meetings, mentoring
interventions and social media. Particularly, the role of social media is important as
it allows people to create, share, and exchange information and ideas in virtual
communities and networks (Ahlqvist et al., 2008). As a group of internet-based
applications, social media allows academic staff to share user-generated contents
(Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). Indeed, social media has introduced substantial changes
to communication between individuals, communities, and organizations; there is much
room to investigate its role in knowledge sharing among academic staff.
Moreover, the results indicated that self-efficacy will affect individuals attitude toward
knowledge sharing. Individual members will adopt a particular behavior when the
evaluation of their capability is adequate to accomplish the task. Therefore, management
should pay more attention on how to cultivate academic staffs ability. For instance,
management can offer an appropriate educational training for this purpose.
Lastly, the results indicate that organizational supports have positive and significant
impact on subjective norm. Therefore, management should provide and implement
supportive plans and culture for the employees. This can be achieved through processes
such as meetings, colloquiums, and intellectual discourse sessions. The management
should also provide appropriate technology for this purpose like academic portal, web
site, and e-mail settings. Forming an informal network such as community of practice is
the other way that management can do to improve subjective norm.
7. Limitation and future research
This study did not determine the type of knowledge that shared; thus, this is an area
for future research to consider. For instance, how knowledge type intervene the effects
on knowledge sharing. Besides, the data collection was restricted to academic staff in
one public university; consequently, in order to verify and generalize the research
results, the research should be expanded geographically within the same level of
education institutions. Lastly, it would also be interesting to investigate further the
potential differences of the knowledge sharing intention between academic staff in the
private and public universities and also considering the potential role of other factors
such as social media.
8. Conclusion
The study has fulfilled its three main objectives which were to examine the effect of
attitude, subjective norm and trust on knowledge sharing intention. A total of 200
questionnaires were distributed to academic staffs of one public university of which
117 questionnaire were returned. Partial least square analysis was used to tests the
hypotheses of the study. The results indicated that attitude was positively and
significantly related to knowledge sharing intention. However, subjective norms
and trust did not significantly affect knowledge sharing intention. Among other
factors, only social network and self-efficacy significantly affect attitude toward
knowledge sharing intention. Meanwhile, organizational support has shown strong
influence on subjective norms. Based on the findings, implications for practice and
theory, limitation, and future research were presented.
Note
1. Community of practice was defined as informal, self-organized, network of peers with
diverse skills and experience in an area of practice or profession.
References
Ahlqvist, T., Back, A., Halonen, M. and Heinonen, S. (2008), Social media road maps exploring
the futures triggered by social media, VTT Tiedotteita Valtion Teknillinen
Tutkimuskeskus, Vol. 13, p. 13.
Ahmad, H.S. (2003), Tacit knowledge dissemination among UUM lecturers, unpublished
master degree dissertation, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behaviour, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Knowledge
sharing intention
425
IJEM
28,4
426
Ajzen, I. (2002), Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behaviour, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Argote, L. (1999), Organizational learning: creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 344-375.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), Knowledge transfer, a basis for competitive advantage
in firms, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1,
pp. 150-169.
Ariffin, A.H. (2004), master thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Kedah.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy, the Exercise of Control, Freeman Publication Co, New York, NY.
Bartol, K. and Srivastava, A. (2002), Encouraging knowledge sharing, the role of organisational
rewards, Journal of Leadership and Organisation Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Binz-Scharf, M.C. (2003), Exploration and Exploitation, Toward a Theory of Knowledge Sharing in
Digital Government Projects, PhD dissertation, University of St Gallen, St Gallen, Canton.
Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2002), Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of
attitudes about knowledge sharing, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.L. and Jae, N. (2005), Behavioural intention formation in
knowledge sharing, examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction, a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. and Nobel, R. (1999), Knowledge transfer in international
acquisitions, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 439-462.
Bullen, P. and Onyx, J. (2000), Measuring social capital in five communities in NSW, Journal of
Applied Behaviour Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 245-264.
Cameron, C.J. and Pierce, D.W. (1997), Rewards, interest and performance, an evaluation of
experimental findings, American Compensation Association Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 21-27.
Chatzoglou, P.D. and Vraimaki, E. (2009), Knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees in
Greece, Business Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 245-266.
Chin, W. (1998), Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Chuck, C.H. and Eric, W.T. (2008), An Empirical study of the effects of knowledge sharing and
learning behaviours on firm performance, Expert System with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 2342-2349.
Churchill, E.F. and Halverson, C.A. (2005), Social networks and social networking, IEEE
Computer Society, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 14-19.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 95-120.
Constant, D., Keisler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994), Whats mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes
about information sharing, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 400-421.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Successful Knowledge Management Projects, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Knowledge
sharing intention
427
IJEM
28,4
428
Kim, S. (2000), The roles of knowledge professionals for knowledge management, Inspel,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Kim, S. and Ju, B. (2008), An analysis of faculty perceptions, attitudes toward knowledge
sharing and collaboration in an academic institution, Library and Information Science
Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 282-290.
Kim, S. and Lee, H. (2006), The impact of organizational context and information technology
on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66
No. 3, pp. 370-385.
Kim, Y.B. and Lee, B.H. (1995), R and D project team climate and team performance in Korea,
R and D Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 179-196.
Kolekofski, J.K.E. and Heminger, A.R. (2003), Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share
information in an organizational setting, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 521-532.
Kong, S.C. (1999), A conceptual model of knowledge-based time-tabling system, Knowledge-Based
Systems, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 81-93.
Koys, D.J. and Decotiis, T.A. (1991), Inductive measures of psychological climate, Human
Relation, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 265-285.
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S. and Freeze, R. (2006), A knowledge management success model,
theoretical development and empirical validation, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 309-347.
Kuo, F. and Young, M. (2008), Study of the intention-action gap in knowledge sharing practices,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 59 No. 8,
pp. 1224-1237.
Kurland, N.B. (1995), Ethical intentions and the theories of reasoned action and planned
behaviour, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 297-313.
Lee, J., Kim, J. and Han, Y. (2010), A study on factors influencing knowledge-sharing activity
for the innovation activity of team, IEEE Explore Digital Library, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 134-146.
Lesser, E. and Storck, J. (2001), Communities of practice and organizational performance, IBM
Systems Journal, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 831-841.
Li, Z., Li, M. and Li, J. (2008), An empirical research on the influencing factors of knowledge
sharing willingness among virtual community members, IEEE Explore Digital Library,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 158-169.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), Facilitating innovation through knowledge sharing, Computer Information
System, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1-6.
Lu, L., Leung, K. and Koch, P.T. (2006), Managerial knowledge sharing, the role of individual,
interpersonal, and organizational factors, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 15-41.
Lucas, L.M. (2005), The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Ma, Z., Qi, L. and Wang, K. (2008), Knowledge sharing in Chinese construction project teams
and its affecting factors an empirical study, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 97-108.
Martin, J.S. and Marion, R. (2005), Higher education leadership roles in knowledge processing,
The Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 140-151.
Mathieson, K. (1991), Predicting user intentions, comparing the technology acceptance model
with the theory of planned behaviour, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-191.
Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and Kramer, R.M. (1996), Swift Trust and Temporary Groups, Sage
Publications, CA, pp. 166-195.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1992), Causes of failure in network organisations, California
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 53-72.
Miller, K. (2005), Communications Theories, Perspectives, Processes, and Contexts, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Mullins, L. (2002), Management and Organisational Behaviour, 6th ed., FT Prentice Hall, London.
Nelson, K. and Cooprider, J. (1996), The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group
performance, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 409-429.
ODell, C. and Grayson, C. (1998), If Only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal
Knowledge and Best Practice, Vol. 20, The Free Press, pp. 163-183.
OReilly, C. and Pondy, L. (1980), Organizational Communications, Grid, Columbus.
Ormrod, J.E. (2006), Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, 5th ed., Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Palardy, M.J. (1994), Principles of learning, Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 308-312.
Pavlou, P.A. and Fygenson, M. (2006), Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption,
an extension of the theory of planned behaviour, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 115-143.
Paxton, P. (2002), Social capital and democracy, an interdependent relationship, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 254-277.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Powell, W., Koput, K. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), Inter organizational collaboration and the locus
of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 116-145.
Putnam, R. (1993), Making Democracy Work, Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton
University Press, Princeton.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996), Managing professional intellect, making the
most of the best, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-81.
Riege, A. (2005), Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A. and McCarthy, J.D. (2003), The researchers dilemma, evaluating
trust in computer-mediated communication, International Journal Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 759-781.
Rowley, J. (2000), Knowledge organisation for a new millennium: principles and processes,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 217-223.
Ryu, S., Ho, H.S. and Han, I. (2003), Knowledge sharing behaviour of physicians in hospitals,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-122.
Shah, S., Abdullah, Z., Ishak, N. and Zain, Z. (2009), Assessing knowledge sharing behaviour
among employees in SMEs, an empirical study, International Business Research, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 115-122.
Sharrat, M. and Usoro, A. (2003), Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of
practice, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-196.
Shin, S.K., Ishman, M. and Sanders, G.L. (2007), An empirical investigation of socio cultural
factors of information sharing in China, Information and Management, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 165-174.
Knowledge
sharing intention
429
IJEM
28,4
430
9. I will share my knowledge with other organizational members in the near future.
10. All things considered, I will share my knowledge in the near future.
Trust
11. I generally trust my colleagues.
12. It is easy for me to trust my colleagues.
13. I and my colleagues trust each other.
14. I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.
Social networks
15. I communicate frequently with most members of the organization.
16. I interact and communicate with other people or groups outside the organization.
17. I communicate with other members in the organization through informal meetings.
18. I actively participate in community of practice[1].
Extrinsic rewards
19. I will receive monetary rewards in return for my knowledge sharing.
20. I will receive additional points for promotion in return for my knowledge sharing.
21. I will receive salary raise in return for my knowledge sharing.
Self-efficacy
22. Sharing my knowledge would help other members in the organization to solve problems.
23. Sharing my knowledge would create new opportunities for the organization.
24. Sharing my knowledge would improve work process in the organization.
25. My knowledge sharing would help the organization achieve its performance.
Organizational support
26. My organization has appropriate technology in place (e.g. academic portal, web site, e-mail) to
support knowledge sharing.
27. My organizational has process in place (e.g. meeting, colloquium, intellectual discourse
session, etc.) for knowledge sharing.
28. My organization supports forming informal networks (e.g. community of practice) where
knowledge sharing can be shared.
Corresponding author
Dr Naser Khani can be contacted at: khani451@yahoo.com
Knowledge
sharing intention
431