Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers

© Emerald Group Publishing

Developing a model for knowledge sharing

in research centers

Peyman Akhavan, Akbar Rahimi, and Gholamhossein Mehralian Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

This article is (c) Emerald Group Publishing and permission has been granted for this version to appear here (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17092255). Emerald does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Citation: Akhavan, Peyman, Rahimi Akbar, and Gholamhossein Mehralian, (2013) "Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers", Vine, The journal of information and knowledge management systems, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 357-393

Abstract

Purpose: Knowledge sharing (KS) of employees has numerous benefits for organizations.

Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide a model for KS in research centers (RCs) that

can facilitate the employee's knowledge sharing behavior (KSB).

Design/methodology/approach: Based on the extensive literature review, a valid instrument

was adopted to collect the required data set on KS, KSB and intention to KS, and finally 317

complete questionnaires were collected from Iranian research centers. The structural equation

modeling (SEM) was used to assess the measurement model and to test the research

hypotheses.

Findings: The findings show that intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors and intention to

methods of KS play an important role in KSB. In other words, simultaneous supply of them

motivational factors and KS methods interesting for employees lead to their KSB. The SEM

confirmed the research model and showed a good fit of it.

Practical limitations/implications: The implication emanating from this study is that the

employees' KSB in RCs as a significant part depends on simultaneous supplying of

motivational factors (especially intrinsic motivational factors) and methods of KS that are

interesting for employees.


Originality/value: What distinguishes this study from other studies in KS domain could be

implied in two subjects: First, the presented model is simple and prepared of the introduced

factors, which will lead to KSB. Second, this study was conducted in diverse research fields

such as electrical and electronics, telecommunications, materials, chemistry, biotechnology,

information technology, management and industrial engineering, computer network security,

mechanical and manufacturing. The research model was derived from the collected data of

these areas that is unique in this domain.

Keywords: Knowledge sharing, Motivational factors, Research centers. Iran.

1. Introduction

In today's competitive environment, survival, development and profitability of organizations

are highly dependent upon the earning of sustainable competitive advantages, including

knowledge capabilities (Jafari et al., 2007). In other words, to comply with the fast

environmental changes and become attuned with the requirements of competition,

organizations should try to attain sustainable competitive advantages (Barney and Hostelry,

2006, Mehralian et al., 2013). Wright et al. (1994) emphasized on those characteristics of

human resources which help make competitive advantages such as skill, experience and

knowledge. Grant (1991) and Jafari et al. (2008) introduces knowledge as “the most

important resource of the organization strategy.”

Applying the knowledge of employees within organization has numerous benefits, including

time reduction in the work process, reducing costs, improvement of customer services,

flexibility for rapid changes in the organization, creation of a learning environment, and

increased productivity and efficiency (Skyrme, 2000). These benefits show the importance of

knowledge in gaining competitive advantages (Akhavan et al., 2009). Nowadays,

organizations found that their knowledge on how to perform tasks must be managed as well

as other valuable assets (Watson, 2003). Creating and managing knowledge as the modern

economics pivot, is the only way for organizations to create value in the long term (Johnson,

2005). Thus, during recent years, many debates have been on the importance of knowledge

and its management (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Accordingly, organizations that lack

understanding on today's requirements without considering such needs in their infrastructure

would be declined very early in their business life cycle (Jafari and Akhavan, 2007).

Several works introduced Knowledge Sharing (KS) as one of the major activities of

knowledge management (Sugurmaran and Bose, 2003; Riege, 2005; Akhavan et al., 2010).

Huysmans and Wit (2000) believe that the role of KS in organizations is so important, since


knowledge management has been created for the purpose of supporting KS. According to

Bock et al. (2005) and Bohn (2000) organizations’ the ability of innovation can be increased

through KS.

Understanding the importance of KS by managers makes the organizations face this question:

“What should be done for employees' real Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB)?” To answer

this question, many researchers have tried to introduce effective factors on KS. Some of

discussed factors influencing KS include: culture, organizational structure and use of

technology. In other words, for actual KSB, creating a culture for KS changes and carrying

out necessary reforms in organizational structure and use of technology are proposed to the

organizations' managers. In the face of fast environmental changes, managers are seeking

solutions that could promptly lead to the employees' KSB.

Although factors such as culture, organizational structure and use of technology are effective

in KSB, it is difficult to apply them in large organizations with huge number of employees

with different cultures. Although in many studies, motivations and their role in KSB have

been noted, no efforts can be found to have been implemented on how the motivational

factors lead to actual KSB. This study tries to provide a model for KS use in motivational

theories and the theory of planned behavior. In other words, this model contributes to guiding

managers towards the proper kind of motivational factors and methods of KS to lead them to

the actual KSB. Although the KSB plays a key role in every organization, we focused on RCs

due to the important role of knowledge workers who are involved in the process of

innovation to create wealth as well as commercialization of new ideas in these centers; they

would be best examples of conducting such research. The rest of the paper is organized

accordingly. The next section develops the background of the research, followed by the

hypotheses and the research model, research methodology, research results, discussion on the

research findings, conclusions and limitations of the study.

2. Literature review

2.1 Definition of KS and its benefits

Different definitions of KS have been provided, each considering an aspect of KS; some of

which are given in the following:

KS in organizations may be viewed as the behavior by which an individual voluntarily

provides other members of the organization some kind of access to his or her knowledge and

experiences. KS encompasses a broad range of behaviors that are complex and multifaceted

(Silvio and Chun, 2010). Lin et al. (2009) introduced KS as a social interaction culture


involving the exchange of employee’s knowledge, experiences and skills through the whole

department or organization. In Harder's belief (2008), KS is the voluntary and social process

of transferring, obtaining and reusing the existing knowledge in order to serve organizational

goals.

The benefits of KS and its key role in gaining competitive advantages have attracted the

attention of many organizations. Among the most important benefits of knowledge sharing,

some can be outlined as follows: Knowledge creation (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995),

creativity and innovation (Bock et al., 2005), quality of service and product delivery process

(Shyh et al., 2006), greater customer satisfaction (Bock et al., 2005; Davenport and Prusak,

1998), organizational learning (Silvio and Chun, 2010; Wasko and Faraj, 2000; Hass and

Hansen, 2007), rapid response (Silvio and Chun, 2010), product development and

organizational strategies (Sanchez and Palacios, 2007), reducing the time from design to

manufacturing (Davenport and Prusak, 1998), employees’ retention rates (McKenzie and

Van, 2004), cost reduction (McKenzie and Van, 2004), empowerment of employees (Cruz et

al., 2009), development of performance (Wasko and Faraj, 2000), better decision making

(APQC, 1999), prevention of the knowledge death (Wasko and Faraj, 2000).

2.2 Definition of “Motivations” and their role in KS

Motivations are psychological processes, causing the arousal, direction, intensification and

persistence of behavior (Locke and Latham, 2004). Many researchers have investigated the

role of motivation on KS and have shown that motivations are effective on KSB, quite like

other behaviors. Shyh et al. (2006) state that effective guiding of motivation raises the

employees' KS. In some cases, people may be reluctant towards knowledge sharing behavior;

thus, applying motivational factors to stimulate KSB would be essential (Ipe, 2003). Absence

of motivation has negative effects on KS (Burgess, 2005; Ostelloh and Frey, 2000). One of

the priorities announced by the knowledge management researchers is to motivate KS in

employees (King, 2006). Furthermore, Raghu and Vinze (2007) state that one reason for the

failure of knowledge management activities are the lack of motivations in individuals and

groups for KS. Finally, the success of knowledge management largely depends upon the

intention of organization members in sharing their knowledge, while motivation is also an

essential factor influencing the intention to KSB (Prodromos and Vrimaki, 2009).

2.3 Motivational theories and classification of motivational factors


Motivation theories have been classified into the content and process theories. Content

theories consider the motivational factors and do not explain the process of creating, directing

and maintaining the motivation. In contrast, process theories focus on studying the

mechanisms and methods of motivation creating (Boone and Kurts, 1992). Content theories

are also known as need gratification theories which include four theories:

The theory of Maslow (1968) is one of the content theories. It refers to the existence of many

individual needs, which are clustered into five categories: physiological needs, security

needs, belongingness need, recognition need, self-actualization, status and power needs.

On the basis of extensive studies, Alderfer (1972) concluded that the five clusters should be

folded into three: existence, relatedness and growth. His theory states that people basically

want (i) to safeguard their existence, through food, shelter, job and income (Maslow’s first

two needs), (ii) to relate to other persons meaningfully through social contacts, friendship and

recognition (Maslow’s third), and (iii) to grow and develop their abilities, through

achievement and self-actualization (Maslow’s fourth and fifth).

McClelland (1987) concluded (based his experience in many companies) that the need for

affiliation, the need for achievement and the need for power are the most important

motivating factors in working life.

Herzberg’s (1968) two-factor theory is based on two different groups of factors: motivation

and hygiene. Presence of motivational factors leads to an increase both in motivation and in

satisfaction (Hendriks, 1999).

Many studies have been conducted in pursuit of categorizing the motivating features to

intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Ryan and Deci (2000) conducted many empirical studies on the

difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and finally declared that the difference

between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is not such an obvious one. Intrinsic motivation is

defined as performing an activity due to its inherent satisfactions rather than some separable

consequences. An intrinsically motivated person likes to act for the fun or challenge entailed

rather than the external prods, pressures, or rewards. For humans, the intrinsic motivation is

not the only form of motivation, but it is a pervasive and important one. Although in one

sense, intrinsic motivation exists within individuals, intrinsic motivation exists in the relation

between individuals and activities. People are intrinsically motivated for some activities

while not for others, and not everyone is intrinsically motivated for any particular task.

Although intrinsic motivation is clearly of an important type, most of the activities done by

people are not treated. Similar to intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation is a construct that


pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcomes. Extrinsic

motivation, unlike the intrinsic one, refers to doing an activity simply for the mere pleasure of

the act, rather than its instrumental value (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In other words, extrinsic

motivation refers to factors originated inside a person. An intrinsically motivated behavior is

the one that is initiated by a person in pursuit of no other goal than the activity itself (Fridlund

et al., 1999). Extrinsic motivation is originated from factors outside the person. People are

extrinsically motivated when they are engaged in activities as a means to obtain a tangible

goal (Brehm et al., 2002).

2.4 Knowledge types and Methods of KS

Nonaka, in his own classification of knowledge, defines the explicit knowledge as a

knowledge that is the objective, which could be expressed as a formal and systematic

language. He believes that this kind of knowledge is independent of individuals and available

in computer information systems, books, documents, etc. In addition, this type of

organizational knowledge is capable of coding and can be expressed through dialect (Nonaka,

1994). In Nonaka’s definition of explicit knowledge, in order to encourage people to share

their tacit knowledge, they must either code or document it or be developed through

interaction with each other and share it via the dialect. These methods could be performed in

the context of information technology or even without it.

From the perspective of Polani (1996), hidden/implicit knowledge is a non-explicit

knowledge that exists within the person, and in most cases, it is difficult to describe and

transfer. Sources and content of hidden knowledge are hidden in the mind, not easily

accessible and are restructured (Hendriks, 1999). Thus, according to Polani, the tacit

knowledge hidden in people's minds is difficult to be documented, and even impossible in

many cases. The best method for providing this knowledge for others is individuals'

interaction with each other. Based on the literature review, KS methods are illustrated as

follows:

Methods of knowledge documenting: documenting in paper form, documenting in repositories

and databases (Nonaka, 1994).

Methods of interaction: storytelling, community of practice, peer assistance, coaching,

seminar presentations, mentoring, meetings, after action review (AAR) (CIDA, 2003), quit

interviews (Lng et al., 2006), job rotation (Horwitz, 2003), conference (Armstrong, 2009), in-

service training (peters, 1994), teamwork (MacNiel, 2003), interaction through information

technology (Nonaka, 1994) (including IT methods such as: types of blogs, internet sites, e-


mail, video conferencing, chat, virtual training, knowledge management software, expert

systems, networks and social interaction, etc).

3. Hypotheses development and research model

3.1 Hypotheses development

Two major theories attempted to consider an individual’s KS intention and actual KSB within

an organization: the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005) and the

theory of planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). Since knowledge is usually difficult to

imitate, transfer and replicate, it is important to understand how KS takes place. Intention and

behaviors focus on the tendency to be engaged in a certain behavior and are influenced by

two factors:

1. The individual’s attitudes, based on the existence of prior tendencies directed at an object

or a group

2. A subjective norm that relates to the individual’s perception of the way in which others,

who are important to him or her, respond to a certain behavior.

TRA is prevalent in social-psychological models that explain human behavior and is actually

an expansion of expectancy theory, which involves environmental factors in addition to the

differences existing among individuals (Blau, 1964).

The TRA model has been used to explore the relationships between intention and actual

behavior of information sharing (Kolekofski and Heminger, 2003) and has served as a basis

for empirical (Bock et al., 2005; Lin and Lee, 2004; Ryu et al., 2003) and theoretical

(Reychav and Jacob, 2004) studies that explain the effect on knowledge sharing.

Both theories of TRA and TPB assume that intention is the leader of the behavior. In other

words, in normal conditions, intention leads to the actual behavior. So, based on this theory, it

is assumed that the intention to guide the behavior and interest to KS behaved by individuals,

acts as a leader of KSB. In other words, it could be stated that the KSB is a function of the

intention to KSB. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: There is a significant relationship between intention to KSB and KSB. This

means that more intention to KSB, will lead to more KSB.

Conducted research on KS introduced affecting factors such as culture (James and Seokwoo,

2011), trust (Scott and Dail, 2010), technology (Bishop et al., 2008), personal values (Oliver,

2008), rewards (Willem and Buelens, 2009; Cress and Hesse, 2004), organizational structure

(Chen and Huang, 2007), management support (King, 2005), and relationship (Alawi et al.,

2007), etc.


Several researchers have investigated the influence of motivation on KS, some of which

could be cited here: Barachini (2009), Khakpour et al. (2009), Siemen er al. (2008), Brent and

Vital (2007), Hung et al. (2005), Kwok (2005), Hansen and Avita (2005), SeyedIkhsan and

Rowland (2004), Wittenbaum et al. (2004), Argote et al. (2003), Bunderson and Sutcliffe

(2002), Hansen (2002), Paul (2001) and Osterloh and Freyy (2000).

Silvio and Chun (2010) and Harder (2008), in their definition of KS, introduced KSB as a

voluntary and intentional behavior. This means that it cannot be obtained forcefully as

Helmstedler (2003) stated. Therefore, the employees should be willing to share their

knowledge with others. Thus, the motivations cause individuals' intention to KS and lead to

KSB reliability. Despite the researchers' emphasis on the importance and role of motivation

in KS, some researchers such as Li and Poon (2009) have introduced the motivational factors

influencing KS, in order to respond to the question that whether the motivations are leading

to KSB. Some of the abovementioned researchers have studied the influence of motivational

factors on KS functional form (Harder, 2008). Others, using different theories, have

introduced the theoretical model for KS and evaluated it by using of data in real

environments (Bock and Kim, 2002). Others have paid attention to how motivational factors

affect on KSB (Chun and Mei, 2009). Some motivational factors used to determine their

impact on KS are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Effective and non-effective motivational factors on KS in different researches

Factors Researcher

Reciprocity (-), Interpersonal Trust (+), KS self-efficacy (+), Perceived

relative advantages (+)

Chen and Huang

(2010)

Autonomy of work (+) Gagne (2009)

Knowledge, Self-efficacy, Enjoyment in helping other, Responsibility,

Trust, Incentives

Chun and Mei

(2009)

Trust, Salary, Social status, Interpersonal relationship, Recognition,

Achievement, Challenge of work, Sense of responsibility, Autonomy Li and Poon (2009)

Trust (+), Autonomy of work (+), Honesty (+), Membership (+) ,

Incentive (+), Recognition (+), Promotion (+), Stability (+) Cruz et al. (2009)

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

Autonomy of work (+), Reward tangible (-), Managers acknowledgement

(+), Managers support (+) Harder (2008)

Reciprocal benefits (+), Organizational reward (+), Knowledge, Self-Lin (2007); Allameh


efficacy (+), Enjoyment in helping other(+) et al. (2008)

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

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

Expected reward (-), Expected associations (+), Expected contribution

(+)

Bock and Kim

(2002)

Reciprocity, Relationship with recipient, Reward Ipe (2003)

Altruism (+), Repute (-), Hygiene factors(-), Reciprocity (-) Weng and Cgen

(2000)

Motivational factors (+): (achievement, responsibility, recognition,

autonomy of work, promotional opportunities, challenge of work)

Hygiene factors (-): (salary, social status, company policy, interpersonal

relation)

Hendriks (1999)

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

Table 2 shows motivational factors that are derived after consideration of motivational theories.

Table 2: Motivational factors introduced by various theorists

Motivational factors Theory and theorists

Salary, financial rewards, non-financial rewards physiological

Maslow's hierarchy of

needs (Kim, 2008)

Job security, health and safety work safety

Friendly and informal relationships with

colleagues, the social status love

Respect for managers and other colleagues esteem

Organization's compliance with demands , self-

control and management Self-actualization

Salary, financial rewards, non-financial rewards Existence

Alderfer's theory, three

factors


colleagues Relatedness

Job promotion, learning and growth Growth

Salary, good working conditions (cleanliness and

hygiene), job security, Competent supervisor or

manager, policy and organizational policies,

Hygiene factors Herzberg's two-factor

(Hendriks, 1999)


relationships

Success, increased responsibility, challenging of

work, improvement and growth, recognition, job

promotion

Motivational

factors

non-routine tasks performed and challenge,

learning and development, job promotion,

success at work

Achievement

McClelland's

Acquired needs


colleagues Affiliation

Enterprise management jobs and supervision,

participation in decision making, increase

responsibility and empowerment, recognition,

autonomy of work, earn reputation in certain

specialties

Power

The researchers' emphasis on the voluntarily nature of KSB and the role of motivation in the

KSB, means that KSB is not done without the intention of employees, and motivations

incline employees to share their knowledge. This result is presented in the following

hypotheses:

H2: There is a significant relationship between intrinsic motivational factors and

intention to KSB. This means more use of intrinsic motivational factors will

lead to more intention to KSB.

H3: There is a significant relationship between extrinsic motivational factors and

intention to KSB. This means more use of extrinsic motivational factors will

lead to more intention to KSB.

Although supporting motivation for KSB has been much emphasized, the key point is that

even when the motivations for KSB are prepared, KSB performing in the organization or the

appropriate method of KS for employees must be considered. Surely, it is obvious that some

methods are needed to perform KS. However, it is important to know what methods should

be used? KS methods used by managers for their organization should be firstly effective

when tailored to their organization and also have to be based on their employees' interest. In

other words, even if the managers identify all the factors affecting the KSB and implement


the process, without choosing the methods of KS, their plan cannot fully lead to KSB of

employees. Thus, we propose the H4 as below:

H4: There is a significant relationship between the intention to methods of KS and

intention to KSB. This means more use of methods that are interesting for

employees, will lead to more intention to KSB.

3.2 Research model

Figure 1 presents the research model in accordance with the characteristics of the RCs and

the literature addressing motivational factors and KSB. The model depicts the relationship

between motivational factors and intention to methods of KS and the relationship between

intention to KS and KSB.

Figure 1: Research conceptual model

4. Research method

The method used in this research is descriptive and based on correlation that was done using

questionnaires and survey method. The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test

the research model and the hypotheses.

4.1 Variables measurement methodology and research performing process

This study was conducted in several steps as the following:

Step1. Review of previous researches on effective motivational factors in KS:

The purpose of this step is to review the previous studies to identify the motivational factors

that may be effective in KSB of employees. These factors were resulted from the

combination of identified factors in previous research (see Table 1) and factors introduced by

motivational theories (see Table 2).

Beside primary motivational factors derived from previous studies and theories of motivation,

some new motivational factors like hope to the future, the sense of ownership to the

organization's, social reputation (of being famous and the honor of working in the


organization), organizational justice, religious beliefs of employees, growth and promoting

the organization and boast of knowledge were proposed based on experts’ opinions in this

research. Since the research statistical society includes employees with long-term contracts,

the job security factor was removed from the list of motivating factors. Furthermore, the

usefulness of knowledge is noted as a positive factor in KSB, but according to our experts’

opinion, the employees' awareness of their knowledge usefulness causes the feeling of power;

therefore, it prevents them from sharing their knowledge. As a result, the usefulness of

knowledge is not considered as a motivational factor for KSB in this study.

Altogether, 40 motivational factors are considered to assess their impact on employees’ KS of

RCs, which are presented as follows:

Intrinsic motivational factors: friendly and intimate relations, interpersonal trust, success,

honesty, responsibility, commitment and loyalty, religious beliefs, respect, self-management,

organizational justice, social status, organization's compliance with demands, learning,

growth and progress, the usefulness of knowledge sharing, enjoyment of helping others,

belonging to the organization, a sense of altruism, social reputation, retaliation, hope for the

future organization, self-esteem, acknowledging others, a sense of ownership, boast of

knowledge.

Extrinsic motivational factors: Job promotion, Autonomy of work, Managers quality,

Financial rewards, Non-Financial rewards, Management support, Recognition, Challenge of

work, Reputation, Good policies, Participation in decision making, The appointment of

managerial jobs, Transfer of authority, Health and Safety Work, Salary.

Step2. Identifying the motivational factors affecting KS in the RCs:

The purpose of this step is to provide answer to the question “Which one of the 40 identifying

factors is effective over KS in the RCs?” For such an evaluation, each of the motivational

factors in the form of a question was reflected in the questionnaire. To measure these factors,

the five item Likert’s scale was used (ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high)). For

example, in this case, to answer the question of "To what extent friendly and intimate

relations lead you to KSB?" the employees have selected one of the options, including “1-

very low” to “5- very high”.

Step3. Review of previous research concerning the KS methods:

The purpose of this step is to review the previous studies to identify the KS methods that may

be favorable to employees in RCs. Literature review and previous research showed that the

KS methods can be classified based on two approaches of documentative and interactive.


These methods (including 2 documentation methods and 14 interactive methods) were

provided in Section 2.4.

Step4. Identifying the KS methods interesting for employees' in the RCs:

The purpose of this step includes identifying the KS methods that are interesting for

employees' in the RCs. In order to measure the employees' interest in the KS methods, 16

methods were considered as described in section 2.4. It is noteworthy that in this paper we

emphasized on information and communication technology (ICT) as a tool for knowledge

sharing. Therefore, the application of IT tools including blogs, web sites, e-mail, video

conferencing, chat, virtual training, knowledge management software, expert systems,

networks, social interaction, etc., were not evaluated separately. In other words, interest in

using ICT tools was considered in the form of a question. To measure the intention to the KS

methods, the five item Likert's scale (ranging from1- very low to 5- very high) was used. For

example, the employees chose one of the options of "1-very low" to "5- very high" based on

their interest in "coaching method".

Step5. Evaluation of model fit and testing the research hypotheses:

The purpose of this step includes the variables’ measurement of research model, examining

the fitness of model, evaluating the quantitative relationships between the variables and

testing the research hypotheses. In this section, the current situation of RCs concerning the

supply of motivational factors influencing knowledge sharing, which were specified in step 2,

was measured. For example, the employees responded to this question that how much do the

RCs use the "job promotion" as a motivational factor for their KS?

The RCs conditions were evaluated considering the use of KS methods that have been

identified as the KS methods of interest in the fourth step. In this section, the question was

raised as follows: To what extent, do the RCs use any of KS methods? Beside the

aforementioned issue, in this step, "intention to KS" and "KSB" variables are measured. The

five-option Likert's scale was used to measure all the variables of the research model. All the

variables of the research models and their measurement methods are given in Table 5.

4.2 Sampling and Data collection

According to Cochran's formula, 306 persons were selected as the sample (N=1500, p=q=0.5,

d=0.05, z=1.96). This sample was prepared from 10 Iranian RCs working in engineering

research fields including: electrical and electronics, telecommunications, materials,

chemistry, biotechnology, information technology, management and industrial engineering,

computer network security, mechanical and manufacturing. With regard to the fact that a

number of questionnaires may not be returned and/or some of them might have been missing


data or would not be suitable for analysis, 400 questionnaires were distributed. Out of 373

questionnaires (equivalent to 93.25 percent of the total sample) returned, only 317 of them

(85 percent) were appropriate for analysis. Table 3 shows the basic data of the respondents of

the effective questionnaires.

Table 3: Demographic profile of respondents

Demographic characteristics Frequency percentage

Gender Female 28 8.8

Male 289 91.2

Age

Under 35 years 152 47.9

35 - 55 162 51.1

55 years and

over

3 0.9

Educational

Level

BA 86 27.2

MA 143 45.1

Ph.D. 88 27.8

Work

experience

Under 15 years 136 42.9

15 – 25 153 48.2

25 years and

over

28 8.8

Position

Senior 26 8.2

Middle manager 54 17

Researcher 237 74.8

Note: n=317

4.3 Validity and reliability of the questionnaire

In order to assess the questionnaire validity, 8 experts (including academic experts, experts in

knowledge management systems and managers of research centers) were invited to review

the questionnaire. They suggested some corrections for improving the validity of

questionnaire.

Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire and showed the

amount of 0.883, which indicates good reliability for the questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha

values of the questionnaire are shown in Table 4.


Table 4: Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the measurement of Questionnaire reliability

Research steps Variable name Cronbach's Alpha N of

Items

Second step (assessment of the impact

of motivational factors in KS) Motivational factors .84 40

Forth step (assessment of the KS

methods of interest) Methods of KS .90 16

Fifth step (evaluation of RCs status

concerning the supply of effective

motivational factors)

Effective motivational

factors .85 24

Fifth step (evaluation of RCs current

status concerning the use of KS

methods of interest)

Accepted methods of

KS .82 9

Fifth step (measurement of intention to

KS) Intention to KS .92 5

Fifth step (measurement of KS

behavior) KSB .89 6

Overall reliability of the questionnaire .88 100

5. Results and data analysis

5.1 Motivational factors affecting KS in the RCs:

The average calculated value for each of the motivational factors based on Likert's scale (1-5)

shows that these factors are not of equal importance; some are more important while others

are not. In order to identify the more important motivational factors, the t-test was used. The

results of this test showed that at the level of P = 0.05, among the 40 motivational factors, 16

motivational factors had a mean lower than 3, and therefore were identified as the less

important motivational factors in knowledge sharing. The important motivational factors in

KS are as follows:

Important intrinsic factors: friendly and intimate relations, interpersonal trust, success,

honesty, responsibility, commitment and loyalty, religious beliefs, respect, self-management,

organizational justice, social status, compliance with the demands, learning, growth and

improvement of the organization, the usefulness of knowledge sharing, enjoyment of helping

others (totally15 factors).


Important extrinsic factors : job promotion, autonomy of work, managers' quality, non-

financial rewards, challenge of work, financial rewards, management support, recognition,

reputation (totally 9 factors).

5.2 The KS methods interesting for employees' in the RCs

The average calculated for each of the methods of KS based on Likert's scale (1-5) shows that

these methods are not considered equally; some are more favorable and others are less

favorable. The t-test was used in order to identify the methods of KS, which are favored by

employees. The results of this test showed that at the level of P = 0.05, among the 16 KS

methods, 7 KS methods had a mean lower than 3, and therefore were identified as the

methods that are less favored by employees. The KS methods of interest include: community

of practice, peer assistant, meeting, after action review, team work, seminars, interaction with

its tools, in-service training, mentoring (totally 9 methods).

5.3 Data analysis

Due to normality of data, SEM was used for validation and analysis of the examination of

reasonability of the research structure and the results of the research issues. The SEM is

composed of two parts: the measurement model and the structural equation model. The

measurement model indicates how latent variables or hypothetical constructs depend upon or

are indicated by the observed variables. The model describes the measurement properties

(reliabilities and validities) of the observed variables. Meanwhile, the SEM specifies the

causal relationships among the latent variables, describes the causal effects, and assigns the

explained and unexplained variances (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).

This study uses the LISREL 8.80 statistical package to test the hypothesized model, as it is

specifically designed to deal with models that incorporate latent variables, measurement

errors and reciprocal causation. Moreover, the LISREL has been designed to estimate and test

the hypothesized model fit and specified causal relations. The SEMs are statistical models of

the linear relationships among latent (un-observed) variables and manifest (observed)

variables. One of the unique characteristics of SEM is its ability to provide parameter

estimates for relationships among unobserved variables. The SEM resembles path analysis in

providing parameter estimates of the direct and indirect links between the observed variables

(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996).

5.3.1 Measurement model

As discussed earlier in step 5, Table 5 shows the type of variables and demonstrates how to

measure them for testing the research hypotheses.


Table 5: The measurement of research variables

The

measure

variables

Observed Variables Latent variables

By using

the range of

five item

Likert's

scale

Important intrinsic factors in section 5.1 (totally 15 factors) Intrinsic motivation

factors

Important extrinsic factors in section 5.1 (totally 9 factors) Extrinsic motivation

factors

KS methods of interest in section 5.2

(totally 9 factors)

Intention to methods

of knowledge

sharing

Intention to share experiences (Reychave, 2010), intention

to share ideas (Manjit and Kamal, 2011), intention to report

the results of activities (Reychave, 2010), intention to

answer questions (Chan et al., 2009), willing to put time

(Chan et al., 2009), (totally 5 questions)

Intention to

knowledge sharing

behavior

Having a plan for sharing knowledge (Ryu, 2003), sharing

experiences (Reychave, 2010), sharing ideas and opinions

(Manjit and Kamal., 2011), reports’ results of activities

(Reychave, 2010), answering questions (Chan et al., 2009),

putting time (Chan et al., 2009)(totally 6 questions)

Knowledge sharing

behavior

5.3.2 Assessment of the measurement model (Factor analysis)

First, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the overall

measurement model. In order to evaluate the validity of measurement model, convergent

validity was assessed. Convergent validity (factor loading more than 0.5 and Average

Variance Extracted shared between constructs and measures more than 0.5) is the degree to

which the factors supposed to measure a single construct are in agreement with each other

(John and Benet, 2000). Figure 2 shows the parameter estimates of the structural model of

this paper. Afterwards, an inspection of the estimates of the model and assessment of the

overall fit indicators besides modification index can be made to evaluate the fit model.

This paper uses a SEM for validation and analysis of the examination of reasonability of the

research structure and the results of the research issues. The standardized coefficient of


intrinsic motivational factors and intention to KS is 0.41, and the t-value is 14.61, p < 0.001,

reaching the statistical significance. The results indicate that intrinsic motivational factors

have a positive and direct influence on intention to KS. The standardized coefficient between

extrinsic motivational factors and intention to KS is 0.19, the t-value is 8.91, and the p is

0.001 which also reaches the statistical significance. These numbers suggest that the extrinsic

motivational factors have a positive and direct influence on intention to KS. The standardized

coefficient between accepted methods of KS and intention to KS is 0.30 and the t-value is

5.99 that also reaches the statistical significance. These numbers suggest that the accepted

methods of KS have a positive and direct influence on intention to KS.

In addition, the higher the model fit the higher usability the model has, as far as the model-fit

assessment is concerned. That also means the parameter estimates are more meaningful. This

paper refers to absolute fit indicators, incremental fit indicators, and goodness of fit index

recommended by Hair et al. (1998) for the validation of overall fit.

Table 6 shows all the overall fit indicators. Among the absolute fit indicators, the χ2/df is

1.02, the Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value of this model is also 0.96, the root mean square

residual (RMR) value is 0.043, and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)

value is 0.008, all within an acceptable range, as suggested by past scholars. Huang (2004)

suggested that if the RMSEA value is between 0.05 and 0.08, and the χ2/df reach below 3,

which imply a good fit.

As far as the incremental fit indicators are concerned, the adjusted goodness of fit index

(AGFI) value of this model is 0.95, the normal fit index (NFI) value is 0.96, the comparative

fit index (CFI) value is 0.96, and the incremental fit index (IFI) value is 1.00, all the values

reach the standards suggested in the literature. Among the goodness of fit index, the

parsimonious normal fit index (PNFI) value of this model is 0.90 and the parsimonious

goodness fit index (PGFI) value is 0.86. They are both greater than 0.5, reaching the

standards suggested by previous scholars.

Table 6: Goodness-of fit measures of the SEM

Result Validation value Criteria Fitness indicator

Absolute fit indicators

Compliant 1.02 < 3 χ2/df

Compliant 0.96 > 0.90 GFI

Compliant 0.043 < 0.05 RMR


Compliant 0.008 < 0.05 – 0.08 RMSEA

Incremental fit indicators

Compliant 0.95 > 0.90 AGFI

Compliant 0.96 > 0.90 NFI

Compliant 0.96 > 0.90 CFI

Compliant 1.00 > 0.90 IFI

Goodness of fit index

Compliant 0.90 > 0.5 PNFI

Compliant 0.90 > 0.5 PGFI

5.4.3 Structural model

The second step in model estimation was to examine the significance of each hypothesized

path in the research model. Figure 2 shows the practical model in the standard estimate. Since

there was no possibility of entering the full name of variables in the LISREL software, we

entered them with a summarization of the full name of variables, which are presented below

Figure 2.

Table 7 and Figure 2 show the results of hypothesis testing of the structural relationships

among the latent variables. The path analysis results (Figure 2) show that all hypotheses have

significant effect, and are supported; thus, the proposed theoretical model is partially

supported. Supplying both intrinsic motivational factors (β = 0.41, p < 0.01) and extrinsic

motivational factors (β =0.19, p < 0.01,) increases the employees' intention to KS. Using the

methods of KS that are interesting for employees (β = 0.30, p < 0.01), have a positive effect

on intention to KSB of the employees. Employees intention to KS (β = 0.61, p < 0.01), in this

study, shows a positive effect on KSB. Thus, it can be concluded that the research model is

partially supported by the data.

Table 7: Hypothesis testing results

Remarks Significant

coefficient(t)

Path

Coefficient(β)

Hypothesis

Supported 14.61 0.61*IKS -----------KSB H1:

Supported 8.91 0.41*IMF --------- IKS H2:

Supported 5.99 0.19*EMF --------- IKS H3:

Supported 7.42 0.30*IMKS -------- IKS H4:


Notes: * Significant at the p < 0.01 ; IMF: Intrinsic Motivational factors, EMF:

Extrinsic motivational factors, IMKS: Intention to methods of knowledge sharing,

IKS: Intention to knowledge sharing behavior, KSB: knowledge sharing behavior


Figure 2: Research model in SEM


Note: IMF1: Friendly and intimate relationship with colleagues, IMF2: Success at Work,

IMF3: Respect of managers and colleagues, IMF4: Social status, IMF5: self-Management,

IMF6: Learning of colleagues, IMF7: Organization's compliance with demands,

IMF8:Usefulness of knowledge sharing, IMF9: Trust in colleagues, IMF10: Honesty, IMF11:

Enjoy helping others, IMF12: Responsibility commitment and loyalty, IMF13: Organization

of justice, IMF14: Organization's growth and progress, IMF15: Religious beliefs.

EMF1: Financial rewards, EMF2: Non-financial rewards, EMF3: Job promotion, EMF4:

Autonomy of work, EMF5: Challenge of work, EMF6: Management support, EMF7: Quality

manager, EMF8: Recognition, EMF9: Reputation.

IMKS1: Peer Assistance, IMKS2: After action Review, IMKS3: Mentoring, IMKS4: In-

service training, IMKS5: Teamwork, IMKS6: Meeting, IMKS7: Community of practice,

IMKS8: Seminar, IMKS9: Interaction with colleagues using information technology.

IKS1: Intention to share work experiences, IKS2: Intention to share ideas and opinions,

IKS3: Intention to share the results of activities, IKS4: Intention to answer questions, IKS5:

Intention to share time for knowledge sharing.

KSB1: Sharing the knowledge and work experience, KSB2: Sharing the ideas and opinions,

KSB3: Sharing the results of activities, KSB4: Replying to Questions, KSB5: timing for

knowledge sharing.

IMF: Intrinsic Motivational Factors, EMF: Extrinsic Motivational Factors, IMKS: Intention

to Methods of Knowledge Sharing, IKS: Intention to Knowledge Sharing Behavior, KSB:

Knowledge Sharing Behavior.

6. Discussion

Managers, who understand the importance of KS, have been faced with this question that

"what should they do for real KSB of employees?" to answer this question, the researchers

have attempted to identify the factors influencing the KS and presented them to the managers.

Some of the most important of these factors include culture, organizational structure,

technology and motivation. Managers are looking for the factors that can be used easily, and

are low-cost, in timely manner and have the best result in the KSB of employees. In large

organizations, the employees have different cultures, and making a culture for KS is highly

complex. Changing the culture or creating a new culture is time-consuming and costs a lot.

Structural changing in large organizations cannot be done easily and needs to create the


conditions for such a structural change. Use of technology for KSB has costs and needs to

create the necessary conditions for its acceptance by the employees. Among the effective

factors enumerated on KS, the one that plays an important role in KSB, could be cited as the

motivation factor. The role of motivation factor is so important and fundamental that even if

the organizations provide all the factors affecting KS, except the motivation factor, the actual

behavior of KS will not occur. Although different researches have introduced motivation as a

major factor in KSB, they couldn't provide a comprehensive response to this managers’

question that whether the motivational factors lead to KSB. Although some studies have

attempted to introduce the motivational factors influencing the KS, the literature review

shows contradictory results. This study was developed to provide practical solutions to

managers for the purpose of real KSB of employees. This study proposed motivations and

methods of KS for real KSB of employees. According to that, without using the methods of

KS, it does not occur in the organization in actuality. Another question was as follows: “What

methods should be considered for KS?”. To answer this question, a variable was introduced

as the "intention to methods of KS". Using methods of KS that are not of interest for

employees will not lead to KSB. In other words, even if motivational factors are provided, by

using the methods of KS that are not of interest for the employees, the KSB will not occur in

practice. With this approach, the research model was developed by using of the motivational

theories and the theory of planning behavior in order to help the managers to achieve the

actual KSB of employees. This model examined the Iranian RCs and showed supplying the

motivational factors and methods of KS that are interesting to employees playing an

important role in KSB. Another important point that could be cited as a result of this study is

the highlighted role of intrinsic motivational factors rather than extrinsic ones in KSB in RCs.

The results of study showed that unlike the public perception that the role of financial

motivation and extrinsic is important, intrinsic motivational factors play more effective role

in KSB. This means that in many cases, without spending much cost and only with a little

respect to the employees and creating a bit of trust and honesty, the organizations can bring

significant results in the KSB of employees. So, the model considered that organizations with

low costs can achieve useful results in the sharing of knowledge.

The obtained results showed that among 25 considered intrinsic motivational factors for

knowledge sharing only 15 factors were identified as the influencing motivational factors on

KS in research centers. The motivational factors, including sense of belonging to the

organization (Cruz et al., 2009), altruism (Weng and Cgen, 2000), social reputation of the


organization (experts), reciprocity (Weng and Cgen, 2000; Chen and Huang, 2010; Ipe,

2003), hope for the future of organization (experts), self-esteem (Yakhlef et al., 2009),

expected contribution (Bock and Kim, 2002), approval and confirmation by others (Harder,

2008), sense of ownership towards the organization (experts) and boast of knowledge

(experts) have not been recognized as intrinsic motivational factors in research centers.

Although a specific reason cannot be expressed to explain why these factors are not effective

for the KSB of the employees of the research centers, we can surely say that the employees of

research centers do not perform KSB in expecting others to do something for them, since

retaliation, expecting others' help and also others' confirmation and approval have not been

recognized as effective motivational factors on knowledge sharing. The interesting point is

that none of these factors are the factors introduced by motivational theories.

In contrast, factors such as friendly and intimate relations (Li and Poon, 2009; Ipe, 2003;

Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968; McCLand, 1987; Bock and Kim, 2002;

Hendriks 1999), success at work (Li and Poon, 2009; McCLand, 1987; Herzberg, 1968;

Hendriks, 1999), respect (Maslow, 1968), social status (Li and Poon, 2009; Yakhlef et al.,

2009; Maslow, 1968), self – management (Yakhlef et al., 2009; Maslow, 1968), learning

(Alderfer, 1972; McCLand, 1987 ), organization's compliance with demands (Maslow, 1968),

KS usefulness (Chen, 2010), trust (Chun and Mei, 2009; Li et al., 2009; Cruz, 2009), honesty

(Cruz, 2009), enjoyment of helping others (Chun and Mei, 2009), responsibility (Chun and

Mei, 2009; McCLand, 1987; Hendriks, 1999), organizational justice, growth and

improvement (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968; McCLand, 1987) and religious beliefs have

been recognized as effective intrinsic motivational factors on knowledge sharing. Factors

such as KS usefulness, trust, honesty and enjoying the process of helping others are related to

KS in nature and the motivational theories have not mentioned them. Except for religious

beliefs and organizational justice, which were evaluated according to the experts opinions,

other effective factors influencing the KSB in RCs are factors considered by the motivational

theories. Among the effective intrinsic motivational factors on KS in research centers,

success in performing works, organization's compliance with the demands and organizational

justice (figure 2) have the most important role in KSB. It may refer to the fact that nothing is

perhaps more attractive than doing successful research according to the researchers. In other

words, conducting successful research causes the satisfaction and fulfillment of the

researchers so much that they easily become willing to share their results with others. The

organization's compliance with the demands is considered as the highest level of self-

actualization, which is expressed in Maslow's theory. The high rank of this factor in KSB


shows that the researchers of RCs often have passed the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy

needs, and only the upper levels of the hierarchy create motivation for their knowledge

sharing behavior.

The organizational justice has been perhaps considered as a cause for the researchers, and

ensuring of justice realization and injustice prevention might lead to create motivation for

knowledge sharing behavior. In general, the intrinsic motivational factors are factors that

their provision by the organization leads to employees’ tendency for knowledge sharing

behavior, which was confirmed by the H2.

Among 15 extrinsic motivational factors, only six factors were not identified as influencing

factors on knowledge sharing, including: appropriateness of policies (Hendriks, 1999),

participation in decision making (McCLand, 1987), appointment of managerial jobs

(McCLand, 1987), increased responsibility and authority transferring (McCLand, 1987),

occupational health and safety (Maslow, 1968; Herzberg, 1968; Hendriks, 1999) and salary

and wage (Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg, 1968). This shows that health factors

and wages and salaries issues, which are almost good enough in such centers, are not

motivating. The researchers are not so willing to occupy managerial occupations, since the

management jobs separate the researchers from research affairs; for the same reason;

management jobs are not known as a motivational factor. Given that the decisions made in

the work environment are being taken in collaboration with the researchers in most cases, the

factor of participation in decision making is not also significant to them. Among the extrinsic

motivational factors, the ones such as financial and non-financial rewards (Cruz et al , 2009;

Harder, 2008; Cabrera, 2006; Ipe, 2003; Maslow, 1968; Alderfer, 1972; Bock and Kim, 2002;

Bock et al., 2005), job promotion (Herzberg, 1968; McCLand, 1987; Hendriks, 1999),

working independence (Cruz et al, 2009; Harder, 2008; Hendriks, 1999; Herzberg, 1968),

challenging work (McCLand, 1987; Herzberg, 1968), management support (Harder, 2008),

manager quality (Herzberg, 1968; Hendriks, 1999), recognition (Cruz et al, 2009; Li, 2009;

Herzberg, 1968), and gaining publicity (McCLand, 1987; Weng and Cgen, 2000) are

effective on knowledge sharing behavior. Except for the management support, other factors

are those introduced in motivational theories. Among these factors, the factors including

reputation gaining, manager proper quality and challenging work showed the most influence

on the behavior of KS (see figure 2). Becoming famous in the organization and working with

a manager considered by the researchers as a qualified person have a direct effect on

employees' motivation in knowledge sharing. For the researchers, performing routine and

daily tasks are not interesting at all, and being involved with challenging tasks in need of


solving a problem or an issue is more attractive. The extrinsic motivational factors also lead

to the creation of interest for KSB that such an issue was confirmed as H3. Based on the

research results, another effective variable in creating interest in employees to knowledge

sharing was the intention to do it. Given that without using methods of knowledge sharing,

the KSB will not happen, the organization's managers became confused in selecting such

methods. Results showed that managers should use the methods that are interesting for the

employees, since even all the motivational factors will be provided, regardless of the favorite

methods of sharing knowledge, the KSB will not occur. The results of this study showed that

doing team work, review after operation and peer assistance are the most favored methods of

KS in research centers. The relationship between being interested in KS methods and

intention to KS was also posed by H4 hypothesis which was confirmed. The results showed

that the intention to KS in RCs will also lead to KSB.

7. Conclusion

The provided model of this research and all its hypotheses were confirmed by structural

equation modeling. The research fitted model indicates that simultaneous provision of

intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors as well as applying the favorite methods of

knowledge sharing by the organization will lead to actual KS of behavior, and among these

factors, the intrinsic motivational factors play the most important role in knowledge sharing

behavior. Using the favorite methods of KS and providing extrinsic motivational factors are

followed subsequently.

8. Research limitations and guidance for future research

Despite the performed efforts on introducing the methods and motivational factors, various

considerations of employees regarding such methods and motivational factors could be of the

study's limitations. The next large number of statistical samples can increase the generalized

ability of the research findings. Finally, due to the number of motivational factors and the

various methods of KS included in the questionnaire, the high number of questions in the

questionnaire was out of patience of the respondents in some cases.

Applying introduced model by this study in other environments, including products

environments, services and etc, to achieve a practical and comprehensive model of KS in

each of the environments, studying various methods to share knowledge in various

organizations and ultimately identifying the best possible method for KS of any activity are

discussed to be the supplement to this research and suggestions for future researches.


References

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (2005), “The influence of attitudes on behavior”, in Albarracın, D.,

Johnson, B.T. and Zanna, M.P. (Eds), The Handbook of Attitudes, Erlbaum, Mahwah,

NJ, pp. 173-221.

Akhavan, P., Edalati, M., Sharifi, S. and Hosnavi, R. (2010), “The challenges of knowledge

management portals application and implementation: An Iranian organizations case

study”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, Vol. 1 No. 1,

pp. 79-93.

Akhavan, P., Hosnavi, R. and Sanjaghi, M. (2009), “Identification of knowledge management

critical success factors in Iranian academic research centers”, Education, Business and

Society, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 276-288.

Alawi, A.I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y. and Mohammad, Y.F. (2007), “Organizational culture and

knowledge sharing: critical success factors”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.

11 No. 2, pp. 22-42.

Alderfer, C.P. (1972), “Existence, relatedness and growth”, New York, Free Press.

Allameh, S.M., Seyyedsadri, E. and Davoodi, S.M. (2008), “The Effect of Extrinsic and

Intrinsic Motivation on Staff Knowledge Sharing Intentions”, The International Journal

of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 139-152.

APQC, (1999), “Creating a knowledge-sharing culture”, Houston, Texas, American

Productivity and Quality Center.

Argote, L., McEvily, B. and Reagans, R. (2003), “Managing knowledge in organizations: an

integrative framework and review of emerging themes”, Management Science, Vol. 49

No. 4, pp. 571-82.

Armstrong, M. (2009), “Strategic human resource management”, 11th edition, p. 43

Barachini, F. (2009), “Cultural and social issues for knowledge sharing”, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 98-110.

Barney, J.B. and Hostelry, W. (2006), “Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage:

Concepts”, Prentice Hall.

Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, J. and Matsumoto, I. (2008), “Ensuring the effectiveness of

acknowledge management innovative”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12

No. 4, PP. 16-29.


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

Publishers.

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, Apr-

June, PP. 14-21.

Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, L.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation

in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological

forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Bohn, R. (2000), “Stop fighting fires”, Harvard Business Review, Vo. l78, pp. 83-91.

Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (1992), “Management”, 4th Ed, New Jeresy: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Brehm, S., Kassin, S. and Fein, S. (2002), “Social Psychology”, Fifth edition, Houghton

Mifflin Company, pp. 59-60.

Brent, M.H. and Vittal, S. (2007), “knowledge sharing in large it organizations”, the journal

of information and knowledge management system, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 421– 439.

Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations of

functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy

of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 875-893.

Burgess, D. (2005), “What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work

unit?”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 324-348.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2006), “Determinants of individual engagement

in knowledge sharing” International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17

No. 2, pp. 245-264.

Chan, I.y., Chen, N. and Kinshuk, (2009), “Examining the Factors Influencing Participants

Knowledge Sharing Behavior”, Educational technology and society, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp.

134–148.

Chen, C.J. and Huang, J. (2007), “How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge

management: the social interaction perspective”, International Journal of Information

Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 104-118.

Chen, C.J. and Huang, S.W. (2010), “To give or to receive? Factors influencing member’s

knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities”,

Information and Management, Vol. 47 No. 4 pp. 226-236.

Chun, L. and Mei, C. (2009), “Factors Affecting Teachers' Knowledge Sharing Behaviors

and Motivation: System Functions that Work”, National Changsha University of

Education, Taiwan.


CIDA, (2003), “Knowledge sharing: methods, meetings and tools”, hand book, Canadian

international development agency.

Cress, U. and Hesse, F.W. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in groups: Experimental findings of

how to overcome a social dilemma”, In Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enydey, A. S.

Nixon, and F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the

Learning Sciences, pp. 150-157.

Cruz, N.M., Perez V.M. and Cantero, C.T. (2009), “The influence of employee motivation on

knowledge transfer”, Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 478-490.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), “Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage

What They Know”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Fridlund, A., Gleitman, H. and Reisberg, D. (1999), “Introduction to Psychology” Fifth

Edition, W.W. Norton and Company, pp. 107-108.

Gagne, M. (2009), “A model of knowledge sharing motivation”, Human Resource

Management, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 571– 589.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “the Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for

Strategy Formulation”, California Management Review, spring, Vol. 33, pp. 114-133.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), “Multivariate Data

Analysis with Readings”, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hansen, M.T. (2002), “Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in

multiunit companies”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 232-248.

Hansen, S. and Avita, M. (2005), “Share and Share Alike: The Social and Technological

Influences on Knowledge Sharing Behavior”, Http://sprouts.aisnet.org/5-13.

Harder, M. (2008), “How do rewards and management styles influence the motivation to

share knowledge?” In SMG Working Paper, No. 6.

Hass, M. and Hansen M.T. (2007), “Different knowledge different benefits: toward a

productivity perspective on knowledge sugaring in organization”, Strategic

management journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1133-1153.

Helmstadter, E. (2003), “the economics of knowledge sharing: Anew institutional approach,

challenge and benefit “, communication of the association for information systems, Vol.

1 No. 7, p. 182.

Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICTon the Motivation for

Knowledge Sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91–100.

Horwitz, F.M. (2003), “Job rotations its role in promoting learning in organizations”,

Development and learning in organization, Vol. 17 No. 4. pp. 7-9.


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

Hung, Y.C., Huang, S. M., Lin, Q.P. and Tsai, M. L. (2005), “Critical factors in adopting a

knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry” Industrial

Management and Data System, vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 164-83.

Huysman, M. and Wit, D. (2000), “Knowledge management in practice”, In Edwards, J. &

Kidd, J. (Eds.) Knowledge Management Conference (KMAC 2000), Birmingham, UK.

Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework”, Human

Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.

Jafari, M. and Akhavan, P. (2007), “Essential Changes for Knowledge Management

Establishment in a Country: a Macro Perspective”, European Business Review Journal,

Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 89-110.

Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Jahani, A. and Akhavan, P. (2008), “Exploring the contextual

dimensions of organization from knowledge management perspective”, Vine: The

journal of information and knowledge management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 53 –71.

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

James, T.C and Seokwoo, S. (2011),”an exploratory examination of KS behaviors”, journal

of knowledge management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 104 –117.

John, O.P. and Benet, M.V. (2000), “Measurement: reliability, construct validation, and scale

construction”, in Reis, H.T. and Judd, C.M. (Eds), Handbook of Research Methods in

Social Psychology, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 339-369.

Johnson, D. (2005), “Innovation and knowledge management; cancer information service

research consortium”, Published by Edwardelgae, publishing limited.

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

Scientific Software International Inc.

Khakpour, A., Pardakhtchi, M.H. and Ghahreman, M. (2009), “The relation between

organizational culture and knowledge management”, The Journal of Knowledge

Economy and Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 781-790.

Kim, (2008), “Mallow's Hierarchy of Needs”, available at: http://stewardess.inhatc.ac.kr/

philoint/general-data/maslow's-hierarchy-of-needs-1.htm (accessed10th September

2008).


King, W.R. (2005), “Knowledge sharing ", Encyclopedia of knowledge management”,

London: Idea Group, pp. 493-498.

King, W.R. (2006), “Maybe a knowledge culture isn’t always so important after all”,

Information systems management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-89.

Kolekofski, K.E., Heminger, A.R. (2003), “Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share

information in an organizational setting”, information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 6,

pp. 521-532.

Kwok, S.H. (2005), “Critical Success Factors for Effective Knowledge Sharing in Group

Learning”, Department of Information and Systems Management, the Hong Kong

University of Science and Technology.

Li, R.Y.M. and Poon S. W. (2009), “ future motivation in construction safety knowledge

sharing by means of information technology in Hong Kong”, Journal of Applied

Economic Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 457-472.

Lin, H. F., Lee, H. S. and Wang, D.W. (2009), “Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge

sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No.

1, pp. 25-44.

Lin, H.F. (2007), “Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Knowledge

Sharing Intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp.135-149.

Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004), “Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharing

behavior”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 108-25.

Lng, C.H., Hao, C.L. and Chih, H.C. (2006), “constructing factors related to worker

retention”, international journal of man power, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 491-508.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), “What should we do about motivation theory? Six

recommendations for the twenty-first century”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.

29 No. 3, pp. 388-403.

MacNeil, M.C. (2003), “line managers: facilators of knowledge sharing in teams”, employee

relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 294-307.

Manjit, S.S. and kamal, K.J.(2011), “knowledge sharing among public sector employees”

,International journal of public sector management, Vol. 4 No.3, pp. 206 – 226.

Maslow, A.H. (1968), “Towards a psychology of being”, New York: Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D.C. (1987), “Human motivation”, Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University

Press.


McKenzie, J. and Van, W.C. (2004), “understanding the knowledgeable organization”

Padstow, cronwall: TJ internalization, www.books.google.com.

Mehralian, G., Rajabzadeh, A., Sadeh, M.R., and Rasekh, H.R. (2013), “Intellectual Capital

and Corporate Performance in Iranian Pharmaceutical Industry”, Journal of Intellectual

Capital, Vol.13 No.1, pp. 138-58.

Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization

Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 14.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese

Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation”, Oxford University Press, New York,

NY.

Oliver, G. (2008), “Information culture: exploration of differing values and attitudes to

information in organizations”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 363-85.

Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational

forms”, Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 71-80.

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

conference on km, November.

Peters, L. (1997), “Encyclopedia of human resources management “, Blackwell publishers,

ltd.

Polani, M. (1996), “the tacit dimension”, Garden City New York: Doubleday and Company,

Inc.

Prodromos, D.C. and Vrimaki, E. (2009), “knowledge sharing behavior of bank employees in

Greece”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 245-266.

Raghu, T.S. and Vinze, A. (2007), “A Business Process Context for Knowledge

Management”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No.3, pp.1062-1079.

Reychav, I. and Jacob, W. (2010), “Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing”,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 285 – 300.

Riege, A. (2005), ”three–dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider” ,

Journal of Knowledge management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.

Ryan, R.M and Deci, E.L. (2000), “intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and

new direction”, Contemporary educational psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 54-67.

Ryu, S., Ho, S.H. and Han, I. (2003), “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in

hospitals”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-22.


Sanchez, M.P.S. and Palacios, M.A. (2007), “Knowledge-based manufacturing enterprises:

evidence from a case study”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.

447-468.

Scott, J.H. and Dail, F. (2010), “Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use”, journal of

knowledge management, vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 128-140.

Shyh, R.F., Shin, C.F. and Ming, C.C. (2006), “The impact of internal marketing mechanism

on ks motivation and ks behavior”, department of business administration, national

Chung hsing university, Taiwan.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008). “How motivation, opportunity, and

ability drive knowledge sharing: the constraining-factor model”, Journal of Operations

Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 426-445.

Skyrme, D.J. (2000), “Developing a knowledge strategy: from management to leadership”, in

Morey, D. (Eds), Knowledge Management, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sugurmaran, and Bose, (2003), “Application of Knowledge Management Techniques in

Customer relationship Management”, Journal of Knowledge and Process Management,

Vol. 10 No. 1, PP. 3–17.

SyedIkhsan, S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004), “Knowledge management in a public organization:

study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of

knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.

Sylvio, C. and Chun, W.C. (2010), “The individual and social dynamics of knowledge

sharing: an exploratory study”, journal of documentation, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 824-846.

Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S. (2000), “It is what one does: why people participate and help

others in electronic communities of practice”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 155-173.

Watson, j. (2003), “Applying knowledge management: techniques for building corporate

memories”, Morgan Kaufman publisher, pp. 4-5.

Weng C.L. and Cgen, L.F. (2000), “the effect of different motivation factors on knowledge

sharing intention and behavior”, national central university and national Taipei

university, Taiwan, social behavior and personality: an international journal.

Willem, A. and Buelens, M. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes:

the impact of organizational structure dimensions”, International Journal of

Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 151-60.


Wittenbaum, G.M., Hollinghead, A.B. and Botero, I.C. (2004), “From cooperative to

motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm”,

Communication Monographs, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 286-310.

Wright, P., McMahan, G. and McWilliams, A. (1994), “Human Resources as a Source of

Sustained Competitive Advantage”, International Journal of Human Resource

Management, Vol. 5.

Yakhlef, A., Sie, L. and Julen, P. (2009), “The Effects of Rewards on the Motivation of

Experts to Transfer their Knowledge ”, Article accepted by the 8th EURAM (European

Academy of Management) Conference, 14th-17th May, Ljubljana and Bled Slovenia.


Appendix

Dear respondent

This questionnaire has been prepared to determine motivational factors and effective methods in knowledge sharing as well as the extent of using these factors in your organization. The information you present help us in identifying these factors and methods to provide appropriate conditions for sharing knowledge easily and voluntarily. Therefore, please complete this questionnaire precisely and indicate your opinion on each below question clearly and honestly by marking in corresponding section. Your cooperation is well appreciated.

Regards

Researcher

First section: personal and employment details

1- Sex: Female □ Male □

2- Age: under 35 Years old □ between 35 to 55 years old □ 55 years old or more □

3- Educational level: Bachelor □ Master □ PhD □

4- work experience: less than 15 years □ from 15 to 25 years □ 25 years and more □

5- Your position within the organization: senior manager□ middle manager□ researcher□

Section 2: Identifying motivational factors in knowledge sharing

Please indicate your opinion on each question by marking in corresponding section.

Row knowledge sharing motivational factors from your

point of view

Very

much

much medium little Very

little

1 Friendly and intimate relationship with colleagues

motivates me to share my knowledge with them. □ □ □ □ □

2 Succeeding in my work motivates me to share my

knowledge with my colleagues □ □ □ □ □

3

Respect of managers and other employees

motivates me to share my knowledge with my

colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

4 My social status gives me an incentive

(motivation) to share my knowledge with my □ □ □ □ □


colleagues

5

Self- management and controlling my own

activities gives me an incentive to share my

knowledge with my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

6 Learning from my colleagues gives me an

incentive to share my knowledge with them □ □ □ □ □

7

Organization's compliance with my demands

gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with

my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

8

The sense of belonging and dependency on the

organization gives me an incentive to share my


□ □ □ □ □

9

Expecting my colleagues to share their knowledge

with me when I need it, gives me an incentive

share my knowledge with my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

10

If my colleagues share their knowledge with me, I

will have an incentive to share my knowledge

with them too.

□ □ □ □ □

11

Usefulness of knowledge sharing gives me an

incentive to share my knowledge with my

colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

12

Trusting my colleagues that they do not misuse of

my knowledge gives me an incentive to share my

knowledge with them.

□ □ □ □ □

13

Presence of an atmosphere of honesty and

truthfulness in the organization gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

14

Enjoying helping my colleagues gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

15 The feeling of responsibility, commitment and

loyalty to the organization, gives me an incentive □ □ □ □ □


to share my knowledge with my colleagues

16

The altruistic feeling towards others gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

17 Because of my self-esteem, I will share my

knowledge with my colleagues if they need it. □ □ □ □ □

18

Approval and confirmation from managers and

colleagues on my knowledge sharing behavior


my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

19

Hope for the future of organization gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

20

The feeling of ownership towards the organization


my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

21

I share my knowledge with my colleagues to

obtain or maintain the social reputation and

popularity of my organization.

□ □ □ □ □

22

Presence of justice in the organization gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

23

Growth and development of the organization gives

me an incentive to share my knowledge with my

colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

24

In order to show my colleagues that I have good

information, I share my knowledge with them.(

Flaunt of knowledge)

□ □ □ □ □

25 Religious beliefs give me an incentive to share my

knowledge with my colleagues □ □ □ □ □

26 Getting salary and wage gives me an incentive to

share my knowledge with my colleagues □ □ □ □ □


27

Receiving financial rewards (in addition to salary

and wage) for sharing knowledge with my

colleagues gives me an incentive to share my

knowledge with my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

28

Receiving non-financial rewards gives me an


colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

29

Getting a job promotion in the organization gives

me an incentive to share my knowledge my

colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

30

Being independent in the areas of my duties at

work (Autonomy of work) gives me an incentive

to share my knowledge with my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

31

Having a challenging and non-repetitive work


my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

32

Appropriate organizational policies which are

used by managers give me an incentive to share

my knowledge with my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

33

Using appropriate tools at work for safety

purposes and existence of safe working conditions

as well as a clean and sanitary working

environment give me an incentive to share my


□ □ □ □ □

34

Supportive behavior of manager or supervisor


my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

35

Recognizing me and paying attention to me in the

organization gives me an incentive to share my

knowledge with my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

36

Increasing my responsibilities and giving me more

authority in my working area gives me an


□ □ □ □ □


colleagues

37

Achieving reputation in the organization gives me

an incentive to share my knowledge with my

colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

38

Appointing me in managerial jobs gives me an


colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

39

Having an appropriately competent manager or

supervisor gives me an incentive to share my


□ □ □ □ □

40

My participation in decision making with manager


my colleagues

□ □ □ □ □

If there is any other motivational factor for you, not mentioned above, please write it below and

indicate your opinion of it by marking corresponding column.

1 □ □ □ □ □

2 □ □ □ □ □

3 □ □ □ □ □

4 □ □ □ □ □

5 □ □ □ □ □

Section 3: determining interested knowledge sharing methods

Please indicate the extent of your interest in each mentioned knowledge sharing methods by marking

in corresponding section

row Knowledge sharing methods Very

much

much medium little Very little

I am interested in…

1 Recording and documenting my knowledge

in paper forms.

□ □ □ □ □

2 Recording and documenting my knowledge

in databases and knowledge repositories.

□ □ □ □ □


3 Helping my colleagues in case of asking. □ □ □ □ □

4

Discussing with my colleagues on my

activities and their results when they are

completed.

□ □ □ □ □

5

Expressing my organizational knowledge and

experience for others in the form of

interesting stories.

□ □ □ □ □

6

Teaching my skills, experience and beliefs to

less-experienced people to help them in

accepting responsibilities and managing them

in the future.

□ □ □ □ □

7

Passing on my skills to my colleagues in

order to educate them how to do an activity

practically.

□ □ □ □ □

8

Participating in an interview, which is held

for exchanging my opinions and experience

when I want to quit the organization

□ □ □ □ □

9

Participating in community of practice with

my fellows in order to recognize the

problems and try to solve them in the area of

my expertise

□ □ □ □ □

10 Teaching my colleagues to improve their

performance in the organization.

□ □ □ □ □

11 Participating in team works and completing

works in groups.

□ □ □ □ □

12

Moving between two or more jobs in other

departments of the organization and having

job rotation.

□ □ □ □ □

13 Participating in discussions on organizational

subjects.

□ □ □ □ □

14 Participating in conferences and congress,

which are held inside the organization

□ □ □ □ □


15 Participating in seminars and workshops and

having presentation there.

□ □ □ □ □

16

Having relationship and interaction with my

other colleagues in the organization through

internet and intranet networks, e-mail, video

conference, chat, social interaction networks

and etc.

□ □ □ □ □

If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, skill and experience through other methods, please

write them below and indicate the extent of your interest by marking in corresponding section.

1 □ □ □ □ □

2 □ □ □ □ □

3 □ □ □ □ □

4 □ □ □ □ □

Section 4: Use or existence of motivational factors in the organization

Please indicate your opinion on each below question by marking in corresponding section.

row Current status of motivational factors in your

organization

Very

much


little

1

There is a friendly and intimate atmosphere in

my organization and I continually stay in touch

(relationship) with my colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

2 I usually accomplish my work and duties with

success. □ □ □ □ □

3 My managers and colleagues respect me. □ □ □ □ □

4 I have a good social status in my organization. □ □ □ □ □

5 I usually control my own work and, in other

word, I am my own manager. □ □ □ □ □

6 By knowledge sharing with my colleagues, I

always learn something. □ □ □ □ □


7 My organization approximately match

(compliance) what I want (my desires) □ □ □ □ □

8 I have special feeling of dependency to my

organization. □ □ □ □ □

9

When I share my knowledge with my colleagues,

I expect them to share their knowledge with me

when I need it.

□ □ □ □ □

10 My colleagues in the organization share their

knowledge with me. □ □ □ □ □

11 Knowledge sharing with colleagues is useful for

me and the organization. □ □ □ □ □

12

I completely trust my colleagues in the

organization that they do not misuse the

knowledge that I share with them.

□ □ □ □ □

13 There is an atmosphere of honesty and

truthfulness in organization. □ □ □ □ □

14 I enjoy sharing knowledge with my colleagues in

my organization. □ □ □ □ □

15 I am commitment, loyal and responsible to my


16 I like my colleagues in the organization and I

have an altruistic feeling towards them. □ □ □ □ □

17 I have self-esteem and, in other word, I respect

myself. □ □ □ □ □

18

Managers and colleagues appreciate and

encourage me verbally for having knowledge

sharing behavior.

□ □ □ □ □

19 I hope that my organization has a good future. □ □ □ □ □

20 I have a feeling of ownership towards my


21 I am proud of working in a famous organization,

which has an appropriate social reputation. □ □ □ □ □


22 In my organization, there is justice in most of

areas. □ □ □ □ □

23

My organization is growing and improving and

such growth and improvement are obvious for

me.

□ □ □ □ □

24 I sometimes flaunt my knowledge to my

colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

25 I strictly abide by my religious beliefs. □ □ □ □ □

26 I am paid an appropriate salary and wage by my


27 In my organization, I receive financial awards for

sharing my knowledge with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

28

In my organization, I receive non-financial

awards for sharing my knowledge with my

colleagues.

□ □ □ □ □

29 In my organization, I get job promotion for

sharing my knowledge with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

30

In my organization, I have an appropriate

independency (autonomy of work) in the areas of

my duties.

□ □ □ □ □

31 In my organization, I have a challenging and

non- repetitive work. □ □ □ □ □

32 In my organization, managers use appropriate

policies and strategies. □ □ □ □ □

33

My organization pays attention to my health at

work and provides a clean and sanitary

environment as well as appropriate tools and

equipment for me to work safely.

□ □ □ □ □

34 My manager or supervisor supports me in the


35 In the organization, managers and colleagues

recognize me and pay a special attention to me. □ □ □ □ □


36 Assigning responsibility or authority to me

increases periodically or continuously. □ □ □ □ □

37 I am a famous person in my organization. □ □ □ □ □

38 If there is no legal restriction, my organization

offers me managerial positions. □ □ □ □ □

39 I have a competent manager or supervisor in my


40 I usually participate in decision makings with my

manager or supervisor. □ □ □ □ □

If you introduced any other motivational factors in section 2 of the questionnaire, please write it

below and indicate your opinion on their use or existence in the organization by marking in

corresponding section.

1 □ □ □ □ □

2 □ □ □ □ □

3 □ □ □ □ □

4 □ □ □ □ □

5 □ □ □ □ □

Section5:Using knowledge sharing methods by organization


row Present knowledge sharing methods in your

organization

Very

much


little

1

My organization expects me to document and

record my knowledge in paper forms (method of

documentation in paper forms)

□ □ □ □ □

2

My organization expects me to store my

knowledge in databases and knowledge

repositories through information technology and

using computer (method of documentation in

□ □ □ □ □


databases and knowledge repositories through

computer)

3

My organization expects me to respond

positively to my colleagues’ request if they asked

me to help them doing their activities. (method of

peer assistance)

□ □ □ □ □

4

My organization expects me to discuss with my

colleagues on my activities and their results

when they are finished. (method of after action

review)

□ □ □ □ □

5

My organization expects me to express my

organizational knowledge and experience for my

colleagues in the form of interesting stories. (the

method of storytelling)

□ □ □ □ □

6

My organization expects me to teach my skill,

experience and beliefs to less-experienced people

to help them in accepting responsibilities and

managing them in future (mentoring method)

□ □ □ □ □

7

My organization expects me to pass on my skills

to my colleagues in order to educate them how to

do my activities practically. (method of

coaching)

□ □ □ □ □

8

My organization expects me to participate in an

interview meeting which is held to express my

opinion about the organization and transfer my

working experience to them when I am quitting

the organization (method of exit interview)

□ □ □ □ □

9

My organization tries to conduct working

meetings with my fellows and expects me to

participate in their meetings in order to determine

problems in the area of my expertise and resolve

them (method of community of practice)

□ □ □ □ □


10

My organization expects me to train my

colleagues in order to improve their performance

(method of in-service training )

□ □ □ □ □

11

My organization expects me to participate in

team works and do my activities in groups

(method of teamwork)

□ □ □ □ □

12

Upon the decision of my managers I move

between other departments of organization

(method of job rotation)

□ □ □ □ □

13

My organization expects me to participate in

meetings held for discussing organizational

subjects (method of conducting meetings)

□ □ □ □ □

14

My organization usually conducts conferences

and meetings on the areas of its activities and

expects me to have an active participation in

them (method of participation in conferences)

□ □ □ □ □

15

My organization usually conducts seminars and

workshops on the areas of its activities and

expects me to participate in them and have a

presentation (method of presenting seminars)

□ □ □ □ □

16

My organization provides appropriate means for

establishing relationship and interacting with

other colleagues through internet and intranet

networks, e-mail, video conference, chat, social

interaction networks and expects me to stay in

touch with my colleagues through them. (method

of interaction with colleagues through the tools

of information and communication technology)

□ □ □ □ □

If you declared your interest in other methods through which you share your knowledge, skill and

experience with your colleagues, please write them below and indicate the extent of their use by your

organization by marking in corresponding section.


1 □ □ □ □ □

2 □ □ □ □ □

3 □ □ □ □ □

4 □ □ □ □ □

5 □ □ □ □ □

Section 6: Intention to share your knowledge


row Description of question Very

much


little

1 I intend to share my working knowledge and

experience with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

2 I intend to share my new working ideas and

beliefs with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

3 I intend to share the report of my activities

results with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

4 I always intend to answer my colleagues’

questions if I know the answers. □ □ □ □ □

5 I intend to allocate some time for sharing my

knowledge with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

Section 7: Your knowledge sharing behavior


row Description of question Very

much


little

1 I have a plan for sharing my knowledge with my


2 I share my working knowledge and experience

with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

3 I share the results of my activities with my



4 I share my new ideas pertaining to my job with

my colleagues □ □ □ □ □

5 I always answer my colleagues’ questions about

the area of my expertise. □ □ □ □ □

6 I allocate some time for sharing knowledge with

my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □

Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers

Documents

Transcript of Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research centers