Peer review work

For Peer Review

Analysing the Effect of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on

Employee Knowledge Sharing Intentions

Journal: Information Development

Manuscript ID: ID-11-0056.R1

Manuscript Type: Original Manuscript

Keywords: Extrinsic motivation, Intrinsic motivation, Knowledge sharing, Nigeria, Public sector

Abstract:

This study investigated the effect of attitude on employee knowledge sharing intentions and examined the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee attitude and intention toward knowledge sharing. To understand the motivators of employee knowledge sharing intentions, a modified Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) was adopted. Specifically, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations contexts were considered as factors that affect employee attitude and intentions toward knowledge sharing.

The descriptive survey design was adopted. Random sampling technique was used to select 297 respondents across six ministries in the Ebonyi state Civil Service Commission. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection. Data were analyzed using frequency and percentage distribution and correlation. Findings revealed that attitude did not significantly influence employee intentions to share knowledge. Of the four motivational factors, knowledge self-efficacy (r = 0.171, p =0.003) and enjoyment in helping others (r = 0.002, p = 0.000) were significant and pointed towards a strong role in employee attitudes and knowledge sharing intentions. However, expected organizational rewards and reciprocal benefits were found

not to significantly influence employee attitudes and knowledge sharing intentions. These were attributable to the nature of the civil service and low incentives made available for motivating knowledge sharing.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/IDV

Information Development

For Peer Review

The study concluded that extrinsic motivation does not have a significant effect on the knowledge sharing intentions of the employees of the Ebonyi State Civil Service Commission but enjoyment in helping others and knowledge self-efficacy are motivating factors to their knowledge sharing intentions. It was recommended that organizations emphasize on intrinsic motivation

as extrinsic motivation only secures temporary compliance. There should also be an enhancement of knowledge sharing facilities and creation of a feedback system to increase the employees’ knowledge self-efficacy.

Page 1 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

1

Analysing the Effect of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation on

Employee Knowledge Sharing Intentions

INTRODUCTION In this age, knowledge has become the crux of every firm’s competitive ability, making its transfer (knowledge sharing) the concern of organization managers around the world. It originates in an individual’s intelligence, but exists in the routines, norms and procedures of an organization and is difficult to imitate. More often than not, knowledge needs to be shared or transferred before it can be reproduced in another individual. The flow of knowledge in an organization depends on the knowledge sharing behaviors of the organization’s employees. Knowledge sharing is a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences and skills through the whole department or organization (Lin, 2007). According to Dyer and Nobeoka (2000), knowledge sharing refers to the activities of how to help communities of people work together, facilitating the exchange of their knowledge, enhancing organizational learning capacity and organizational goals. It aids organizations to ensure best practices and sustainability of business processes, to generate new ideas that will promote the business and aid the achievement of organizational goals. However, it is important to note that knowledge sharing does not come naturally to humans. Despite the empirical researches that have shown the importance of knowledge sharing, Davenport (1997) points out that individuals fear that they will lose knowledge power when they share knowledge with their colleagues. In fact, many well-designed knowledge management efforts have failed because of non-supportive employee beliefs (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). For reasons such as lack of trust, intolerance for errors, differences in culture and language, managements’ efforts towards employee knowledge sharing usually fails. However, researchers have noted that firms can successfully promote a knowledge sharing culture by directly incorporating knowledge in their business strategy and changing the attitudes of the employees to promote willing and consistent knowledge sharing (Lee and Choi, 2003; Moffet et al 2003; Jones et al, 2006). Given the impossibility of compelling employees to share knowledge, several practices have been put up as appropriate and effective to promote a knowledge sharing culture among employees over time. Among suggested practices are training and development of employees, rewards and incentives, performance evaluation and feedback. A closer study will classify these practices as motivation - different ways to encourage employees to share knowledge willingly and consistently. While these practices have been helpful, it is pertinent to note that humans are of diverse make-ups and what suits one may not be suitable to another. The need therefore arises, that motivation is classified into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Davis et al (1992) indicate that motivation is a primary trigger for knowledge sharing. It has also been identified as a key determinant of general human behavior (Deci and Ryan, 1987). According to Lin (2007), two broad classes of motivation have been defined and examined across various contexts and studies. These classes are extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. While extrinsic motivation focuses on the goal-driven reasons such as benefits earned when performing an activity (Deci and Ryan, 1985), intrinsic motivation defines the pleasure and inherent satisfaction derived from a specific activity (Deci,1975).

Page 2 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

2

Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from outside an individual in form of rewards, promotion, coercion or punishment. From an extrinsic motivational perspective, individual behavior is driven by its perceived values and the benefits of the action. The fundamental goals of extrinsically motivated behaviors are to receive organizational rewards or reciprocal benefits (Kowal and Fortier, 1999). Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation driven by interest or satisfaction derived from an activity. It emanates from within an individual and does not rely on external pressure. Some forms of intrinsic motivation include competence and self-efficacy. The notion of knowledge sharing has attracted a lot of attention in the knowledge management literature in recent times. Themes, such as attitudes to knowledge sharing, actual knowledge sharing behaviour, media and means for knowledge sharing, barriers to knowledge sharing have been among the topics discussed both in the published literature and at conferences. Although our understanding of the processes and phenomena related to knowledge sharing has increased, there are still gaps that need to be filled. A theme that has attracted relatively limited attention so far is the role of motivational factors that influence knowledge sharing behaviours. In a review of knowledge sharing literature, Kalling and Styhre (2003) point out that both conceptual and empirical study need to be conducted in order to gain a deeper insight into the link between motivation and knowledge sharing behaviour. Having demonstrated the need for knowledge and its transfer to the value, growth and development of any organization or economy in addition to the reluctance of humans to share knowledge, organizations and economies need an in-depth knowledge of how to influence the knowledge sharing behaviours of its employees and citizens respectively. However, organizations especially in Nigeria have limited knowledge of the need for knowledge sharing and therefore may not see the need to promote it. According to Lin (2007), there is no significant body of empirical research that assesses the effect of the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation factors on employee knowledge sharing behaviours. As a result, managers do not maximize the knowledge created within and outside their organization for improved effectiveness and efficiency. The problem being addressed throughout this study is the effect of motivation on employee intention to share knowledge. Weiss et al (2004) cited an International Data Group IDC report, which estimates that an organization with 1,000 workers might easily incur a cost of more than $6 million per year in lost productivity when employees fail to find existing knowledge and recreate knowledge that was available but could not be located. On average, six percent of revenue, as a percentage of budget is lost from failure to exploit available knowledge (So and Bolloju, 2005). Consequently, this study assessed the effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing behavior. To carry out the research effectively, this study adopts the Theory of Reasoned Action as modified by Lin (2007). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), to aid the study of human behavior and develop appropriate interventions, proposed the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). However, the theory as modified by Lin (2007) was applied in the study of effects of motivation on employee knowledge sharing in Taiwan. Although this study has been carried out in different parts of the world (predominantly in the Asian continent), little has been done on it in, and for Nigeria. Cultural differences influence employee perception towards knowledge sharing (Maholtra, 2002). It would therefore, be inappropriate to assume that the result of researches carried out elsewhere will be valid in Nigeria. Consequently, this study takes into account the

Page 3 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

3

uniqueness of Nigeria as a developing country and that of the Nigerian people. This study will focus on the staff of Ebonyi State Civil Service Commission working in diverse government ministries. In recent times, Ebonyi state government has fixed her attention on the education sector because it has recognized the low literacy level of the citizens of the state and acknowledges that the development of any society is related to education of the members of the society. According to Moshabbaki and Jaha'nyan (2009), knowledge sharing is of importance to organizations, enabling them to develop skills and competencies, increase value, and sustain competitive advantage. This shows that Ebonyi state needs more than education to grow; it needs knowledge sharing. A survey of the Civil Service Commission will help to show the knowledge sharing behaviors (and what effects motivation has had on it) of the employees of the state and therefore aid the adjustment of such behaviors for the good of the state.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Knowledge Sharing in the Public Sector

Studies on knowledge sharing particularly in Nigeria are limited. However, from the limited body of academic studies carried out in several countries, the potential benefits of public sector adoption of knowledge management include improving organizational quality and efficiency (McAdam and Reid, 2001); reducing costs (McAdam and Reid, 2001); and, decreasing interagency fragmentation (Ardichvili et al., 2003). While there are strong arguments for the strategic use of knowledge management to improve public sector performance, several endemic challenges stand in the way of most public sector knowledge management initiatives. These challenges are not limited to but include the isolated nature of most public sector work (Murray, 2001), workers’ desire to maintain and protect their own personal knowledge (Murray, 2001), and the seemingly perpetual reduction of centrally allocated resources (McAdam and Reid, 2001). Knowledge management has the potential to greatly influence and improve the public sector renewal processes (Fullan, 2001; McAdam and Reid, 2001). McAdam and Reid (2001) believe that knowledge management is ‘‘especially important in the public sector as staff have long been identified as the key knowledge depository’’. As many government agencies are dealing with excessive attrition and retirement, capturing the knowledge of experienced and departing employees is of strategic importance. McAdam and Reid (2001) also found that public sector employees expressed a greater appreciation of knowledge construction as being both scientific and socially constructed relative to their private sector counterparts. Current examples of public sector knowledge management are often narrowly focused and do not provide rich data on the strategies and experiences of those engaged in the process at the organizational level. This research often focuses on the role of technology or e-government services (Ling, 2002). Other areas of the literature highlight knowledge management in specific branches of the public sector including police (Dale, 2001; Luen and Al-Hawamdeh, 2001) and health care (Van Beveren, 2003). The integration of knowledge management within any public sector organization faces challenges. Svieby and Simons (2002) report that two of the most significant challenges are the culture of resistance and culture of hoarding knowledge that are found in most public sector organizations. Public sector organizations have more significant challenges than their private sector counterparts in establishing collaborative cultures (Svieby and Simons, 2002). Other challenges to implementing knowledge management within the public sector include the inherent

Page 4 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

4

challenge of many different and incompatible operating systems that often exist within different government organizations and across different levels of government (Murray, 2001). This brief overview of recent research suggests that public sector knowledge management initiatives are valuable but face uphill sector-specific challenges. It also highlights the personal and cultural challenges public sector employees face regarding sharing their knowledge and expertise. Motivation and Knowledge Sharing

According to Dorman and Guadiano (2002), motivation is a force that energizes human behavior and determines which particular behavior will be exhibited in response to a given set of environmental situations and internal needs of man. Motivation has been identified as a key determinant of general behavior (Deci and Ryan, 1987), information technology acceptance behavior (Davis et al, 1992; Moon and Kim, 2001;Teo et al, 1999; Venkatesh and Speier,1999), and work related behavior (George and Brief, 1996; Lu, 1999). There is also an indication that it is the primary trigger for knowledge transfer (Osterloh and Frey, 2000). Two wide groups of motivation – extrinsic and intrinsic – have been defined and examined across various contexts and studies (Deci and Ryan, 1987; Teo et al,1999; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, 2000). Extrinsic motivation focuses on the goal driven reasons (such as reward or benefits earned) for performing an activity (Deci and Ryan, 1985) while intrinsic motivation indicates the pleasure derived from a specific activity (Deci, 1975). Together, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations influence individual intentions regarding an activity as well as their actual behaviors (Davis et al, 1992; Moon and Kim, 2001; Deci, 1975).

Extrinsic Motivation and Knowledge Sharing

Employee extrinsic motivation to share knowledge is a belief that is typically based on employee perceptions of the value of association with knowledge exchange (Kankanhalli et al, 2005). For example, employees engage in knowledge exchange based on a cost-benefit analysis, comparing the rewards (benefits) expected from an exchange with the effort (costs) involved in that exchange. From a socio-economic perspective, if the perceived benefits equal or exceed the costs then the exchange process will continue, otherwise it will stop (Kelly and Thibaut, 1978). In the context of knowledge sharing, the costs include factors relating to effort (time taken, mental effort etc) while the potential gains include receiving organizational rewards or creating obligations for colleagues to reciprocate (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Ko et al, 2005). From an extrinsic motivation point of view, individual behavior is driven by its perceived values and the benefits of the action. The fundamental goals of extrinsically motivated behaviors are to receive organizational rewards or reciprocal benefits (Kowal and Fortier, 1999; Vallerand, 2000). Bartol and Locke as cited by Rynes and Gerhardt (2000) state organizational rewards are useful for motivating individuals to perform desired behaviors. Organizational rewards can range from monetary incentives such as increased salary and bonuses to non- monetary awards such as promotions and job security (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hargadon, 1998). Several organizations have introduced reward systems to encourage employees to share their knowledge. For example, Lotus Development, a division of IBM, bases 25% of the total performance evaluation of its customer support workers on the extent of their knowledge sharing activities (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Hence, this study expects that if employees believe they can receive organizational rewards by offering their knowledge, they will develop more positive attitudes toward and intentions regarding knowledge sharing.

Page 5 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

5

As pointed out by Lin (2007), an exchange relationship can involve both economic resources (money, goods, and services) and socio-emotional resources (status, devotion, and trust). Reciprocity behavior has been emphasized as a benefit of individuals engaging in social exchange (Blau, 1964). Previous research indicated that knowledge sharing in online communities is facilitated by a strong sense of reciprocity (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Furthermore, researchers have observed that reciprocal benefits can provide an effective motivation to facilitate knowledge sharing and thus achieve long- term mutual cooperation (Bock et al,2005; Kankanhalli et al, 2005). Thus, if employees believe they can obtain reciprocal benefits from other colleagues by sharing their knowledge sharing intentions. Therefore, this study applies expected organizational rewards and reciprocal benefits as extrinsic salient determinants of employee knowledge sharing behaviors. Intrinsic Motivation and Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activity for its own sake, out of interest, or for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the experience (Deci, 1975). For example, through knowledge sharing, employees can be satisfied by enhancing their knowledge self-efficacy or confidence in their ability to provide knowledge that is useful to the organization (Constant et al, 1994; 1996). Moreover, employees who share knowledge in online communities gain opportunities to help others (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Research has recognized the crucial role of intrinsic motivators in explaining human behaviors in several domains (Baumeister, 1982) including knowledge sharing (Osterloh and Frey, 2000). From an intrinsic motivational perspective, behavior is evoked by the need of employees to feel competence and self-determination in dealing with their environment (Deci, 1975). Competence or self-efficacy is defined as the judgments of individuals regarding their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to achieve specific levels of performance (Bandura, 1986). Competence or self- efficacy can help motivate employees to share knowledge with colleagues (Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Bandura, 1986). Researchers have also found that employees with high confidence in their ability to provide valuable knowledge are more likely to accomplish specific tasks (Bock and Kim, 2002; Constant et al, 1994). Knowledge self-efficacy is typically manifested in people believing that their knowledge can help to solve job related problems and improve work efficacy (Constant, 1996; Hargadon, 1998). Employees who believe that they can contribute organizational performance by sharing their knowledge will develop more positive attitudes toward and intentions regarding knowledge sharing. Enjoyment in helping others derives from the concept of altruism. Organ (1988) defined altruism as including discretionary behaviors that help specific others with organizationally relevant tasks or problems. Previous research shows that employees are intrinsically motivated to contribute knowledge because engaging in intellectual pursuits and solving problems is challenging or pleasurable, and because they enjoy helping others (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Knowledge contributors who derive enjoyment from helping others may be more favorably oriented towards knowledge sharing and more inclined to share knowledge. Thus, this study adopts enjoyment in helping others and knowledge self-efficacy as intrinsic prominent elements of employee knowledge sharing intentions.

The Research Model

Review of previous studies reveal that authors adopt a number of research models to study the concept of knowledge sharing. Apart from studies where content analysis (Hung and Chuang,

Page 6 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

6

2006) and literature review (Mohd and Zawiyah, 2009) were used, survey studies adopt a variety of models. Some of these previously used models include a combination of the Theory of Reasoned Action, self-efficacy and Social exchange Theory (Bock and Kim, 2002), Distributed Decision Making and Learning Model and Knowledge Chain Model (Hatakama and Terano, 2001), Delone and McLean’s Success Model (Halonen and Thomander, 2008), Self Determination Theory and Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Galia, 2007) among others. However, this study does not adopt any of these other models due their inherent inadequacies in relation to this study. Inadequacies in this sense refer to the fact that none of them can be sufficiently used to capture both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Thus, the study adopts the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) as modified by Lin (2007). The model follows the TRA belief-attitude-intention relationship and includes extrinsic and intrinsic motivators as the leading determinants of employee knowledge sharing intentions. Prominent constructs in the research model are discussed as follows:

Extrinsic Motivation Extrinsic motivation is depicted as a dependent variable that has a direct influence on knowledge sharing attitudes, which in turn affects intention to share knowledge. Bartol and Locke (2000) note that organizational rewards are useful for motivating individuals to perform desired behaviors, hence, its use as a variable to measure extrinsic motivation. In addition, Bock et al (2005) indicate that reciprocal benefits can provide an effective motivation to facilitate knowledge sharing, resulting in its application as the second variable to measure the extrinsic motivation construct.

Intrinsic Motivation Like extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation is also an independent variable that affects knowledge sharing intentions. The choice of variables to capture this construct stem from Lin (2007) who observes employees who believe that they can contribute to organizational performance by sharing their knowledge will develop more positive attitudes toward and intentions regarding knowledge sharing. He also asserts that knowledge contributors who derive enjoyment from helping others may be more favorably oriented towards knowledge sharing and more inclined to share knowledge.

Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing In TRA, attitude factors have been tested and shown to be significant predictors of organizational behavioral intentions. Bock et al (2005) have investigated the positive effect of attitudes toward knowledge sharing on individuals’ intention to share knowledge. In this study, attitudes toward knowledge sharing refer to the positive or negative evaluations of employees regarding knowledge sharing behavior. Measures of Constructs

In this study, items used to operationalize the constructs were mainly adapted from previous studies and modified for use in the knowledge sharing context. Expected organizational rewards were measured using four items derived from Hargadon (1998), Davenport and Prusak (1998), defined as the degree to which employees believe they will receive extrinsic incentives (such as salary, bonuses, promotion or job security) through knowledge sharing. Moreover, reciprocal benefits are measured using four items taken from Kankanhalli et al (2005), which focused on employee belief that current knowledge sharing would lead to future requests for knowledge

Page 7 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

7

being met. A three-item scale measuring knowledge assesses employee judgments of their capability to share knowledge that is valuable to the organization. Additionally, enjoyment in helping others is measured using two items derived from Wasko and Faraj (2000), which focused on employee perceptions of pleasure obtained through sharing knowledge. Attitude toward sharing knowledge is measured using a three-item scale adapted from Taylor and Todd (1995). Terms such as “good”, “worthless” and “beneficial” were used to assess how employees evaluate their knowledge sharing behaviors. Finally, a three item scale measuring behavioral intentions, which assessed the likelihood of employees to share knowledge, was developed based on measures used by previous research (Taylor and Todd, 1995)

In connection with the research model, the following null hypotheses were formulated:

H01: There is no significant relationship between employee attitudes toward knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing intentions. H02: There is no significant relationship between expected organisational rewards and employee attitude toward knowledge sharing. H03: There is no significant relationship between expected organisational rewards and employee knowledge sharing intentions. H04: There is no significant relationship between reciprocal benefits and employee knowledge sharing attitudes. H05: There is no significant relationship between reciprocal benefits and employee knowledge sharing intentions. H06: There is no significant relationship between knowledge self-efficacy and employee attitudes towards knowledge sharing. H07: There is no significant relationship between knowledge self-efficacy and employee knowledge sharing intentions. H08: there is no significant relationship between enjoyment in helping others and employee knowledge sharing attitudes. H09: There is no significant relationship between enjoyment in helping others and employee knowledge sharing intentions.

METHODOLOGY Research design and sampling method

Page 8 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

8

Social survey research design was adopted, the setting was Abakaliki, the capital city of Ebonyi state while the population was the State civil service commission. The Commission comprises nine ministries namely: the ministries of Justice, Information, Education, Works and Housing, Agriculture, Health, Youth and Sports, Women affairs, Finance. According to the administrative unit of the commission, there are about twenty eight thousand civil servants employed by the Civil Service Commission of Ebonyi state. These employees are engaged in different government agencies, ministries and parastatals all over the state. The civil servants in the different ministries form the target population. Multi stage sampling method was used. The researchers first identified the relevant stratum and their actual representation in the population. Random sampling was then used to select subjects from each stratum until the number of subjects in that stratum is proportional to its frequency in the population. This form of sampling was selected for this study because the sample of the study will be drawn from different strata (ministries) of the Civil Service Commission. Six ministries (Ministries of Justice, Health, Information, Finance, Works, and Education) were randomly selected. A total sample of 310 (30%) of the population was selected. Instrumentation, data collection and analysis

A structured questionnaire was adopted for data collection. It was sectioned into seven parts, A – G as follows: Section A (Demographic data): This section of the questionnaire is designed to collect the demographic data of the respondent. Data to be collected in this section include respondents’ designated Ministry, gender, age group, highest educational level, and years of working experience. Section B (Expected organisational rewards): This section of the questionnaire aims at collecting data on the respondent’s opinion about what he/she stands to gain from the organisation when he/she shares knowledge with colleagues. Section C (Reciprocal benefits): Section C seeks the opinion of the respondent as to sharing knowledge to gain reciprocal benefits from their colleagues. Section D (Knowledge self-efficacy): This section seeks to elicit information about the respondent’s opinion about him/herself and the value placed on the knowledge he/she has to share. Section E (Enjoyment in helping others): This section is designed to collect information about the respondent’s opinion about sharing knowledge because he/she derives pleasure from doing so. Section F (Attitude towards knowledge sharing): This section collects data on the respondent’s attitude towards sharing. Section G (Knowledge sharing intentions): This section collects information on the respondent’s intention to share knowledge.

Page 9 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

9

The Cronbach’s alpha correlation analysis was used to test the constructs for internal consistency. Table 1 shows the result of the Cronbach alpha analysis.

Table 1: Cronbach Alpha Correlation Variables Cronbach Correlation

Coefficient

No of

Constructs

Expected Organizational Rewards 0.763 4

Reciprocal Benefits 0.823 4

Knowledge Self-Efficacy 0.733 3

Enjoyment in Helping Others 0.754 2

Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing 0.673 3

Knowledge Sharing Intentions 0.634 3

Table 1 shows that there is a high level of inter item correlation between the constructs. Professionals suggest that a Cronbach alpha of 0.70 is ideal (Choudhury, 2010). Hence, the constructs are retained. Questionnaire Administration and Data Analysis

The questionnaire was administered in June 2011 by the researchers. Each respondent was required to fill the questionnaire immediately and return it. However, where the above was not practicable, the respondent filled it at his/her convenient time for the researchers to pick at an agreed time. Copies of the questionnaire were administered in the sampled ministries, one at a time, during the working hours at the respective ministries. Out of 310 questionnaires distributed, 12 were not returned while one questionnaire was invalid. Hence, data was collected from 297 respondents giving a response rate of 95.8%. Collected data were input into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software for statistical analysis and run a correlation analysis test on all the hypotheses to assess relationships between the variables under consideration. The hypotheses were tested at 0.05% level of significance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the frequency distribution of the responses collected from each part of the questionnaire. Demographic characteristics of respondents Detailed demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Demographic Information about respondents Demographic Characteristics Frequency

%

Ministry Type

Health 105 35.4

Education 36 12.1

Works 47 15.8

Finance 38 12.8

Justice 25 8.4

Information 46 15.5

Total 297 100

Gender

Page 10 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

10

Male 185 62.3

Female 112 37.7

Age

25-30 56 18.9

31-35 66 22.2

36-40 78 26.3

41-45 71 23.9

46-50 24 8.1

Above 50 2 0.7

Highest Educational Level

SSSCE 45 15.2

Bachelors 201 67.7

Postgraduate 45 15.2

Others 6 2.0

Years of Working Experience

0-5 76 25.6

6-10 103 34.7

11-15 74 24.9

Over 15 44 14.8

The Ministry of Health accounted for the largest quota of respondents with a percentage of 35.5 while the ministries of Works, Information, Finance, Education, and Justice made up the sample with percentages of 15.8, 15.5, 12.8, 12.1, and 8.4 respectively. Also, male respondents accounted for 62.3% of the respondents. Respondents between the ages of 36 – 40 make up the highest (26.3%) of the respondents, followed by those in the 41 – 45 age groups (23.9%); only 0.7% of the respondents were above 50 years of age. Also, respondents with bachelor degrees were in the majority with 67.7% of the responses while Senior Secondary School Certificate and postgraduate degree holders had equal percentages of 15.2%; respondents with other educational qualifications make up 2% of the responses. Employees who have worked between 6 – 10 years have the highest response rate with a percentage of 34.7%. Test of Hypotheses

This section contains the results of the correlation analysis carried to test the hypotheses. All the hypotheses were tested at 0.05% level of significance. Tables 3-11 present the results.

Hypothesis One

HO1: There is no significant relationship between employee attitudes toward knowledge

sharing and knowledge sharing intention

Table 3: Correlation Analysis of attitudes toward knowledge sharing and knowledge sharing

intentions

Knowledge

Sharing Intentions

Attitude to Knowledge

Sharing

Pearson Correlation 1 -.019

Sig. (2-tailed) .747

Knowledge Sharing Intentions

N 297 297

Pearson Correlation -.019 1


Attitude to Knowledge Sharing

N 297 297

Page 11 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

11

Table 3 shows the relationship between employee attitude toward knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing intentions. It indicates that there is a negative correlation (r -0.019) between the variables with a significance of 0.747. Owing to the fact that p-value is greater than 0.05, it can be said that there is no significant relationship between employee attitude toward knowledge sharing and employee knowledge sharing intentions. Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis Two

HO2: There is no significant relationship between expected organisational rewards and

employee attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Table 4: Correlation Analysis of Expected Organizational Rewards and Attitude to Knowledge

Sharing

Attitude to

Knowledge Sharing

Expected Rewards




N 297 297

Pearson Correlation -.231 1 Expected Rewards


Table 4 reports the result of correlation analysis between expected organizational rewards and employee attitude toward knowledge sharing. As indicated in the Table, there is an insignificant negative correlation (r = -0.231, p = 0.065) between the variables. Hence, the null hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis Three

HO3: There is no significant relationship between expected organisational rewards and

employee knowledge sharing intentions.

Table 5: Correlation Analysis of Expected Organizational Rewards and Knowledge Sharing

Intentions

Expected

Rewards

Knowledge Sharing

Intentions



Expected Rewards

N 297 297

Pearson Correlation -.105 1



N 297 297

Table 5 shows the results of the correlation analysis between expected organizational rewards and employee knowledge sharing intentions. It can be noted from the table that there is an insignificant negative correlation (r = -0.105, p = 0.07) between the variables leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.

Page 12 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

12

Hypothesis Four

HO4: There is no significant relationship between reciprocal benefits and employee knowledge

sharing attitudes.

Table 6: Correlation analysis of Reciprocal Benefits and Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing

Attitude to

Knowledge Sharing

Reciprocal

Benefits

Pearson Correlation 1 .041



N 297 297

Pearson Correlation .041 1


Reciprocal Benefits

N 297 297

As presented in Table 6, there is a positive relationship (r = 0.041) between reciprocal benefits and employee attitude toward knowledge sharing which is insignificant (p > 0.05). Thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis Five

HO5: There is no significant relationship between reciprocal benefits and employee knowledge sharing

intentions.

Table 7: Correlation Analysis of Reciprocal Benefits and Knowledge Sharing Intentions

Reciprocal

Benefits

Knowledge Sharing

Intentions



Reciprocal Benefits

N 297 297




N 297 297

Table 7 shows the results of correlation analysis between reciprocal benefits and employee knowledge sharing intentions. With a correlation coefficient of r = 0.093 and a p-value of 0.111, it can be deduced that there is no significant relationship between the variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted.

Hypothesis Six

HO6: There is no significant relationship between knowledge self-efficacy and employee

attitudes towards knowledge sharing.

Table 8: Correlation Analysis between Knowledge Self-Efficacy and Attitude toward Knowledge

Sharing

Page 13 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

13


Sharing

Self efficacy

Pearson Correlation 1 -.014**



N 297 297

Pearson Correlation -.014** 1


Self efficacy

N 297 297

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 8 reports a insignificant relationship (r = -0.014, p = 0.030) between knowledge self-efficacy and employee knowledge sharing attitudes leading to the acceptance of the alternative hypothesis. Hypothesis Seven

HO7: There is no significant relationship between knowledge self-efficacy and employee

knowledge sharing intentions.

Table 9: Correlation Analysis between Knowledge Self- Efficacy and Knowledge Sharing Intentions

Self efficacy Knowledge Sharing

Intentions

Pearson Correlation 1 .171**


Self efficacy

N 297 297

Pearson Correlation .171** 1



N 297 297

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 9 reports a significant positive relationship (r = 0.171, p = 0.003) between knowledge self-efficacy and employee knowledge sharing intentions. Consequently, the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Hypothesis Eight

HO8: There is no significant relationship between enjoyment in helping others and employee

attitudes towards knowledge sharing.

Table 10: Correlation analysis between Enjoyment in Helping Others and Attitude toward

Knowledge Sharing


Sharing

Enjoyment in

Helping Others

Pearson Correlation 1 .163**


Attitude to KS

N 297 297

Pearson Correlation .163** 1


Enjoyment in Helping Others

N 297 297

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Page 14 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

14

At 0.05 significant level, p = 0.005 implies a significant relationship between enjoyment in helping others and employee attitudes toward knowledge sharing (See Table 10). Thus, the alternative hypothesis was accepted.

Hypothesis Nine

HO9: There is no significant relationship between enjoyment in helping others and employee

knowledge sharing intentions.

Table 11: Correlation Analysis between Enjoyment in Helping Others and Knowledge Sharing

Intentions

Enjoyment in

Helping Others

Knowledge Sharing

Intentions




N 297 297




N 297 297

Table 11 shows the results of the correlation analysis between enjoyment in helping others and employee knowledge sharing intentions. At 0.05 significant level, the result (r = 0.002, p = 0.000) indicate that there is a significant relationship between the variables. As a result, the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Summary of Values

Table 12 shows a summary of the values of the hypotheses test, their significant values and decisions on the null hypotheses. Table 12: Summary of Values

Variables Correlation

Coefficient

Significant

Values

Decision

Attitude and Intentions towards Knowledge Sharing -0.019 0.747 Accept

Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing and Expected Organizational Rewards

-0.231 0.065 Accept

Expected Organizational Rewards and Knowledge Sharing Intentions -0.105 0.070 Accept

Reciprocal Benefits and Attitudes toward Knowledge Sharing 0.041 0.481 Accept

Reciprocal Benefits and Knowledge Sharing Intentions 0.093 0.111 Accept

Knowledge Self-Efficacy and Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing -0.014 0.030 Reject

Knowledge Self-Efficacy and Knowledge Sharing Intentions 0.171 0.003 Reject

Enjoyment in Helping Others and Attitude towards Knowledge Sharing 0.163 0.005 Reject

Enjoyment in Helping Others and Knowledge Sharing Intentions 0.002 0.000 Reject

It can be observed from Table 12 that employee attitude towards knowledge had an insignificant relationship with knowledge sharing intentions, same as the extrinsic motivational factors. On the other hand, the intrinsic motivational factors all have significant relationships with attitude and intentions towards knowledge sharing. Therefore, the research framework results in the model shown in Figure 1.

Page 15 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

15

Fig. 1: The Resultant Model

Figure 1 shows the correlation coefficients between the variables providing a basis for the findings of this study.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Attitudes toward Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Sharing Intentions Although employees with the strongest knowledge sharing intentions also had more positive attitude towards knowledge sharing, the correlation analysis revealed there was no significant relationship between employee attitudes and knowledge sharing intentions. This is inconsistent with TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), which holds that attitudes predict intention. It also contradicts studies carried out by Chang (1998), Ryu et al (2003) and Bock et al (2005) who all agree that attitude influences knowledge sharing intentions. However, Lin (2007) argues that cultural and organizational differences influence employee perceptions and intentions toward knowledge sharing. The Ebonyi state Civil Service Commission has the peculiarities of a public

Intrinsic motivation

Knowledge Self Efficacy


0.171*

Intention to Share Knowledge

Knowledge Sharing

Attitudes

Extrinsic motivation

Expected Organizational

Rewards

Reciprocal Benefits

-0.105

0.093

-0.231

0.041

-0.014*

0.163*

0.002*

-0.019

Page 16 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

16

service organization in addition to employees with different cultures and perceptions. Therefore, it can be inferred that this finding is an effect of the uniqueness of the respondents and organization under study. Extrinsic Motivation and Employee Attitudes and Knowledge Sharing Intentions This study found that expected organizational rewards did not significantly influence employee attitudes and intentions toward knowledge sharing as the correlation analysis showed insignificant relationships between the variables. This finding somewhat contradicts previous studies (Bartol and Locke, 2000; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Hargadon, 1998) which indicated that expected organizational rewards are important in fostering knowledge sharing culture. Yet, it is consistent with the findings of Lin (2007) in a similar study carried out in Taiwan. A possible explanation for this may be that, in the present study, the public service was the study population where these respondents have minimal incentives offered by the Civil Service Commission for knowledge sharing, therefore they were motivated by other objectives, such as the belief that knowledge sharing with colleagues will make for better organizational performance. This finding further explains observations made by previous studies, Masterson et al (2000) argue that knowledge sharing occurs mainly in informal interaction, and owing to the difficulty of measuring knowledge sharing behaviors, it is difficult to make organizational rewards contingent on knowledge sharing behaviors. In agreement, Kelman (1958) suggested that extrinsic rewards succeed only in securing temporary compliance. Osterloh and Frey (2000) also acknowledged that with intrinsically motivated employees, the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge is more important than with extrinsically motivated employees (such as those motivated by monetary compensation). Results also demonstrated that reciprocal benefits do not significantly relate to employee attitudes and intentions toward knowledge sharing. However, the frequency distribution showed that respondents who share knowledge for reciprocal benefits motives also had strong positive attitude and intentions toward sharing knowledge. This finding is consistent with that of Scott (2000), who argued that collaboration ability depends heavily on trust as open reciprocity, and that information and knowledge sharing will not occur freely without such reciprocity. Intrinsic Motivation and Employee Attitudes and Intentions toward Knowledge Sharing This study found that employee attitudes and intention to share knowledge were associated with their intrinsic motivation to share knowledge. This implies that the competence and confidence of employees may be a requirement for employees to engage in knowledge sharing. That is, employees who believe in their ability to share organizationally useful knowledge tend to have stronger motivation to contribute their knowledge to their colleagues. This is in line with Luthans (2003) who argues that employees who believe that they can contribute organizational performance by sharing their knowledge will develop more positive attitudes toward and intentions regarding knowledge sharing. Additionally, employees who feel pleasure in sharing knowledge and thus helping others tend to be more motivated to share knowledge with colleagues. This finding agrees with that of Lin (2007) who noted that knowledge contributors who derive enjoyment in helping others are favorably oriented towards knowledge sharing and more inclined to share knowledge.

IMPLICATIONS

Page 17 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

17

This study suggests the following implications for managers or executives initiating knowledge sharing practices or desiring to encourage knowledge sharing within their organization. First, organizational rewards (such as salary incentives, bonuses, or job security) should not be emphasized as a primary knowledge sharing mechanism, because extrinsic rewards secure only temporary compliance (Alfie, 1993). This means that organizational rewards may provide temporary incentives for knowledge sharing but are not fundamental forces in forming employee knowledge sharing behaviors. Second, effective and valuable knowledge sharing requires active employee participation (Hislop, 2003). Efforts to foster the targeted relationships and interpersonal interactions of employees are necessary for creating and maintaining a positive knowledge sharing culture in organizations. Particularly, managers can improve perceptions of reciprocal benefits among knowledge workers, which are important in knowledge sharing intentions. Third, this study provides evidence that knowledge self-efficacy is an important antecedent to employee knowledge sharing attitudes and intentions suggesting that managers should pay more attention to providing useful feedback to improve employee knowledge self-efficacy. A previous study on role breadth self-efficacy has identified several methods of enhancing the knowledge self-efficacy of employees (Parker, 1998). A highly self-efficacious staff can be established by recruiting and selecting employees who are proactive, have high cognitive aptitude and self-esteem and are intrinsically motivated. Additionally, managers can enhance the perceptions of knowledge self-efficacy among valued knowledge workers by indicating to them that their knowledge sharing makes a significant contribution to the organization. Finally, since enjoyment in helping others influences employee knowledge sharing attitudes and intentions, managers need to increase the level of enjoyment that employees experience as they help one another through knowledge sharing. Managers interested in developing and sustaining knowledge sharing should focus on enhancing positive mood of employees regarding social exchange (i.e. enjoyment in helping others), which precedes knowledge sharing behaviors.

REFERENCES Ajzen I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Alavi M. & Leidner D.E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits. Communication of the Associations for Information Systems 1(7), 1-37. Alfie K. (1993). Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54-60. Ardichvili A., Page V. & Wentling T. (2003). Motivation and Barriers to Participation in Virtual Knowledge-Sharing Communities of Practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 (1), 64-77. Bechina A.A. & Bommen T. (2006). Knowledge Sharing Practices: Analysis of a Global Scandinavian Consulting Company. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 109-116.

Page 18 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review

18

Bock G.W & Kim Y. (2002). Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing. Information Resources Management Journal 15(2), 14-21. Choudhury, A. (2010). Cronbach's Alpha. Retrieved from Experiment Resources: http://www.experiment-resources.com/cronbachs-alpha.html. 30th April, 2011. Chow W.S & Chan L.S (2008). Social network, Social Trust and Shared Goals in Organizational Knowledge. Information and Management, 45, 458-465. Dale A. (2001). Dispatches: Letters from the Corporanian War Zone. Journal of Information

Science, Vol. 27 (6), 177-179. Davenport T. & Prusak L. (1998). Working Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 104p. Davenport, T.H. (1997). Some Principles of Management. Unpublished Working Paper. Davis F.D., Bagozzi R.P & Warshaw P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22, 1111-1132. Deci E.L & Ryan R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior.

New York: Plenum Press, 54, 103-107. Deci E.L & Ryan R.M. (1987). The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 53(6), 1023-1037. Deci E.L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York: Plenum Press, 154p. Dyer, J & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and Managing a High Performance Knowledge Sharing Network: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal 21(3), 345-67. Fullan M. (2001), Leading in a Culture of Change: Being Effective in Complex Times. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 133p. Garvin D.A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review 71(4), 78-91. Gibbert M. & Krause H. (2002). Practice Exchange in a Best Practice Marketplace. Erlangen, Germany: Publicis Corporate Publishing. 115p. Hislop D. (2003). Linking Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management Via Commitment. Employees Relations, 25(2), 182-202. Jones M.C., Cline M. & Ryan S. (2006). Exploring Knowledge Sharing in ERP Implementation: an Organizational Framework. Decision Support Systems 41(2), 411-434.

Page 19 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

http://www.experiment-resources.com/cronbachs-alpha.html

For Peer Review

19

Kalling, T. & Styhre, A. (2003). Knowledge Sharing in Organizations. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 117p. Kelman H. C. (1958). Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60. Keyes J. (2008). Identifying the Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in Knowledge Intensive

Organizations. (Internet). Retrieved from: www.newarttech.com. 15th January 2011. Kowal J. & Fortier M.S. (1999). Motivational Determinants of Flow: Contributions from Self Determination Theory. The Journal of Social Psychology. 139(3), 113-122. Lee H. & Choi B. (2003). Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination. Journal of Management

Information Systems 20(1), 179-228. Lin, H.F. (2007). Effects of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation in Employee Knowledge Sharing Intentions. Journal of Information Science 33(2), 135-149. Ling T. (2002). Delivering Joined-Up Government in the UK: Dimensions, Issues and Problems. Public Administration, Vol. 80 (4), 615-42. Luen T. and Al-Hawamdeh S. (2001). Knowledge Management in the Public Sector: Principles and Practices in Police Work, Journal of Information Science, 311-18. Luthan F. (2003). Positive Organizational Behavior: Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-75. Malhotra Y. (2002). Knowledge Transfer (Internet). Retrieved from: www.yogeshmalhotra.com. 15th October 2010. Masterson S. S, Lewis K., Goldman B. M., & Taylor M. S. (2000). Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748. McAdam R. & Reid R. (2001). A Comparison of Public and Private Sector Perceptions and Use of Knowledge Management. Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 24 (6), 317. McDermott, R. & O’Dell C. (2001) Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(1), 76-85. Moffet S., McAdam R. & Parkinson S. (2003). An Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Management Applications. Journal of Management Information Systems 7(3), 6-26.

Page 20 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

http://www.newarttech.com/

http://www.yogeshmalhotra.com/

For Peer Review

20

Mohd B.I. & Zawiyah M.Y. (2009). The Relationship between Knowledge Sharing, Employee Performance and Service Delivery in Public Sector Organizations: A Theoretical Framework. Public Sector ICT Management Review, 3(1), 37-45. Murray S. (2001). Motivating Public Sector Employees, Financial Times, London, p. 10. Mwita J.I. (2000). Performance Management Model. The International Journal of Public Sector

Management, 13(1), 19- 37. Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge- Creating Company: How Japanese

Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 177p. Nonaka I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization

Science, 5(1), 14-37. Parker S.K. (1998). Enhancing the Role Breadth Self-Efficacy: The Role of Job Enrichment and Other Organizational Interventions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852. Ryu S., Ho S.H & Han I. (2003). Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Physicians in Hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122. Scott J. W. (2000). Facilitating Inter-Organizational Learning with Information Technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(2), 81-113. Sharma P. (2004). Knowledge Management. New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation, 124p. So J.C.F & Bolloju N. (2005). Explaining the Intentions to Share and Reuse Knowledge in the Content of IT Service Operations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 30-41. Svieby K. & Simons R. (2002). Collaborative Climate and Effective Knowledge of Work: An Empirical Study’’. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 (5), 420-33. Van Beveren J. (2003). Does Health Care for Knowledge Management? Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 6 (5), 420 - 433. Walonick D.S. (1997-2010). A Selection from Survival Statistics. Bloomington: Statpac Inc, 301p. Wasko M.M & Faraj S. (2000). It Is What One Does: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9(2) 155-173. Weiss L.M., Capozzi M.M & Prusak L. (2004). Learning from the Internet Giants. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 45(4), 79-84.

Page 21 of 20



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Peer review work

Documents

Transcript of Peer review work