1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
In today‘s knowledge-intensive economy, knowledge is recognized as power
and the critical element for organizations to gain competitive advantage (Ipe, 2003;
Lin, 2007; Kuo and Young, 2008b; Lee and Choi, 2003; Chuang, 2004; Huang et. al,
2006). The pivotal competitive advantages are related with the acquisition, creation,
manipulation, interpretation, and application of knowledge and information (Stata,
1989 as cited in Van Den Brink, 2003). Therefore, organizations emphasized
knowledge management (KM) extensively and adopted knowledge management
systems (KMS) as a tool to capture the organizational knowledge for retaining their
competitive edge in knowledge-based economy (Hansen and Avital, 2005; Kuo and
Young, 2008b).
The realization of knowledge sharing (KS) as an important element in
business strategies formulation directly contributes to the competitiveness,
effectiveness and performance of an organization (Dung, 2008) as it increase the
organizational flexibility to cope with unpredictable circumstances (F u, 2004).
Through KS, the enhanced ability of creating, sustaining, and transferring the
knowledge substantially impact on organization performance (Du et al., 2007). For
Instances, the chairman and CEO of Chevron, Ken Derr indicated an unemployed
good idea represent a loss of opportunity and his ideas about using KS (KS) network
for sharing ideas on energy-use management saved 650 million US dollar for his
company (O‘Dell and Grayson, 1998).
2
Globalization and technological advancement forces countries to create a
knowledge-based economy. In 1991, the government of Malaysia has conceptualized
a vision for Malaysia as to become a fully developed nation in the dimension of
economic, politic, social, spiritual, psychology and culture by the year 2020. By
understanding the vital need for knowledge as input for economy, Malaysia have
formulated Knowledge-based Economy Master Plan for pursuing knowledge-based
economy as to transform from a production-based economy (Ministry of Finance,
2002). For attaining the Vision 2020, one of the seven critical aspects in the
Knowledge-based Economy Master Plan is to develop the public sector into K-based
Civil Service (Ministry of Finance,2002). Suhaimee et al.(2006) pointed out that Kbased Civil Service is achievable through development of a skilled and knowledgebased public sector. Malaysian higher education institution is demanded to play their
own role by producing knowledgeable manpower or knowledge worker for Malaysia
as the strategy to facilitate Malaysia moving toward Knowledge-based Economy
(Ministry of Finance, 2002). Thus, sharing knowledge resources in higher education
institution play an integral role in producing knowledgeable manpower.
On the other hand, Drucker (1997) asserts that the productivity of knowledge
workers in generating knowledge is becoming the critical dynamic in the world
economy (as cited in Van Den Brink, 2003). Knowledge creation could enhance the
research and development of products while changing the market consumption
behaviors. For instances, the products walk man have been replaced by MP3. Jain et
al. (2006) regarded higher education institution as a pool of knowledge where the
knowledge of academic staff created or discovered is resided in their minds and act
as the intellectual capital of the institution. They advocate only through KS,
knowledge could be access by others and through the shared knowledge it e nabling
the creation of competitive advantageous. Thus, the knowledge has its own true
value through availability of sharing. This also indicated Malaysia public higher
education institutions have to go beyond the responsibility in preparing
knowledgeable human resources and providing knowledge. To further extent,
Malaysia public higher education institutions are required to prepare a platform for
KS and knowledge creation as to create national competitive advantageous towards
achieving the idea of knowledge-based economy country.
3
1.2
Background of the Research
Nowadays, education is under the same pressures of the marketplace as
education institution have started applying KM as to increase their efficiency and
effectiveness, and to promote the creation and sharing of knowledge (Bottino, 2007).
Brown and Duguid (1996) and Duderstadt (2001) advocates the intense changes in
competition have made higher education institution to adopt business thinking. Due
to the impact of globalization, the educational markets have expanded and impel
universities to internationalize their curricula in order to offer high quality programs
to all people over the world (Na Ubon and Kimble, 2002; Wan et al., 2008). In this
pursuit, educational institution as well as organizations is attempting to apply KM for
encouraging the creation and sharing of knowledge (Na Ubon and Kimble, 2002).
The quantitative research by Suhaimee et al.(2005) on 17 public higher
education institutions in Malaysia showed that only 47.1 percent of universities have
confirmed that they have implement KM, other 29.4 percent universities claimed that
they do not implement KM while 17.5 percent universities do not sure about KM
implement in their organization. In their study, only one university confirmed that
they have fully implement KM and the others are in the initial stages or still in
progress or not starting to implement KM yet. Besides that, only 29.4 percent of the
public universities claimed that the KS culture is existing in their organization. More
then half of the respondents identified promotion, job assessment and incentives are
the motivators for supporting KS culture.
Sohail and Daud (2009) have done a cross-sectional survey on KS among
academic staff in business and management schools of both public and private
university and colleges in Malaysia. Their study identified that the nature of
knowledge (implicit and explicit knowledge), working culture, staff attitude,
motivation to share and opportunities to share are having a significant relationship
with KS in the public universities. Besides their survey findings also reveal that the
perceived organizational support is a less effective motivation practice for KS, for
instances, they highlight the low scores on using recognition as a non-monetary
reward for KS.
4
Jain et al. (2007) have done a survey on investigating the barriers and the
encouraging mechanisms of academic staffs‘ KS in 26 public and private Business
Schools in the Klang Valley. They discovered that most of the respondents regard
KS is vital and around 60 percent of respondents agree that importance of KS was
clearly communicated in their institutions. The T-test result showed that in public
universities the need for sharing knowledge was much better communicated than
private university. The identified barriers in this study are the lacking of rewards and
recognition, time, formal and informal activities to promote KS. From the view of
strategies, the support of university top management support and technology are
seemed as the effective means for promoting KS.
Integrated information technology (IT) in KM is a good a way to manage
knowledge systematically and effectively as higher institutions could extract the right
knowledge from people‘s mind and store it in repositories of information for later
distribution (Tiwana and Ramesh, 2001). In education setting, Duderstadt (2001)
purported IT have enhance and enrich teaching and scholarship by enabling creating,
preserving, integrating, transmitting, and applying knowledge in an effective way.
Furthermore, with the used of IT, better audio and visual aids is being produced as a
tool for teaching. This implied that IT could increase research‘s efficiency and
effectiveness in the aspect of creating, capturing, sharing, retrieving and storing of
knowledge. In Malaysia, Abdul Hamid and Suberamany (2009) stated that majority
of the higher education institution outsource IT/IS elements, such as wired/wireless
network, portal/website, internet/intranet security, e- mail services, database/legacy
system, system application and e-Learning. This indicated Malaysian higher
education institution have invested on IT/IS elements as the foundation of KM
implementation and used technology to support KS activities.
All in all, KS is the integral part in knowledge creation, and being viewed as
one of the most critical parts in KM activities (Jain et al., 2007; Lee and Ahn, 2007)
especially in the educational institutions where provide knowledge to the community.
Hence, the facilitators of KSI in the context of educational institution are being
investigated in this study.
5
1.3
Proble m State ment
KS is a vital topic of interest for academic staff in higher education institution
as Mohd Alwi et al. (2008) postulated the main purpose of KM is to capture and
share the knowledge. Knowledge is required to be persistently updated especially in
this information explosion age. Therefore, KS is seemed as a crucial part for
educational institutions‘ role in their core business of creating and providing
knowledge. In the same view, for Malaysian public higher education institutions‘
academic staff, KS is an essential element in increasing their efficiency and
effectiveness of performance both in teaching and research.
However, the most general problem faced by an organization in KS is
knowledge hoarding. In fact, employees are unwilling to share their knowledge
because when they pose rare knowledge, they will have the higher reputation as well
as job security (Sun et. al, 2009). To them sharing the knowledge means losing of
power and only makes themselves become less valuable. Constant et al., (1994)
propose that people would weight KS as social good or personal cost. When people
perceived KS as a social good, they will more willing to share. In contrast, when
people regarded KS as a personal cost, they will less willing to share. Thus,
understanding the motivating factors of KSI becomes the interest of this study.
On the other hand, the scholars (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; O‘Dell and Grayson,
1998) claimed that resistance of employees to use KMS has causes the failure of KM
initiative. This indicated that understanding the resistance to use technology is
essential in KS, as to ensure the allocation of budget for technology is valuable.
Implementing KM with technology does not assure the success of the KM
(Chennamaneni, 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Tuomi,1999), social factors may
enhance or inhibit KS behaviors(Kuo and Young, 2008b), hence researchers are keen
to understand the underlying forces of these factors.
Unwillingness to share is not cause by a single reason (Ford, 2004 ; Mohd
Alwi et al., 2008; Farn and Fu, 2004). Researchers (Riege, 2005; Lin, 2007; Connelly
and Kelloway, 2003; Taylor and Wright, 2004; Md Saad et al., 2005; Ford, 2004)
acknowledge through the context of individual and psychological, organizational,
6
and technology, the factors that influence KS could be viewed in a more
comprehensive way. On the other hand, the changing organizational members‘
attitudes and behaviors in KS is vital in building KS culture (Connelly and Kelloway,
2003; Lin and Lee, 2004; Lin, 2007). To fill this gap, this research is aimed to
explore
individual
and
psychological
factors,
organizational
factors
and
technological factor that can affect KSI by using TPB as a theoretical framework in
order to contribute successful KM implementation in Malaysian public higher
education institutions.
1.4
Purpose of Study
This study aim to study the influences of individual and psychological factors
(anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic rewards, knowledge selfefficacy and
trust),
organizational
factors
(fairness,
affiliation and
task
interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT) on the knowledge
sharing intention (KSI) among academic staffs by adapting TPB as the theoretical
framework. Based on TPB, the KSI predictors are attitude, subjective norm (SN),
and perceived behavioral control (PBC).
1.5
Research Question
The research questions (RQ) in this research are as follows:
RQ 1: What are the level of KSI, KSI predictors, individual and
psychological factors, organizational factors and technological factor?
RQ2: What is the relationship between predictors of KSI and KSI?
RQ3: What are the relationships between individual and psychological
factors, organizational factors and technological factor and KSI
predictors?
RQ4: Which are the most dominant predictors of KSI?
RQ5: Which are the most dominant predictors of individual and
psychological factors, organizational factors and technological factor
toward KSI predictors?
7
RQ6: What is the mediating effect of predictors of KSI on the relationship
between individual and psychological factors, organizational factors
and technological factor and KSI?
1.6
Research Objectives
The research objectives (RO) of the research are as follow:
RO 1: To determine the level of KSI, KSI predictors, individual and
psychological factors, organizational factors and technological factor.
RO2: To determine the relationship between KSI predictors and KSI.
RO3: To determine the relationship between individual and psychological
factors, organizational factors and technological factor and KSI
predictors.
RO4: To identify the most dominant predictors of KSI.
RO5: To identify the most dominant individual and psychological factors,
organizational factors and technological factor toward KSI predictors.
RO6: To determine the mediating effect of KSI predictors on the
relationship
between
individual
and
psychological
factors,
organizational factors and technological factor and KSI.
1.7
Research Hypothesis
There are 19 hypotheses were developed based on RO2 (H1-H3), RO3 (H4H11) and RO6 (H12-H19). All the hypothesesch were stated below:
H1:
There is a positive relationship between attitude and KSI.
H2:
There is a positive relationship between SN and KSI.
H3:
There is a positive relationship between PBC and KSI.
H4:
There is a positive relationship between anticipated reciprocal
relationship and attitude.
H5:
There is a positive relationship between anticipated extrinsic
rewards and attitude.
8
H6:
There is a positive relationship between knowledge self-efficacy
and attitude.
H7:
There is a positive relationship between trust and attitude.
H8:
There is a positive relationship between fairness and SN.
H9:
There is a positive relationship between affiliation and SN.
H10: There is a positive relationship between task interdependence and
SN.
H11: There is a positive relationship between controllability of ICT and
PBC.
H12: There is a positive relationship between anticipated reciprocal
relationship and KSI through the mediating effect of attitude.
H13: There is a positive relationship between anticipated extrinsic
rewards and KSI through the mediating effect of attitude.
H14: There is a positive relationship between knowledge self-efficacy
and KSI through the mediating effect of attitude.
H15: There is a positive relationship between trust and KSI through the
mediating effect of attitude.
H16: There is a positive relationship between fairness and KSI through
the mediating effect of SN.
H17: There is a positive relationship between affiliation and KSI through
the mediating effect of SN.
H18: There is a positive relationship between task interdependence and
KSI through the mediating effect of SN.
H19: There is a positive relationship between controllability of ICT and
KSI through the mediating effect of PBC.
9
1.8
Scope of the Research
The scope of this study is focused on the public higher education institution
in Malaysia. Jain et al. (2007) regarded education institutions as knowledge-based
organizations where majority constitutions of the organizational members are
knowledge workers. Education institution is regarded as the platform for KS
activities as their core business is highly related with providing and creating
knowledge. Hence, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai Campus is
selected as the mode of study which aimed at investigates individual level of KSI
among academic staffs.
Academic staffs are chosen as the respondents because they conceived as
knowledge workers who involve in creating, manipulating and disseminating
knowledge in their work duties (Abdul Hamid, 2003).
Further, Groth (2005)
postulates that colleague are the essential source of knowledge. Therefore, the KSI
among the academic staffs was the concern of this study.
Besides, the rationale of choosing the academic staffs as the respondents is
because of their nature of work are similar, whether there are involve in research or
teaching, they are directly involve in KS whether in implicit or explicit form.
Professors, associate professors and lecturers are categorized as the academic staffs
in this research as they are involve in research or teaching. Besides that, they are
involved in the faculty meeting which acts as a platform to share their knowledge.
For instances, in the course design planning meeting, the lecturers would discuss and
share about the future market demands on academic qualifications, and the
relationship with the current courses provided. They aimed to produces more
competent graduates, who are being equipped with a relevant and updated
knowledge that required by the market. As a result, the future courses content will be
adjusted and enhanced results. Apart from that, KS is presence when the
collaboration among lecturers is needed in conducting a large scale research or doing
some interrelated task as they are frequently interact and sharing the information
with each other. Drawing from the above contexts, it is reasonable to select professor
(VK06 and VK07), associate professor (DS54 and DS 53), senior lecturer (DS52 and
DS51) and lecturer (DS45). as the respondents in this study.
10
Assistant lecturer (DG3), tutors (DG41) and languages teachers (DA41) are
excluded in this study. Generally assistant lecturer and tutors are not directly
involved in the lecturing while languages teachers are not involve in guiding students
in research. In addition, some of them are not involve or seldom involve in faculty
meeting and this causes them have less interaction and affect their intention to share
their knowledge with others academic staffs. Moreover, some tutors are furthering
their PhD in others places and do not involve in lecturing in UTM while some
assistant lecturer and tutors are only assists in research areas. The language teachers
are referred to the teachers who teach foreign languages in UTM with temporary
contracts, thus they are considered as temporary academic staffs. They only involve
in teaching and do not involve in research. In this aspect, this research had selected
professors, associate professors and lecturers as the academic staffs from all the
faculties in UTM Skudai Campus as the population of the study.
The focus of the study is restricted to identify influences of individual and
psychological factors (anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic
rewards, knowledge self-efficacy and trust), organizational factors (fairness,
affiliation and task interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT)
on the intention to share knowledge among academic staffs by using Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) as theoretical framework. Therefore, the finding of this
study is aimed to provide a valuable insight of KSI in Malaysia public higher
education institutions context.
1.9
Limitation of Study
This study has limitation where:
i.
The purpose of this study is influenced by the honesty of the respondents in
answering the questionnaires. The respondents have the potential to be bias
in revealing their true answers for the reason that it will bring effect to them.
ii.
The research is carried out inside UTM, Skudai, Johor, Consequently, it
cannot represent the general situation in other universities as well.
11
1.10
Importance of the Study
The significance of the study is threefold, which is:
i.
Managerial Perspective
a) This study could be used as the preliminary evaluation tools for measuring
the level of individual and psychological factors, organizational factors and
technological factor on KSI.
b) This study contributes and enriches the understanding about factors
influencing KSI in an organization as to enable the organization to formulate
complementary strategies to cultivate KS culture.
ii.
Practitione r Pe rspective
a) This study had formed a theoretical framework which can be used as a
preparatory guide for future research on KS.
b) This study formed a comprehensive and reliable instrument that can be
adopted for future research.
iii.
Theoretical Contribution
a) Clarification and rearrangement of the factors influencing KS from the
previous literature constructs into individual and psychological factors
(anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic rewards, knowledge
self-efficacy and trust), organizational factors (fairness, affiliation and task
interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT) ) and
integrated it in TPB.
b) This study introduced task interdependency and controllability of ICT as a
new constructs for factors influencing KSI.
12
1.11
Conceptual Definition
In this section, the concept from previous research and literature that related
with the construct of this research will be discussed in the following section as to a
guide to develop operational definition for this study. The conceptual definition will
included KSI, attitude, SN, and perceived behavioral control (PBC) as the predictors
of KSI; individual and psychological factors (anticipated reciprocal relationship,
anticipated extrinsic rewards, knowledge self-efficacy and trust), organizational
factors (fairness, affiliation and task interdependence) and technological factor
(controllability of ICT) as the factors influencing KSI.
1.11.1 KSI
In the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) stated
the intention to perform the behavior is the predictor of decision to engage in a
specified behavior which in turn is influenced by their attitude toward and the SN
regarding the behavior. TPB proffers that the most individual‘s social behavior could
be predicted from intentions as it is under volitional control. (Ajzen, 2002a, as cited
in Kuo and Young, 2008).
In examining KSI, Bock et. al (2005) explained intention to share in the
aspect of explicit and implicit knowledge, they defined KSI as the degree to which
one believes that one will engage in an implicit or explicit KS activities. Chow and
Chan (2008) defined it as “the degree of one‟s belief that one will engage in
knowledge-sharing behavior”
1.11.2 Predictors of KSI
Based on TPB the predictors of KSI are attitude, SN, and perceived
behavioral control (PBC). The conceptual definition of each of the constructs will be
discussed in the following section.
13
The conceptual definition included KSI; attitude, SN, and perceived behavioral
control (PBC) as the predictors of KSI; individual and psychological factors
(anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic rewards, knowledge selfefficacy and
trust),
organizational
factors
(fairness,
affiliation and
task
interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT)
1.11.2 .1
Attitude toward KS
Jones and George, (1998) conceived attitude is derived from a person‘s
values, but it can influence the value system over time, they defined attitudes as: “the
knowledge structures containing the specific thoughts and feelings people have about
other people, groups, or organizations and the means through which people define
and structure their interactions with others” (as cited in Van Den Brink, 2003)
Van Den Brink (2003) defined the attitude of a person is probably based on his or her
values and characteristics of the environment.
In TRA, attitude is defined as the degree to which an individual has a
favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question (Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975) as cited in Kuo and Young, 2008b). King and Marks (2008), regard
attitude as an individual positive or negative feeling about performing a behavior.
Based on TRA, Bock et. al (2005) explained attitude toward KS as individuals
positive feelings about sharing their knowledge while Chow and Chan (2008)
defined it as individuals favorable or positive feeling about sharing their knowledge.
1.11.2.2
SN to Share Knowledge
SN is first introduced in TRA by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), who defined SN
as ―The degree to which an individual believes that people that are important to
her/him think she/he should perform the behavior in question” (as cited in Wu et al.,
2007a). He and Wei (2009) follow their view, defined SN as individuals‘ perception
that people who are important to them think they should or should not perform the
14
behavior, while King and Marks (2008) added the element of appropriateness on
performing the particlar behavior.
In developing KMS model for healthcare, Ali et al., (2009) described SN as
―the degree to which a healthcare worker perceives that his/her superior or coworker believes he or she should contribute or seek knowledge via KMS”. SN is
described as ―the social influence that may affect a person‟s intention to use a KMS ‖
(Xu and Quaddus, 2005 as cited in Ali et al., 2009)
In KS study, Bock et. al (2005) explained SN as “the degree to which one
believes that people who bear pressure on one‟s actions expect one to perform the
behavior in question multiplied by the degree of one‟s compliance with each of one‟s
referents” while Chen et al. (2009) described it as individual perception of relevant
others‘ opinions on whether to perform or not perform the behavior.
1.11.2.3
Perceived Behavioral Control
PBC is one of the predictors of intention in TPB which refer to ―the perceived
ease or difficulty of performing the behavior and it is assumed to reflect the past
experiences as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles” (Ajzen, 1991) and the
control over performing the particular behavior (Ajzen, 2002). PBC is described
individuals‘ evaluations on the necessary opportunities and availability of resources
to perform an action (Ajzen and Madden, 1986 as cited in Chen et al., 2009). In the
IS research, PBC is regarded as the judgment on both internal and external
constraints to performs an action.‖ (Taylor and Todd 1995).
In the context of KS research, Hansen and Avital (2005) view PBC as belief
whether individuals are able to participate in KS. In the study of KS behavior in
virtual learning communities, Chen et al. (2009) defined PBC as the learner‟s
perceived ease or difficulty of telling story and experiences, writing documents,
expressing opinion”; Lemmetyinen (2007) conceived the PBC as ―the degree of
perception of control and ownership of KS; Ryu et al. (2003), referred PBC as the
―perceived ease or difficulty of performing the KS behavior” in context of physicians.
15
1.11.3 The Individual and Psychological Factors
In this study, the individual and psychological factors influences KSI will
focus on anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic rewards and
knowledge self-efficacy. Thus, the conceptual definition of each of the constructs
will be discussed in the following section.
1.11.3.1
Anticipated Reciprocal Relationship
According to Adam‘s equity theory, the norm of reciprocity refers to
knowledge exchanges that are mutual and perceived by the parties as fair from the
view of general fairness (Chiu et al., 2006). Blau (1964) conceived reciprocity in
social relationship as the expectation to gain social exchange‘s advantageous. Sun et.
al (2009) viewed reciprocity as a sense of mutual indebtedness that facilitates
supportive exchanges as to reciprocate the benefits from others. Whereas, Davenport
and Prusak 1998 (as cited in Kankanhalli et al., 2005) described reciprocity as the
individual‘s belief that recent KS to electronic knowledge repositories would
contribute to potential knowledge demand.
For anticipated reciprocal relationship in KS, Bock et. al (2005) explained it
could enhance ones‘ desires to improve mutual relationships with others through
one‘s KS. Whereas, Lemmetyinen (2007) defined it as the person believes through
KS, mutual relationship and cooperative behavior will be improved.
1.11.3.2
Anticipated Extrinsic Rewards
Burchinal (2006) relate extrinsic rewards with the working conditions, for
instances, reasonable working hours, the salaries, incentives and bonus received, and
the facilities provided in work place (personal room). Monetary rewards,
acknowledgment, and promotion are the general extrinsic rewards adopted by
organization (Lee and Ahn, 2007). Goh et al. (2006) indicated extrinsic rewards as
16
the rewards that organization gives for the positively valued work performance
employees in the forms of bonuses and increments.
Organizational reward is regard as employee‘s perception on the significance
of monetary incentives provided for KS (Ba et al, 2001 as cited in Hopple and Orhun,
2006). Extrinsic motivation is defined as the individuals ‘perception that they are
propel to perform an action as to get the valued results that are different from the
action itself, such as better job performance, monetary incentives, or promotions
(Davis et al. 1992 as cited in Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the similar view of extrinsic
rewards, Bock et. al (2005) and Lemmetyinen (2007) defined anticipated extrinsic
rewards as the believes that individuals will receive monetary incentives for KS
behavior.
1.11.3.3
Knowledge Self-Efficacy
Based on Social Cognitive Theory, Bandura (1997) regarded perceived selfefficacy as the individual‘s evaluation of their own capabilities to organize and carry
out the course of action required to attain a designated type of performance (as cited
in Kuo and Young, 2008a). Founded on the Social Cognitive Theory, Pavlou and
Fygenson (2006) defined self-efficacy as the individual‘s evaluation of their own
capabilities in getting information about products and purchase the product by using
online service.
In KS research, Cheung and Lee (2007) described knowledge self-efficacy as
the degree of people believing that their knowledge can help other members in the
virtual community while Kankanhalli et al.(2005) defines knowledge self-efficacy as
the degree of confidence in one‘s capability in providing valuable knowledge to
organization. From a different angle, Chen et al. (2009) examine knowledge creation
self-efficacy and described it as individuals‘ beliefs on their ability in expressing the
opinions and experiences, synthesizing knowledge, and learning from others by
internalization. Bock et al. (2005) defined sense of self- worth as individuals‘ positive
cognition based on their feeling of personal contribution to the organization as
individuals would evaluation of their value through KS activities.
17
1.11.3.4
Trust
Trust is viewed as a set of specific beliefs dealing primarily with the integrity,
benevolence, and ability of another party in the management literature (Chiu et al.,
2006). In the context of acceptance on online blog usage, Hsu and Lin (2008)
conceived trust as the propensity to believe in others blog. Trust can be defined as
maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intention and behaviors
(Kreitner and Kinicki, 1992 as cited in Choi, 2002). By emphasizing integrity in a
virtual community, trust is referring to one's expectation that members will follow a
generally accepted set of values, norms, and principles (Chiu et al., 2006).
Wu et al. (2007b) believe trust is” a positive expectation of one who trusts;
he or she believes that the one trusted would not act opportunistically in any
manner”. In a similar view, Chow and Chan (2008) regard social trust as ―the degree
of one‟s willingness to vulnerable to the actions of other people”. Thus, it could be
concluded by the thought of Mishra, 1996 who reflected trust as the willingness to
make one‘s self vulnerable to others that categorized into four dimensions, there are
trust in their competence; openness and honesty; intensions and concerns; and
reliability (as cited in Sharratt and Usoro, 2003)
1.11.4 The Organizational Factors
In this study, the organizational factors influences KSI focus on fairness,
affiliation and task interdependence. Thus, the conceptual definition of each of the
constructs will be discussed in the following section.
18
1.11.4.1
Fairness
There are various concepts of fairness that have been examined in the past,
for instances, Sherman (2001) defines fairness as peoples‘ view on equality of
benefits among themselves in the survey of dynamic stability of institutions. In the
research of strategic alliances, Luo (2007) described fairness as the judgment on the
procedures and criteria used in formulate and the implement the decisions and the
criteria that used in making the judgment are ―(1) transparent, adjustable and
correctable; (2) unbiased, representative and non-discriminatory to each party; and
(3) in accordance with contractual specifications.”
On the other hand, the three facets of fairness have been acknowledged by
social exchange and organizational justice theorists are distributive fairness,
procedural fairness and interactional fairness (Chiu et al., 2006; Fu, 2004; Chung,
2009; Ho and Chang, 2009).
In examine the effect of fairness perception in KS, distributive fairness is
referred to the perception of employee on how resources and rewards are allocated
(Fu, 2004; Farn and Fu, 2004). In the context of examine KS, Chiu, et al. (2007)
regard distributive fairness as the perceived equitable of the result that employees
receive. In investigating the fairness perception on the effect of performance
evaluation, Aryani (2009) have defined the distributive fairness as the perceptions of
fairness on the outcome of performance evaluation process that related with financial
and non-financial measures.
Procedural fairness refers to the procedural fairness that employed to assign
outcomes (Thibaut et al. 1975 as cited in Chung, 2009). In investigate procedural
fairness in KS context, Chiu, et al. (2007) defined perceptions of procedural fairness
as that applied to determine outcomes. Aryani (2009) defined procedural fairness as
the perceptions of fairness in process making performance evaluation that concerned
with financial and non-financial measures in explore the fairness perception on the
effect of performance evaluation,.
19
Greenberg (1993) contend that interactional fairness are categorized into
informational fairness and interpersonal fairness (as cited in Vianello et al., 2010).
Informational fairness is referred to justification and truthfulness, and interpersonal
fairness, which refers to respect and propriety. (as cited in Vianello et al., 2010). In
the research of leadership, Vianello et al. (2010) regard interpersonal fairness as a
component of interactional fairness that regards to the extent of leaders treats their
followers with kind, polite and proper. Whereas, in organizational justice research,
informational fairness is regard as the explanations that used to determined at
processes and outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001 as cited in Ho and Chang, 2009).
In the research of KS referral network, fairness is described as the amount of
benefits one‘s gained from the network is related with the qualities work one‘s
performs (Manavalan and Singh ,2008). Yu et al. (2010) have used perceived
fairness as an influencing factor in investigating KS behavior via weblogs; they
defined perceived fairness as the community members‘ judgment on whether they
are being treated equitable in the community by considering other associated factors
regard these judgments. In the study of KS, Yang (2006) explain fairness as the
perception of equitable and rationally of group practices. Fairness is perception that
organizational practices are fair, equitable and consistent as to build trust among the
employees and motivates employees to exert pro-social behavior in sharing
knowledge (Bock et al., 2005).
1.11.4.2
Affiliation
According to Hurley and Green (2006), motivation theory is being adopted as
the theoretical base for KM research in the context of affiliation. Stott and Walker
(1995) and Tampoe (1996) used Maslow‘s need hierarchy as to advocate that drivers
of motivation for knowledge workers are the highest three hierarchical levels, there
are “social needs (affiliation, love), ego needs (status, respect of peers), and selffulfillment needs (self-actualization)” ( as cited in Hurley and Green, 2006). In
examine the motivators in work place setting, McClellend‘s three needs theory
defined need for affiliation as the desire to be liked and accepted by others for having
close interpersonal relationships (Robbins and DeCenzo, 2005). Thus, the affiliation
20
needs propel people to share knowledge as to establish, maintain, and restore
relationships with others.
Affiliation is the perception that togetherness exists among the employees of
the organization as a result of caring and pro-social behavior that motivate
employees to help each other (Bock et al., 2005). Chiu et al. (2006) used affiliation
as an element of identification which measured on individual's sense o f belonging,
feeling of togetherness, and positive feeling toward the virtual community.
Social inclusion is similar with the view of affiliation Bock et al., (2005),
which is defined as “captures the extent to which employees have informal social ties
with others at work and feel as if they belong and are socially included by others in
their workplace”(Pearce and Randel, 2004 as cited in Steward, 2008). Steward (2008)
explained social inclusion as “an attribute of the relationship between the individual
and the collective of their work colleagues, and that the intensity of this attribute
affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the flow of information.”
1.11.4.3
Task Interdependence
In Hackman and Oldham‘s Job Characteristics Model, the autonomy have
been covered the context of task interdependence as it is described as the extent of
individuals‘ freedom, independence and discretion in managing their work schedule
and procedure for completing their work (as cited in Robbins and DeCenzo, 2005).
In the context of KS in team, task interdependence is referring to the extent to which
a group member requests information, resources, and support from other group
members within for performing his or her job (Yu and Khalifa, 2007) while Wu et al.
(2007) described task interdependence as ―the degree to which team members
cooperate and work interactively to complete tasks‖.
Lin and Huang (2008) used theory of task technology fit, as to examine the
relationship of task interdependence with KMS usage and described it as one‘s
relying on interaction with other for completing their work. In a similar view, task
interdependence refers to one‘s task performance rely on other‘s works or skills
21
(Wageman and Baker, 1997 as cited in Yu and Khalifa, 2007 ). Pearce and Gregersen
(1991) have measured task interdependence by viewing reciprocal interdependence
with other job and independently to complete the task by oneself.
1.11.5 The Technological Factors
In this study, the technological factor influences KSI will focus on
controllability of ICT. The conceptual definition is discussed in the following section.
1.11.5.1
Controllability of ICT
Controllability of ICT is a construct that developed upon the control beliefs in
TPB. The following part discussed this construct into two parts; there are
controllability and technology for KS.
Ajzen (2001) regarded perceived controllability as the degrees of individuals
believe that they have volitional control over an action‘s performance. Ajzen (2002b)
delineate controllability as individuals‘ evaluations on the opportunities and
availability of resources to perform an action. In the e-commerce adoption research,
Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) define controllability as ―consumers‟ perceptions of
whether getting information and purchasing products online is completely up to them
because of the availability of resources and opportunities.”
On the other hand, Hendriks (1999) contends that ICT can facilitate KS by
reducing temporal and spatial constraint. Based on the studies of three organizations,
Groth (2005) have identified some ICT tools that could support and facilitate KS, for
instances, the ICT tools are mobile phones, e- mail, electronic discussion platform,
and information systems (IS). In examing the KS behaviour, Chennamaneni (2006)
defined the KS tools and technology as the degree to which individuals believed that
the “facilitating tools and technology for sharing knowledge are available and are
easy to use”. In KS practices research, Shaari (2010) identified ICT can act as a
medium of interaction for KS in the context of technological factor.
22
1.12
Ope rational Definition
Based on the conceptual definition discussion in previous sections, the construct
of operational definition of this study is developed and summarized in Table 1.1. In
this research, the construct included KSI, predictors of KSI (attitude, SN, and PBC)
and the factors that influences KSI which are categorized into individual and
psychological factors (anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic
rewards, knowledge self-efficacy and trust), organizational factors (fairness,
affiliation and task interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT)
Table 1.1 : Operational Definitions of the Constructs
Constructs
KSI
Ope rational Definitions
The degree of one‘s belief that one will
engage in sharing explicit and implicit
knowledge.
Key References
Adapted
from
Ajzen (1991),
Bock
et
al.,
(2005);
Chow
and Chan (2008)
Attitude toward The degree of one‘s favorable or positive Adapted
from
KS
evaluation about one‘s KS
Ajzen (1991),
Bock
et
al.,
(2005)
SN about KS
The degree of one‘s perceived social Adapted
from
pressure to influence one‘s involvement in Ajzen (1991),
KS.
Bock
et
al.,
(2005), Chen et
al. (2009)
PBC
The degree of one‘s perceived control over Adapted
from
KS and ease or difficulty to perform KS.
Ajzen
(2002);
Ryu et al. (2003)
Lemmetyinen
(2007)
Anticipated
The degree to which one believes that one Adapted
from
Reciprocal
can improve mutual relationships with other Bock
et
al.
Relationship
through one‘s KS.
(2005)
Anticipated
The degree to which one believes that one Adapted
from
Extrinsic
will receive extrinsic incentives for one‘s Bock
et
al.
Rewards
KS.
(2005)
Knowledge Self- The degree to which one believes that one‘s Adopted
from
Efficacy
ability to provide knowledge that is valuable Kankanhalli
et
to the organization.
al.(2005)
23
Trust
The degree to which one‘s willingness to be Adapted
from
vulnerable to others colleague‘s actions.
Wu et al. (2007b)
Fairness
The perception that organizational practices
are fair, equitable and consistent.
Adapted
from
Bock
et
al.
(2005)
Affiliation
The perception of togetherness with others Adapted
from
colleagues.
Bock
et
al.
(2005)
Task
The perception to which individuals perceive Adapted
from
Inte rdepende nce that they have to interact with and rely on Lin and Huang
other in order to complete their work.
(2008)
Controllability
The perception to which individuals perceive Adapted
from
of ICT
that they have volitional control over the Ajzen (2001)
ICT facilities as an interaction medium for
KS.
1.12 Summary
The discussion in this Chapter I give an overall view of this research. In short,
this research is to investigate the relationship of individual and psychological factors
(anticipated reciprocal relationship, anticipated extrinsic rewards, knowledge selfefficacy and
trust),
organizational
factors
(fairness,
affiliation and
task
interdependence) and technological factor (controllability of ICT) and on the
mediating effect of individual‘s attitude and SN s towards KSI. The relationship
between KSI and the predictors of KSI (attitude, SN and PBC) will also be
investigated. In this research, it is hoped that the research carried out could find the
answers to the research questions and the research objectives. Thus, the findings of
this research will contribute in providing holistic understanding on KSI and improve
the insight in promoting KS culture in Malaysia public higher education institutions.