Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers

Developing a model forknowledge sharing in research

centersPeyman Akhavan and Akbar Rahimi

Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology,Tehran, Iran, and

Gholamhossein MehralianSchool of Pharmacy, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,

Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – Knowledge sharing (KS) of employees has numerous benefits for organizations.Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a model for KS in research centers (RCs) that can facilitatethe employee’s knowledge sharing behavior (KSB).

Design/methodology/approach – Based on the extensive literature review, a valid instrument wasadopted to collect the required data set on KS, KSB and intention to KS, and finally 317 completequestionnaires were collected from Iranian research centers. The structural equation modeling (SEM)was used to assess the measurement model and to test the research hypotheses.

Findings – The findings show that intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors and intention tomethods of KS play an important role in KSB. In other words, simultaneous supply of motivationalfactors and KS methods interesting for employees lead to their KSB. The SEM confirmed the researchmodel and showed a good fit of it.

Practical implications – The implication emanating from this study is that the employees’ KSB inRCs as a significant part depends on simultaneous supplying of motivational factors (especiallyintrinsic motivational factors) and methods of KS that are interesting for employees.

Originality/value – What distinguishes this study from other studies in KS domain could beimplied in two subjects. First, the presented model is simple and prepared of the introduced factors,which will lead to KSB. Second, this study was conducted in diverse research fields such as electricaland electronics, telecommunications, materials, chemistry, biotechnology, information technology,management and industrial engineering, computer network security, mechanical and manufacturing.The research model was derived from the collected data of these areas that is unique in this domain.

Keywords Knowledge sharing, Motivational factors, Methods of KS, Knowledge management

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionIn today’s competitive environment, survival, development and profitability oforganizations are highly dependent upon the earning of sustainable competitiveadvantages, including knowledge capabilities ( Jafari et al., 2007). In other words, tocomply with the fast environmental changes and become attuned with therequirements of competition, organizations should try to attain sustainablecompetitive advantages (Barney and Hostelry, 2006, Mehralian et al., 2013). Wrightet al. (1994) emphasized on those characteristics of human resources which help makecompetitive advantages such as skill, experience and knowledge. Grant (1991) and

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

KS in researchcenters

357

Received 12 June 2012Revised 25 July 2012

28 August 201218 December 201211 February 2013

13 April 201312 May 2013

Accepted 22 May 2013

VINE: The journal of information andknowledge management systems

Vol. 43 No. 3, 2013pp. 357-393

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0305-5728

DOI 10.1108/VINE-06-2012-0020

Jafari et al. (2008) introduces knowledge as “the most important resource of theorganization strategy.”

Applying the knowledge of employees within organization has numerousbenefits, including time reduction in the work process, reducing costs, improvementof customer services, flexibility for rapid changes in the organization, creation of alearning environment, and increased productivity and efficiency (Skyrme, 2000).These benefits show the importance of knowledge in gaining competitiveadvantages (Akhavan et al., 2009). Nowadays, organizations found that theirknowledge on how to perform tasks must be managed as well as other valuableassets (Watson, 2003). Creating and managing knowledge as the modern economicspivot, is the only way for organizations to create value in the long term (Johnson,2005). Thus, during recent years, many debates have been on the importance ofknowledge and its management (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Accordingly,organizations that lack understanding on today’s requirements without consideringsuch needs in their infrastructure would be declined very early in their business lifecycle ( Jafari and Akhavan, 2007).

Several works introduced Knowledge Sharing (KS) as one of the major activities ofknowledge management (Sugurmaran and Bose, 2003; Riege, 2005; Akhavan et al.,2010). Huysman and Wit (2000) believe that the role of KS in organizations is soimportant, since knowledge management has been created for the purpose ofsupporting KS. According to Bock et al. (2005) and Bohn (2000) organizations’ theability of innovation can be increased through KS.

Understanding the importance of KS by managers makes the organizations face thisquestion: “What should be done for employees’ real Knowledge Sharing Behavior(KSB)?” To answer this question, many researchers have tried to introduce effectivefactors on KS. Some of discussed factors influencing KS include: culture, organizationalstructure and use of technology. In other words, for actual KSB, creating a culture forKS changes and carrying out necessary reforms in organizational structure and use oftechnology are proposed to the organizations’ managers. In the face of fastenvironmental changes, managers are seeking solutions that could promptly lead tothe employees’ KSB.

Although factors such as culture, organizational structure and use of technology areeffective in KSB, it is difficult to apply them in large organizations with huge numberof employees with different cultures. Although in many studies, motivations and theirrole in KSB have been noted, no efforts can be found to have been implemented on howthe motivational factors lead to actual KSB. This study tries to provide a model for KSuse in motivational theories and the theory of planned behavior. In other words, thismodel contributes to guiding managers towards the proper kind of motivationalfactors and methods of KS to lead them to the actual KSB. Although the KSB plays akey role in every organization, we focused on RCs due to the important role ofknowledge workers who are involved in the process of innovation to create wealth aswell as commercialization of new ideas in these centers; they would be best examples ofconducting such research. The rest of the paper is organized accordingly. The nextsection develops the background of the research, followed by the hypotheses and theresearch model, research methodology, research results, discussion on the researchfindings, conclusions and limitations of the study.

VINE43,3

358

2. Literature review2.1 Definition of KS and its benefitsDifferent definitions of KS have been provided, each considering an aspect of KS; someof which are given in the following:

KS in organizations may be viewed as the behavior by which an individualvoluntarily provides other members of the organization some kind of access to his orher knowledge and experiences. KS encompasses a broad range of behaviors that arecomplex and multifaceted (Sylvio and Chun, 2010). Lin et al. (2009) introduced KS as asocial interaction culture involving the exchange of employee’s knowledge, experiencesand skills through the whole department or organization. In Harder’s belief (2008), KSis the voluntary and social process of transferring, obtaining and reusing the existingknowledge in order to serve organizational goals.

The benefits of KS and its key role in gaining competitive advantages haveattracted the attention of many organizations. Among the most important benefits ofknowledge sharing, some can be outlined as follows: Knowledge creation (Nonaka andTakeuchi, 1995), creativity and innovation (Bock et al., 2005), quality of service andproduct delivery process (Shyh et al., 2006), greater customer satisfaction (Bock et al.,2005; Davenport and Prusak, 1998), organizational learning (Sylvio and Chun, 2010;Wasko and Faraj, 2000; Hass and Hansen, 2007), rapid response (Sylvio and Chun,2010), product development and organizational strategies (Sanchez and Palacios, 2007),reducing the time from design to manufacturing (Davenport and Prusak, 1998),employees’ retention rates (McKenzie and van Winkelen, 2004), cost reduction(McKenzie and van Winkelen, 2004), empowerment of employees (Cruz et al., 2009),development of performance (Wasko and Faraj, 2000), better decision making (APQC,1999), prevention of the knowledge death (Wasko and Faraj, 2000).

2.2 Definition of “motivations” and their role in KSMotivations are psychological processes, causing the arousal, direction, intensificationand persistence of behavior (Locke and Latham, 2004). Many researchers haveinvestigated the role of motivation on KS and have shown that motivations areeffective on KSB, quite like other behaviors. Shyh et al. (2006) state that effectiveguiding of motivation raises the employees’ KS. In some cases, people may be reluctanttowards knowledge sharing behavior; thus, applying motivational factors to stimulateKSB would be essential (Ipe, 2003). Absence of motivation has negative effects on KS(Burgess, 2005; Osterloh and Frey, 2000). One of the priorities announced by theknowledge management researchers is to motivate KS in employees (King, 2006).Furthermore, Raghu and Vinze (2007) state that one reason for the failure of knowledgemanagement activities are the lack of motivations in individuals and groups for KS.Finally, the success of knowledge management largely depends upon the intention oforganization members in sharing their knowledge, while motivation is also an essentialfactor influencing the intention to KSB (Prodromos and Vrimaki, 2009).

2.3 Motivational theories and classification of motivational factorsMotivation theories have been classified into the content and process theories. Contenttheories consider the motivational factors and do not explain the process of creating,directing and maintaining the motivation. In contrast, process theories focus onstudying the mechanisms and methods of motivation creating (Boone and Kurtz, 1992).


359

Content theories are also known as need gratification theories which include fourtheories:

The theory of Maslow (1968) is one of the content theories. It refers to the existenceof many individual needs, which are clustered into five categories: physiological needs,security needs, belongingness need, recognition need, self-actualization, status andpower needs.

On the basis of extensive studies, Alderfer (1972) concluded that the five clustersshould be folded into three: existence, relatedness and growth. His theory states thatpeople basically want first, to safeguard their existence, through food, shelter, job andincome (Maslow’s first two needs), and second, to relate to other persons meaningfullythrough social contacts, friendship and recognition (Maslow’s third), and third, to growand develop their abilities, through achievement and self-actualization (Maslow’sfourth and fifth).

McClelland (1987) concluded (based his experience in many companies) that theneed for affiliation, the need for achievement and the need for power are the mostimportant motivating factors in working life.

Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor theory is based on two different groups of factors:motivation and hygiene. Presence of motivational factors leads to an increase both inmotivation and in satisfaction (Hendriks, 1999).

Many studies have been conducted in pursuit of categorizing the motivatingfeatures to intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Ryan and Deci (2000) conducted manyempirical studies on the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, andfinally declared that the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is notsuch an obvious one. Intrinsic motivation is defined as performing an activity due to itsinherent satisfactions rather than some separable consequences. An intrinsicallymotivated person likes to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather than the externalprods, pressures, or rewards. For humans, the intrinsic motivation is not the only formof motivation, but it is a pervasive and important one. Although in one sense, intrinsicmotivation exists within individuals, intrinsic motivation exists in the relation betweenindividuals and activities. People are intrinsically motivated for some activities whilenot for others, and not everyone is intrinsically motivated for any particular task.Although intrinsic motivation is clearly of an important type, most of the activitiesdone by people are not treated. Similar to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation is aconstruct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separableoutcomes. Extrinsic motivation, unlike the intrinsic one, refers to doing an activitysimply for the mere pleasure of the act, rather than its instrumental value (Ryan andDeci, 2000). In other words, extrinsic motivation refers to factors originated inside aperson. An intrinsically motivated behavior is the one that is initiated by a person inpursuit of no other goal than the activity itself (Fridlund et al., 1999). Extrinsicmotivation is originated from factors outside the person. People are extrinsicallymotivated when they are engaged in activities as a means to obtain a tangible goal(Brehm et al., 2002).

2.4 Knowledge types and methods of KSNonaka, in his own classification of knowledge, defines the explicit knowledge as aknowledge that is the objective, which could be expressed as a formal and systematiclanguage. He believes that this kind of knowledge is independent of individuals and

VINE43,3

360

available in computer information systems, books, documents, etc. In addition, this typeof organizational knowledge is capable of coding and can be expressed through dialect(Nonaka, 1994). In Nonaka’s definition of explicit knowledge, in order to encouragepeople to share their tacit knowledge, they must either code or document it or bedeveloped through interaction with each other and share it via the dialect. Thesemethods could be performed in the context of information technology or even without it.

From the perspective of Polani (1996), hidden/implicit knowledge is a non-explicitknowledge that exists within the person, and in most cases, it is difficult to describeand transfer. Sources and content of hidden knowledge are hidden in the mind, noteasily accessible and are restructured (Hendriks, 1999). Thus, according to Polani, thetacit knowledge hidden in people’s minds is difficult to be documented, and evenimpossible in many cases. The best method for providing this knowledge for others isindividuals’ interaction with each other. Based on the literature review, KS methods areillustrated as follows:

. Methods of knowledge documenting: documenting in paper form, documentingin repositories and databases (Nonaka, 1994).

. Methods of interaction: storytelling, community of practice, peer assistance,coaching, seminar presentations, mentoring, meetings, after action review (AAR)(CIDA, 2003), quit interviews (Lng et al., 2006), job rotation (Horwitz, 2003),conference (Armstrong, 2009), in-service training (Peters, 1997), teamwork(MacNeil, 2003), interaction through information technology (Nonaka, 1994)(including IT methods such as: types of blogs, internet sites, e-mail, videoconferencing, chat, virtual training, knowledge management software, expertsystems, networks and social interaction, etc.).

3. Hypotheses development and research model3.1 Hypotheses developmentTwo major theories attempted to consider an individual’s KS intention and actual KSBwithin an organization: the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005)and the theory of planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). Since knowledge is usuallydifficult to imitate, transfer and replicate, it is important to understand how KS takesplace. Intention and behaviors focus on the tendency to be engaged in a certainbehavior and are influenced by two factors:

(1) The individual’s attitudes, based on the existence of prior tendencies directed atan object or a group.

(2) A subjective norm that relates to the individual’s perception of the way in whichothers, who are important to him or her, respond to a certain behavior.

TRA is prevalent in social-psychological models that explain human behavior and isactually an expansion of expectancy theory, which involves environmental factors inaddition to the differences existing among individuals (Blau, 1964).

The TRA model has been used to explore the relationships between intention andactual behavior of information sharing (Kolekofski and Heminger, 2003) and hasserved as a basis for empirical (Bock et al., 2005; Lin and Lee, 2004; Ryu et al., 2003) andtheoretical (Reychav and Jacob, 2010) studies that explain the effect on knowledgesharing.


361

Both theories of TRA and TPB assume that intention is the leader of the behavior.In other words, in normal conditions, intention leads to the actual behavior. So, basedon this theory, it is assumed that the intention to guide the behavior and interest to KSbehaved by individuals, acts as a leader of KSB. In other words, it could be stated thatthe KSB is a function of the intention to KSB. Thus, we propose the followinghypothesis:

H1. There is a significant relationship between intention to KSB and KSB. Thismeans that more intention to KSB, will lead to more KSB.

Conducted research on KS introduced affecting factors such as culture ( James andSeokwoo, 2011), trust (Scott and Dail, 2010), technology (Bishop et al., 2008), personalvalues (Oliver, 2008), rewards (Willem and Buelens, 2009; Cress and Hesse, 2004),organizational structure (Chen and Huang, 2007), management support (King, 2005),and relationship (Alawi et al., 2007), etc.

Several researchers have investigated the influence of motivation on KS, some ofwhich could be cited here: Barachini (2009), Khakpour et al. (2009), Siemsen et al. (2008),Han and Anantatmula (2007), Hung et al. (2005), Kwok (2005), Hansen and Avita (2005),Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004), Wittenbaum et al. (2004), Argote et al. (2003),Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2002), Hansen (2002), Paul (2001) and Osterloh and Frey (2000).

Sylvio and Chun (2010) and Harder (2008), in their definition of KS, introduced KSBas a voluntary and intentional behavior. This means that it cannot be obtainedforcefully as Helmstadter (2003) stated. Therefore, the employees should be willing toshare their knowledge with others. Thus, the motivations cause individuals’ intentionto KS and lead to KSB reliability. Despite the researchers’ emphasis on the importanceand role of motivation in KS, some researchers such as Li and Poon (2009) haveintroduced the motivational factors influencing KS, in order to respond to the questionthat whether the motivations are leading to KSB. Some of the abovementionedresearchers have studied the influence of motivational factors on KS functional form(Harder, 2008). Others, using different theories, have introduced the theoretical modelfor KS and evaluated it by using of data in real environments (Bock and Kim, 2002).Others have paid attention to how motivational factors affect on KSB (Chun and Mei,2009). Some motivational factors used to determine their impact on KS are summarizedin Table I.

Table II shows motivational factors that are derived after consideration ofmotivational theories.

The researchers’ emphasis on the voluntarily nature of KSB and the role ofmotivation in the KSB, means that KSB is not done without the intention of employees,and motivations incline employees to share their knowledge. This result is presented inthe following hypotheses:

H2. There is a significant relationship between intrinsic motivational factors andintention to KSB. This means more use of intrinsic motivational factors willlead to more intention to KSB.

H3. There is a significant relationship between extrinsic motivational factors andintention to KSB. This means more use of extrinsic motivational factors willlead to more intention to KSB.

VINE43,3

362

Although supporting motivation for KSB has been much emphasized, the key point isthat even when the motivations for KSB are prepared, KSB performing in theorganization or the appropriate method of KS for employees must be considered.Surely, it is obvious that some methods are needed to perform KS. However, it isimportant to know what methods should be used? KS methods used by managers fortheir organization should be firstly effective when tailored to their organization andalso have to be based on their employees’ interest. In other words, even if the managersidentify all the factors affecting the KSB and implement the process, without choosingthe methods of KS, their plan cannot fully lead to KSB of employees. Thus, we proposeH4 as below:

H4. There is a significant relationship between the intention to methods of KS andintention to KSB. This means more use of methods that are interesting foremployees, will lead to more intention to KSB.

Researcher Factors

Chen and Huang (2010) Reciprocity (2 ), Interpersonal Trust (þ ), KS self-efficacy (þ ),Perceived relative advantages (þ )

Gagne (2009) Autonomy of work (þ )

Chun and Mei (2009) Knowledge, Self-efficacy, Enjoyment in helping other,Responsibility, Trust, Incentives

Li and Poon (2009) Trust, Salary, Social status, Interpersonal relationship, Recognition,Achievement, Challenge of work, Sense of responsibility, Autonomy

Cruz et al. (2009) Trust (þ ), Autonomy of work (þ ), Honesty (þ ), Membership (þ ),Incentive (þ ), Recognition (þ ), Promotion (þ ), Stability (þ )

Yakhlef et al. (2009) Self-esteem (þ ), Self control (þ ), Social status (þ )

Harder (2008) Autonomy of work (þ ), Reward tangible (2 ), Managersacknowledgement (þ ), Managers support (þ )

Lin (2007); Allameh et al. (2008) Reciprocal benefits (þ ), Organizational reward (þ ), Knowledge,Self-efficacy (þ ), Enjoyment in helping other(þ )

Cabrera et al. (2006) Reward tangible (þ )

Bock et al. (2005) Financial reward (2 )

Bock and Kim (2002) Expected reward (2 ), Expected associations (þ ), Expectedcontribution (þ )

Ipe (2003) Reciprocity, Relationship with recipient, Reward

Weng and Cgen (2000) Altruism (þ ), Repute (2 ), Hygiene factors(2 ), Reciprocity (2 )

Hendriks (1999) Motivational factors (þ ): (achievement, responsibility, recognition,autonomy of work, promotional opportunities, challenge of work)Hygiene factors (2 ): (salary, social status, company policy,interpersonal relation)

Notes: Help: (+): Effective in KS, (2 ): non-effective in KS

Table I.Effective andnon-effective

motivational factors onKS in different researches


363

3.2 Research modelFigure 1 presents the research model in accordance with the characteristics of the RCsand the literature addressing motivational factors and KSB. The model depicts therelationship between motivational factors and intention to methods of KS and therelationship between intention to KS and KSB.

Theory and theorists Motivational factors

Maslow’s hierarchy ofneeds (Kim, 2008)

physiological Salary, financial rewards, non-financial rewardssafety Job security, health and safety worklove Friendly and informal relationships with

colleagues, the social statusesteem Respect for managers and other colleaguesSelf-actualization Organization’s compliance with demands, self-

control and management

Alderfer’s theory, threefactors

Existence Salary, financial rewards, non-financial rewardsRelatedness Friendly and informal relationships with

colleaguesGrowth Job promotion, learning and growth

Herzberg’s two-factor(Hendriks, 1999)

Hygiene factors Salary, good working conditions (cleanliness andhygiene), job security, competent supervisor ormanager, policy and organizational policies,relationships

Motivational factors Success, increased responsibility, challenging ofwork, improvement and growth, recognition, jobpromotion

McClelland’s Acquiredneeds

Achievement Non-routine tasks performed and challenge,learning and development, job promotion,success at work

Affiliation Friendly and informal relationships withcolleagues

Power Enterprise management jobs and supervision,participation in decision making, increaseresponsibility and empowerment, recognition,autonomy of work, earn reputation in certainspecialties

Table II.Motivational factorsintroduced by varioustheorists

Figure 1.Research conceptualmodel

VINE43,3

364

4. Research methodThe method used in this research is descriptive and based on correlation that was doneusing questionnaires and survey method. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)was used to test the research model and the hypotheses.

4.1 Variables measurement methodology and research performing processThis study was conducted in several steps as the following:

Step 1. Review of previous researches on effective motivational factors in KS. Thepurpose of this step is to review the previous studies to identify the motivationalfactors that may be effective in KSB of employees. These factors were resulted from thecombination of identified factors in previous research (see Table I) and factorsintroduced by motivational theories (see Table II).

Beside primary motivational factors derived from previous studies and theories ofmotivation, some new motivational factors like hope to the future, the sense ofownership to the organization’s, social reputation (of being famous and the honor ofworking in the organization), organizational justice, religious beliefs of employees,growth and promoting the organization and boast of knowledge were proposed basedon experts’ opinions in this research. Since the research statistical society includesemployees with long-term contracts, the job security factor was removed from the listof motivating factors. Furthermore, the usefulness of knowledge is noted as a positivefactor in KSB, but according to our experts’ opinion, the employees’ awareness of theirknowledge usefulness causes the feeling of power; therefore, it prevents them fromsharing their knowledge. As a result, the usefulness of knowledge is not considered asa motivational factor for KSB in this study.

Altogether, 40 motivational factors are considered to assess their impact onemployees’ KS of RCs, which are presented as follows:

Intrinsic motivational factors: friendly and intimate relations, interpersonal trust,success, honesty, responsibility, commitment and loyalty, religious beliefs, respect,self-management, organizational justice, social status, organization’s compliance withdemands, learning, growth and progress, the usefulness of knowledge sharing,enjoyment of helping others, belonging to the organization, a sense of altruism, socialreputation, retaliation, hope for the future organization, self-esteem, acknowledgingothers, a sense of ownership, boast of knowledge.

Extrinsic motivational factors: job promotion, autonomy of work, managers quality,financial rewards, non-financial rewards, management support, recognition, challengeof work, reputation, good policies, participation in decision making, the appointment ofmanagerial jobs, transfer of authority, health and safety work, salary.

Step 2. Identifying the motivational factors affecting KS in the RCs. The purpose ofthis step is to provide answer to the question “Which one of the 40 identifying factors iseffective over KS in the RCs?” For such an evaluation, each of the motivational factorsin the form of a question was reflected in the questionnaire. To measure these factors,the five item Likert’s scale was used (ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)). Forexample, in this case, to answer the question of “To what extent friendly and intimaterelations lead you to KSB?” the employees have selected one of the options, including“1-very low” to “5-very high”.

Step 3. Review of previous research concerning the KS methods. The purpose of thisstep is to review the previous studies to identify the KS methods that may be favorable


365

to employees in RCs. Literature review and previous research showed that the KSmethods can be classified based on two approaches of documentative and interactive.These methods (including 2 documentation methods and 14 interactive methods) wereprovided in Section 2.4.

Step 4. Identifying the KS methods interesting for employees in the RCs. The purposeof this step includes identifying the KS methods that are interesting for employees inthe RCs. In order to measure the employees’ interest in the KS methods, 16 methodswere considered as described in section 2.4. It is noteworthy that in this paper weemphasized on information and communication technology (ICT) as a tool forknowledge sharing. Therefore, the application of IT tools including blogs, web sites,e-mail, video conferencing, chat, virtual training, knowledge management software,expert systems, networks, social interaction, etc., were not evaluated separately. Inother words, interest in using ICT tools was considered in the form of a question. Tomeasure the intention to the KS methods, the five item Likert’s scale (ranging from1-very low to 5-very high) was used. For example, the employees chose one of theoptions of “1-very low” to “5-very high” based on their interest in “coaching method”.

Step 5. Evaluation of model fit and testing the research hypotheses. The purpose of thisstep includes the variables measurement of research model, examining the fitness ofmodel, evaluating the quantitative relationships between the variables and testing theresearch hypotheses. In this section, the current situation of RCs concerning the supply ofmotivational factors influencing knowledge sharing, which were specified in step 2, wasmeasured. For example, the employees responded to this question that how much do theRCs use the “job promotion” as a motivational factor for their KS?

The RCs conditions were evaluated considering the use of KS methods that havebeen identified as the KS methods of interest in the fourth step. In this section, thequestion was raised as follows: To what extent, do the RCs use any of KS methods?Beside the aforementioned issue, in this step, “intention to KS” and “KSB” variables aremeasured. The five-option Likert’s scale was used to measure all the variables of theresearch model. All the variables of the research models and their measurementmethods are given in Table III.

4.2 Sampling and data collectionAccording to Cochran’s formula, 306 persons were selected as the sample (n ¼ 1,500,p ¼ q ¼ 0.5, d ¼ 0.05, z ¼ 1.96). This sample was prepared from ten Iranian RCsworking in engineering research fields including: electrical and electronics,telecommunications, materials, chemistry, biotechnology, information technology,management and industrial engineering, computer network security, mechanical andmanufacturing. With regard to the fact that a number of questionnaires may not bereturned and/or some of them might have been missing data or would not be suitablefor analysis, 400 questionnaires were distributed. Out of 373 questionnaires (equivalentto 93.25 percent of the total sample) returned, only 317 of them (85 percent) wereappropriate for analysis. Table IV shows the basic data of the respondents of theeffective questionnaires.

4.3 Validity and reliability of the questionnaireIn order to assess the questionnaire validity, eight experts (including academic experts,experts in knowledge management systems and managers of research centers) were

VINE43,3

366

The measure variables Observed variables Latent variables

By using the range offive item Likert’s scale

Important intrinsic factors in section5.1 (totally 15 factors)

Intrinsic motivation factors

Important extrinsic factors in section5.1 (totally nine factors)

Extrinsic motivation factors

KS methods of interest in section 5.2(totally nine factors)

Intention to methods of knowledgesharing

Intention to share experiences(Reychav and Jacob, 2010), intention toshare ideas (Manjit and Kamal, 2011),intention to report the results ofactivities (Reychav and Jacob, 2010),intention to answer questions (Chanet al., 2009), willing to put time (Chanet al., 2009), (totally five questions)

Intention to knowledge sharingbehavior

Having a plan for sharing knowledge(Ryu et al., 2003), sharing experiences(Reychav and Jacob, 2010), sharingideas and opinions (Manjit and Kamal,2011), reports results of activities(Reychav and Jacob, 2010), answeringquestions (Chan et al., 2009), puttingtime (Chan et al., 2009) (totally sixquestions)

Knowledge sharing behavior

Table III.The measurement of

research variables

Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage

Gender Female 28 8.8Male 289 91.2

Age Under 35 years 152 47.935-55 162 51.155 years and over 3 0.9

Educational level BA 86 27.2MA 143 45.1PhD 88 27.8

Work experience Under 15 years 136 42.915-25 153 48.225 years and over 28 8.8

Position Senior 26 8.2Middle manager 54 17Researcher 237 74.8

Note: n ¼ 317

Table IV.Demographic profile of

respondents


367

invited to review the questionnaire. They suggested some corrections for improvingthe validity of questionnaire.

Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire and showedthe amount of 0.883, which indicates good reliability for the questionnaire. Cronbach’salpha values of the questionnaire are shown in Table V.

5. Results and data analysis5.1 Motivational factors affecting KS in the RCsThe average calculated value for each of the motivational factors based on Likert’sscale (1-5) shows that these factors are not of equal importance; some are moreimportant while others are not. In order to identify the more important motivationalfactors, the t-test was used. The results of this test showed that at the level of p ¼ 0.05,among the 40 motivational factors, 16 motivational factors had a mean lower than 3,and therefore were identified as the less important motivational factors in knowledgesharing. The important motivational factors in KS are as follows:

. Important intrinsic factors: friendly and intimate relations, interpersonal trust,success, honesty, responsibility, commitment and loyalty, religious beliefs,respect, self-management, organizational justice, social status, compliance withthe demands, learning, growth and improvement of the organization, theusefulness of knowledge sharing, enjoyment of helping others (totally 15 factors).

. Important extrinsic factors: job promotion, autonomy of work, managers’quality, non-financial rewards, challenge of work, financial rewards,management support, recognition, reputation (totally nine factors).

5.2 The KS methods interesting for employees in the RCsThe average calculated for each of the methods of KS based on Likert’s scale (1-5)shows that these methods are not considered equally; some are more favorable andothers are less favorable. The t-test was used in order to identify the methods of KS,which are favored by employees. The results of this test showed that at the level of

Research steps Variable nameCronbach’s

alphaNo. ofItems

Second step (assessment of the impact ofmotivational factors in KS)

Motivational factors 0.84 40

Fourth step (assessment of the KS methods ofinterest)

Methods of KS 0.90 16

Fifth step (evaluation of RCs status concerningthe supply of effective motivational factors)

Effective motivational factors 0.85 24

Fifth step (evaluation of RCs current statusconcerning the use of KS methods of interest)

Accepted methods of KS 0.82 9

Fifth step (measurement of intention to KS) Intention to KS 0.92 5

Fifth step (measurement of KS behavior) KSB 0.89 6

Overall reliability of the questionnaire 0.88 100

Table V.Cronbach’s alphacoefficients for themeasurement ofquestionnaire reliability

VINE43,3

368

p ¼ 0.05, among the 16 KS methods, 7 KS methods had a mean lower than 3, andtherefore were identified as the methods that are less favored by employees. The KSmethods of interest include: community of practice, peer assistant, meeting, after actionreview, team work, seminars, interaction with its tools, in-service training, mentoring(totally nine methods).

5.3 Data analysisDue to normality of data, SEM was used for validation and analysis of the examinationof reasonability of the research structure and the results of the research issues. TheSEM is composed of two parts: the measurement model and the structural equationmodel. The measurement model indicates how latent variables or hypotheticalconstructs depend upon or are indicated by the observed variables. The modeldescribes the measurement properties (reliabilities and validities) of the observedvariables. Meanwhile, the SEM specifies the causal relationships among the latentvariables, describes the causal effects, and assigns the explained and unexplainedvariances ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).

This study uses the LISREL 8.80 statistical package to test the hypothesized model,as it is specifically designed to deal with models that incorporate latent variables,measurement errors and reciprocal causation. Moreover, the LISREL has beendesigned to estimate and test the hypothesized model fit and specified causal relations.The SEMs are statistical models of the linear relationships among latent (un-observed)variables and manifest (observed) variables. One of the unique characteristics of SEMis its ability to provide parameter estimates for relationships among unobservedvariables. The SEM resembles path analysis in providing parameter estimates of thedirect and indirect links between the observed variables ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).

5.3.1 Measurement model. As discussed earlier in step 5, Table III shows the type ofvariables and demonstrates how to measure them for testing the research hypotheses.5.3.2 Assessment of the measurement model (factor analysis). First, we performed aconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the overall measurement model. In orderto evaluate the validity of measurement model, convergent validity was assessed.Convergent validity (factor loading more than 0.5 and Average Variance Extractedshared between constructs and measures more than 0.5) is the degree to which thefactors supposed to measure a single construct are in agreement with each other (Johnand Benet, 2000). Figure 2 shows the parameter estimates of the structural model of thispaper[1]. Afterwards, an inspection of the estimates of the model and assessment of theoverall fit indicators besides modification index can be made to evaluate the fit model.

This paper uses a SEM for validation and analysis of the examination ofreasonability of the research structure and the results of the research issues. Thestandardized coefficient of intrinsic motivational factors and intention to KS is 0.41,and the t-value is 14.61, p , 0.001, reaching the statistical significance. The resultsindicate that intrinsic motivational factors have a positive and direct influence onintention to KS. The standardized coefficient between extrinsic motivational factorsand intention to KS is 0.19, the t-value is 8.91, and the p is 0.001 which also reaches thestatistical significance. These numbers suggest that the extrinsic motivational factorshave a positive and direct influence on intention to KS. The standardized coefficientbetween accepted methods of KS and intention to KS is 0.30 and the t-value is 5.99 that


369

Figure 2.Research model in SEM

VINE43,3

370

also reaches the statistical significance. These numbers suggest that the acceptedmethods of KS have a positive and direct influence on intention to KS.

In addition, the higher the model fit the higher usability the model has, as far as themodel-fit assessment is concerned. That also means the parameter estimates are moremeaningful. This paper refers to absolute fit indicators, incremental fit indicators, andgoodness of fit index recommended by Hair et al. (1998) for the validation of overall fit.

Table VI shows all the overall fit indicators. Among the absolute fit indicators, thex2/df is 1.02, the Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value of this model is also 0.96, the rootmean square residual (RMR) value is 0.043, and the root mean square error ofapproximation (RMSEA) value is 0.008, all within an acceptable range, as suggested bypast scholars. Huang (2004) suggested that if the RMSEA value is between 0.05 and0.08, and the x2/df reach below 3, which imply a good fit.

As far as the incremental fit indicators are concerned, the adjusted goodness of fitindex (AGFI) value of this model is 0.95, the normal fit index (NFI) value is 0.96, thecomparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.96, and the incremental fit index (IFI) value is1.00, all the values reach the standards suggested in the literature. Among thegoodness of fit index, the parsimonious normal fit index (PNFI) value of this model is0.90 and the parsimonious goodness fit index (PGFI) value is 0.86. They are bothgreater than 0.5, reaching the standards suggested by previous scholars.

5.3.3 Structural model. The second step in model estimation was to examine thesignificance of each hypothesized path in the research model. Figure 2 shows thepractical model in the standard estimate. Since there was no possibility of entering thefull name of variables in the LISREL software, we entered them with a summarizationof the full name of variables, which are presented below Figure 2.

Table VII and Figure 2 show the results of hypothesis testing of the structuralrelationships among the latent variables. The path analysis results (Figure 2) show thatall hypotheses have significant effect, and are supported; thus, the proposed theoreticalmodel is partially supported. Supplying both intrinsic motivational factors (b ¼ 0.41,p , 0.01) and extrinsic motivational factors (b ¼ 0.19, p , 0.01,) increases theemployees’ intention to KS. Using the methods of KS that are interesting for employees(b ¼ 0.30, p , 0.01), have a positive effect on intention to KSB of the employees.

Fitness indicator Criteria Validation value Result

Absolute fit indicatorsx2/df ,3 1.02 CompliantGFI .0.90 0.96 CompliantRMR ,0.05 0.043 CompliantRMSEA ,0.05 – 0.08 0.008 Compliant

Incremental fit indicatorsAGFI .0.90 0.95 CompliantNFI .0.90 0.96 CompliantCFI .0.90 0.96 CompliantIFI .0.90 1.00 Compliant

Goodness of fit indexPNFI .0.5 0.90 CompliantPGFI .0.5 0.90 Compliant

Table VI.Goodness-of fit measures

of the SEM


371

Employees intention to KS (b ¼ 0.61, p , 0.01), in this study, shows a positive effect onKSB. Thus, it can be concluded that the research model is partially supported by the data.

6. DiscussionManagers, who understand the importance of KS, have been faced with this question:“what should they do for real KSB of employees?” To answer this question, theresearchers have attempted to identify the factors influencing the KS and presentedthem to the managers. Some of the most important of these factors include culture,organizational structure, technology and motivation. Managers are looking for thefactors that can be used easily, and are low-cost, in timely manner and have the bestresult in the KSB of employees. In large organizations, the employees have differentcultures, and making a culture for KS is highly complex. Changing the culture orcreating a new culture is time-consuming and costs a lot. Structural changing in largeorganizations cannot be done easily and needs to create the conditions for such astructural change. Use of technology for KSB has costs and needs to create thenecessary conditions for its acceptance by the employees. Among the effective factorsenumerated on KS, the one that plays an important role in KSB, could be cited as themotivation factor. The role of motivation factor is so important and fundamental thateven if the organizations provide all the factors affecting KS, except the motivationfactor, the actual behavior of KS will not occur. Although different researches haveintroduced motivation as a major factor in KSB, they could not provide acomprehensive response to this managers’ question that whether the motivationalfactors lead to KSB. Although some studies have attempted to introduce themotivational factors influencing the KS, the literature review shows contradictoryresults. This study was developed to provide practical solutions to managers for thepurpose of real KSB of employees. This study proposed motivations and methods ofKS for real KSB of employees. According to that, without using the methods of KS, itdoes not occur in the organization in actuality. Another question was as follows: “Whatmethods should be considered for KS?”. To answer this question, a variable wasintroduced as the “intention to methods of KS”. Using methods of KS that are not ofinterest for employees will not lead to KSB. In other words, even if motivational factorsare provided, by using the methods of KS that are not of interest for the employees, theKSB will not occur in practice. With this approach, the research model was developedby using of the motivational theories and the theory of planning behavior in order tohelp the managers to achieve the actual KSB of employees. This model examined theIranian RCs and showed supplying the motivational factors and methods of KS that

Hypothesis Path coefficient(b) Significant coefficient(t) Remarks

H1: IKS – – – – –KSB 0.61 * 14.61 SupportedH2: IMF – – – – IKS 0.41 * 8.91 SupportedH3: EMF – – – – IKS 0.19 * 5.99 SupportedH4: IMKS – – – – IKS 0.30 * 7.42 Supported

Notes: *Significant at the p , 0.01; IMF: Intrinsic motivational factors, EMF: Extrinsic motivationalfactors, IMKS: Intention to methods of knowledge sharing, IKS: Intention to knowledge sharingbehavior, KSB: knowledge sharing behavior

Table VII.Hypothesis testingresults

VINE43,3

372

are interesting to employees playing an important role in KSB. Another importantpoint that could be cited as a result of this study is the highlighted role of intrinsicmotivational factors rather than extrinsic ones in KSB in RCs. The results of studyshowed that unlike the public perception that the role of financial motivation andextrinsic is important, intrinsic motivational factors play more effective role in KSB.This means that in many cases, without spending much cost and only with a littlerespect to the employees and creating a bit of trust and honesty, the organizations canbring significant results in the KSB of employees. So, the model considered thatorganizations with low costs can achieve useful results in the sharing of knowledge.

The obtained results showed that among 25 considered intrinsic motivationalfactors for knowledge sharing only 15 factors were identified as the influencingmotivational factors on KS in research centers. The motivational factors, includingsense of belonging to the organization (Cruz et al., 2009), altruism (Weng and Cgen,2000), social reputation of the organization (experts), reciprocity (Weng and Cgen, 2000;Chen and Huang, 2010; Ipe, 2003), hope for the future of organization (experts),self-esteem (Yakhlef et al., 2009), expected contribution (Bock and Kim, 2002), approvaland confirmation by others (Harder, 2008), sense of ownership towards theorganization (experts) and boast of knowledge (experts) have not been recognized asintrinsic motivational factors in research centers. Although a specific reason cannot beexpressed to explain why these factors are not effective for the KSB of the employees ofthe research centers, we can surely say that the employees of research centers do notperform KSB in expecting others to do something for them, since retaliation, expectingothers’ help and also others’ confirmation and approval have not been recognized aseffective motivational factors on knowledge sharing. The interesting point is that noneof these factors are the factors introduced by motivational theories.

In contrast, factors such as friendly and intimate relations (Li and Poon, 2009; Ipe,2003; Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968; McClelland, 1987; Bock and Kim,2002; Hendriks, 1999), success at work (Li and Poon, 2009; McClelland, 1987; Herzberg,1968; Hendriks, 1999), respect (Maslow, 1968), social status (Li and Poon, 2009; Yakhlefet al., 2009; Maslow, 1968), self-management (Yakhlef et al., 2009; Maslow, 1968),learning (Alderfer, 1972; McClelland, 1987), organization’s compliance with demands(Maslow, 1968), KS usefulness (Chen and Huang, 2010), trust (Chun and Mei, 2009; Liand Poon, 2009; Cruz et al., 2009), honesty (Cruz et al., 2009), enjoyment of helpingothers (Chun and Mei, 2009), responsibility (Chun and Mei, 2009; McClelland, 1987;Hendriks, 1999), organizational justice, growth and improvement (Alderfer, 1972;Herzberg, 1968; McClelland, 1987) and religious beliefs have been recognized aseffective intrinsic motivational factors on knowledge sharing. Factors such as KSusefulness, trust, honesty and enjoying the process of helping others are related to KSin nature and the motivational theories have not mentioned them. Except for religiousbeliefs and organizational justice, which were evaluated according to the expertsopinions, other effective factors influencing the KSB in RCs are factors considered bythe motivational theories. Among the effective intrinsic motivational factors on KS inresearch centers, success in performing works, organization’s compliance with thedemands and organizational justice (Figure 2) have the most important role in KSB. Itmay refer to the fact that nothing is perhaps more attractive than doing successfulresearch according to the researchers. In other words, conducting successful researchcauses the satisfaction and fulfillment of the researchers so much that they easily


373

become willing to share their results with others. The organization’s compliance withthe demands is considered as the highest level of self-actualization, which is expressedin Maslow’s theory. The high rank of this factor in KSB shows that the researchers ofRCs often have passed the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy needs, and only theupper levels of the hierarchy create motivation for their knowledge sharing behavior.

The organizational justice has been perhaps considered as a cause for theresearchers, and ensuring of justice realization and injustice prevention might lead tocreate motivation for knowledge sharing behavior. In general, the intrinsicmotivational factors are factors that their provision by the organization leads toemployees’ tendency for knowledge sharing behavior, which was confirmed by H2.

Among 15 extrinsic motivational factors, only six factors were not identified asinfluencing factors on knowledge sharing, including: appropriateness of policies(Hendriks, 1999), participation in decision making (McClelland, 1987), appointment ofmanagerial jobs (McClelland, 1987), increased responsibility and authority transferring(McClelland, 1987), occupational health and safety (Maslow, 1968; Herzberg, 1968;Hendriks, 1999) and salary and wage (Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968).This shows that health factors and wages and salaries issues, which are almost goodenough in such centers, are not motivating. The researchers are not so willing tooccupy managerial occupations, since the management jobs separate the researchersfrom research affairs; for the same reason; management jobs are not known as amotivational factor. Given that the decisions made in the work environment are beingtaken in collaboration with the researchers in most cases, the factor of participation indecision making is not also significant to them. Among the extrinsic motivationalfactors, the ones such as financial and non-financial rewards (Cruz et al., 2009; Harder,2008; Cabrera et al., 2006; Ipe, 2003; Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Bock and Kim, 2002;Bock et al., 2005), job promotion (Herzberg, 1968; McClelland, 1987; Hendriks, 1999),working independence (Cruz et al., 2009; Harder, 2008; Hendriks, 1999; Herzberg, 1968),challenging work (McClelland, 1987; Herzberg, 1968), management support (Harder,2008), manager quality (Herzberg, 1968; Hendriks, 1999), recognition (Cruz et al., 2009;Li and Poon, 2009; Herzberg, 1968), and gaining publicity (McClelland, 1987; Weng andCgen, 2000) are effective on knowledge sharing behavior. Except for the managementsupport, other factors are those introduced in motivational theories. Among thesefactors, the factors including reputation gaining, manager proper quality andchallenging work showed the most influence on the behavior of KS (see Figure 2).Becoming famous in the organization and working with a manager considered by theresearchers as a qualified person have a direct effect on employees’ motivation inknowledge sharing. For the researchers, performing routine and daily tasks are notinteresting at all, and being involved with challenging tasks in need of solving aproblem or an issue is more attractive. The extrinsic motivational factors also lead tothe creation of interest for KSB that such an issue was confirmed as H3. Based on theresearch results, another effective variable in creating interest in employees toknowledge sharing was the intention to do it. Given that without using methods ofknowledge sharing, the KSB will not happen, the organization’s managers becameconfused in selecting such methods. Results showed that managers should use themethods that are interesting for the employees, since even all the motivational factorswill be provided, regardless of the favorite methods of sharing knowledge, the KSB willnot occur. The results of this study showed that doing team work, review after

VINE43,3

374

operation and peer assistance are the most favored methods of KS in research centers.The relationship between being interested in KS methods and intention to KS was alsoposed by H4 hypothesis which was confirmed. The results showed that the intention toKS in RCs will also lead to KSB.

7. ConclusionThe provided model of this research and all its hypotheses were confirmed bystructural equation modeling. The research fitted model indicates that simultaneousprovision of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors as well as applying the favoritemethods of knowledge sharing by the organization will lead to actual KS of behavior,and among these factors, the intrinsic motivational factors play the most importantrole in knowledge sharing behavior. Using the favorite methods of KS and providingextrinsic motivational factors are followed subsequently.

8. Research limitations and guidance for future researchDespite the performed efforts on introducing the methods and motivational factors,various considerations of employees regarding such methods and motivational factorscould be of the study’s limitations. The next large number of statistical samples canincrease the generalized ability of the research findings. Finally, due to the number ofmotivational factors and the various methods of KS included in the questionnaire, thehigh number of questions in the questionnaire was out of patience of the respondents insome cases.

Applying introduced model by this study in other environments, including productsenvironments, services etc., to achieve a practical and comprehensive model of KS in eachof the environments, studying various methods to share knowledge in variousorganizations and ultimately identifying the best possible method for KS of any activityare discussed to be the supplement to this research and suggestions for future researches.

Note

1. Notes for Figure 2: IMF1: Friendly and intimate relationship with colleagues, IMF2: Successat Work, IMF3: Respect of managers and colleagues, IMF4: Social status, IMF5:self-Management, IMF6: Learning of colleagues, IMF7: Organization’s compliance withdemands, IMF8:Usefulness of knowledge sharing, IMF9: Trust in colleagues, IMF10:Honesty, IMF11: Enjoy helping others, IMF12: Responsibility commitment and loyalty,IMF13: Organization of justice, IMF14: Organization’s growth and progress, IMF15:Religious beliefs; EMF1: Financial rewards, EMF2: Non-financial rewards, EMF3: Jobpromotion, EMF4: Autonomy of work, EMF5: Challenge of work, EMF6: Managementsupport, EMF7: Quality manager, EMF8: Recognition, EMF9: Reputation; IMKS1: PeerAssistance, IMKS2: After action Review, IMKS3: Mentoring, IMKS4: In-service training,IMKS5: Teamwork, IMKS6: Meeting, IMKS7: Community of practice, IMKS8: Seminar,IMKS9: Interaction with colleagues using information technology; IKS1: Intention to sharework experiences, IKS2: Intention to share ideas and opinions, IKS3: Intention to share theresults of activities, IKS4: Intention to answer questions, IKS5: Intention to share time forknowledge sharing; KSB1: Sharing the knowledge and work experience, KSB2: Sharing theideas and opinions, KSB3: Sharing the results of activities, KSB4: Replying to Questions,KSB5: timing for knowledge sharing; IMF: Intrinsic Motivational Factors, EMF: ExtrinsicMotivational Factors, IMKS: Intention to Methods of Knowledge Sharing, IKS: Intention toKnowledge Sharing Behavior, KSB: Knowledge Sharing Behavior.


375

References

APQC (1999), Creating a Knowledge-sharing Culture, American Productivity and Quality Center,Houston, TX.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2005), “The influence of attitudes on behavior”, in Albarracın, D.,Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), The Handbook of Attitudes, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ,pp. 173-221.

Akhavan, P., Hosnavi, R. and Sanjaghi, M. (2009), “Identification of knowledge managementcritical success factors in Iranian academic research centers”, Education, Business andSociety, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 276-288.

Akhavan, P., Edalati, M., Sharifi, S. and Hosnavi, R. (2010), “The challenges of knowledgemanagement portals application and implementation: an Iranian organizations case study”,International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 79-93.

Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammad, Y.F. (2007), “Organizational culture andknowledge sharing: critical success factors”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 22-42.

Alderfer, C.P. (1972), Existence, Relatedness and Growth, Free Press, New York, NY.

Allameh, S.M., Seyyedsadri, E. and Davoodi, S.M. (2008), “The effect of extrinsic and intrinsicmotivation on staff knowledge sharing intentions”, The International Journal ofKnowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 139-152.

Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), “Managing knowledge in organizations: anintegrative framework and review of emerging themes”, Management Science, Vol. 49No. 4, pp. 571-582.

Armstrong, M. (2009), “Strategic human resource management”, 11th ed., Kogan Page, London,p. 43.

Barachini, F. (2009), “Cultural and social issues for knowledge sharing”, Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 98-110.

Barney, J.B. and Hostelry, W. (2006), Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage:Concepts, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, J. and Matsumoto, I. (2008), “Ensuring the effectiveness of a knowledgemanagement initiative”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 16-29.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.

Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study ofattitudes about knowledge sharing”, Information Resources Management Journal,pp. 14-21.

Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, L.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation inknowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Bohn, R. (2000), “Stop fighting fires”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 83-91.

Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1992), Management, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Brehm, S., Kassin, S. and Fein, S. (2002), Social Psychology, 5th ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston,MA, pp. 59-60.

Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations offunctional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 875-893.

VINE43,3

376

Burgess, D. (2005), “What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit?”,Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 324-348.

CIDA (2003), Knowledge Sharing: Methods, Meetings and Tools (Hand Book), CanadianInternational Development Agency, Gatineau.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), “Determinants of individual engagement inknowledge sharing”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 2,pp. 245-264.

Chan, I.Y., Chen, N. and Kinshuk (2009), “Examining the factors influencing participantsknowledge sharing behavior”, Educational Technology and Society, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 134-148.

Chen, C.J. and Huang, J. (2007), “How organizational climate and structure affect knowledgemanagement: the social interaction perspective”, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 104-118.

Chen, C.J. and Huang, S.W. (2010), “To give or to receive? Factors influencing member’sknowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities”,Information and Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 226-236.

Chun, L. and Mei, C. (2009), “Factors affecting teachers’ knowledge sharing behaviors andmotivation: system functions that work”, National Changsha University of Education,Taiwan.

Cress, U. and Hesse, F.W. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in groups: experimental findings of how toovercome a social dilemma”, in Kafai, Y., Sandoval, W., Enydey, N., Nixon, A.S. andHerrera, F. (Eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the LearningSciences, pp. 150-157.

Cruz, N.M., Perez, V.M. and Cantero, C.T. (2009), “The influence of employee motivation onknowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 478-490.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage WhatThey Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Fridlund, A., Gleitman, H. and Reisberg, D. (1999), Introduction to Psychology, 5th ed.,W.W. Norton & Company, New York, NY, pp. 107-108.

Gagne, M. (2009), “A model of knowledge sharing motivation”, Human Resource Management,Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 571-589.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications forstrategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33, pp. 114-133.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Han, B.M. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2007), “Knowledge sharing in large IT organizations: a casestudy”, VINE: The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 37No. 4, pp. 421-439.

Hansen, M.T. (2002), “Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunitcompanies”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 232-248.

Hansen, S. and Avita, M. (2005), “Share and share alike: the social and technological influences onknowledge sharing behavior”, available at: http://sprouts.aisnet.org/5-13

Harder, M. (2008), “How do rewards and management styles influence the motivation to shareknowledge?”, SMG Working Paper No. 6.

Hass, M. and Hansen, M.T. (2007), “Different knowledge different benefits: toward a productivityperspective on knowledge sugaring in organization”, Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1133-1153.


377

Helmstadter, E. (2003), “The economics of knowledge sharing: a new institutional approach,challenge and benefit”, Communication of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 1No. 7, p. 182.

Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation forknowledge sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.

Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Horwitz, F.M. (2003), “Job rotation: its role in promoting learning in organizations”, Developmentand Learning in Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 7-9.

Huang, F. (2004), Social Science Statistics – Structural Equation Modeling, WuNan, Taipei.

Hung, Y.C., Huang, S.M., Lin, Q.P. and Tsai, M.L. (2005), “Critical factors in adopting aknowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry”, Industrial Management& Data Systems, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 164-183.

Huysman, M. and Wit, D. (2000), “Knowledge management in practice”, in Edwards, J. and Kidd, J.(Eds), Knowledge Management Conference (KMAC 2000), Birmingham.

Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human ResourceDevelopment Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.

Jafari, M. and Akhavan, P. (2007), “Essential changes for knowledge management establishmentin a country: a macro perspective”, European Business Review Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 89-110.

Jafari, M., Akhavan, P., Fesharaki, M. and Fathian, M. (2007), “Iran aerospace industries KMapproach based on a comparative study: a benchmarking on successful practices”,Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal, Vol. 79 No. 1,pp. 69-78.

Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Jahani, A. and Akhavan, P. (2008), “Exploring the contextual dimensionsof organization from knowledge management perspective”, VINE: The journal ofinformation and knowledge management systems, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 53-71.

James, T.C. and Seokwoo, S. (2011), “An exploratory examination of KS behaviors”, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 104-117.

John, O.P. and Benet, M.V. (2000), “Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scaleconstruction”, in Reis, H.T. and Judd, C.M. (Eds), Handbook of Research Methods in SocialPsychology, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 339-369.

Johnson, D. (2005), Innovation and Knowledge Management: Cancer Information ServiceResearch Consortium, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific SoftwareInternational, Chicago, IL.

Khakpour, A., Pardakhtchi, M.H. and Ghahreman, M. (2009), “The relation betweenorganizational culture and knowledge management”, The Journal of KnowledgeEconomy and Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 781-790.

Kim, A.J. (2008), Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, available at: http://stewardess.inhatc.ac.kr/philoint/general-data/maslow’s-hierarchy-of-needs-1.htm (accessed September 10, 2008).

King, W.R. (2005), “Knowledge sharing”, Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Idea Group,London, pp. 493-498.

King, W.R. (2006), “Maybe a knowledge culture isn’t always so important after all”, InformationSystems Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-89.

Kolekofski, K.E. and Heminger, A.R. (2003), “Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to shareinformation in an organizational setting”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 6,pp. 521-532.

VINE43,3

378

Kwok, S.H. (2005), “Critical success factors for effective knowledge sharing in group learning”,Department of Information and Systems Management, The Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology.

Li, R.Y.M. and Poon, S.W. (2009), “Future motivation in construction safety knowledge sharingby means of information technology in Hong Kong”, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 457-472.

Lin, H.F., Lee, H.S. and Wang, D.W. (2009), “Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharingbased on a fuzzy AHP approach”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-44.

Lin, H.F. (2007), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharingintentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.

Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004), “Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharingbehavior”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 108-125.

Lng, C.H., Hao, C.L. and Chih, H.C. (2006), “Constructing factors related to worker retention”,International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 491-508.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), “What should we do about motivation theory?Six recommendations for the twenty-first century”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 388-403.

MacNeil, M.C. (2003), “Line managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams”, EmployeeRelations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 294-307.

Manjit, S.S. and Kamal, K.J. (2011), “Knowledge sharing among public sector employees”,International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 206-226.

Maslow, A.H. (1968), Towards a Psychology of Being, Van Nostrand, New York, NY.

McClelland, D.C. (1987), Human Motivation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

McKenzie, J and van Winkelen, C. (2004), Understanding the Knowledgeable Organization,Cengage Learning, EMEA, Andover.

Mehralian, G., Rajabzadeh, A., Sadeh, M.R. and Rasekh, H.R. (2013), “Intellectual capital andcorporate performance in Iranian pharmaceutical industry”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 138-158.

Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 14.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Oliver, G. (2008), “Information culture: exploration of differing values and attitudes toinformation in organizations”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 363-385.

Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms”,Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 71-80.

Paul, V.B. (2001), “Measurement of conditions for knowledge sharing”, 2nd European Conferenceon KM, November.

Peters, L. (1997), Encyclopedia of Human Resources Management, Blackwell, Oxford.

Polani, M. (1996), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY.

Prodromos, D.C. and Vrimaki, E. (2009), “Knowledge sharing behavior of bank employees inGreece”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 245-266.

Raghu, T.S. and Vinze, A. (2007), “A business process context for knowledge management”,Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 1062-1079.

Reychav, I. and Jacob, W. (2010), “Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing”,Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 285-300.


379

Riege, A. (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.

Ryan, R. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and newdirection”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 54-67.

Ryu, S., Ho, S.H. and Han, I. (2003), “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals”,Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-122.

Sanchez, M.P.S. and Palacios, M.A. (2007), “Knowledge-based manufacturing enterprises:evidence from a case study”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 19 No. 4,pp. 447-468.

Scott, J.H. and Dail, F. (2010), “Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use”, Journal of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 128-140.

Shyh, R.F., Shin, C.F. and Ming, C.C. (2006), “The impact of internal marketing mechanism on KSmotivation and KS behavior”, Department of Business Administration, National ChungHsing University, Taiwan.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008), “How motivation, opportunity, andability drive knowledge sharing: the constraining-factor model”, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 426-445.

Skyrme, D.J. (2000), “Developing a knowledge strategy: from management to leadership”,in Morey, D. (Ed.), Knowledge Management, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sugurmaran and Bose (2003), “Application of knowledge management techniques in customerrelationship management”, Journal of Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 3-17.

Syed-Ikhsan, S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004), “Knowledge management in a public organization:study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance ofknowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.

Sylvio, C. and Chun, W.C. (2010), “The individual and social dynamics of knowledge sharing:an exploratory study”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 824-846.

Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2000), “It is what one does: why people participate and help others inelectronic communities of practice”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 155-173.

Watson, J. (2003), Applying Knowledge Management: Techniques for Building CorporateMemories, Morgan Kaufman, Burlington, MA, pp. 4-5.

Weng, C.L. and Cgen, L.F. (2000), “The effect of different motivation factors on knowledgesharing intention and behavior”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,National Central University and National Taipei University, Taiwan.

Willem, A. and Buelens, M. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes:the impact of organizational structure dimensions”, International Journal of InformationManagement, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 151-160.

Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollinghead, A.B. and Botero, I.C. (2004), “From cooperative to motivatedinformation sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm”,Communication Monographs, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 286-310.

Wright, P., McMahan, G. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human resources as a source of sustainedcompetitive advantage”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5.

Yakhlef, A., Sie, L. and Julen, P. (2009), “The effects of rewards on the motivation of experts totransfer their knowledge”, Proceedings of the 8th EURAM (European Academy ofManagement) Conference, Ljubljana and Bled, Slovenia, 14-17 May.

VINE43,3

380

Appendix

Figure A1.


381

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

382

Figure A1.


383

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

384

Figure A1.


385

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

386

Figure A1.


387

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

388

Figure A1.


389

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

390

Figure A1.


391

Figure A1.

VINE43,3

392

Corresponding authorPeyman Akhavan can be contacted at: [email protected]

Figure A1.


393

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers

Documents

Transcript of Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers