Theoretical background pertaining to knowledge sharing(KS)
Drawing on previous research, knowledge sharing as the most significant component in knowledge management process, is defined as the interpersonal interactions involving the exchange and mutual absorption of knowledge among individuals and groups (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Pittino, et al., 2018). The importance of knowledge sharing manifests in integrating existing knowledge in teams and organisations, as an attempt to improve organisations and teams’ innovation, creativity, problem-solving ability, and performance (Cappelli and Keller, 2014; Quinn, Anderson, and Finkelstein, 1996). In this sense, it is crucial to investigate the underlying mechanism for teams’ knowledge sharing behaviours. Drawing wide range of studies, this research argues that the effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge sharing are intimately affected via factors lying in individual, team-level and knowledge-based perspectives (see figure 1).
Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 1 Research framework
With respect to individual perspective, there are tremendous researchers and practitioners suggest that psychological factors, such as, trusts and attitudes significantly affect knowledge sharing behavioural intention and behaviours (Wu, 2013; Bock et al., 2005). Indeed, individual behaviours are determined via behavioural intentions. Consistent with this perspective, Armitage and Conner (1999) suggest that intention can be perspective as the motivation required to stimulate a given behaviour. In this sense, team knowledge sharing behaviours highly hinge on the individual behavioural intentions towards knowledge sharing. According to Wu’s (2013) research, it argues that individual psychological factors, such as, trusts and positive attitude towards knowledge sharing are positively correlates to knowledge sharing in teams.
With reference to team-level factors, previous studies suggest that a conducive team context is particular important to team knowledge sharing behaviours. Consistent with this perspective, Wu, Hsu, and Yeh’s (2007) research confirms that organisational environment possesses significant affects to individual KS behaviours. In this sense, team environment similarly is associated with team knowledge sharing behaviours. For instance, social interaction factors, for instance, the frequency of communication, intimate team member relationship, and so forth are positively related to knowledge sharing behaviours. Analytically, it can be explained by Brewer’s (1979) research in which it suggests that the phenomenon of ‘in-group favouritism’ intensifies team members’ frequency of communication. Together, the relationship between team-level factors and KS behaviours could be identified.
Regarding knowledge-based perspective, the ontology of knowledge studies suggest that knowledge can be classified into tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge (Mullan et al., 2013; Sergeeva and Andreeva, 2016). In detail, tacit knowledge, such as, personal skills, experiences, and so forth is difficult to transfer, whereas explicit knowledge, such as, knowledge that can be readily articulated, codified, accessed and verbalised is rather easy to transfer (Mullan et al., 2013; Sergeeva and Andreeva, 2016; Hislop, 2013). According to Hislop’s (2013) conduit model of knowledge sharing, knowledge is shared by the transferral of explicit and codified knowledge from sender to receiver (see figure 2). In this sense, knowledge sharing intimately correlates to the forms of knowledge. Hence, knowledge-based factors could affect the team KS behaviours.
Figure SEQ Figure * ARABIC 2 Conduit model of knowledge sharing
Next sept is to build connections between leadership and knowledge sharing.
Leon, R. (2017). Measuring the Knowledge Economy: A National and Organizational Perspective. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), pp.227-249.
Zanini, M.T., and Musante, M. (2013). Trust in the knowledge economy. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 28(6), 487-493.
Donlagic, S., Fazlic, S., and Nuhanovic, A. (2015). Introducing a Framework for Knowledge Economy Development in Transition Countries: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ekonomski Vjesnik, 28(1), 257-266.
Wu, W. (2013). To Share Knowledge or Not: Dependence on Knowledge-Sharing Satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(1), pp.47-58.
Dyer, J. and Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high?performance knowledge?sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), pp.345-367.
Cappelli, P. and Keller, J. (2014). Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical Challenges. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 1(1), pp.305-331.
Quinn, J.; Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996). Managing professional intellect: making the most of the best. Harvard Business Review, Vol.74(2), p.71-80.
Hong, D., Suh, E. and Koo, C. (2011). Developing strategies for overcoming barriers to knowledge sharing based on conversational knowledge management: A case study of a financial company. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), pp.14417-14427.
Rosen, B., Furst, S. And Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams. Organizational Dynamics, 36(3), pp.259-273.
Bartol, K. M., and Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64–76.
Pittino, D., Barroso Martínez, A., Chirico, F. and Sanguino Galván, R. (2018). Psychological ownership, knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The moderating role of governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, pp.312-326.
Soltani, Z., and Navimipour, N. J. (2016). Customer relationship management mechanisms: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 61, 667-688.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., and Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-111.
Armitage, C. J., and Conner, M. (1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from self- efficacy. Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 72–90.
Wu, W., Hsu, B. and Yeh, R. (2007). Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level analysis. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), pp.326-339.
Brewer, M. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), pp.307-324.
Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., and Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation and the executive function. The self as controlling agent. In A. W. Kruglanski ; E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 516–539). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Mullan, B., Allom, V., Brogan, A., Kothe, E. and Todd, J. (2014). Self-regulation and the intention behaviour gap. Exploring dietary behaviours in university students. Appetite, 73, pp.7-14.
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge management in organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.