ABSTRACT:
This paper aims to investigate the effect of organizational influences (i.e., organizational
culture, co-workers’ support, rewards and organizational structure) on
organizational practices that stimulate knowledge sharing. This study
adopts a quantitative approach. Questionnaires
were administered to 250 companies listed in the MSC status Malaysia Company
Directory. The data analysis was based on 199 usable responses. Multiple
regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses. Innovation,
co-workers support and intrinsic rewards are positively related to knowledge
sharing practices. In addition,
organizational structure that facilitates the development of new ideas and
allows free flow of information is found to be important in promoting knowledge
sharing. Extrinsic reward is also found to have an inverse relationship with
knowledge sharing. This study provides an empirical evidence for a new model
that shows the culture of innovation, management support, organizational
structure and reward systems are implicated in individuals’ knowledge sharing behaviour.
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, culture, Co-workers support, Rewards;
Organizational structure, Malaysia
1. Introduction
The phenomenal growth of information and communication technologies (ICT) has brought about tremendous changes in the economic landscape. As markets have gone global, business organizations are now facing stiffer competition at the international fronts. Businesses are hard pressed to deliver innovative products and services under the conditions of speedier time-to-market, shorter product lifecycle, rapid changes in work technologies and sophisticated customer demands. In order to sustain competitiveness, it is imperative that organizations to find new strategies to do business. While traditional factors of production such as labor, land and raw materials remain essential, many organizations are now leveraging on their knowledge assets to give them the competitive edge. Knowledge can be in the form of understandings and experiences residing within individuals or it can be embedded in organizational processes and procedures. Knowledge can only be captured and capitalized when the practice of knowledge sharing takes place in the organization.
Knowledge sharing occurs when an individual is willing to assist as well as to learn from others in the development of new competencies (Yang, 2007). It is the voluntary dissemination of acquired skills and experience to the members of the organisation (Davenport, 1997; Ipe, 2003). It is important since an individual’s knowledge will not have much impact on the organization unless it is made available to other individuals (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, knowledge sharing represents a social activity that occurs within a system where knowledge represents a resource that has a value (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Fulk et al., 2004). By sharing individual’s knowledge, competitive capabilities are generated and this leads to firm performance (Ipe, 2003; Kogut & Zander, 1996). Specifically, firms are driven to share knowledge as they believe that this effort will lead to stimulation of productivity, performance, and effectiveness (Brown and Brudney, 2003), improved efficiency, cost reduction, improved quality, and reductions in available resources (McAdam and Reid, 2000).
2. Literature Review
Much existing work has been
focused on individual influences such as loss of knowledge power, expertise, tenure,
commitment, altruism and reciprocity (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Wasko
and Faraj, 2005). This study is to focus on
organizational influences rather than individual influences as it could have an
immediate, practical effect on organizational practices that stimulate
knowledge sharing. Organizational culture, co-workers’ support rewards and
organizational structure are the four major areas of organizational influence
that are examined in this paper.
2.1.
Organizational Culture
Organisational culture, as
defined by Deshpande and Webster (1989), is a set of
shared values that help organizational members understand organizational
functioning and thus guide their thinking and behaviour. Culture is a key
element of managing organizational change and renewal (Pettigrew, 1979). It is
a sort of glue that bonds the social structure of an organization together.
There are many studies examined the effect of organizational culture on
knowledge sharing (Chiu et al., 2006;
Kankanhalli et
al., 2005; Nahapiet and Ghoshal,
1998; Ruppel and Harrington, 2001; Taylor and Wright,
2004; Wasko and Faraj,
2005). Three cultural dimensions, i.e. trust, learning
and innovation, are identified in this study as they have attracted the most
research attention.
2.1.1. Trust
Trust has been defined as
an expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest and
cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other
members of that community (Fukuyama, 1996).
A culture that emphasizes trust has been found to help alleviate the
negative effect of perceived costs on sharing knowledge (Kankanhalli
et al., 2005) and linked with the
implementation of individual knowledge sharing and firm’s capability of knowledge
exchange and combination (Chiu et al.,
2006; Collins and Smith, 2006; Liao, 2006; Ruppel and
Harrington, 2001; Wilem and Scarbrough,
2006). Hence, we propose that:
H1: Trust
is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.1.2. Learning
Lee and Choi
(2003) defined learning as the degree of opportunity, variety, satisfaction and
encouragement for development in organization. A learning culture opens up
formal and informal channels of communication (Bhatt, 2000). Both Taylor and
Wright (2004) and Hsu (2006) found that a culture that encouraged new ideas and
focused on learning from mistake was positively related to effective knowledge
sharing. In addition, Bhatt (2000)
relates individual learning capability and organizational learning culture to
broadening of knowledge base. Strong learning culture of firms is linked to
transfer of knowledge (Murray and Donegan, 2003).
However, Lee et al. (2006) failed to
find a significant relationship between knowledge sharing and a learning
orientation. Since most of the studies indicated a positive relationship, we
posit that:
H2: Learning is positively related to
knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.1.3. Innovation
Research has also shown
that organizations with cultures emphasizing innovation are more likely to implement
knowledge management system (Ruppel and Harrington,
2001) and facilitate information sharing through subjective norms that
encourage sharing (Bock et al., 2005;
McKinnon et al., 2003).
H3: Learning
is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.2. Co-workers Support
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) suggests that the exchanges that occur between
an employee and his co-workers can influence knowledge sharing behaviour. It is
important to reinforce a positive attitude for the initiative within an
employee’s department or workgroup. Co-workers support and their encouragement
of knowledge sharing has been shown to be positively associated with employees’
perceptions of a knowledge sharing culture and willingness to share knowledge (Cabrera
et al., 2006; Kulkarni et al.,
2006). This is because when employees view their colleagues as
partners, rather than competitors, they are more likely to view knowledge
sharing positively (De Long and Fahey, 2000). Hence, we propose:
H4: Co-workers
support is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.3. Rewards
Incentives including
recognition and rewards have been recommended as interventions to facilitate
knowledge sharing and help build a supportive culture (Hansen et al., 1999; Liebowitz,
2003; Nelson et al., 2006). As
rational individuals acting out of self-interest, economic exchange theory
posits that employees are concerned about the return on their personal
investment in work situations (Constant et
al., 1994). There are both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards.
2.3.1. Extrinsic Reward
Extrinsic rewards may be
monetary (e.g. a
premium for each contribution, salary increases, performance bonuses) or
non-monetary awards (e.g. frequent flyer miles, gift certificates, points
systems etc.) that have expected financial value. The empirical results of
studies examining the effects of extrinsic rewards have been mixed.
Organizational rewards such as performance-based pay system, promotion and
bonus have been shown to be contributed to knowledge sharing (Cabrera et al., 2006; Kankanhalli
et al., 2005; Kim and Lee, 2006; Kulkarni et al.,
2006). However, Bock and Kim (2002), Bock et
al. (2005) and Park and Im (2003) have found that
extrinsic rewards may have a negative effect on knowledge sharing. Meanwhile,
some studies (Chang et al., 2007;
Dixon, 2000; Kwok and Gao,
2005; Lin, 2007) have found no relationship between extrinsic rewards and
knowledge sharing. Despite the insignificance, extrinsic rewards are common to
be used in organizations to reward employees in knowledge sharing (Hyoung and Moon, 20020; Voelpel et al., 2005; Wright, 1998). Thus,
conceptual, empirical and practitioner support for extrinsic rewards reinforces
the notion that increasing material benefits for employees will result in more
knowledge sharing. This leads to the hypothesis:
H5: Extrinsic
reward is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.3.2. Intrinsic Reward
Intrinsic rewards refer to
non-financial rewards such as recognition, status and praise. It is
self-sustaining and involves activities that create a sense of fulfilment or
internal satisfaction (Osterloh and Frey, 2000). Some
researchers reported that intrinsic rewards may be more effective than extrinsic
rewards for promoting knowledge sharing behaviour (O’Dell and Grayson, 1998).
Hence, this lead to:
H6: Intrinsic
reward is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
2.4. Organizational Structure
An organizational structure
composed of departments delimited by function often results in communication
silos, which may prohibit the knowledge sharing behaviour (Wang and Noe, 2010). Previous research has shown that knowledge
sharing may be facilitated by having a less centralised organisational
structure (Kim and Lee, 2006). Knowledge sharing behaviour can be promoted
among employees by creating an open workspace that encourages interaction among
employees (Jones, 2005) , using of fluid
job descriptions and job rotation (Kubo et
al., 2001) and encouraging communication across departments and informal
meetings (Liebowitz, 2003, Yang and Chen, 2007).
Hence, we propose that:
H7: Organizational
structure is positively related to knowledge sharing behaviour.
3. Research Methods
3.1. Measures
Scales measures are adapted
from several published studies (Behnke, 2010; Mishra, 1996; Schepers and Van
Den Berg, 2007). All constructs are measured using a five-point scale where
1=“strongly disagree”, 2=“disagree”, 3=“neither agree nor disagree”, 4=“agree”,
and 5=“strongly agree”.
3.2. Samples And
Procedures
The unit of analysis for
this study is organization. These organizations surveyed are companies granted
with Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) status. This study uses the MSC status
Malaysia Company Directory (Multimedia Super Corridor, 2010) as population
frame. MSC Malaysia was established in
1996 to help to revolutionize the ICT industry in Malaysia and to transform
Malaysia into a knowledge economy (Multimedia Super Corridor, 2011). MSC
Malaysia provides a conducive environment to transform
ICT SMEs into world class companies through several facilities and incentives
under the Promotion of Investment Act 1986 (Tan et al., 2009). To date, there are 2520 companies ranging from local
to foreign business enterprises have been awarded MSC status by MSC Malaysia
(Multimedia Super Corridor, 2011).
A cluster sampling method
is used in the present study. Survey questionnaires are distributed to MSC
status companies located in Cyberjaya. Cyberjaya is chosen because it is the nucleus of the MSC.
It is also known as an intelligent city with information and communication
technologies (ICT) and multimedia industries. In fact, the township of Cyberjaya is developed to house the MSC Status companies,
serving as a strategic location and a centre to foster the growth of ICT and
ICT-enabled industries (Multimedia Super Corridor, 2011).
Two hundred and fifty
survey questionnaires are personally administered to the companies. Of the 250
questionnaires sent, 199 questionnaires are completed and returned. Therefore,
199 surveys are analyzed, resulting in a net response rate of 79.6%. Table 1
shows the demographic data of survey respondents.
Table
1: Demographic Data Of The Survey Respondents
|
Profile |
Number of respondents |
Category |
Count |
Percentage |
|
Gender |
199 |
Female |
100 |
50.3 |
|
|
|
Male |
99 |
49.7 |
|
Age |
199 |
<30 years old |
140 |
70.4 |
|
|
|
31-40 years old |
49 |
24.6 |
|
|
|
41-50 years old |
7 |
3.5 |
|
|
|
>50 years old |
3 |
1.5 |
|
Education |
199 |
High school |
4 |
2.0 |
|
|
|
Diploma |
23 |
11.6 |
|
|
|
Degree |
145 |
72.9 |
|
|
|
Master |
27 |
13.5 |
|
Job Function |
199 |
Sales/Marketing |
17 |
8.6 |
|
|
|
Information Technology |
80 |
40.2 |
|
|
|
Operation |
27 |
13.6 |
|
|
|
Customer Services |
19 |
9.5 |
|
|
|
Human Resource/Admin |
25 |
12.6 |
|
|
|
Finance |
11 |
5.5 |
|
|
|
Quality/Business Improvement |
2 |
1.0 |
|
|
|
Others |
18 |
9.0 |
3.3. Statistical Procedures
The unidimensionality
of scales is analysed via exploratory factor analysis. Both reliability and
correlation analyses are conducted to establish the variability and
interdependence of the survey items. To test the research hypotheses, multiple
regression analysis is performed to examine the relationship between culture
(i.e., trust, learning and innovation), co-workers support, extrinsic reward,
intrinsic reward, organizational structure and knowledge sharing practices.
4. Results
4.1. Scale Validation
The results of factor
analysis are summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the values of
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Table 2 also shows that all
the constructs attains the recommended eigenvalues
greater than 1 (Hair et al., 2010).
As a result, the seven constructs (i.e., trust,
learning, innovation, co-workers support, extrinsic reward, intrinsic reward,
organizational structure and knowledge sharing practices) are significant
to be studied in this research.
Table
2: Results Of Exploratory Factor Analysis
|
Constructs |
Survey
Items |
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin |
Test of Sphericity |
Eigen-values |
|
Trust |
|
0.611 |
120.653*** |
1.875 |
|
TR1 |
I believe that people in my
organization share and use the knowledge with professionalism. |
|
|
|
|
TR2 |
Trust facilitates knowledge
exchange in my organization. |
|
|
|
|
TR3 |
The climate of trust helps
alleviate the negative effect of perceived costs on knowledge sharing in my
organization. |
|
|
|
|
Learning |
|
0.653 |
150.893*** |
1.109 |
|
LE1 |
Generating new ideas are important
in my organization. |
|
|
|
|
LE2 |
My organization encourages learning
from mistake. |
|
|
|
|
LE3 |
My organization emphasizes
continuous learning. |
|
|
|
|
Innovation |
|
0.629 |
121.832*** |
1.989 |
|
IN1 |
My organization emphasizes commitment
to innovation and development, a process of learning and knowledge creation. |
|
|
|
|
IN2 |
Openness to conflicting views is
encouraged in my organization. |
|
|
|
|
IN3 |
My organization is good at
responding to changes in the external environment. |
|
|
|
|
IN4 |
My organization is creative in
doing things. |
|
|
|
|
Co-worker Support |
|
0.686 |
135.545*** |
1.991 |
|
CS1 |
My immediate coworkers encourage
open communication even if it means disagreement. |
|
|
|
|
CS2 |
My immediate coworkers encourage
sharing of knowledge by actions and words. |
|
|
|
|
CS3 |
My immediate coworkers encourage
each other to share solutions to work-related problems. |
|
|
|
|
Extrinsic Reward |
|
0.809 |
436.432*** |
2.967 |
|
ER1 |
The organization’s employees are
more likely to be promoted when they share their knowledge with coworkers. |
|
|
|
|
ER2 |
The organization’s employees are
more likely to get a higher salary when they share their knowledge with
coworkers. |
|
|
|
|
ER3 |
The organization’s employees are
more likely to get a higher bonus when they share their knowledge with
coworkers. |
|
|
|
|
ER4 |
The organization’s employees are
likely to get more job security when they share their knowledge with
coworkers. |
|
|
|
|
Intrinsic Reward |
|
0.857 |
466.708*** |
3.311 |
|
IR1 |
The organization’s employees who
share their knowledge with coworkers are more likely to have an enhanced
image than those who do not. |
|
|
|
|
IR2 |
The organization’s employees who
share their knowledge with coworkers are more likely to have prestige than
those who do not. |
|
|
|
|
IR3 |
The organization’s employees who
share their knowledge with coworkers are more likely to gain recognition than
whose do not. |
|
|
|
|
IR4 |
The organization’s employees who
share their knowledge with coworkers are more likely to gain respect then
those who do not. |
|
|
|
|
IR5 |
The organization’s employees who
share their knowledge with coworkers are more likely to be praise by
superiors then those who do not. |
|
|
|
|
Organizational Structure |
|
0.667 |
141.629*** |
1.993 |
|
OS1 |
The structure of our organization
facilitates the development of new ideas/processes/products (i.e. knowledge
creation) |
|
|
|
|
OS2 |
The structure of our organization
facilitates the exchange of knowledge across functional formal boundaries,
like department. |
|
|
|
|
OS3 |
The structure of our organization
allows free flow of info. |
|
|
|
|
Knowledge Sharing Practices |
|
0.788 |
315.460*** |
2.851 |
|
KS1 |
I share my work reports and
official documents with our team members frequently. |
|
|
|
|
KS2 |
I always provide my manuals,
methodologies and models to my team members. |
|
|
|
|
KS3 |
I share my experience or now-how
from work with team members frequently. |
|
|
|
|
KS4 |
I always provide my
know-where or know-whom at the request of our team members. |
|
|
|
|
KS5 |
I try to share my expertise from my
education or training with our team members in a more effective way. |
|
|
|
Note. *** p < 0.001
The reliability analysis is
assessed using diagnostic measure of Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficients. As shown in Table 3, the values of reliability coefficients
ranged from 0.653 to 0.884, indicating that all values have met the cut-off
point of 0.6 recommended by Hair et al.
(2010). As a result, the items measuring the constructs (i.e., trust, learning,
innovation, co-workers support, extrinsic reward, intrinsic reward,
organizational structure and knowledge sharing practices) are reliable.
The statistical assumption
of multicollinearity is also examined. According to
Hair et al. (2010), the r-value between each pair of constructs
in the correlation analysis should not surpass 0.90 which may result in multicollinearity. Table 3 shows that the highest
correlation value is 0.490 (intrinsic
reward with extrinsic reward) which is below 0.90, indicating that
the impact of multicollinearity is not significant in
the regression variate.
Table 3: Results Of Correlation And
Reliability Analyses
|
Variables |
TR |
LE |
IN |
CO |
ER |
IR |
OS |
KP |
|
TR |
0.678 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LE |
0.408** |
0.653 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN |
0.387** |
0.459** |
0.661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CO |
0.294** |
0.445** |
0.379** |
0.746 |
|
|
|
|
|
ER |
0.089 |
0.013 |
0.266** |
0.153* |
0.884 |
|
|
|
|
IR |
0.163* |
0.230** |
0.262** |
0.224** |
0.490** |
0.871 |
|
|
|
OS |
0.199** |
0.303** |
0.383** |
0.404** |
0.251** |
0.277** |
0.744 |
|
|
KP |
0.170* |
0.345** |
0.422** |
0.418** |
0.074 |
0.305** |
0.366** |
0.767 |
Note: Correlation is significant at *
p < 0.05
4.2. Multiple Regression
Analysis
The research hypotheses are tested using multiple regression analysis.
Cohen’s rules for effect sizes are used to measure the magnitude of effects in
this study. According to Cohen
Table 4: Results Of Multiple Regression Analysis
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
|
|
β |
Std. Error |
β |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1.584 |
0.323 |
|
4.902 |
0.000 |
|
|
Trust |
-0.071 |
0.064 |
-0.074 |
-1.101 |
0.272 |
|
|
Learning |
0.055 |
0.076 |
0.054 |
0.720 |
0.472 |
|
|
Innovation |
0.264 |
0.073 |
0.268 |
3.625 |
0.000*** |
|
|
Coworker Support |
0.188 |
0.058 |
0.229 |
3.226 |
0.001** |
|
|
Extrinsic Reward |
-0.120 |
0.049 |
-0.175 |
-2.457 |
0.015* |
|
|
Intrinsic Reward |
0.168 |
0.052 |
0.227 |
3.192 |
0.002** |
|
|
Organizational Structure |
0.124 |
0.057 |
0.151 |
2.187 |
0.030* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R² |
0.326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adj. R² |
0.302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sig. F |
0.000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-value |
13.216 |
|
|
|
|
|
Dependent Variable: Knowledge
Sharing Practices |
||||||
|
Note: * p < 0.05 |
||||||
5. Discussion And
Conclusions
The result of multiple regression shows that, as hypothesized, innovation is positively related to knowledge sharing practices. This result is consistent with previous studies (Calantone et al., 2002; Grover and Davenport, 2001; Knott, 2004) that stressed on innovation capabilities direct the practices of knowledge sharing. Hence, organizations should emphasize on commitment to innovation, openness to conflicting views, creativity, and fast in responding to external changes.
However, trust and learning are not significantly related to knowledge sharing behaviour. This finding contradicts with previous researches (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Kang et al., 2008; Lin 2007). This may due to lack of generalised trust in MSC companies. Hence, knowledge contributors may find that the effort required for knowledge sharing to be salient because they believe that others may inappropriately use their knowledge. Another reason could be most of the respondents (70.4%) are less than 30 years old. They may be new and have less working years in the organizations. Time is needed in order to build a positive atmosphere of trust and security to encourage knowledge sharing.
Co-workers support is found to be positively related to knowledge sharing practices. A possible reason for this may due to the positive peer pressure and sense of teamwork that exists within the group. Members tend to share in order to achieve the team objectives. The reinforcement of helping each other and an infectious atmosphere of purposeful communication supports the knowledge sharing practices.
As expected, organizational structure that facilitates the development of new ideas and allows free flow of information is important in promoting knowledge sharing. Traditional structures that focus on complicated layers and lines of responsibilities with details of reporting procedures are considered as knowledge sharing barriers as this type of bureaucratic structures slow down the processes and raise constraints on the flow of information. Hence, the insights here is organizations should has less formalization structure, more coordination among departments and emphasizes on informal communication in order to foster knowledge sharing activities.
The findings in this study indicate that both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are related to knowledge sharing practices. Intrinsic reward significantly influences the knowledge sharing behaviour. This result is consistent with the previous researches (Constant et al., 1996; Donath, 1999; Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Employees expect positive feedback on their contribution of knowledge sharing. Higher levels of praise, recognition, respect, prestige and image as a response to knowledge sharing may strengthen this results.
On the other hand, extrinsic reward is found to have an inverse relationship with knowledge sharing practices. This finding is consistent with the studies done in Korea (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005; Park and Im, 2003) in which may due to the collectivistic culture (Behnke, 2010) as compared to individualistic culture in the United Stated that indicates a positive relationship. Malaysia, as a collectivistic culture, focuses more on strong team work and collaboration but less competitive in terms of getting higher extrinsic rewards. In fact, by offering a higher extrinsic reward may jeopardize the practices of sharing knowledge as they may be viewed as “selfish and fulfilling self interest” by their team members.
As a result, this study provide an empirical evidence for a new model that shows the culture of innovation, management support, organizational structure and reward systems are implicated in individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior.
6. Research Limitations
The findings of this study
need to be treated with some cautions given some limitations of the research.
First, it is difficult to draw causal inferences from collection of
cross-sectional data. It would be useful for future research to collect
longitudinal data at different points in time. Second, the proposed research
model is tested based on data gathered from Malaysia. Future research should
replicate this study using data collected in different countries. Lastly, this
study does not examine the moderating effects in employees’ knowledge sharing
practices. It is recommended that future studies should extend the present
analysis by including the moderating variables such as age and gender.
7. References
Al-Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammed, Y.F. (2007), “Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.
Behnke, T.M. (2010), Knowledge sharing at work: An examination of organizational antecedents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Ambrose University, USA
Bhatt, G.D. (2000), “Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15 – 26.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Bock, G. W. and Kim, Y. G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 14–21.
Brown, M.M. and Brudney, J.L.
(2003), "Learning organizations in the pubic
sector? A study of police agencies employing
information and technology to advance knowledge", Public
Administration Review, Vol. 63 No.1, pp. 30-43.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. and Salgado, J. (2006), “Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 245-264.
Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 515-524.
Chang, T.J., Yeh, S.P. and Yeh, I.J. (2007), “The effects of joint reward system in new product development”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3/4, pp. 276 – 297.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-1888.
Collins,
C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge
exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance
of high-technology firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised edition). Academic Press, New York.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994), “What's 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. (1997), Information ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
De Long, D. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management:, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-127.
Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, 3-15.
Dixon, N.M. (2000), Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.
Donath, J. (1999), “Identity and deception in the virtual community”, in Smith, M.A. and Kollock, P., (Eds) Communities in cyberspace, Routledge, New York, pp 29-59.
Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A.J., Monge, P.R. and Bar, F.O. (2004), “A test of the individual action model for organizational information commons”, Organization Science, Vol.15 No. 5, pp 569-85.
Fukuyama, F. (1996), Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity, Simon &. Schuster, New York.
Grover, V. and Davenport, T. H. (2001), “General Perspectives on Knowledge Management: Fostering a Research Agenda”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No.1, pp. 5-21.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, New Jersey, 7th Edn.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria and N., Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp.106-11.
Hsu, I.C. (2006), “Enhancing employee tendencies to share knowledge - case studies of nine companies in Taiwan”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 326-338.
Hyoung, K.M. and Moon, S.P. (2002), “Effective rewards systems for knowledge sharing”, Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 22-33.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework”, Human Resource Development, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Jones, M.C. (2005), “Tacit knowledge sharing during ERP implementation: A multi-site case study”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.1-23.
Kang, Y.J., Kim, S.E. and Chang, G.W. (2008), “The impact of knowledge sharing on work performance: an empirical analysis of the public employees' perceptions in South Korea”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31 No. 14, pp.1548-68.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Management Information Systems, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-143.
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.
Knott, A.M. (2004), “Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 687–705.
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), “What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 502-518.
Kubo, M, Van De Water, L, Plantefaber, LC, Mosesson, MW., Simon, M., Tonnesen, MG., Taichman, L., and Clark, RAF. (2001) Fibrinogen and fibrin are anti-adhesive for keratinocytes: A mechanism for fibrin eschar slough during wound repair. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, Vol.117, pp.1369–1381,
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S., 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.
Kwok, S.H. and Gao, S. (2005), “Attitude towards knowledge sharing behaviour”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 45-51.
Lee, J.H., Kim, Y.G. and Kim, M.Y. (2006), “Effects of managerial drivers and climate maturity on knowledge-management performance: Empirical validation”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, 48-60.
Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organisational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp.179-228.
Liao, L. (2006), “A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 227-36.
Liebowitz, J. (2003), “A knowledge management strategy for Jason organization”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp.1-5.
Lin, C.P. (2007), “To share or not to share: modelling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 457-475.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R. (2000), “A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use of knowledge management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 317-29.
McKinnon, J.L., Harrison, G.L., Chow, C.W. and Wu, A. (2003), “Organizational culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to remain, and information sharing in Taiwan”, International Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 25–44.
Mishra, A.K. (1996). “Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust”, in R.M. Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 261-287.
Multimedia Super Corridor (2010), “MSC Malaysia Company Director”; available at: www.mscmalaysia.my/topic/Company+Directory#. (accessed February 2011)
Multimedia Super Corridor (2011). “Facts and Figures”, available at: www.mscmalaysia.my/topic/12073059402587 (accessed February 2011)
Murray, P., Donegan, K. (2003). “Empirical linkages between firm competencies and organizational learning”, The Learning Organization, Vol.10 No. 3, pp.51-62.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242–266.
Nelson, A., Sabatier, R. and Nelson, W. (2006), “Toward an understanding of global entrepreneurial knowledge management (EKM) practices: A preliminary investigation of EKM in France and the U.S”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 70–89.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University, New York.
O’Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. (1998), “If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 14-37.
Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 538-550.
Park, H.S. and Im, B.C. (2003), “A study on the knowledge sharing behaviors of local public servants in Korea: Structural equation analysis”, paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Tenth International Conference on Advances in Management Korean Association for Public Administration & Korea Institute of Public Administration.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1979), “On studying organizational cultures”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 570-581.
Ruppel, C.P. and Harrington, S.J. (2001) “Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of organizational culture and intranet implementation”, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 37–52.
Schepers, P. and van den Berg, P.T. (2007), “Social factors of
work-environment creativity”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 407–428.
Tan, K.S., Chong, S.C., Lin, B. and Eze, U.C. (2009), “Internet-based ICT adoption: Evidence from Malaysian SMEs”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 224-244.
Taylor, W.A. and Wright, G.H. (2004), “Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing: Challenges for public sector managers”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 22–37.
Voelpel, S.C., Dous, M. and Davenport, T.H. (2005), “Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens' ShareNet”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 9–23.
Wang, S. and Noe, R. (2010) “Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.115-131.
Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35–57.
Willem, A. and Scarbrough, H. (2006), “Social capital and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory study”, Human Relations, Vol. 59 No. 10, pp. 1343–1370.
Wright, P. (1998), “Do incentive schemes promote knowledge sharing?”, Knowledge Management. Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 4-6.
Yang, J. (2007), ‘The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Yang, C. and Chen, L.C. (2007), “Can
organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior?”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 95–109.
About the Authors:
Dr. Chin Wei Chong is
an associate professor in Faculty of Management at Multimedia University,
Malaysia. She received her PhD from Multimedia University. Her publications
have appeared in various international refereed journals, conference
proceedings and book chapters. Her research interests include knowledge
management, knowledge sharing, inter-organisational knowledge transfer and knowledge culture.
Dr Chong Chin Wei, Associate Professor, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Persiaran Multimedia, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: +603-83125653; Fax: +603-83125590; E-mail: cwchong@mmu.edu.my
Dr. Pei-Lee Teh was formerly a lecturer at Faculty of
Management, Multimedia University, Malaysia. She is currently a Senior Lecturer
at School of Business, Monash University. Her
teaching and research interests cover knowledge management, knowledge sharing,
total quality management and technology management.
Dr. Pei-Lee Teh, Senior Lecturer, School of Business, Monash University, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, 46150 Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. Tel: +603-551-44971; Fax.+603-551-46192; Email: teh.pei.lee@monash.edu
Dr. Arnifa Asmawi is a lecturer at the Faculty of Management,
Multimedia University, Malaysia. She received her Phd
from Multimedia University. Her research interests mainly include
organizational issues in R&D management namely organizational culture,
knowledge management; leadership and team dynamics.
Dr Arnifa Asmawi, Lecturer, Faculty of Management, Multimedia
University, Persiaran Multimedia, 63100 Cyberjaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia. Tel: +603-8312 5856; Fax: +603-8312 5590;
Email: arnifa.asmawi@mmu.edu.my.