© 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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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-
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
Friendly and informal relationships with
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)
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
Friendly and informal relationships with
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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).
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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:
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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).
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
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 □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
knowledge with my colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
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
incentive to share my knowledge with my
colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
14
Enjoying helping my colleagues gives me an
incentive to share my knowledge with my
colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
15 The feeling of responsibility, commitment and
loyalty to the organization, gives me an incentive □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
to share my knowledge with my colleagues
16
The altruistic feeling towards others gives me an
incentive to share my knowledge with my
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
gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with
my colleagues.
□ □ □ □ □
19
Hope for the future of organization gives me an
incentive to share my knowledge with my
colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
20
The feeling of ownership towards the organization
gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with
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
incentive to share my knowledge with my
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 □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
incentive to share my knowledge with my
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
gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with
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
knowledge with my colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
34
Supportive behavior of manager or supervisor
gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with
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
incentive to share my knowledge with my
□ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
incentive to share my knowledge with my
colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
39
Having an appropriately competent manager or
supervisor gives me an incentive to share my
knowledge with my colleagues
□ □ □ □ □
40
My participation in decision making with manager
gives me an incentive to share my knowledge with
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.
□ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
□ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
much medium little Very
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. □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
organization. □ □ □ □ □
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
organization. □ □ □ □ □
21 I am proud of working in a famous organization,
which has an appropriate social reputation. □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
organization. □ □ □ □ □
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
organization. □ □ □ □ □
35 In the organization, managers and colleagues
recognize me and pay a special attention to me. □ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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
organization. □ □ □ □ □
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
Please indicate your opinion on each below question by marking in corresponding section.
row Present knowledge sharing methods in your
organization
Very
much
much medium little Very
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
□ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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)
□ □ □ □ □
© Emerald Group Publishing
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.
© Emerald Group Publishing
1 □ □ □ □ □
2 □ □ □ □ □
3 □ □ □ □ □
4 □ □ □ □ □
5 □ □ □ □ □
Section 6: Intention to share your knowledge
Please indicate your opinion on each below question by marking in corresponding section.
row Description of question Very
much
much medium little Very
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
Please indicate your opinion on each below question by marking in corresponding section.
row Description of question Very
much
much medium little Very
little
1 I have a plan for sharing my knowledge with my
colleagues. □ □ □ □ □
2 I share my working knowledge and experience
with my colleagues. □ □ □ □ □
3 I share the results of my activities with my
colleagues. □ □ □ □ □
Top Related