Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Culture in Malaysian
Technology Firms
**
Chee Wang Kent Kam* and Su Ann Liew
The increasingly dynamic general environment has put forward the
view that knowledge is the most strategically valuable asset in a firm.
The richness and diversity of knowledge with the complexity of
organizations has led to the emergence of knowledge management
as a key organizational capability in creating sustainable competitive
advantage. Understanding the underlying key factors in
organizational culture to foster knowledge-sharing behaviour of
employees is significant to make substantial developments in
knowledge management. Thus, this study aims to understand the five
factors – trust, communication, information system, extrinsic reward
and decentralization of organization structure, within organizational
culture that impact the knowledge sharing behaviour among
employees within the context of technology firms in Malaysia.
Selective sampling method was adopted in this study; data was
collected from 100 respondents through self-administered
questionnaires and online survey through e-mail to the employees.
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software was
employed with confirmatory quantitative research and linear
regression analysis was used in this study. The results have shown
that trust, communication and information system do have a
significant impact in knowledge-sharing behaviour of employees.
Results also presented the insignificance of extrinsic rewards and
decentralization of organizational structure on knowledge-sharing
behaviour. The results are consequently used in providing insights to
foster the knowledge sharing behaviour in technology firms while
addressing the relationships in the results. This research also seeks
to determine the vital organizational factors in facilitating the
knowledge sharing process and improving the knowledge
management of technology industry in Malaysia. Recommendations,
limitations within the scope and further studies for the future were
also suggested in this study to improve the understanding of
knowledge sharing behaviours within the Malaysian technology
sector.
Track: Management
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, technology firms, Malaysia
1. Background
Organizations from different industries have associated themselves as technology
companies incorporating advanced high-tech approaches in their operation,
manufacturing, servicing and consultancy. Ismail and Ajagbe (2013) stressed that
the Malaysian government has shown great support in the commercialization of
technology firms to remain competitive. As of 2013, companies with Multimedia
Super Corridor (MSC) status attracted RM3 billion of investment; 22% comprised
*
Mr. Chee Wang Kent Kam, Department of Economics and Management, Sunway University
Business School, Malaysia, Email: kentkennyk@gmail.com
**
Dr. Su Ann Liew, Department of Economics and Management, Sunway University Business School,
Malaysia, Email: suannl@sunway.edu.my
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
foreign direct investment (MSC, 2013). Given the nature of technology companies
that deal with the flow of knowledge and information, organizations are getting more
and more conscious about the power of knowledge sharing (KS) in the business
setting, especially in view of the transformation of Malaysia from a labour and
technology intensive economy to a knowledge-based economy. KS requires the
cooperation of individuals to achieve common benefits and therefore, organizational
culture that deals with the common belief, expectations, norms and values by
employees plays an important role. Hence, the importance of organizational cultural
factors in knowledge management in the context of Malaysian technology companies
should not be overlooked.
2. Literature Review
Knowledge sharing (KS) is described as the exchange of knowledge among
employees, knowledge content, organizational context, appropriate media and
societal environment (Lee and Suliman, 2002). Organizations have been deploying
strategies to encourage the stimulation for KS among employees. Lee and Suliman
(2002) have concluded from different interpretations of frameworks that KS is
primarily affected by the people, KS attitude, organizational climate, intention to
share knowledge and KS behaviour. Davenport and Prusak (2000) have agreed that
cultures that do not foster a learning environment will obstruct the processes of KS.
Hence, a successful KS culture lies in the strong consideration for KS (King and
Marks, 2008; Yang and Chen, 2007).
This leads to an organizational culture that fosters knowledge sharing (KS) as it is
constantly shaping the employee’s belief, understanding and behaviour in the
attainment of organizational goals (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). In addition,
organizational culture is seen as a manifestation of national and societal culture
which affects organizational behaviour (Kreitner et al., 2002). Pasher and Ronen
(2011) contended that the critical success factor for KS lies in the shared values and
culture in the organizational context. Hence, this research aims to assess the
relationship of five variables – trust, communication, information system, extrinsic
reward and decentralization of organizational structure, in respect to KS behaviour.
These variables were selected from the framework of Gupta and Govindarajan
(2000) and adopted from the Bahraini context (Al-Alawi et al., 2007). The five
variables have been explored by past researchers in several different contexts
(Wong, 2005; Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004; Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Bartol
and Locke, 2000; Robbins, 1990).
Interpersonal trust is a state of psychology in which an individual is able to be open
to the actions of another (Six, 2007). Trust in the organization has been said to
enhance the knowledge sharing (KS) between employees as it allows employees to
share information easily (Wong, 2005). Employees with motivation to share
knowledge will not share knowledge to those they do not trust, making trust the most
vital determinant in KS behaviour (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Mishra and Morrissey
(1990) explained that the interpersonal trust is exhibited via sharing of internal
feelings and perceptions among employees as well as the exchange of personal and
intimate information. In addition, Kankanhalli et al. (2005) argued that trust in
organizational culture reduces the perceived cost on KS, allowing employees to
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
share knowledge freely. Inversely, scholars also agreed that the sense of distrust is
a detrimental factor in the process of KS (Abrams et al., 2003; Borgatti and Cross,
2003).
Next, communication between employees is said to enhance knowledge sharing
(KS) behaviour. Van de Hooff and de Ridder (2004, p. 120) described KS as ‘a form
of communication’ and Cummings (2004) justifies that the exchange and sharing of
ideas in a firm occur with the communication and interaction between employees in
an organization. Communication is a medium among individuals to attain a mutual
understanding via the flow of knowledge (Taylor and Van Every, 2000). A supportive
communication climate is important for the KS process in a learning organization
whereby there is high accessibility and transference of information with cooperative
interactions embedded within the culture of KS (van den Hooff and de Ridder, 2004;
Shamsavari et al., 2002). Upper management has supported the communication
among staff in an organization with the deployment of communication media such as
telephone, email and teleconferencing (Gumus, 2007). Hence, communication
without barrier could encourage the process of knowledge creation and KS,
implicating that communication fosters KS behaviour (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999).
Information system (IS) is defined as a ‘system that combines information
technology, people and data to support business’ (Shelly and Rosenblatt, 2012, p. 7).
The use of technologies such as e-mail, intranet, bulletin board and newsgroup as
tools of knowledge management system (KMS) in an organization can facilitate
knowledge sharing (KS) among employees (Bhatt, 2001) and various KMS tools are
used in sharing knowledge such as explicit knowledge, know-how, know-who and
tacit knowledge in the organization (Vizcaino, 2007). Hendriks (1999) supported this
idea and reasoned that technology removes the barriers between knowledge
workers and improve the accessibility to knowledge. Hence, the effectiveness and
usefulness is viable from the implementation of IS to influence the KS behaviour
(Jones and Borgman, 2007; Fong and Chu, 2006; Hall, 2001).
Reward is a form of acknowledgement in an organization to employees and comes
in both monetary and non-monetary incentives (Srivastava et al., 2006). Employees
will behave in characteristics which they believe will be rewarded (Mullins, 2002).
Rewards in this context could be best inferred from the definition by Srivastava et al.
(2001), whereby it involves tangible rewards such as monetary payment and
financial compensation to influence knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour. Financial
incentives and bonuses are commonly used to foster the willingness to share
knowledge (Hall, 2001). Beer and Nohria (2000) mentioned that incentive schemes
and reward mechanisms motivate employees to engage in KS activities. Employees
generally will only share knowledge if engaging in KS will yield benefits higher than
the cost of doing so, referred to as the economic exchange theory (Constant et al.,
1994). Such benefits include performance-based pay system, bonus and higher
salary (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). However, several researchers have opposing views
regarding the effectiveness of extrinsic rewards in encouraging KS behaviour (Lin,
2007; Bock et al., 2005; Park and Im, 2003; Bock and Kim, 2002, Bartlett and
Ghoshal, 1998). Abdullah and Gallagher (1995) explained that the underlying reason
could be due to the differences in culture, which yield different outcomes based on
national cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010a). Nonetheless, an incentive system should
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
be deployed with KS processes and such practice should be tied to rewards system
of an organization, to incentivize employees to share knowledge. Hence, extrinsic
rewards is said to be a factor for KS behaviour (Hansen, et al., 1999; Quinn et al.,
1996).
Daft (2010, p. 90) explained that organizational structure relates to the ‘formal
reporting relationship, including the number of levels in the hierarchy and the span of
control of managers and supervisors’. There are varying degrees of centralization of
an organizational structure, characterized by the level of decision-making by the
higher level of the organizational hierarchy (Robbins and Decenzo, 2001). Early
explanations of decentralization were associated with the ‘dispersal of formal power
and decisional power’ (Mintzberg, 1979, pp. 185–186). Wei et al. (2006) added that a
centralized structure impedes the interaction of people in the organization and
affects the opportunity to transfer knowledge. Hence, knowledge sharing (KS) takes
place easily in a decentralized firm as discussions are made in decision-making
(Robbins, 2003). Macharzina et al. (2001, p. 642) justified that decentralized
organizations are relatively more ‘adaptive’, ‘innovative’ and ‘reactive’ to the
business environment. However, Malaysian organizational structures are generally
rigid and centralized with rules and regulations where there is a low level of
employee participation in an organization’s decision-making process, high power
distance and high uncertainty avoidance, making bureaucratic structures and
centralized organizational structures evident among Malaysian organizations
(Hofstede et al., 2010b; Azudin et al., 2009; Hofstede, 1984). Chong and Choi (2005)
asserted that this will eventually hinder the process of KS. Hence, minimal level of
organizational hierarchy system and decentralized decision-making will better
encourage KS (Covin et al., 1994).
2.2 Theoretical Framework
Based on the literature review, the following theoretical framework was constructed,
as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
Trust
H1
Interaction between staff
H2
Information system
H3
H4
Rewards
Organizational structure
H5
Knowledge sharing
behaviour
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Based on the review of literature, following five hypotheses were proposed in this
study
H1: There is a significant positive relationship between trust and knowledge sharing
behavior among organizational employees
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between interaction between staff and
knowledge-sharing behaviour among organizational employees.
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between implementation of information
system and sharing behavior among organizational employees
H4: There is a significant positive relationship between extrinsic rewards and sharing
behavior among organizational employees.
H5: There is a significant positive relationship between decentralized organizational
structure and knowledge-sharing behavior among organizational employees.
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Research Objectives
The objectives of this study are:
1. To examine what technology firms have to consider in fostering an
organizational culture of knowledge sharing.
2. To determine whether factors in organizational culture namely trust,
communication between staff, information system, rewards and organizational
structure have an impact in influencing the knowledge sharing behaviour
among employees.
3. To understand how organizations can improve knowledge sharing behaviour
among employees in technology firms.
3.2 Survey Design
The study was conducted using quantitative research approach to assess
employees’ knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour according to respondents’ opinions
and perceptions regarding each of the studied elements in organizational culture –
trust, communication, information system, extrinsic rewards and decentralization of
organizational structure. A questionnaire was designed for the survey method used
in this research from the adaptation of several researchers (Eze et al., 2013; Casimir
et al., 2012; Chong et al., 2012; Tohidinia and Mosakhani, 2010; Al-Alawi et al.,
2007; Kim and Lee, 2004; Lee and Choi, 2003). Each variable was measured by
obtaining the respondents’ extent of agreement to the corresponding indicators in the
questionnaire statements. The extent of agreement was measured through a Likert
scale assessment ranging from 1 to 5: 1 for ‘strongly disagree’, 2 for ‘disagree’, 3 for
‘neither disagree nor agree’, 4 for ‘agree’ and 5 for ‘strongly agree’.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
The research activity took place in several technology firms where permission and
appointments for participation in research activities were scheduled with each
company’s general manager. Besides that, e-surveys through online intermediaries
such as ‘Survey Monkey’ and ‘Google Forms’ were created in facilitating the method
of e-survey to selected respondents. Selective sampling method was deployed in
this study and a total of 100 surveys were used for the analysis of the results in the
context of the Malaysian technology industry. Appointments were scheduled with
human resource managers in technology firms in the Klang Valley to gain access to
eligible respondents. Self-administered questionnaires and distribution of e-surveys
via e-mail to working employees in technology firms were used to obtain
respondents’ answers. The sampling methods and processes deployed were to
ensure better results and wider coverage within the firms.
3.3 Measurement Model
Data reduction technique involving factor analysis through principal component
analysis was performed to eliminate the number of predictive variables and to
identify underlying trends in variables (Bair et al., 2006). The explanatory variables in
a regression model were used to explain the knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour
among organizational employees with five variables: trust, communication between
staff, information system, extrinsic rewards and decentralization of organizational
structure. Other than that, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used in
identifying the existence of a link between the demographic factors and KS
behaviour of employees (Miller, 1986).
3.4 Preliminary Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted on 30 respondents to assist in the further development
of the questionnaire and to test the feasibility of the questionnaire, ensuring the
consistency and stability of the measurement scale of the research. The data for
these respondents were collected and reliability test conducted to achieve
Cronbach’s alpha of higher than 0.6.
4. Findings
4.1 Respondents’ Profile
The overall sample collected was 100 respondents, consisting of an equal
percentage of males (50%) and females (50%). Majority of the respondents fall in the
age range of 20 – 24 (61%), followed by 25 – 29 (19%) and 30 – 34 (14%) while the
least was respondent aged 35 – 40 years old and below 20 which consist of 4% and
2% respectively, in this study. Furthermore, about half of the sampled respondents
have working experience of 1 – 5 years (51%), followed by less than one year (29%),
6 – 10 years (17%) and 11 – 15 years (3%). For highest level of education
attainment, majority of the respondents have a bachelor’s degree (80%) followed by
postgraduate
degree
(12%),
professional
qualification
(4%)
and
Diploma/Foundation/A-level certificate (4%). Lastly, in terms of working position,
majority hold executive level positions (46%) followed by executive managerial level
(33%) and senior managerial level (21%).
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the relationship among variables
with the use of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, with the factor loading with rotated component matrix
used for the data reduction technique.
The KMO value shows 0.582, justifying an appropriate sample. The approximate chisquare for Bartlett’s test is 991.857 with a significant p-value <0.05, suggesting that
the correlation matrix is appropriate for factoring.
The principal component factor analysis with Varimax rotation was used for data
reduction to validate the underlying structure of various constructs of organizational
culture. 30 questionnaire items for the independent variables were sorted into five
components and six items were removed from the various components. These items
were removed from their respective variables as they did not fit into the respective
constructs or the factor loadings were lower than 0.4.
4.3 Reliability Analysis
Table 1 show that all the independent variables (Trust, Communication, Information
System, Rewards, Organizational Structure) have a Cronbach’s Alpha of higher than
0.6, implying that the variables are reliable for this study.
Table 1: Reliability for independent and dependent variables
Variable
No of items
Cronbach Alpha
Knowledge sharing
6
0.687
Trust
5
0.656
Communication
5
0.695
Information system
5
0.785
Rewards
4
0.746
Organizational structure
4
0.698
4.4 Multiple Regression Analysis
Referring Table 2, the R square is 0.471, implying that the model explains up to
47.1% of the variance in the dependent variable of knowledge sharing (KS)
behaviour.
Model
1
Table 2: Model Summary of Multiple Linear Regression
R
R Square
Adjusted R
Std. Error of
Square
the Estimate
.686
.471
.443
.30410
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the significance of the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Table 3 also shows
that the F-value is 16.719 with a p-value of less than 0.05, indicating that the overall
regression is significant.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Table 3: ANOVA of Multiple Linear Regression
Sum of
df
Mean
F
Squares
Square
Regression
7.731
5
1.546
16.719
Residual
8.693
94
.092
Total
16.423
99
Model
1
Sig
.000
Table 4 shows that the three independent variables: trust, communication and
information system have a significant positive relationship with knowledge sharing
(KS) behaviour, whereas extrinsic rewards and the decentralization of organizational
structure have no significant positive relationship with KS behaviour.
Model
Table 4: Coefficient Summary
Unstandardized Standardized
t
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Trust
Communication
Information
system
Reward
Organization
structure
1.241
.287
.211
Std.
Error
.373
.061
.067
.261
Beta
Sig.
95.0%
Confidence
Interval for B
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
.001
.501 1.980
.000
.167
.408
.002
.079
.343
.127
.384
.000
.376
.248
3.330
4.730
3.172
.062
.344
4.196
.018
.052
.027
.356 .723
.001
.049
.002
.026 .979
-.085
-.095
.121
.098
4.5 Hypothesis Testing
Table 5: Decisions of Hypothesis Testing based on P-Value
Variables
Hypothesis Testing
P-Value Testing Decision
Trust
H1: There is a significant
.000
P < 0.05 Accepted
positive relationship between
trust and knowledge sharing
behaviour among organizational
employees
Communication H2: There is a significant
.002
P < 0.05 Accepted
positive relationship between
interaction between staff and
knowledge-sharing
behaviour
among
organizational
employees.
Information
H3: There is a significant
.000
P < 0.05 Accepted
System
positive relationship between
implementation of information
system and sharing behaviour
among
organizational
employees
Rewards
H4: There is a significant
.723
P > 0.05 Rejected
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Organizational
structure
positive relationship between
extrinsic rewards and sharing
behaviour among organizational
employees.
H5: There is a significant
positive relationship between
decentralized
organizational
structure
and
knowledgesharing
behaviour
among
organizational employees.
.979
P > 0.05
Rejected
5. Summary and Conclusions
The results of this study show that certain elements in an organization’s culture are
positively related to the knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour among employees. These
elements are trust, communication and information system. However, other elements
namely reward and organizational structure were tested and have no significance on
KS behaviour.
The positive relationship of trust and knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour was
consistent with the literature review. This highest contributing factor is consistent with
the findings by Ardichvili et al. (2003) which highlighted that trust is the most
important determinant in KS behaviour. The process of KS is interpersonal and it
relies heavily on the sense of trust as a sense of mistrust will inhibit the KS
behaviour among employees, even for those who are motivated to share knowledge
(Ardichvili, Page and Wentling, 2003; Rousseau et al., 1998). Malaysian technology
firm employees generally share knowledge with the foundation of trust where
knowledge are only shared with people whom they support and care in the
organization.
Besides that, communication is shown to have a significant positive relationship with
knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour. Communication in the context of organizations is
a process of KS and the flow of knowledge occurs with interaction and human
communication (Kumaraswamy and Chitale, 2012; Taylor and Van Every, 2000).
Ideas are exchanged and knowledge is shared from the communication that occurs
in Malaysian technology firms. Indeed, technology firms in Malaysia which deal with
information technology and the competitive technology industry demand the sharing
of knowledge to be at its finest and employees are constantly engaged in social
interaction such as discussions and meetings in attaining a mutual understanding in
the organization (Taylor and Van Every, 2000).
Similarly, information system (IS) shows a significant positive relationship with
knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour. The presence of IS will encourage KS behaviour
as employees are provided with the technological accessibility in sharing knowledge,
such as ICT (Riege, 2005). IS also allows obstacles to share knowledge to be
alleviated, encouraging the KS behaviour (Bhatt, 2001; Hendriks, 1999). Technology
firms in Malaysia are gradually becoming virtual where virtual teams are connected
via IS with a supportive team culture (Aripin, Hasrina and Hussein, 2011; Park,
Ribiere and Schulte D., 2004) and the deployment of IS allows the facilitation of KS.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
However, extrinsic rewards failed to show a significant positive relationship with
knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour. It was inferred that extrinsic rewards enhance
the intention to share knowledge (Hall, 2001). Extrinsic rewards is perceived as the
benefits sought upon engaging in KS activities to compensate the cost of doing so
(Constant, Kiesler and Sproull, 1994). The rejection of the hypothesis (H4 in Table 5)
is justified by the collectivist culture in Malaysia (Hofstede et al., 2010a) which values
the spirit of ‘togetherness’ rather than focusing on material benefits. Furthermore, the
Malaysian values which suggest co-operation and less competition with each other
indicate that employees are mainly motivated by intrinsic rewards rather than
extrinsic rewards (Abdullah, 2001). Receiving extrinsic rewards as a result of sharing
knowledge could be perceived as selfish and materialistic (Chong, Teh and Asmawi,
2012). In line with Bartlett and Ghoshal’s (1998) justification, extrinsic rewards could
eventually lead to competition and impede the KS process and contradict Malaysia’s
collectivist culture. Hence, the results of this study show that extrinsic rewards are
ineffective in stimulating the KS behaviour among employees in Malaysian
technology firms, supporting the opposing view of extrinsic rewards as a determinant
for KS behaviour (Lin, 2007; Bock et al., 2005; Park and Im, 2003; Bock and Kim,
2002, Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1998).
Lastly, it was concluded that organizational structure too, has an insignificant
relationship with knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour among Malaysian employees in
technology firms. It was generally assumed that a decentralized structure will foster
KS behaviour as participation of employees and discussions are valued in the
decision-making process (Yang and Chen, 2007; Wei, Choy and Yeow, 2006; SyedIkhsan and Rowland, 2004; Robbins, 2003). However, findings of this study have
indicated otherwise. This is explained by the Malaysian culture that is generally
different from the Western perspective; Malaysia has a much higher power distance
and greater uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede et al., 2010b). This shows that
Malaysians generally accept high power distance, as supported by Ansari et al.
(2004) where Malaysian employees have a preference for a centralized, hierarchical
structure in the organization. Furthermore, Malaysians are insecure about sharing
their knowledge with their superiors, fearing that they will be ‘penalized’ with adverse
consequences (Azudin et al., 2009). Hence, it can be postulated that Malaysian
technology firms’ decision-making lies with the senior management. This study has
justified that KS is not enhanced by the decentralization of the organization.
In studying the elements within the organizational culture which are imperative in
fostering the knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour of technology employees,
employees could generate new knowledge and actively engage in idea generation
and innovation to effectively attain organizational goals and to gain competitive
advantage. Human resource managers are constantly improving the settings within
the organizational culture to allow and influence employees to effectively contribute
to the knowledge base within technology firms. From an internal resource-based
view, the exploitation of core competencies and sustainable competitive advantage
are cultivated from internal knowledge, as a result of knowledge management.
Hence, contribution to knowledge management stems from the KS culture that a firm
could cultivate from elements within the organizational culture. This study has
addressed five elements – trust, communication, information system, reward system
and organizational structure.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
As hypothesized based on the review of literature, it was believed that knowledge
sharing (KS) behaviour is significantly influenced by elements within organizational
culture, namely, trust, communication, information system, extrinsic rewards and
decentralization of organizational structure. Yet, this study has shown several
outcomes that shed light in the context of Malaysian technology firms. Firstly, this
study has shown that a culture of trust is the main determinant of KS behaviour. By
shaping a culture of trust, employees feel secure and safe to share genuine
knowledge in the organization. By instilling a sense of trust within the organization,
employees would openly engage in any form of KS activities including the
interaction, sharing of information and exchange of knowledge to contribute to the
knowledge base and thus add value to the firm. Secondly, this study also shows that
the appropriate utilization of information system (IS) encourages employees to
engage in the KS process. The deployment of IS allows employees to easily access
and engage among themselves and to participate in KS activities, while allowing
information to be transmitted easily within the organization. This then creates a
supportive communication climate that encourages employees to actively engage in
KS and to freely share knowledge through the interaction and collaboration within the
organization. Nonetheless, KS is a process that requires mutual agreement,
discussion and exchange of ideas through communication in the organization.
Hence, management within the firms are accountable for fostering an organizational
culture that stimulates open communication and allows employees to be actively
involved in KS. In the case of extrinsic rewards and decentralization of organizational
structure, employees within the context of Malaysian technology firms feel that these
factors play an unimportant role in stimulating KS behaviour. Considering Malaysia’s
socio-cultural value system embedded in Malaysian employees, it is ineffective to
provide extrinsic rewards to influence a certain behaviour. KS is regarded as a
spontaneous activity and having it tied to any form of extrinsic rewards would be
deemed ineffective within the technology firm setting. Indeed, Malaysians are
generally motivated by self-interest, rather than by the material value to share
knowledge, as evident in this study. Lastly, while decentralization of an
organizational structure was shown to be insubstantial in creating a KS culture, it is
important to note that the right level of centralization is needed for KS opportunities
among employees in view of the societal culture. Managers are to exercise the right
level of centralization to ensure the opportunities to share knowledge by employees
are not compromised. By aligning the contributing factors of KS behaviour in
technology firms in Malaysia, knowledge management as a key in capturing
intellectual assets will be effectively deployed to aid the attainment of organizational
strategic objectives. To summarize, trust, communication and IS are the important
factors that instil KS behaviour among employees in technology firms.
There are some limitations in this study which could be considered in future
research. Firstly, this study only assessed several elements of organizational culture;
other possible contributing factors in an organization’s culture that could influence
knowledge sharing (KS) behaviour were not covered in this research. Furthermore,
the generalizability of this research may be oriented only towards technology firms
within the Malaysian context. In addition, the quantitative methodology did not take
into account qualitative information that might be valuable in addressing the research
objectives as human behaviour is naturally subjective and difficult to be quantified.
Besides that, the limitations of the survey instrument used in this study should be
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
considered as a five-point Likert scale was used in measuring the determinants of
KS behaviour.
Future studies considering other underlying dimensions in organizational culture
should be done to increase the understanding of knowledge sharing (KS). As this
research was done in technology firms within the context of Malaysia, it is proposed
that future research could be conducted in other industries such as the rapidly
growing Malaysian banking industry and service industry. In addition, a cross-cultural
study is also suggested. To reiterate, organizational culture is a reflection of societal
culture. Therefore, further research could be undertaken in different contexts with
differing societal and national values, such as in Australia, Japan and India, to
incorporate potential cultural theories into the field of knowledge management.
Knowledge management could then be implemented even more effectively in
organizations.
References
Abdullah, A., 2001. Understanding the Malaysian Workforce: Guidelines for
Managers. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of Management, p.223.
Abdullah, A. and Gallagher, E.L., 1995. Managing with Cultural differences.
Malaysian Management Review, 30(2), pp.1–18.
Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E. and Levin, D.Z., 2003. Nurturing Interpersonal
Trust in Knowledge-Sharing Networks. Academy of Management Executive,
17(4), pp.64–77.
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, 11(2), pp.22–42.
Ansari, M.A., Ahmad, Z.A. and Aafaqi, R., 2004. Organizational Leadership in the
Malaysian Context. In: Leading In High Growth Asia: Managing Relationship
For Teamwork And Change. [online] Singapore: World Scientific Publishing,
pp.109–138. Available at: <http://people.uleth.ca/~mahfooz.ansari/2004 Book
Chapter 5-Leading in High Growth Asia.pdf>.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T., 2003. Motivation and Barriers to
Participation in Virtual Knowledge- Sharing Communities Of Practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 7(1), pp.64–77.
Aripin, N., Hasrina, M. and Hussein, A., 2011. Virtual Teams in Malaysia: A
Qualitative Investigation in Multimedia Super Corridor Status Companies.
Journal of Techno-Social, 2(1), pp.37–58.
Azudin, N., Ismail, N. and Taherali, Z., 2009. Knowledge Sharing Among Workers:A
Study on Their Contribution through Informal Communication In Cyberjaya,
Malaysia. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal,
1(2), pp.139–162.
Bair, E., Hastie, T., Paul, D. and Tibshirani, R., 2006. Prediction by Supervised
Principal Components. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
101(473), pp.119–137.
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S., 1998. Beyond Strategic Planning to Organization
Learning: Lifeblood Of The Individualized Corporation. Strategy & Leadership,
January/Fe, pp.34–39.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A., 2000. Incentives and Motivation. In: Compensation in
Organizations: Progress and prospects. San Francisco, CA: Lexington Press,
pp.104–147.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N., 2000. Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, pp.133–141.
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H., 1999. Organizational Factors and Knowledge
Management within Large Marketing Departments: An Empirical Study. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 3(3), pp.212–25.
Bhatt, G.D., 2001. Knowledge Management In Organizations: Examining the
Interaction Between Technologies, Techniques, and People. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(1), pp.68–75.
Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G., 2002. Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory
Study of Attitudes About Knowledge Sharing. Information Resources
Management Journal, 15(2), pp.14–21.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N., 2005. Behavioural Intention
Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators,
Social-Psychological Forces and Organizational Climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
pp.87–111.
Borgatti, S.P. and Cross, R., 2003. A Relational View of Information Seeking and
Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), pp.432–445.
Casimir, G., Lee, K. and Loon, M., 2012. Knowledge Sharing: Influences of Trust,
Commitment and Cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), pp.740–753.
Chenhall, R. and Smith, L., 2003. Performance Measurement and Reward Systems,
Trust and Strategic Change. Journal of Management Accounting Researc,
15(1), pp.117–143.
Chong, C.W., Teh, P.-L. and Asmawi, A., 2012. Knowledge Sharing Practices in
Malaysian MSC Status Companies. Journal of Knowledge Management
Practice, 13(1).
Chong, S.C. and Choi, Y.., 2005. Critical Factors in the Successful Implementation of
Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 6.
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, 5(4),
p.400−421.
Covin, J.G., Slevin, D.P. and Schultz, R.L., 1994. Implementing Strategic Missions:
Effective Strategic, Structural and Tactical Choices. Journal of Management
Studies, 31(4), pp.481–506.
Cummings, J.N., 2004. Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing In
a Global Organization. Management Science, 50(3), p.352−364.
Daft, R.L., 2010. Organization Theory and Design. 10th ed. [online] Mason: Cengage
Learning.
Available
at:
<http://khaliqcheema.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/otad_10e.pdf>.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., 2000. Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know. Boston, p.199.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A., 1982. Corporate Culture: The Rights and Rituals of
Corporate Life. Reading, MA.
Eze, U.C., Goh, G.G.G., Goh, C.Y. and Tan, T.L., 2013. Perspectives of SMEs on
Knowledge Sharing. Vine, 43(2), pp.210–236.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Fong, P.S. and Chu, L., 2006. Exploratory Study of Knowledge Sharing in
Contracting Companies: A Sociotechnical Perspective. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, September, pp.928–939.
Gumus, M., 2007. The Effect Of Communication On Knowledge Sharing in
Organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, [online] 8(2).
Available at: <http://www.tlainc.com/articl133.htm>.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V., 2000. Knowledge Management’s Social
Dimension: Lesson from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review, 42(1),
pp.71–81.
Hall, H., 2001. Social Exchange for Knowledge Exchange. Managing Knowledge:
Conversations
and
Critiques.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/3276/1/hall.pdf>.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T., 1999. What’s Your Strategy For Knowledge
Management? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), pp.104–116.
Hendriks, P., 1999. Why share knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation
for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, [online] 6(2),
pp.91–100. Available at: <http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/%28SICI%2910991441%28199906%296%3A2%3C91%3A%3AAID-KPM54%3E3.0.CO%3B2M>.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Michael, M., 2010a. Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. USA: McGraw-Hill, p.576.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M., 2010b. Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan
Hofstede, Michael Minkov. 3rd ed. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G.J., 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications, p.327.
Van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J.A., 2004. Knowledge Sharing in Context: the
Influence of Organizational Commitment, Communication Climate and CMC
Use on Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, [online] 8(6),
pp.117–130.
Available
at:
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13673270410567675> [Accessed 29
Apr. 2014].
Ismail, K. and Ajagbe, M.A., 2013. The Roles of Government in the
Commercialization of Technology Based Firms. Middle-East Journal of
Scientific Research, 16(2), pp.229–236.
Jones, N.B. and Borgman, R.H., 2007. An Exploratory Study on Knowledge Sharing,
Information Technologies and Firm Performance. OR Insight, 20(4), pp.10–21.
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, 29(1), pp.113–143.
Kim, S. and Lee, H., 2004. Organizational Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing
Capabilities in E-government : An Empirical Study. pp.281–293.
King, W.R. and Marks, P. V., 2008. Motivating Knowledge Sharing Through a
Knowledge Management System. Omega, [online] 36(1), pp.131–146.
Available
at:
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305048305001763>.
Kreitner, R., Kinicki, A. and Marc, B., 2002. Organizational Behaviour. 2nd ed.
Berkshire: McGraw-Hill, p.636.
Kumaraswamy, K.S.N. and Chitale, C.M., 2012. Collaborative Knowledge Sharing
Strategy to Enhance Organizational Learning. Journal of Management
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Development,
[online]
31(3),
pp.308–322.
Available
at:
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02621711211208934> [Accessed 29
Apr. 2014].
Lee, C.K. and Suliman, A., 2002. Factors Impacting Knowledge Sharing. Journal of
Information & Knowledge Management, 1(1), pp.49–56.
Lee, H. and Choi, B., 2003. Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and
Organizational Performance : An Integrative View and Empirical Examination.
Journal of Management Information System, 20(I), pp.179–228.
Lin, H.F., 2007. Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Knowledge
Sharing Intentions. Journal of Information Science, [online] 33(2), pp.135–149.
Available at: <http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0165551506068174>
[Accessed 5 Aug. 2014].
Macharzina, K., Oesterle, M.J. and Brodel, D., 2001. Learning in Multinationals. In:
Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp.631–656.
Miller, R.G., 1986. Beyond ANOVA: Basics of Applied Statistics. New York: Wiley.
Mintzberg, H., 1979. The Structuring of Organizations. [online] Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice
Hall.
Available
at:
<http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0907/ML090710600.pdf>.
Mishra, J. and Morrissey, M., 1990. Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships: A
Survey Of West Michigan Firms. Public Personnel Management, 19(4),
pp.443–463.
MSC, 2013. MSC Malaysia Annual Industry Report 2013. [online] pp.1–35. Available
at:
<http://www.mscmalaysia.my/sites/default/files/pdf/downloads/2013_MSC_Mal
aysia_Annual_Industry_Report_FINAL.pdf>.
Mullins, L., 2002. Management and Organisational Behaviour. 6th ed. London: FT
Prentice Hall.
Park, H., Ribiere, V. and Schulte D., W., 2004. Critical Attributes of Organizational
Culture that Promote Knowledge Management Technology Implementation
Success. Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information
Technology, 8(3), pp.106–117.
Park, H.S. and Im, B.-C., 2003. A Study on the Knowledge Sharing Behaviour of
Local Public Servants in Korea: Structural Equation Analysis. In: Joint
Conference of the Tenth International Conference on Advances in
Managerment Korean Association for Public Administration, & Korea Institute of
Public
Administration.
[online]
pp.50–63.
Available
at:
<http://m.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/603960>.
Pasher, E. and Ronen, T., 2011. The Complete Guide to Knowledge Management: A
Strategic Plan to Leverage Your Company’s Intellectual Capital. 1st ed. New
Jersey: Wiley, p.224.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S., 1996. Managing Professional Intellect:
Making the Most of the Best. Harvard Business Review, 14, pp.71–80.
Riege, A., 2005. Three Dozen Knowledge-Sharing Barriers Managers Must
Consider. Journal of Knowledge Management2, [online] 9(3), pp.18–35.
Available at: <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1502137>.
Robbins, S.P., 1990. Organization Theory: Structure Designs and Applications. 3rd
ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Proceedings of 8th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference
9 - 10 February 2015, Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-71-9
Robbins, S.P., 2003. Organizational Behavior. 10th ed. San Diego State University:
Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S.P. and Decenzo, D.A., 2001. Fundamentals of Management: Essential
Concepts and Applications. New York: Prentice Hall, p.504.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C., 1998. Not so Different
After All: A Cross- Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review,
23(3), pp.393–404.
Shamsavari, A., Adikibi, O. and Taha, Y., 2002. Technology and Technology
Transfer: Some Basic Issues. [online] Thames: Kingston University, pp.1–51.
Available at: <http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/6629/>.
Shelly, G.B. and Rosenblatt, H.J., 2012. System Analysis and Designs. 9th ed.
Boston: Cengage Learning.
Six, F., 2007. Building Interpersonal Trust within Organizations: A Relational
Signaling Perspective. Journal of Management of Governance, [online] 11(1),
pp.285–309. Available at: <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10997-0079030-9>.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A., 2006. Empowering Leadership In
Management Teams: Effects On Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, And
Performance. Journal of Management, 49(6), pp.1239–1251.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E.A. and Bartol, K.M., 2001. Money and Subjective Well
Being: It’s Not the Money, it’s the Motives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(1), pp.959–971.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F., 2004. Knowledge Management in a Public
Organization: A Study on the Relationship between Organizational Elements
and the Performance Of Knowledge Transfer. Journal of Knowledge
Management,
[online]
8(2),
pp.95–111.
Available
at:
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13673270410529145> [Accessed 25
Mar. 2014].
Taylor, J.R. and Van Every, E.J., 2000. The Emergent Organization: Communication
as its Site and Surface. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p.351.
Tohidinia, Z. and Mosakhani, M., 2010. Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and its
Predictors. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(4), pp.611–631.
Vizcaino, A., 2007. Developing Knowledge Management Systems from a
Knowledge-Based and Multi-Agent Approach. International Journal of
Knowledge Management, 33(4), pp.33–42.
Wei, C.C., Choy, C.S. and Yew, H.P., 2006. KM Implementation in Malaysian
Telecommunication Industry. Industrial Management & Data System, 106(8),
pp.1112–1132.
Wong, K.Y., 2005. Critical Success Factors for Implementing Knowledge
Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 95(3), pp.261–279.
Yang, C. and Chen, L.C., 2007. Can Organizational Knowledge Capabilities Affect
Knowledge Sharing Behavior? Journal of Information Science, [online] 33(1),
pp.95–109.
Available
at:
<http://jis.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0165551506068135> [Accessed 28
Mar. 2014].