Service Science, Vol. 3, No. 2, December 2012 | 11
FACTORS INFLUENCING KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIOR: A
SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW IN TOURISM
Maria Yiu
School of Hotel and Tourism Management
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
[email protected]
Rob Law
School of Hotel and Tourism Management
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Knowledge sharing (KS) has been identified as a major focus area of knowledge management (KM). In
tourism, KS is important yet it remains problematic and a challenge for managers. Drawing fromtheories of
social psychology, motivation theories, and from an extensive of literature review on KS,this paper aims to
identify factors that influence KS in tourism organizations.
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, tourism, social psychology, factors
1.
Introduction
Knowledge sharing (KS), a key enabler of knowledge management (KM), is always considered as a
competitive strategy to sustain organizations‟ core competence and competitive edge [AlaviandLeidner 2001;
Betz 1998; Nonakaand Takeuchi 1995; SkyrmeandAmidon, 1997]. KS is important in tourism for several
reasons. In today‟s dynamic and fiercely competitive environment, tourism organizations‟ success depends
largely on their ability to leverage knowledge to generate competitive capabilities that will help develop new
products, services, and processes that outperform those of rivals [Kogutand Zander 1992; Nickerson and Zenger
2004; Szulanski 1996]. The expertise built by employees thus needs to be safeguarded because tourism is a
highly knowledge-intensive industry which is heavily dependent upon such skills and expertise. To increase its
knowledge capital, tourism organizationmust develop an effective KS process and encourage its employees to
share knowledge. However, KSwithin organizations is problematic and remains a challenge for managers. Many
organizations invested incredible efforts in an attempt to promote KS and nevertheless meet with little success.
Why is it so difficult to share knowledge? Argote [1999] argues that there are conditions under which it is more
difficult to learn and share knowledge within organizations. Hinds and Pfeffer [2003] propose that there are
deep-rooted cognitive and motivational limitations that interfere with people‟s ability to share their knowledge.
Indeed, organizations in knowledge intensive industries, such as tourismorganizations, may become
uncompetitive if their workers insist on guarding or hoarding personal secrets [Lowendahl, Revang
andFosstenlokken 2001; Lu, Leung and Koch, 2005]. As Gibbert and Krause [2002] stated, employees‟ KS
behavior cannot be forced but can only be encouraged and facilitated. This means that the success of KS within
an organization obviously rests on individual‟s attitudes and willingness to share, and the biggest difficulty in
KS is changing people‟s behavior. It is worth noting that people, in practice, are found to be reluctant to share
knowledge despite the advance in communication technologies [Davenport, DeLong and Beers1998; Drucker,
Dyson, Handy, Saffo and Senge1997; Stewart 1998]. The question of what the attitudes and the intrinsic motives
are that account for the behaviors of sharing or hoarding knowledge thus remains unanswered.
Before exploring the facilitating and inhibiting factors of KS, we need to understand the rationale for
which people behave and why they hold certain attitudes towards KS. When making decisions on sharing one‟s
knowledge with coworkers, people will usually take personal expectancy factors, interpersonal relationships,
motivation, as well as the costs and benefits into consideration. Social psychology focuses on the relationships
between individuals and their social environments [Hollander and Howard, 2000], and therefore, sociology and
psychology shed light on KS behavior. Insight from the field of social psychology or more specifically, the
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [AjzenandFishbein 1980; FishbeinandAjzen 1975] and Social Capital
Theory (SCT) [Bourdieu 1983] are helpful in this paper to understand the influences affecting individuals‟ KS
behaviors. TRA and SCT postulate that rational people consider the implications of their actions before they
decide to engage in a given behavior. Meanwhile, it has been suggested that costs and benefits are both
important factors affecting individuals‟ decisions whether to share knowledge, even though most research
focused only on benefits rather than the inhibiting effects of costs [Kankanhalli, Tan and Wei, 2005]. Thus,
Social Exchange Theory (SET) [Blau 1964] has also been applied to reveal the effect of costs and benefits on
12 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
attitudes towards KS. Employees are motivated to share knowledge for different reasons, and therefore,
motivation theories play a part in explaining the KS behavior.
2. Literature Review
2.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) [AjzenandFishbein 1980; FishbeinandAjzen 1975] is a cognitive
decision-making theory that attempts to explain human behavior as a result of rational psychological processes.
TRA postulates that a person makes a logical and rational choice to perform or not to perform an act.The theory
views this choice as a function of the person‟s attitude towards that action and/or the person‟s perception of
social norms or sense of social support for a given behavior.The TRA assumes that intention is the main
predictor of behavior; it suggests that behavioral intentions could drive individual behavior and that intentions
could be determined by attitudes and subjective norms. Regarding KS, a person‟s behavioral beliefs are the
beliefs that KS behavior leads to certain outcomes. Factors influencing behavioral belief can be an incentive
system or self-interest, as reported in Constant, Kiesler, and Sproull‟s [1994] model. Behavioral beliefs are
mainly related to personal expectancy factors. One of those expectancy factors is the subjective norm, which is
defined as an individual‟s perception about how people perceive important to him or her judge the behavior.
Behavior could also be influenced by normative beliefs, which are a person‟s belief that a certain behavior
should be performed according to some social standard. Factors affecting normative beliefs may include
organizational attributes such as the leadership, perceived openness and fairness, perceived pressures, and the
motivation to obey.
The TRA has been widely used in social psychology research to explain many kinds of behavior. When
applying to KS, this theory predicts a link between attitudes and subjective norms about KS, intentions to share
knowledge, and actual sharing of knowledge [Cabrera and Cabrera 2005; Kim and Hunter 1993]. In information
system research, the TRA stands out as the most preferred intention-behavior model for studying KM-related
human behaviors because of its usefulness in predicting a wide range of behaviors in social settings [Sheppard,
HartwickandWarshaw 1998]. Lin [2007] uses the TRA to examine different motivations which explain KS
intentions and finds that knowledge self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others are positively related to KS
attitudes and intentions. In practice, TRA has been extensively adopted and has proved effective for
investigating KS behaviors in different contexts [Bock and Kim 2002; Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee 2005; Heather,
Corner and Bowden 2005]. Based on TRA, Bock and Kim [2002] examined the factors that support or limit an
individual‟s KS behavior in an organization. They used expected rewards, expected associations, and expected
contributions from social exchange, social cognitive, and economic exchange theories, respectively, to explain
the direction of the relationships between these factors and one‟s intention to share one‟s knowledge. Bock et al.
[2005] also found that extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate factors could
influence KS intentions.
In brief, the TRA argues that people firstly consider the possible outcomes of their actions before they
decide to act and that these considerations are encapsulated in the distinction between beliefs, attitudes,
intentions, and behaviors [AjzenandFishbein 1980], where an individual‟s decision to conduct a certain behavior
is determined by his or her intention to perform the behavior, which in turn is determined by attitude towards the
behavior and the beliefs. Since KS happens at the individual level in a rational exchange way, applying the
concept of TRA can identify the salient beliefs that affect the KS behavior as discussed in this paper.
2.2 Social Capital Theory (SCT)
Social Capital Theory (SCT) was developed by Bourdieu [1983], who proposed that social, economic, and
cultural capital together shape human actions. He further defined social capital as “the sum of the resources,
actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or
less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” [Bourdieu andWacquant 1992, p.
119]. Besides, Baron [2000] defined social capital as the networks, norms, and trust that enable participants to
act together to pursue shared objectives in an effective way. Social capital is multidimensional [Carolis 2006],
and usually exists in three dimensions: structural, cognitive, and relational [NahapietandGhoshal 1998].
The structural dimension refers to the pattern of interactions among individuals which includes the ties or
connections among network members as well as the overall network configuration. The cognitive dimension is
gained through a shared language and shared narratives among network members which lead to increase mutual
understanding among individuals and thus communicate more effectively. Lastly, the relational dimension is the
affective part of social capital. It describes network relationships in terms of interpersonal trust, existence of
shared norms and identification with other individuals in the network. The relational dimension, therefore, deals
with the nature or quality of network connections [Cabrera and Cabrera 2005].
With regard to KS, structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital usually are found at the firm or
inter-firm level whereas the factors underlying relational social capital in the KS context are found at the
individual level. Cabrera and Cabrera [2005] suggested that structural and cognitive social capital are „tools‟ in
that they provide a network or shared language and codes for individuals to share their knowledge. Armed with
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 13
these tools, individuals can spend more time communicating, interacting, and sharing with each other. Hence,
structural and cognitive social capital help facilitate, but do not motivate, KS. However, relational social capital
can influence individuals‟ motivation to share their knowledge. Individuals with structural and/or cognitive
social capital may not communicate, interact, or share with each other if they are not willing to do so. Relational
social capital can bridge this gap by providing the qualitative element that motivates groups to share with each
other based on prevailing norms and their trust in each other. This provides a better understanding of the
rationale behind individuals‟ decisions on whether or not to share.
2.3 Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Social Exchange Theory (SET)was developed in the late 1950s, with the key proponent being George
Homans. He proposed that the exchange between people is a fundamental form of behavior and is always based
on principles of cost and benefit [Homans 1961]. Furthermore, he incorporated into the theory concepts from
psychology, such as expectation and reward. Unlike Homans, Blau [1964] tried to bridge the gap between
humans and society. He introduced the concept of social reward to explain the behavior of social exchange.
Intrinsic reward, extrinsic reward, and the concepts of power and criterion were introduced to help explain
broader social phenomena. SET differs from economic exchange theory in that the former entails unspecified
obligations, and as the benefits do not have an exact price in terms of a single quantitative medium of exchange,
the nature of the return cannot be bargained about [Bock and Kim 2002]. Moreover, SET includes many social
factors which cannot be found in economic exchange, such as social relationships and institutional context.
Hence, the exchange approach in sociology is described as the non-economic social situations‟ economic
analysis [Emerson 1976].
SET is among the most influential conceptual paradigms for understanding and explaining KS behavior.
KS is regarded as a kind of social exchange [Bock et al. 2005] with people sharing their knowledge and skills
with their colleagues and expecting, reciprocally, to receive others‟ knowledge in return regulated by trust
[Gouldner 1960]. Davenport and Prusak [1998] have analyzed KS from this perspective, outlining some of the
perceived expected benefits that may regulate the behavior: future reciprocity, status, job security or
promotional prospects. Expectations of reciprocity will encourage positive attitudes towards KS, and will,
therefore, be positively related to KS intentions and behaviors.
It has been suggested that relationships and personal networks function through social exchange [Weir
and Hutchings 2005]. Since social exchange is a complicated activity, different research projects on KS have
highlighted different aspects of it. Some researchers have used SET to examine how trust and justice/fairness,
two key components in interpersonal relationships [Organ 1990; Robinson 1996], relate to KS. Examining trust
and fairness is important because KS involves providing knowledge to another person or collectively such as a
team or community of practice with expectations of reciprocity [Wu, Lin, Hsu andYeh, 2009]. Whereas Chua
[2003] emphasized reciprocity in KS, Constant et al. [1994] emphasized self-interest and context. There are also
researchers who have used SET to analyze how KS behavior can be rewarded more effectively
[BartolandSrivastava 2002]. SET may be the best way to understand effort-reward relationships and the sense of
fairness at work.
2.4 Cost-benefit AnalysisEmbedded in SET
It has been suggested that people are inclined to pursue maximum personal benefit [Molm 1997] and
people can be motivated to share their knowledge through enhancing their benefits while decreasing costs
[Kankanhalli et al. 2005]. Such costs and benefits are assumed to be the factors that affect personal attitudes
towards KS. SET posits to maximize benefits and minimize costs, and this common aphorism sums up much of
the wisdom embedded in the social exchange process, in which the individual motivations can be classified into
intrinsic and extrinsic benefits [BenabouandTirole 2003; Deciand Ryan 1985], which is crucial for KS
[Osterlohand Frey 2000]. Extrinsic benefits include: (1) organizational rewards, such as bonus, for contributing
knowledge [Hall 2001; He and Wei 2009; Kankanhalli et al. 2005], (2) reputation benefits to enhance one‟s
image and social status in the organization [Ba, Stallaert andWhinston 2001; He and Wei 2009; Kankanhalli et
al. 2005], (3) knowledge obtained from reciprocity [He and Wei 2009; Kankanhalli et al. 2005; Lin 2007;
WaskoandFaraj 2000, 2005]. Intrinsic benefits are (1) people enjoy and derive pleasure from KS because they
enjoy helping others [Fehr andGachter 2000; Kollock 1999; Lin 2007], (2) the belief that people with
knowledge self-efficacy are capable of providing valuable knowledge and are willing to share it with others
[Kankanhalli et al. 2005; Lin 2007], and (3) the self-worth that is obtained through KS [Bock et al. 2005].
On the other hand, barriers, or negative forces that inhibit individuals‟ willingness to share their
knowledge with others, often co-exist with incentives. First of all, it may be costly for employees to share their
knowledge. The time and effort spent on KS can represent an opportunity cost motivating individuals to pursue
other tasks that may result in rewards [Markus 2001; Molm 1997]. Other costs may be equally or more
significant.For instance, employees may be afraid that KS might reduce their uniqueness, power or status within
the organization [Carrillo andChinowsky 2006; Goh 2002; Ho, Hsu and Lin, 2011; Kankanhalli et al. 2005].
2.5 Motivation Theories
KS is a process in which people interact and intentionally make knowledge available to each other. People
14 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
are motivated to share knowledge for different reasons. In their attempts to develop a clearer understanding of
the KS and utilization process between knowledge workers, researchers across different disciplines have noted
the critical role of motivation [e.g., AlaviandLeidner 2001; Argote and Ingram 2000; Goodman andDarr 1998;
Hansen 1999; Spender and Grant 1996; Szulanski 1996, 2000].
Motivation stems from psychological drives [Maslow 1943]. For a long time, theorists used to study
motivation theories from psychology management. According to Maslow [1943], human behavior is determined
by biological, cultural, and situational conditions, and that these conditions create needs, which shape the
motivation for individuals to act. Maslow‟s Hierarchy of Needs Theory [Maslow 1968] is one of the most
popular examples of content theories of motivation. He further contended that a hierarchical relationship exists
among these needs, such that those at the basic level must be at least partially met to the satisfaction of the
individual before those at the higher levels can act as behavioral motivators. From lowest to highest, they are
physiological, security, social, self-esteem, and self-actualization [Maslow 1968].
Alderfer‟s [1972] ERG Theory concluded on the basis of extensive studies, which merged and developed
Maslow‟s five clusters of needs into three, namely, Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. His theory states that
people basically want (1) to safeguard their existence, through food, shelter, job and income (Maslow‟s first two
needs), (2) to relate to other persons meaningfully through social contacts, friendship and recognition (Maslow‟s
third), and (3) to grow and develop their abilities, through achievement, and self-actualization (Maslow‟s fourth
and fifth). Alderfer [1972] further proposed there is no hierarchy among these three kinds of needs. In other
words, to meet the higher needs does not require that lower needs have been met. Similar to ERG theory,
another three-factor theory of needs was presented by McClelland [1987]. McClelland [1987] concluded from
his experiences 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 [1966] proposed Motivator-Hygiene Theory, which distinguishes hygiene factors that can
eliminate dissatisfaction and motivators that can lead to satisfaction. Hygiene factors are composed of salary,
status, interpersonal relationship, company policy, safety and security. Motivators are composed of achievement,
responsibility, recognition, advance and growth. Hygiene factors are the basic conditions to drive people to
work. However, motivators are the factors to satisfy people‟s growth needs.
Using the Motivator-Hygiene Theory, Hendriks [1999] found that knowledge workers at IT industry,
motivations of KS include achievement, responsibility, recognition and growth, instead of hygiene factors such
as salary and status. Other types of motivational factors include formal recognition and feedback, which several
scholars consistently argue have a strong positive effect on KS [Cabrera and Cabrera 2005; O‟Dell and Grayson
1998]. Hall [2001] found that invisible rewards such as enhancing reputation and satisfaction are the driving
factors of KS. In addition, Hall [2001] as well as Bartol and Srivastava [2002] suggested that effective reward
systems not only provide staff with visible reward, e.g. salary, stock, and bonus, but also encourages employees
to share knowledge with other employees. Prior research showed that visible economic rewards can also
encourage KS. Davenport and Prusak [1998] pointed out that KS means a market where knowledge holders
share their knowledge for rewards such as reciprocity, reputation and altruism. Several scholars argue that
especially intrinsic motivation matters for KS [Cabrera, Collins andSelgado 2006; Lin 2007; Osterlohand Frey
2000]. Empirically, the impact of motivational factors such as self-efficacy, development and enjoyment, often
associated with intrinsic motivation, are consistently argued to enhance KS [Bock et al. 2005; Cabrera et al.
2006; Lin 2007].
In short, these content theories of motivation have been enriched and developed in the practices of manage
knowledge workers‟ behavior [Herzberg 1966]. These theories seem to be useful in understanding the
motivational factors of KS behavior. People may share knowledge to safeguard their jobs, to support their
relations with others, to increase their reputation, status and power, and to strengthen their own knowledge and
abilities.
2.6 Attitudes Towards KS (Willingness/Unwillingness to Share)
If everyone is assumed to be creating knowledge, the organization has a responsibility to provide open
access to information for everyone; and knowledge is thus assumed to be found everywhere in the organization,
and not just limited to a few functions or a specific group of people [Wheatley 2000]. However, a common
problem in most KM programs is that individuals do not share their knowledge [Skyrme 2000]. Several
researchers and practitioners argue that the success of KS strategies in organizations is dependent on the extent
to which individuals are willing to share their knowledge [Connelly andKelloway 2003; Lin and Lee 2004;
Sveibyand Simon 2002; Van den Hooffand de Ridder 2004]. Other researchers suggest that KS consists of
voluntary transfer and dissemination of knowledge from one person to another or to a group in an organization
[Dyer, Kale and Singh 2004; Nelson andCooprider 1996; Ruggles 1998; Wiig 1995], and the willingness to
share is a major personal factor of KS behavior. KS is an unnatural act. People question why they have to share
knowledge as this is a valuable resource, and sharing it may put their jobs at risk if others take credit for their
work [Kramer 1999]. Therefore, the natural tendency is to hoard knowledge [Probst, Raub andRomhardt 2000;
Tiwana 2000]. Nevertheless, KS largely relies on the willingness of individuals to share with others the
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 15
knowledge they have acquired, possessed or created [Gibbert and Krause 2002].In a society where knowledge
turns out to be the core resource for the well-being of an organization, now more than ever knowledge and
expertise equal power. Some individuals possess an attitudinal “unwillingness to share” due to personal
insecurity, such as a fear of being seen as ignorant and therefore unfit for job advancement or new career
opportunities.
The truly difficult part is convincing employees to share what they know rather than hoard knowledge to
protect their standing in the organization [McWilliams andStepanek 1998]. Employees need to be motivated to
share their knowledge willingly so as to contribute to the success of their team and organization. In this situation,
employees believe through KS they can help the organization as a whole meet its business objectives, but not for
their self-interests [Gurteen 1999]. Employees may believe that their contributions will be valuable to the
organization, give themselves positive feelings of sociability or doing the right thing, or promote personal
responsibility [Cabrera and Cabrera 2002]. This kind of organizational commitments is likely to affect
employees‟ attitudes and behaviors regarding KS [Hislop 2003]. Some of the conditions that make people
willing to learn and share their knowledge are (a) when people understand and support the work objective or
strategy, (b) when people understand how their work adds value to the common objective, (c) when people
know and care about each other and feel personally connected to their leaders, and (d) when people feel
respected and trusted [Skyrme 2000]. Thus the success of KS obviously rests on individuals‟ willingness to
share [Frick 1998]. In the other words, KS is, to a larger extent, subject to a person‟s intrinsic motives.
2.7 Factors Influencing KS Behavior
Integrating the above concepts of TRA, SCT, SET, cost-benefit analysis, motivation theories, and
individual attitude on exploring people‟s KS behavior, and synthesizing the key factors related to KS drawn on
literature from fields such as socio-psychology, management theory, strategic management, information and
decision sciences, organizational communication and organizational behavior, the researchers posited that KS
behavior would affect the sharer cognitively and affectively (i.e., personal factors) and socially (i.e., social
factors) within the organizational context (i.e. organizational factors). Although information and communication
technologies play an important role in KS [Constant et al. 1994], the effect of technological factors on KS
behavior will not be explored in this paper.
Personal Factors
An employee‟s attitudes and competencies may encourage or impede KS behavior. Therefore, it may be
illuminating to examine the personal factors in order to gain a greater understanding of why individuals decide
to engage or not to engage in KS.
Perceived loss of knowledge power
In today‟s knowledge-based economy, knowledge is increasingly perceived as being commercially
valuable, and its ownership is being recognized by both individuals and the organizations they work in [Brown
and Woodland 1999; Jarvenpaaand Staples 2001; Weiss 1999]. The increasing importance given to knowledge
in organizations, and the increasing value attributed to individuals who possess the right kind of knowledge are
conducive to creating the notion that “knowledge is power” [Dunford 2000; GrandoriandKogut 2002; Hendriks
1999; Szulanski 1996]. Based on theories mentioned in the previous section, i.e., TRA [AjzenandFishbein 1980]
and SET [Blau 1964], people will behave in a rational manner to seek and maximize benefits for the least costs
and to avert loss. With this view, people are obviously discouraged from sharing their knowledge because KS
often was regarded as weakening an employee‟s corporate position, power of status within the organization
[Probst et al. 2000; Tiwana 2000], and this is believed to be one prominent obstacle to KS behavior [Dalkir
2005].
Research suggests that employees normally consider their knowledge as a source of power [Ba et al. 2001;
Bartol, Liu, Zeng and Wu 2009; Gray 2001]. In organizations in which an individual‟s knowledge becomes his
or her primary source of power to the organization, giving up ownership to that knowledge might potentially
result in diminishing the value of individual, or result in loss of uniqueness [Chow, Deng and Ho 2000]. As a
result, employees may fear a loss of superiority and knowledge ownership after sharing their personal
knowledge [BartolandSrivastava 2002; Szulanski 1996], and this may lead to the natural reaction of employees
to exhibit knowledge hoarding rather than KS behavior [Davenport 1999; Probst et al. 2000; Tiwana 2000].
In the old school of thinking where profitability was reflected by an organization‟s output, knowledge
hoarding rather than KS was believed to benefit career advancement. According to Brown and Woodland [1999],
individuals use knowledge for both control and defense. When individuals perceive the knowledge they possess
as a valuable commodity, KS becomes a process mediated by decisions about what knowledge to share, when to
share, and who to share it with [Andrews andDelahaye 2000]. In a competitive environment, withholding
knowledge from those considered competitors is often regarded as being useful to attaining one‟s goal [Pfeffer
1980]. Some employees like to take ownership of their work to receive accreditation and/or recognition from
colleagues and peers [Jarvenpaa and Staples 2001; Rowley 2002]. There is often a fear amongst employees that
16 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
sharing knowledge reduces job security because people are uncertain about the sharing objectives and intent of
their senior management [Lelic 2001]. Similarly, lower and middle level employees often hoard their knowledge
intentionally, expecting that their superiors may not promote them if they appeared to be more knowledgeable
than them. Any reluctance to KS is further heightened in situations characterized by uncertainties and
insecurities, such as mergers and acquisitions [Empson 2001; Ipe 2003]. Power politics is therefore an important
aspect of KS in organizations [Weiss 1999], and thereby partly explaining an individual‟s reluctance to engage
in KS [Alvesson 1993; Davenport 1997; Empson 2001; Gupta andGovindarajan 2000]. This suggests a negative
relationship between loss of knowledge power and attitude towards KS.
Expected rewards, recognition, and status enhancement
In a practical sense, employees‟ KS behavior cannot be forced but can only be encouraged and facilitated
[Gibbertand Krause 2002]. Therefore, leveraging knowledge is only possible when people value building on
each other‟s ideas and views, and sharing their own insights. Employees must be reassured that they will receive
some types of incentives for what they create [Dalkir 2005]. According to the TRA [Ajzen and Fishbein 1980]
and SET [Blau 1964] as discussed in the previous section, individuals, who evaluate or assess which actions or
behaviors can be expected to maximize their interests and benefits, will normally emphasize extrinsic rewards.
These individuals will then act accordingly to seek and maximize the rewards at the least costs. This implies that
expected extrinsic rewards motivate intended individual behaviors, but when the expected costs outweigh
perceived rewards, intended behaviors will not occur. Applying this concept, KS behaviors will most likely
occur when rewards exceed the costs of sharing [Constant et al. 1994; Kelley andThibaut 1978]. Since KS
involves costs for the participants, such as time, energy and potential loss of ownership and power, expected
rewards can be a major determinant of an individual‟s KS attitude [Bock and Kim 2002]. To counterbalance
such costs, researchers and practitioners alike have suggested that employees should be rewarded with economic
incentives such as pay increases, bonuses, career advancement and job security for actively engaging in KS
activities [Ba et al. 2001; Lee andAhn 2007]. O‟Reilly and Pondy [1979] argue that the chance of people
contributing knowledge to others is positively related to the rewards they expect from KS. Contradictorily, some
researchers have found that rewards may in fact exert a negative effect on attitude towards KS [Bock et al.
2005]. Dalkir [2005] identified the risk in KS is that individuals are most commonly rewarded for what they
know, but not what they share. However, rewards are still considered a key component of KS [Quigley, Tesluk,
Locke andBartol 2007]. Anecdotal evidence also indicates that some firms have successfully introduced
financial incentives to encourage KS [BartolandSrivastava 2002]. It is therefore suggested that perceived
organizational incentives have a positive effect on the attitude towards KS.
Motivation theories suggest that reputation is a kind of esteem need, which involves recognition, attention,
or appreciation from others [Alderfer 1972; Herzberg 1966; Maslow 1968; McClelland 1987]. Social
psychologists consider that reputation involves ego, which is a contributor to KS [Deci 1975]. Contrary to the
SET [Blau 1964] discussed above, the social exchange view of KS theorizes that individuals will satisfy the
higher order needs, such as recognition, by contributing knowledge to others even in the absence of additional
economic rewards [Bock and Kim 2002; Bock et al. 2005]. In today‟s knowledge economy, expertise is highly
valued. Kollock [1999] found that employees with high technical knowledge have better status in the workplace.
Previous studies suggest that by sharing expertise and knowledge with others, employees derive future benefits
from enhancing self-image, higher prestige, reputation and status in the social circle [Constant et al. 1994, 1996;
Hsu and Lin 2008; WaskoandFaraj 2005], earn peer recognition and respect [Constant et al. 1994, 1996;
Kankanhalli et al. 2005; O‟Dell and Grayson 1998; Taylor and Murthy 2009], thus building a reputation is a
strong motivator for KS [Davenport and Prusak 1998, Kankanhalli et al. 2005]. This suggests that employees are
motivated to participate actively in KS when they perceive the expected recognition, such as reputation and
expert status, as likely outcomes of their KS. Thus the expected material and subjective incentives for one‟s KS
acts [Bock and Kim 2002] will likely have a positive effect on individual KS behavior.
Enjoyment in helping others
Enjoyment in helping others is a benefit derived from altruism, which is defined as the desire to increase
the welfare of one or more individuals other than oneself [Batson, Ahmad and Tsang 2002]. Previous research
showed that employees are intrinsically motivated by relative altruism to contribute knowledge to others
because engaging in intellectual pursuits and solving problems is challenging or pleasurable, and because they
enjoy helping others [Constant et al. 1994; Davenport andPrusak 1998; Kollock 1999; Lin 2007; Wasko and
Faraj 2000; 2005].
It is said that people are not only pragmatic but also expressive of feelings, values, and self-identities
[Bandura 1986; Shamir 1991]. Helping others can increase self-esteem and self-respect [Orr 1990], and this
yields a kind of intrinsic enjoyment. Bandura [1986] argued that the intrinsic motivation that drives engagement
in KS activities based on competence self-evaluation and social acceptance, rather than external rewards. Batson
[1991] cautioned that it should not be confused with self-sacrifice, because self-sacrifice concerns a cost to
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 17
oneself and not a benefit to another. Batson et al. [2002] stated that the most commonly proposed source of
altruistic motivation is empathy. If another person is perceived to be in need, then empathy amplifies the desire
directed toward the ultimate goal of relieving the need of the person for whom empathy is felt [Batson 1991].
Hence, people who derive intrinsic enjoyment from helping others do not expect to have anything in return
[Krebs 1975; Smith 1981].
Helping provides opportunities for learning and growth [Wasko and Faraj 2000] may also be enjoyable in
itself [Kollock 1999; Wasko and Faraj 2000]. Similar findings were also observed in other studies [Ba et al.
2001; Kuznetsov 2006; Taylor and Murthy 2009]. Thus, employees who derive enjoyment from helping others
may be more favorable oriented toward KS and more inclined to engaging in KS behaviors.
Self-efficacy: Perceived contribution to the organization
According to Bandura [1986], human functioning is viewed as the product of a dynamic interplay of
personal, behavioral and environmental influences. How people interpret the results of their own behavior
informs and alters their environments and the personal factors they possess which, in turn, inform and alter
subsequent behavior. Bandura [1986] focuses on a view of human agency in which individuals are agents
proactively engaged in their own development and can make things happen by their actions. The degree to
which people believe in their efforts or contributions determines whether they can execute courses of action to
attain designated types of performances in the organization.
At the core of TRA [Ajzen and Fishbein 1980] and SET [Blau 1964], the concept of self-efficacy believes
that people‟s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to achieve
specific levels of performance [Bandura 1997]. Based upon this concept, positive reinforcement action occurs
when people believe that their behavior or actions could contribute to the organizational performance. On the
contrary, the inhibitory effect of people‟s reluctance to act will be seen when people perceive that their actions
or behaviors do not make any contribution to organizational performance. Bock and Kim [2002] propose that
self-efficacy could be treated as a major factor of self-motivational source for KS. Their discoveries disclose
that the individual‟s judgment of his contribution to organization performance has positive influence on KS. The
impact of self-efficacy as an intrinsic motivator is argued to enhance KS [Bock et al. 2005; Cabrera et al. 2006;
Lin 2007; Wasko and Faraj 2005]. Researchers have also found that employees with high confidence in their
ability to provide valuable knowledge are more likely to accomplish specific tasks [Constant et al. 1994].
Knowledge self-efficacy typically manifests in people believing that their knowledge can help to solve
job-related problems and improve work efficacy [Luthans 2003]. Employees who believe that they can
contribute organizational performance by sharing knowledge will develop greater positive willingness to take
part in the KS activities.
Social Factors
KS is essentially a social process of interpersonal interaction in which knowledge is exchanged. Therefore,
it is important for organizations to take the social factors into account for an effective KS.
Reciprocity
Applying SET [Blau 1964], individuals engage in social exchanges under the expectation that their
contribution will result in reciprocal returns in the future, an expectation regulated by feelings of personal
obligation, gratitude and trust. Social exchange refers to reciprocal acts in which individuals offer help or
information to one another “without negotiation of terms and without knowledge of whether or when the other
will reciprocate” [Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000, p. 1396]. Thus, such exchanges are marked with risk as
to what and when the returns of one‟s contributions will be. Molm et al. [2000] further contended that trust,
defined as an expectation that an exchange partner will behave benignly, plays a more important role in
reciprocal transactions than in economic exchange where the terms and conditions are known in advance and
may even be guaranteed by the organization. On the other hand, in the case of social exchange where employees
make contributions beyond what is included in their job descriptions, it is important that they trust the
organization will reciprocate in some form or other in the long run [Homans 1961].
Reciprocity is a form of conditional gain, meaning that people expect future benefits from their present
actions. This expectation was found to influence attitude towards KS [Bock et al. 2005]. According to
Davenport and Prusak‟s [1998] idea of knowledge market, reciprocity is one of the factors that drive KS. Prior
research revealed that KS in organizations is facilitated by a strong sense of reciprocity [Constant et al. 1996;
Kankanhalli et al. 2005; Wasko and Faraj 2005]. People reciprocate previous friendly actions [Fehr andGachter
2000], which they believe are likely to lead to mutual benefits [Hsu and Lin 2008; Lin 2007] or knowledge
feedback in the future [Kankanhalli et al. 2005] and thus they have stronger KS intentions [Lin 2007]. When
employees feel that KS can lead to future requests for knowledge being met, they will be more inclined to
participate in KS activities.
On the contrary, people suffer from limited time, energy and knowledge, and thus are usually unwilling to
18 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
share scarce resources unless it is profitable for them [Davenport and Prusak1998]. A negative aspect of
reciprocity is the fear of exploitation, which was found to be a serious threat to KS between individuals
[Empson 2001]. Fear of exploitation is a reflection of extreme anxiety that individual experience when they
perceive that they are being asked to give away valuable knowledge with very little or no benefit to them in
return.
Empirical evidence for the relationship between reciprocity and KS indicates that receiving knowledge
from others stimulates a reciprocal flow of knowledge in the direction of the sender both horizontally and
vertically in organizations [Schultz 2001]. Support for the relationship between reciprocity and KS was also
found by Hall [2001] as well as Dyer and Nobeoka [2000]. Reciprocity is also thought to be a motivator of KS in
communities of practice where KS results in enhancing participants‟ expertise and providing opportunities for
recognition [Bartol and Srivastava 2002; Orr 1990]. Thus, perceived reciprocal benefits may have a positive
effect on the attitude towards KS.
Trust
At the root of KM is the increased recognition that KS is a human behavior which cannot be fostered
without trust [Ives, Torrey and Gordon 2000]. SET [Blau 1964] identified trust as an identifying outcome of
favorable social exchanges, which in turn may lead to KS behaviors. According to SCT, trust is an important
dimension of relational capital that resides in an individual‟s relationships with others including peers, team
members, and co-workers for creating an atmosphere for KS [HedlundandNonaka 1993; Nonaka 1994;
Tiwanaand Bush 2005; Zand 1981].
Within the KM literature, trust is found to be a significant factor driving KS [Chowdhury 2005; Davenport
andPrusak 1998; PanteliandSockalingam 2005; Politis 2003; Ridings, Gefen andArinze 2002; Rolland
andChauvel 2000; Williams 2001]. The research findings of DeLong [1997] as well as Kramer [1999] illustrated
the importance of trust on KS activities. Trust has been found to facilitate KS in a variety of settings involving
team member interdependence [JarvenpaaandLeidner 1999; Moreland andMyaskovsky 2000; Rau 2005]. Trust
can enable cooperative interaction during KS among employees [Mayer, Davis andSchoorman 1995; McAllister
1995; NaphapietandGhoshal 1998] since the parties do not have to fear any manifestations of opportunism
[Granovetter 1985; Hill 1990; Nooteboom, Berger andNoorderhaven 1997]. Roberts [2000] also suggested that
interpersonal trust reduces the necessity of monitoring others‟ cooperative behaviors and facilitates informal
interaction. An important characteristic of informal interaction is that employees‟ knowledge contributions are
difficult to evaluate [Bartol and Srivastava 2002]. Therefore, trust is particularly important in volitional KS
behaviors in organizations. The importance of perceived trustworthiness to KS in organizations was further
reinforced by Andrews and Delahaye [2000] who found that the role of trust was central to the way knowledge
was shared by individuals. Their study established that in the absence of trust, formal KS practices were
insufficient to encourage employees to share knowledge with others within the same environment. He and Wei
[2009] confirmed trust to strongly influence individuals‟ attitudes and intentions, and to determine continuance
behavior in knowledge-seeking and KS scenarios among employees. Interpersonal trust or trust between
co-workers is an extremely essential attribute in organizational culture, which is important to create an
atmosphere conducive to KS in teams and organizations [Nonaka 1994; Politis 2003; Roberts 2000].
Mutual trust throughout an organization is one of the most important factors of KS, as trust among
employees enables them to more freehandedly share and acquire knowledge and retrieve specific resources
[Tynan 1999]. Since KS is built on cooperation, people will only cooperate and share knowledge openly and
freely provided that there is a high level of trust among people. If there is no trust, there is neither effective
communication, nor harmonious collaboration, nor sharing amongst employees. DeLong and Fahey [2000]
argued that the level of trust among employees in an organization has a significant influence on the amount of
knowledge flowing between individuals and from individuals into the organization‟s databases, best practices,
and other records. This means that the higher the degree of trust, the more employees will be willing to share
their knowledge with other members in the organization [Bock et al. 2005; Cabrera and Cabrera 2005; Hsu, Ju,
Yen and Chang 2007]. This KS atmosphere could be nurtured through extensive personal contacts, i.e., social
interactions such as inter-relationship, mentorship, face-to-face interactions, and networks [Lesser andPrusak
2000].
Social interaction and team collaboration
Many scholars have argued that when two persons are influenced by their social and organizational
contexts, particularly where unspecified cooperative outputs such as knowledge are exchanged, the social
exchange relationship is a major determinant of their attitudes [Blau 1964; Constant et al. 1994; Organ
andKonovsky 1989]. As SET explains, social exchange is more concerned with the establishment of bonds of
friendship with others and the perception of belonging within the team, and not necessarily with any extrinsic
benefit or monetary rewards [Blau 1964; Organ andKonovsky 1989]. According to SCT [Bourdieu 1983],
maintaining a good tie among coworkers or between the individual and the team, or being treated as a loyal
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 19
teammate within an organization, is commonly regarded as social capital, that is, a valuable asset with which to
secure one‟s benefits. It is argued that a higher degree of social capital is helpful in fostering inter-unit resource
exchange and combination [Tsai andGhoshal 1998], thus gaining access to broader sources of quality
information and acquire new knowledge and skills that make collective work easier [Bolino, Turnley
andBloodgood 2002]. Adler and Kwon [2002] suggest that the relational characteristics are the sources of
incentives that motivate people to help others. Owing to the friendly relationship, an individual is willing to help
others, for example, engaging in KS activities, with a commitment to shared good instead of self-interest.
Social interactions play a crucial role in accelerating KS. O‟Dell and Grayson [1999] contend that learning
and sharing knowledge are social activities that focus on the interaction of individual behavior with the learning,
sharing and transmitting of values, assumptions, insights and cognition on a reciprocal basis. Such activities
through extensive personal contacts include social networking, mentorship, joint events, outings, and any kind
of face-to-face interaction [Haldin-Herrgard 2000; Tsai andGhoshal 1998]. Tsai [2002] suggested that social
interaction has a positive correlation with intra-organizational KS. As noted by Yang and Wan [2004], social
interactions can be an efficient method of transferring and sharing tacit knowledge. Through these social
interactions, with the provision of more opportunities for employees to interact and communicate with each
other, they can be tied together more closely in order to build up their trust and the intimacy of friendship. Thus,
working closely with others and having a familiarity between employees in an organization are important
antecedents of KS, through shared understanding [Ko, Kirsch and King 2005].
Organizations increasingly consider the value in collaborative work, demonstrated by the popularity
andemphasis placed on teamwork [Katzenbach and Smith 1993]. Organizations are requiring more teamwork,
and due to increased alienation at work, people want to make connections with coworkers [Moses 1997].
Psychological theories identify the importance and inevitability of peoples‟ growth in personal interaction,
teamwork provides a social dimension that may be lacking in the work environment [Surrey 1991]. O‟Dell,
Wiig and Odem [1999] further contended that teams, relationships, and networks are the most important
elements of an effective KS. While Bock and Kim [2002] proposed that social association is one of the major
reasons influencing an individual‟s desire to share their knowledge, Szulanski [1996] and Ko et al. [2005]
proved empirically that an arduous relationship is a significant barrier to the occurrence of KS.
The growth of professional knowledge in specific fields means that without sharing knowledge,
individuals cannot solve everyday life problems, be they at the level of the individual, of a group, of a firm, or of
a multinational corporation. Team collaboration is therefore useful and plays a key role in organizational
performance when effective contributions by one member are dependent on effective contributions by other
members [GuastelloandGuastello 1998; Marks, Mathieu andZaccaro 2001]. It becomes self-evident that if
individuals share their knowledge with others, in the end, all the people in the group can achieve better
performance, be more effective, and be more productive [Compeau, Higgins and Huff 1999]. According to
Okhuysen and Eisenhardt [2000], if members share information over a period of time, they develop an ability to
recognize and process information in blocks or patterns rather than discrete units [Isenberg 1998]. This
pattern-processing is faster than processing individual pieces of information. Thus, KS over a period of time can
lead to the development of shared intuition. With experience of sharing knowledge together, team members are
able to understand even small cues from others and fill in the blanks [Isenberg 1998]. Lewis [1999] argued that
repeated interactions would facilitate learning about other members‟ areas of expertise as team members share
their specialized knowledge. In the event of team interactions, when members discuss task strategies, attempt
problem solving, or exchange knowledge in any other way, one of the outcomes is that team members get an
idea of what skills and knowledge lie with which member.
In knowledge-based organizations, such as tourism organizations, teams are major performing units
[Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995], and good teamwork is believed to enhancing KS. Specifically, researchers argued
that positive interpersonal interactions help encourage KS [Swan, Newell, ScarbroughandHislop 1999] and that
promoting a group identity, increasing the frequency of interactions, and enhancing communication are able to
facilitate KS as well [Cabrera and Cabrera 2002]. Team collaboration is able to promote communal working
relationships characterized by helpfulness and responsibility, thereby facilitating KS behaviors [Jones and
George 1998]. KS through social interactions involves absolutely voluntary and natural behaviors. Obviously
the larger the personal networks and the better the personal relationships individuals have, the greater the chance
they will share knowledge with people they know in their social networks [Kubo, Saka and Pam 2001]. The
intrinsic motivation of this type of KS behavior is high because the sharers perceive KS as self-determined
[Kaser and Miles 2002].
Organizational factors
Removing hoarding behavior seems to be difficult, so inspiring individuals to share becomes crucial, and
organizations have to create a healthy organizational culture and climate based on collaboration, cooperation,
fairness, openness and supportive leadership.
20 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
Organizational culture
Sharing insights and best practices is a human behavior that is critical to the success of any KM
implementation, yet the culture of the organization is a key consideration. Organization culture represents the
unspoken norms and shared values, beliefs, and daily practices that shape the patterns and qualities of
interactions between employees at different hierarchical levels [McDermott and O‟Dell 2001]. It drives the
organizations formal and informal expectations of individuals, defines the types of people who will fit into the
organization, and affects how people interacted with others within the organization.
Organizational culture is the most frequently-cited factor supporting KS [Goh 2002; Gupta
andGovindarajan 2000; McDermott and O‟Dell 2001]. Yet, it is argued that organizational culture can be either
a major inhibiting or enabling factor of KS [Chow et al. 2000; DeLong andFahey 2000]. On the one hand,
various studies indicated that an effective organizational culture is one of the key components influencing
organizational abilities to survive and succeed in the long term [Morris III 1992; Schneider, Gunnarsonand
Niles-Jolly 1994; Thomas 1985; Yang and Wan 2004]. A KS culture is also a key element in preventing the loss
of human capital because it allows employees to learn and transfer their skills, knowledge, and experience to
others in the organization. Yang‟s [2004] study confirmed that amongst hotel managers and employees, the
enhancement of customer services could be achieved through KS. On the other hand, organizations without a
supportive culture that encourages employees to share and learn from each other will not benefit from the
creation of new knowledge and thus will not gain a competitive advantage. The cultural issue has been
examined by many KM scholars and practitioners as the main obstacle to implementing KS because for most
organizations, facilitating the capture of useful business knowledge represents a major change in employee
behavior [Ives et al. 2000]. The findings of Sveiby and Simons‟ [2002] study also demonstrate two major
impediments to KS are the “internal culture of resistance to sharing” and “a culture of hoarding knowledge”,
and that trust and collaboration must be incorporated into the organizational culture for the KM practices to
succeed.
Moreover, Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Kouzmin [2003] claim that knowledge acquisition and KS can be
viewed as the first step in pursuing organizational learning.Organizations acquire, create, share and reutilize
knowledge relevant to their business operations, in order to add value for their customers [Martin 2000]. The
level of learning may be linked to an organization‟s ability to produce, over time, a given competitive response
to obtain a major competitive advantage. The stronger the learning culture that an organization processes, the
greater the degree of sustainable competitive advantage it develops. In particular, in globalization, as a company
learns and shares quickly, the process of decision-making may become more effective and efficient than in
companies that do not adopt similar policies. Roth [2003] suggests that “if we want people in our organizations
to share what they have learned, it would be wise to create the conditions where sharing results in personal
benefit to both parties” (p. 34). Individual learning therefore involves sharing and is not only learning from past
experience or the present moment, but is a continuous process between individuals and individuals and the
organization.
For the purpose of enabling organizational knowledge growth, one of the key issues for an organization is
to cultivate a learning and sharing attitude among employees within the organization [So andBolloju 2005]. In
an organization with a KS culture, people would share ideas and insights because they see it as natural, rather
than something they are forced to do [KannanandAkhilesh 2002]. Gupta, Iyer and Aronson [2000] suggest that
an organizational culture containing openness and incentive themes successfully facilitates the integration of
individual competencies (including skills, knowledge and experiences) into organizational knowledge through
learning, knowledge creating and KS. This suggests what characteristics organizational culture should have in
the knowledge-economy era. Numerous studies have reported that if the following components of organizational
culture were fostered, implementing KS practices could be accelerated: a „supportive, collaborative, not a
competitive‟ climate [Cameron 2002; Goh 2002; Reid 2003; Sveiby and Simons 2002], a trusting and
trustworthy work environment [Goh 2002; Rowley 2002; Sveiby and Simons 2002; Wagner 2003], top
management commitment [Hislop 2003; MrinaliniandNath 2000; Rowley 2002], a focus on innovation,
problem-seeking and problem-solving [Goh 2002], and an opportunity for spontaneous and voluntary sharing
[Dixon 2002].
A number of studies have found direct relationship between supportive organizational culture and
successful KS [Cummings andTeng 2003; DeLong and Fahey 2000; JanzandPrasarnphanich 2003]. Goh [2002]
proposed that cooperative and collaborative culture is an important prerequisite to drive a propensity for high
KS. In short, if organizations want to set up KS practices, they have to create a healthy sharing climate, one
which is collaborative, anti-hostile, and accountable, for their members.
Reward systems
The reward system is another key element associated with the effectiveness of KS because it affects
employees‟ willingness to share what they know. Organizational rewards indicate what the organization values
shape employee behaviors [Cabrera andBonache 1999]. An appropriate incentive and reward mechanism
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 21
enhances employees‟ motivation to share knowledge [Allee 1997; Davenport and Prusak 1998, Hall 2001].
Rewards for KS can range from monetary incentives such as increased salary and bonuses to non-monetary
awards such as promotions, enhanced recognition and personal satisfaction, and job security [Davenport and
Prusak 1998; Hall 2001]. Several organizations have introduced reward systems to encourage employees to
share their knowledge with others. For example, Buckman Laboratories recognizes its 100 top knowledge
contributors through an annual conference at a resort. Lotus Development, a division of IBM, devotes 25 per
cent of the total performance evaluation of its customer support workers on the extent of their KS activities
[Bartol and Srivastava 2002; Davenport 2002].
The findings of different studies on motivations and impact of rewards for KS are not always consistent
and sometimes contradictory. Some studies found a positive impact of rewards on KS [Kankanhalli et al. 2005;
Wasko and Faraj 2005], while others found negative influences [Bock and Kim 2002; Bock et al. 2005; Wasko
and Faraj 2000; Watson and Hewett 2006]. Some empirical research on the impact of rewarding KS has
provided evidence for its effectiveness. Zarraga and Bonache [2003] found a positive correlation between the
degree to which reward systems are linked to KS and the level of knowledge transfer within work teams of 12
multinational companies. Positive correlations were also found between the existence of rewards for KS and the
use of electronic knowledge repositories [Kankanhalli et al. 2005] and knowledge dissemination within strategic
business units [Van Der Bij, Song andWeggeman 2003]. Contrary to the expected positive effect of rewards, it
was found that anticipated extrinsic rewards had a negative effect on attitudes toward KS [Bock and Kim 2002;
Bock et al. 2005]. Several studies found no relationship between extrinsic motivation and KS intentions or
attitudes toward KS [Kwok andGao 2005; Lin 2007]. Chang, Yeh and Yeh [2007] also showed that
outcome-based rewards and sufficient rewards for effort did not foster KS among product development team
members.
Yet, a major challenge associated with setting up KS rewards is the difficulty in identifying and evaluating
KS, especially the tacit knowledge, at the individual level [Ipe 2003; Michailovaand Husted 2003]. It is believed
that tracking the contribution to an online KS system is relatively easy, however, monitoring whether KS takes
place socially in situations like face-to-face conversation is very difficult. On the other hand, rewards at
different levels (individual rewards, rewards based on team performance, and profit or gain sharing plans across
teams) may enhance individual KS within or across teams [Bartol and Srivastava 2002]. However, it is likely
that the extrinsic motivation for KS is generally high because KS is perceived to be externally controlled [Kaser
and Miles 2002]. Therefore, specifying the benefits of KS in the reward systems is a useful means of promoting
KS behavior.
Bartol and Locke [2000] identified several important aspects of organizational reward systems that are
useful for motivating individuals to perform the targeted behaviors. These factors include, but are not limited to,
perceived fairness of rewards, employees setting challenging goals in order to achieve the attractive rewards,
and practices that insure that employees possess high self-efficacy for performing the tasks. In addition to the
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, the refinement and enrichment of the knowledge would be perceived as the
benefits for KS, and the advancement of individual competency and organizational growth as further outcomes,
would be multiplied beneficially among all parties [Allee 1997; Coleman 1999].
Sometimes, KS does not lead to short term financial benefits to organizations but it brings significant
benefits in the long run. Hence to promote KS, the reward system should be broadly based on other dimensions
of performance, such as co-operation, and teamwork, instead of on purely financial outcomes [Goh 2002]. A
good reward system should include fair assessment and explicit recognition of KS in order to have a positive
impact on knowledge providers [Bartol and Srivastava 2002].
Top management support and leadership style
Organizational support refers to the general perception that an organization cares for the well-being of its
employees and values their contributions [Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli and Lynch 1997]. Top management
support is considered one of the important potential influences on organizational KS [Connelly and Kelloway
2003]. Numerous studies have found top management support essential to creating a supportive climate and
providing sufficient resources [Lin and Lee 2006]. MacNeil [2004] emphasized the importance of the visible top
management support to organizational KS climate. Moreover, Lin and Lee [2004] proposed that the perception
of top management encouragement of KS intentions is necessary for creating and maintaining a positive KS
culture in an organization.
Management support for KS has been shown to be positively associated with employees‟ perceptions of a
KS culture (e.g. employee trust, willingness of experts to help others) and willingness to share knowledge
[Connelly andKelloway 2003; Lin 2007]. King and Marks [2008] found that management support specific to KS
is a better predictor of employee KS behavior. SET has been used in studies examining the management
support-KS relationship. Overall, these studies show that management support is likely to influence KS within
organizations [Wang andNoe 2010].
As mentioned in the previous section, team plays an important role in contemporary organizations. KS
22 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
and team efficacy are both important determinants of team performance [Argote 1999; Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi
andBeaubien 2002]. KS does not happen automatically in team, and the team‟s leader has an important role to
play in making it come about. Leaders in a team play a significant role in nurturing a healthy work atmosphere
for their subordinates [GrandoriandKogut 2002; Hendriks 1999; McDermott and O‟Dell 2001]. The traditional
view of management in that organizational members act as instruments of their superiors [Roth 2003] is no
longer seen to secure long-term success of an organization. Managers are increasingly required to stimulate
subordinates to voluntarily share their knowledge and experience, and convert the shared knowledge into
organizational assets. This involves leadership rather than management, and facilitating and coaching roles must
receive more attention [Roth 2003].
Vroom and Yetton [1973] classify leadership on an autocratic-consultative continuum and relate
leadership to KS in teams by describing how much information the leader seeks from the subordinates. In
addition, this continuum indicates to subordinates the superior‟s view or support of KS by setting a role model.
In organizational studies, the path-goal theory [House and Mitchell 1974] also identifies different styles of
leadership, for example, directive, supportive, or participative leadership. Durham, Knight and Locke [1997]
found that teams with directive leadership displayed lower levels of information and knowledge exchange as
compared with teams that had supportive leadership style. On the contrary,a supportive leader not only sets
challenging goals, emphasizes excellence, empowers followers, and shows confidence that subordinates will
attain high standards of performance, but also displays concern for the needs of the subordinates, creates a
friendly atmosphere, and treasures subordinates‟ ideas and suggestions [House andDessler 1974; Schrieshem,
House and Kerr 1976]. At the other end of the autocratic-consultative continuum, consultative leadership
includes the concepts of empowerment [Thomas andVelthouse 1990], participation [Vroom and Yetton 1973],
support, and achievement-oriented leadership [House and Mitchell 1974]. Empowering leadership can be
contrasted with autocratic leadership, and one of the central differences in the outcomes is that autocratic
leadership inhibits KS by team members [Yukl 2002]. Hence KS is a potentially important benefit of
empowering leadership.
Srivastava, Bartol and Locke [2006] surveyed the management teams in 102 hotel properties in the United
States to examine the intervening roles of KS and team efficacy in the relationship between empowering
leadership and team performance. Results showed that empowering leadership was positively related to both KS
and team efficacy, which in turn, were both positively related to performance. An integrative study on the
behaviors of empowering leader, conducted by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgrow [2000], indicates the
following behaviors that are directly relevant for KS: participative decision-making and coaching. With
participative decision-making, chances are higher that the inputs of team members will actually influence
decision-making, and so team members may find their KS behavior practically relevant. According to Arnold et
al. [2000], coaching behavior of the empowering leadership will include encouraging team members to solve
problems together, thereby providing them with opportunities to share their knowledge that could be useful to
others. It is more likely that an empowering leader will enable KS activities in teams by providing the team
members with increased opportunities. Empowering gives meaning, and raises competence and a sense of
autonomy [Hackman and Oldham 1980], and empowering leadership would facilitate KS [Thomas
andVelthouse 1990]. Thus, it is likely that employees who perceive their leader to exhibit a greater degree of
empowering behaviors will feel more satisfied in their jobs. Koberg, Boss, Senjem and Goodman [1999],as well
as Kirkman and Rosen [1999], found support for the positive relationship between empowerment and job
satisfaction. Barr and Pawar [1995] argue that if employees are satisfied with their jobs, they are more likely to
reciprocate. This means that they could be contributing and sharing their knowledge for the benefit of the
team.Thus, it is believed that the effect of leadership styles will influence individuals‟ KS behavior.
Openness and fairness
In the discussion of leadership style above, it is noticeable that openness and fairness have a prominent
intertwining relationship with an individual‟s KS behavior. Sharing, which is highly dependent on
communication or interaction with people, obviously cannot happen when people are isolated, inaccessible
and/or kept out of contact by any means, and not fairly treated. Hence, openness and fairness become a main
concern.
Stata [1989] views openness as the partners‟ willingness to communicate and interact. Hamel [1991]
introduces the concept of transparency and explains that transparency is a determining factor for potential
learning that is one of the important ingredients of KM. From the organizational perspective, if employees
cannot freely or are not allowed to share information, knowledge, ideas, or views about their work without a
superior‟s permission, they will exhibit a passive manner in KS. According to SET [Blau 1964], KS is perceived
as a high-cost act, implying that a logical and reasonable reaction of the individual is to stop sharing, as not
sharing is considered to be less risky. Further, openness may be explained as the partners‟ willingness to put all
the cards on the table, eliminate hidden agendas, make their motives, feelings, and biases known, and invite
other opinions and points of view [Stata 1989]. This means that when people have different personal hidden
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 23
agendas or different objectives due, perhaps, to different backgrounds or working in different teams, openness
would be an issue. It is obvious that people working together will limit openness if they have different motives
[Kanter 1983]. Depending on their individual interests, people may restrict the knowledge they share. In other
words, they would only be willing to share selectively and on specific subjects that do not negatively affect their
own interests. Thus, when people sense a lack of openness in the workplace, they would be unlikely to share
their knowledge with their teammates. Lane and Bachmann [1998], who also support this view, argue that
openness influences the transfer of knowledge between partners. In addition, openness is a strong predictor of
KS because openness to experience is a reflection of a person‟s curiosity and originality, which in turn are
predictors of seeking other people‟s views and insights [Cabrera et al. 2006]. Based on this view, employees
who are high in openness are more engaged in KS activities.
A theoretical basis for a relationship between fairness and KS has been drawn from equity theory and
other theories of social exchange which attempt to explain relational satisfaction in terms of perceptions of
fair/unfair distributions of resources within interpersonal relationships. The belief is that people value fair
treatment, which then motivates them to maintain fairness in their relationships with their co-workers and the
organization. Adams‟ [1965] equity theory suggests a fair balance between what people put into their jobs, such
as time, effort, ability, personal sacrifice, and what they get out of them, such as job security, recognition,
development, and reputation. People need to perceive that there is a fair balance between inputs and outputs. As
discussed earlier, SET [Blau 1964] explains that if people perceive that inputs are fairly and adequately
rewarded by outputs, they have a sense of happiness and are motivated to continue inputting at the same level.
However, if people feel that their inputs outweigh their expected outputs, they become de-motivated and would
reduce the inputs. Fair process builds trust and commitment that produce voluntary cooperation and it, in turn,
drives performance, leading people to go beyond the call of duty by sharing knowledge and applying their
creativity [Kim andMauborgne 1997; 1998]. Lind and Tyler [1988] argued that procedural fairness is an
important source of trust in the employee-supervisor relationship. Ensuring fair outcomes to team members is an
important way of establishing trust. In agreement with Adams‟ [1965] equity theory, Robinson and Morrison
[1995] argued that employees have a tendency to avoid helping behaviors when their employer provides
inadequate outcomes. It is generally believed that unfairness is one of the important psychological barriers for
KS.
BartolandSrivastava [2002] suggested that employees‟ beliefs about the extent to which their organization
has fairly fulfilled its obligations to them would affect their KS behaviors in informal interactions within the
organization. Tsai and Cheng [2011] argued that when people feel their organizational environment is fair, they
display a high level of KS behavioral intention based on their perceptions of trust and commitment. Research
has shown that employees are more committed to the organization, have more trust and are more satisfied when
perceived as being fair [Greenberg and Colquitt 2005; Moorman 1991]. Cabrera and Cabrera [2005] pointed out
that organizations tend to arouse innovative thinking and KS behavior if they offer a non-judgmental
organizational climate. Therefore, if organizational practices are perceived to be equitable and non-arbitrary or
capricious [Bock and Kim 2002], employees are more likely to share their knowledge and expertise with others.
3.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A basic KM concept is that knowledge can be shared [Nonakaand Takeuchi 1995]. KS is an important
process in tourism organizations since, if done successfully, it can result in shared intellectual capital, an
increasingly important resource. KS is an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among members of an
organization. Tourism organizations without a supportive culture, which encourage employees to share and
learn from each other, will not benefit fully from the creation of new knowledge. Thus they need to facilitate
their employees in acquiring, capturing, sharing and utilizing knowledge, in order to survive and to gain
competitive advantage. In order to facilitate KS, they need to address the issue of the facilitating and inhibiting
factors affecting KS behaviors. In conclusion, based on the theories of social psychology, motivation theories,
and from an extensive literature review on KS, three main categories of factors, namely, personal factors, social
factors, and organizational factors are identified to influence KS behavior in organizations.
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S.,“Inequity in social exchange,”In Advances in experimental social psychology,L. Berkowitz (ed.),
Academic Press, 267-299, 1965.
Adler, P. S. andW. W. Kwon,“Social capital: Prospects for a new concept,”Academy of Management Review, Vo.
27, No. 1: 17-40, 2002.
Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior,Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
Alavi, L. and I. Leidner, “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual
foundations and research issues,”MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1: 107-136, 2001.
Alderfer, C. P.,Existence, relatedness and growth,Free Press, New York, 1972.
24 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
Allee, V.,The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston,
1997.
Alvesson, M.,Management of knowledge-intensive companies,Walter de Gruyere, New York, 1993.
Andrews, K. M. and B. L. Delahaye, “Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The
psychological filter,”Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37, No. 6: 2322-2380, 2000.
Argote, L.,Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge,Kluwer Academic
Publishers,Boston, MA, 1999.
Argote, L. andP. Ingram, “Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms,”Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vo. 82, No. 1: 150-169, 2000.
Arnold, J.A., S. Arad, J.A. Rhoades and F. Drasgrow, “The empowering leadership questionnaire: The
construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors,”Journal of Organizational
Behavior,Vol. 21, No. 3: 249-269, 2000.
Ba, S., J. Stallaert and A.B. Whinston, “Research commentary: Introducing a third dimension in information
systems design – the case for incentive alignment,”Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, No. 3:
225-239, 2001.
Bandura, A.,Social foundation of thought and action, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ, 1986.
Bandura, A.,Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W. H. Freeman, New York, 1997.
Baron, J.,Social capital: Critical perspective,Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
Barr, S. H. and B.S. Pawar, “Organizational citizenship behavior: Domain specifications for three middle
range theories,”Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. August:302-306, 1995.
Bartol, K. M. andE.A. Locke, “Incentives and motivations,” In Compensation in organizations: Progress and
prospects,S. Rynes and B. Gerhardt (eds.),Lexington Press,San Francisco, CA, 104-147, 2000.
Bartol, K.M. and A. Srivastava, “Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward
systems,”Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,Vol. 9, No. 1: 64-76, 2002.
Bartol, K.M., W. Liu, X.Q. Zeng andK. Wu, “Social exchange and knowledge sharing among knowledge
workers: The moderating role of perceived job security,”Management & Organization Review, Vol. 5, No.
2: 223-240, 2009.
Batson, C.,The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer,Erlbaum Associates,Hillsdale, NJ,
1991.
Batson, C., N. Ahmad and J. Tsang, “Four motives for community involvement,”Journal of Social Issues,Vol. 58,
No. 3: 429-445, 2002.
Benabou, R.and J. Tirole,“Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,”Review of Economic Studies,Vol. 70, No.
3:489-520, 2003.
Betz, F.,Management technological innovation: Competitive advantage from change, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1998.
Blau, P.M.,Exchange and power in social life,John Wiley & Sons,New York, 1964.
Bock, G.W. and Y.G. Kim, “Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge
sharing,”Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2: 14-21, 2002.
Bock, G.W., R.W. Zmud, Y.G. Kim and J.N. Lee,“Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological factors, and organizational
climate,”MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1: 87-111, 2005.
Bolino, M.C., W.H. Turnley and J.M.Bloodgood, “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in
organizations,”Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 4: 505-522.
Bourdieu, P.,The forms of capital,Greenwoood,Westport, CT, 1983.
Bourdieu, S.and L. Wacquant, An invitation to reflexive sociology,University of Chicago Press,Chicago, 1992.
Brown, R.B. andM.J. Woodland, “Managing knowledge wisely: A case study in organizational
behavior,”Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2: 175-198, 1999.
Cabrera, A. andE.F. Cabrera, “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas,”Organization Studies, Vol. 23, No. 5: 687-710,
2002.
Cabrera, A., W.C. Collins and J.F. Selgado, “Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge
sharing,”International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, No. 2: 245-264, 2006.
Cabrera, E.F. and J. Bonache, “An expert HR system for aligning organizational culture and strategy,”Human
Resource Planning, Vol. 22, No. 1: 51-60, 1999.
Cabrera, E. F. andA. Cabrera, “Fostering KS through people management practices,”International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 16, No. 5: 720-735, 2005.
Cameron, P.D.,“Managing knowledge assets: The cure for an ailing structure,”CMA Management, Vol. 76, No.
3: 20-23, 2002.
Carolis, D.M.E.,“The role of social capital and organization knowledge in enhancing entrepreneurial
opportunities in high-technology environments,” In Social capital in the knowledge economy: Theory and
empirics,H. Westlund (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 701-709, 2006.
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 25
Carrillo, P. and P. Chinowsky, “Exploiting knowledge management: The engineering and construction
perspective,”Journal of Management in Engineering,Vol. 22, No. 1: 2-10, 2006.
Chang, T.J., S.P. Yeh and I.J. Yeh,“The effects of joint reward system in new product
development,”International Journal of Manpower,Vol. 28, No.3/4: 276-297, 2007.
Chow, C.W., J.F. Deng and J.L. Ho, “The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparison
study of the United States and the People‟s Republic of China,”Journal of Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 12, No. 1: 65-96, 2000.
Chowdhury, S.,“The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing,”Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 17, No. 3: 310-326, 2005.
Chua, A.,“Knowledge sharing: A game people play,”Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 55, No.3: 117-129, 2003.
Coleman, D.,“Groupware: Collaboration and knowledge sharing,” In Knowledge management handbook,J.
Liebowitz (ed.),CRC Press,12.1-12.15, 1999.
Compeau, D., C.A. Higgins andS. Huff, “Social cognitive theory & individual reactions to computing
technology: A longitudinal study,”MIS Quarterly,Vol. 23, No. 2: 145-158, 1999.
Connelly, C.E. and E.K. Kelloway, “Predictors of employees‟ perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures,”Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24, No. 5: 294-301, 2003.
Constant, D., S. Kiesler and L. Sproull, “What‟s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information
sharing,”Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 4: 400-421, 1994.
Constant, D., L. Sproull and S. Kiesler, “The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for
technical advice,”Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 2: 119-135, 1996.
Cummings, J.L. and B.S. Teng, “Transferring R & D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer
success,”Journal of Engineering Technology Management, Vol. 20, No. 1/2: 39-68, 2003.
Dalkir, K.,Knowledge management in theory and practice,Elsevier Inc,Jordan Hill, Oxford, 2005.
Davenport, T.H.,Information ecology,Oxford University Press,Oxford, UK, 1997.
Davenport, T.H.,“Knowledge management and the broader firm: Strategy, advantage, and performance,” In
Knowledge management handbook, J. Liebowitz (ed.),CRC Press, 2-11, 1999.
Davenport, T.H.Some principles of knowledge management, 2002.http://www.itmweb.com/essay538.htm
Davenport, T.H. and L. Prusak, Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know,Harvard
Business School Press,Cambridge, MA, 1998.
Davenport, T.H., W. DeLong andM.C. Beers, “Successful knowledge management projects,”Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 39, No. 2: 43-57, 1998.
Deci, E.L.,Intrinsic Motivation,Academic Press,New York, 1975.
Deci, E.L. andR.M. Ryan, Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior,Plenum Press,New
York, 1985.
DeLong, D.W.,Building the knowledge-based organization: How culture drives knowledge behaviors, Centre for
Business Innovation, Ernest and Young LLP, 1997.
DeLong, D.W. andL. Fahey, “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,”Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 14, No. 4: 113-127, 2000.
Dixon, N.,“The neglected receiver of knowledge sharing,”Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 66, No. 4: 35-40, 2002.
Drucker, P.F., E. Dyson, C. Handy, P. Saffo and P.M. Senge, “Looking ahead: implications of the
present,”Harvard Business Review, Vol. September-October: 18-35, 1997.
Dunford, R.,“Key challenges in the search for the effective management of knowledge in management
consulting firms,”Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 4: 295-302, 2000.
Durham, C. C., D. Knight andE.A. Locke, “Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy and tactics
on team effectiveness,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 72, No. 2:
203-231, 1997.
Dyer, J.H., P. Kale andH. Singh, “When to ally and when to acquire,”Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No.7/8:
108-117, 2004.
Dyer, J. and K. Nobeoka, “Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota
Case,”Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3: 345-367, 2000.
Eisenberger, R., J. Cummings, S. Armeli andP. Lynch, “Perceived organizational support, discretionary
treatment, and job satisfaction,”Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 5: 812-820, 1997.
Emerson, R.M.,“Social exchange theory,”Annual Review of Sociology,Vol. 2: 335-362, 1976.
Empson, L.,“Fear of exploitation and fear of contamination: Impediments to knowledge transfer in mergers
between professional service firms,”Human Relations,Vol. 54, No. 7: 839-862, 2001.
Fehr, E. and S. Gachter, “Fairness and retaliation: the economics of reciprocity,”Journal of Economic
Perspectives,Vol. 14, No. 3: 159-181, 2000.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research,Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA, 1975.
Frick, V.,Obstacles to knowledge management, 1998. http://www4.gartner.com.
26 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
Gibbert M.and H. Krause,“Practical exchange in a best practice marketplace,”. InKnowledge management case
book: Siemens best practices, T.H. Davenport and G.J.B. Probst (eds.), Publics Corporate
Publishing,Erlangen, 89-105, 2002.
Goh, S.G.,“Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice
implication,”Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 1: 22-30, 2002.
Goodman, P.S.and E.D. Darr,“Computer-aided systems and communities: Mechanisms for organizational
learning in distributed environments,”MIS Quarterly,Vol. 22, No. 4: 417-440, 1998.
Gouldner, A.,“The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement,”American Sociological Review,Vol. 25, No. 2:
161-178, 1960.
Grandori, A. andB. Kogut,“Dialogue on organization and knowledge,”Organization Science,Vol. 13, No.3:
224-231, 2002.
Granovetter, M.,“Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness,”American Journal of
Sociology,Vol. 91, No. 3: 481-510, 1985.
Gray, P.H.,“The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace,”Information
Technology and People,Vol. 14, No. 4: 368-384, 2001.
Greenberg, J. andJ. Colquitt,Handbook of organizational justice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
Mahwah, NJ, 2005.
Guastello, S.J. andD.D. Guastello,“Origins of coordination and team effectiveness: A perspective from game
theory and non-linear dynamics,”Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 83: 423-437, 1998.
Gully, S.M.,K.A. Incalcaterra,A. Joshi and J.M. Beaubien,“A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency, and
performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships,”Journal of
Applied Psychology,Vol. 87, No. 5: 819-832, 2002.
Gupta, A.K. and V.Govindarajan,“Knowledge management‟s social dimension: Lessons from Nucor
Steel,”Sloan Management Review,Vol. 42: 71-80, 2000.
Gupta, B., L.S. Iyer andJ.E. Aronson,“A study of knowledge management practices using grounded theory
approach,”Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, Vol. 59, No. 4: 668-672, 200.
Gurteen,
D.,Creating
a
knowledge
sharing
culture,
1999.http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/FD35AF9606901C42802567C70068CBF5/.
Hackman, J.R. andG.R. Oldham, Work redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1980.
Haldin-Herrgard, T.,“Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations,”Journal of Intellectual
Capital,Vol. 1. No. 4: 357-365, 2000.
Hall, H.,Social exchange for knowledge exchange,University of Leicester Management Centre, England, 2001.
Hamel, G.,“Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international alliances,”Strategic
Management Journal,Vol. 12, No. S1: 83-103, 1991.
Hansen, M.T.,“The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization
subunits,”Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 44, No. 1: 82-111, 1999.
He, W. andK.K. Wei,“What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution
and -seeking beliefs,”Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46, No.4: 826-838, 2009.
Heather, B.C., J. Corner andS. Bowden,“An empirical study of the impact of question structure on recipient
attitude during knowledge sharing,”Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, No. 1: 1-10,
2005.
Hedlund, G. and I. Nonaka,“Models of knowledge management in the West and Japan,”In Implementing
strategic process: Change, learning and cooperation,P. Lorange (ed.),Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 117-144,
1993.
Hendriks, P.,“Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation of knowledge sharing,”Knowledge
and Process Management,Vol. 6, No. 2: 91-100, 1999.
Herzberg, F.,Work and the nature of man, World, Cleveland, 1966.
Hill, C.L.,“Cooperation, opportunism, and the invisible hand: Implications for transaction cost theory,”Academy
of Management Review,Vol. 15, No. 3: 500-514, 1990.
Hinds, P.J. andJ. Pfeffer,“Why organizations don‟t “know what they know”: Cognitive and motivational factors
affecting the transfer of expertise”. In Sharing Expertise beyond knowledge management, M. Ackerman,
V. Pipek, and V. Wulf(eds.),The MIT Press,Cambridge, 3-26, 2003.
Hislop, D.,“Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and
research agenda,”Employee Relations, Vol. 25, No. 2: 182-202, 2003.
Ho, S.P., Y. Hsu and E. Lin,“Model for knowledge-sharing strategies: A game theory analysis,”Engineering
Project Organization Journal,Vol. 1, No. 1: 53-65, 2011.
Hollander, J.A. and J.A. Howard,“Social psychological theories on social inequality,”Social Psychology
Quarterly,Vol. 63, No. 4: 338-351, 2000.
Homans,
G.C.,Social
behavior:
Its
elementary
forms,
1961.http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/13426.html?wlc=1287903643
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 27
House, R.J. andG. Dessler,“The path goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests,”InContingency
approaches to leadership, J. Hunt and L. Larson (eds.), Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale, IL, 29-54,
1974.
House, R.J. andT.R. Mitchell,“Path goal theory of leadership,”Journal of Contemporary Business,Vol. 3: 81-98,
1974.
Hsu, C.L. andJ.C. Lin,“Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and
knowledge sharing motivation,”Information & Management, Vol. 45, No. 1: 65-74, 2008.
Hsu, M.H., T.L. Ju,C.H. Yen andC.M. Chang,“Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The
relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations,”International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies,Vol. 65, No. 2: 153-169, 2007.
Ipe, M.,“Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework,”Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 2, No. 4: 337-359, 2003.
Isenberg, D.J.,“How senior managers think,”InDecision making: Descriptive, normative and prescriptive
interactions, D.E. Bell and H. Raiffa (eds.),Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 525-539, 1998.
Ives, W., B. Torrey andC. Gordon,“Knowledge sharing is a human behavior,”In Knowledge management:
Classic and contemporary works, D. Morey, M. Mayburry and B. Thuraisingham (eds.), The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 99-129, 2000.
Janz, D.and P. Prasarnphanich,“Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the
importance of knowledge-centered culture,”Decision Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2: 351-384, 2003.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and D. Leidner,“Communication and trust in global virtual teams,”Organization Science,Vol. 10,
No. 6: 791-815, 1999.
Jarvenpaa, S.L.and D.S. Staples,“Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and
expertise,”Journal of Management Information Systems,Vol. 18, No.1: 151-183, 2001.
Jones, G.R. andJ.M. George,“The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and
teamwork,”Academy of Management Review,Vol. 23, No. 3: 531-546, 1998.
Kakabadse, N.K., A. Kakabadse and A. Kouzmin,“Reviewing the knowledge management literature: Towards a
taxonomy,”Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 7, No. 4: 75-91, 2003.
Kankanhalli, A., B.C.Y. Tan andK.K. Wei,“Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An
empirical investigation,”MIS Quarterly,Vol. 29, No. 1: 113-143, 2005.
Kannan, G. andK.B. Akhilesh,“Human capital knowledge value added: A case study in infotech,”Journal of
Intellectual Capital,Vol. 3, No. 2: 167-179, 2002.
Kanter, R.M.,“The change masters,”Management Review,Vol. 72: 18-23, 1983.
Kaser, P.A.W. andR.E. Miles,“Understanding knowledge activitists‟ successes and failures,”Long Range
Planning,Vol. 35, No. 1: 9-28, 2002.
Katzenbach, J.R.and D.K. Smith,The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization, Harper
Collins Publishers, New York, 1993.
Kelley, H.H. and J.W. Thibaut,Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence, John Wiley &Sons, New
York, 1978.
Kim, M.and J.E. Hunter,“Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of
past research, Part 2,”Communication Research,Vol. 20, No. 3: 331-364, 1993.
Kim, W.C. and R.Mauborgne,“Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy,”Harvard Business
Review,Vol.July-August: 65-75, 1997.
Kim, W.C. and R.Mauborgne,“Procedural justice, strategic decision making and the knowledge
economy,”Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 19, No. 4: 323-338, 1998.
King, W.R. andP.V. Marks,“Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge management
system,”Omega,Vol. 36, No. 1: 131-146, 2008.
Kirkman, B.L. andB. Rosen,“Beyond self management: Antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment,”Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42, No. 1: 58-74, 1999.
Ko, D.G., L.J. Kirsch and W.R. King, “Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in
enterprise system implementations,”MIS Quarterly,Vol. 29, No. 1: 59-86, 2005.
Koberg, C.S., R.W. Boss,J.C. Senjem andE.A. Goodman,“Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment:
Empirical evidence from the health care industry,”Group and Organization Management,Vol. 24, No. 1:
71-91, 1999.
Kogut, B. and U. Zander,“Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of
technology,”Organization Science,Vol. 3, No. 3: 383-397, 1992.
Kollock, P.,“The economics of online cooperation: Gifts and public goods in cyberspace,”In Communities in
cyberspace, M.A. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.),Routledge, London, 220-239, 1999.
Kramer, R.M.,“Social uncertainty and collective paranoia in knowledge communities: Thinking and acting in
the shadow of doubt,”In Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge, L.L.
Thompson, J.M. Levine, and D.M. Messick (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 163-194, 1999.
28 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
Krebs, D.L.,“Empathy and altruism,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 32, No. 6: 1132-1146,
1975.
Kubo, I., A. Saka and S.L. Pam,“Behind the scenes of knowledge sharing in a Japanese bank,”Human Resource
Development International,Vol. 4, No. 4: 465-485, 2001.
Kuznetsov, S.,“Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia,”ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society,Vol. 36, No. 2:
1, 2006.
Kwok, S.H. and S.Gao,“Attitude towards knowledge sharing behavior,”Journal of Computer Information
Systems,Vol. 46, No. 2: 45-51, 2005.
Lane, C.and R. Bachmann,Trust within and between organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
Lee, D. J.and J. H. Ahn,“Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing,”European Journal of
Operational Research,Vol. 180, No. 2: 938-956, 2007.
Lelic, S.,“Creating a knowledge sharing culture,”Knowledge Management,Vol. 4, No. 5: 6-9, 2001.
Lesser, E. andL. Prusak,“Communities of practice, social capital, and organizational knowledge,”In The
knowledge management yearbook 2000-2001, J.W. Cortada and J.A. Woods (eds.), Woburn,
Butterworth-Heinemann, 251-259, 2000.
Lewis, K.,The impact of interpersonal relationships and knowledge exchange on group performance: A field
study of consulting project teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College
Park, 1999.
Lin, H.F.,“Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions,”Journal of
Information Science, Vol. 33, No. 2: 135-149, 2007.
Lin, H.F. andG.G. Lee,“Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharing behavior,”Management
Decision,Vol. 42, No. 1: 108-125, 2004.
Lin, H.F. andG.G. Lee,“Effects of socio-technical factors on organizational intention to encourage knowledge
sharing,”Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 1: 74-88, 2006.
Lind, E.A. andT.R. Tyler,The social psychology of procedural justice, Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
Lowendahl, B.R., O. Revang andS.M. Fosstenlokken,“Knowledge and value creation in professional service
firm: A framework for analysis,”Human Relations,Vol. 54, No. 7: 911-931, 2001.
Lu, L., K. Leung andP.T. Koch,“Managerial knowledge sharing: The role of individual, interpersonal, and
organizational factors,”Management and Organization Review,Vol. 2, No. 1: 15-41, 2005.
Luthans, F.,“Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths,”Academy of
Management Executive,Vol. 16, No. 1: 57-75, 2003.
MacNeil, C.M.,“Exploring the supervisor role as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams,”Journal of
European Industrial Training,Vol. 28, No. 1: 93-102, 2004.
Marks, M.A., J.E. Mathieu and S.J. Zaccaro,“A temporarily based framework and taxonomy of team
processes,”Academy of Management Review,Vol. 26, No. 3: 356-375, 2001.
Markus, M.,“Towards a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse
access,”Journal of Management Information Systems,Vol. 18, No. 1: 57-94, 2001.
Martin, B.,“Knowledge management within the context of management: An evolving relationship,”Singapore
Management Review,Vol. 22, No. 2: 17-36, 2000.
Maslow, A.H.,“A theory of human motivation,”Psychological Review, Vol. 50: 370-396, 1943.
Maslow, A.H.,Towards a psychology of being, Van Nostrand, New York, 1968.
Mayer, R., J. Davis andF. Schoorman,“An integration model of organizational trust,”Academy Management
Review,Vol. 20, No. 1: 709-734, 1995.
McAllister, D.J.,“Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in
organizations,”Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 38, No. 1: 24-59, 1995.
McClelland, D.C.,Human motivation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.
McDermott, R.and C. O‟Dell,“Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge,”Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 5, No. 1: 76-85, 2001.
McWilliams, G.and M. Stepanek,“Knowledge management: Taming the info monster,”Business Week,Vol.3583:
170, 1998.
Michailova, S.and K. Husted,“Knowledge-sharing hostility in Russian firms,”California Management Review,
Vol. 45, No. 3: 59-77, 2003.
Molm, L.D.,Coercive power in social exchange, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.
Molm, L.D., N. Takahashi and G. Petersen, “Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a
classical proposition,”American Journal of Sociology,Vol. 105, No. 5: 1396-1426, 2000.
Moorman, R.,“Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: do fairness
perceptions influence employee citizenship?”Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 76, No. 6: 845-855,
1991.
Moreland, R.L.and L. Myaskovsky,“Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory
or improved communications?”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 82, No.
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 29
1:117-133, 2000.
Morris III, R.M.,“Effective organizational culture is a key to company‟s long-term success,”Industrial
Management,Vol. 34, No. 2: 28-29, 1992.
Moses, B.,Career intelligence: Mastering the new work and personal realities,Stoddart Publishing, Toronto,
1997.
Mrinalini, N. andP. Nath,“Organizational practices for generating human resources in non-corporate research
and technology organizations,”Journal of Intellectual Capital,Vol. 1, No. 2: 177-186, 2000.
Nahapiet, J.and S. Ghoshal,“Social capital intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,”Academy of
Management Review,Vol. 23, No. 2: 242-266, 1998.
Nelson, K.M.and J.G. Cooprider,“The contribution shared knowledge to IS group performance,”MIS
Quarterly,Vol. 20, No. 4: 409-432, 1996.
Nickerson, J.A.and T.R. Zenger,“A knowledge-based theory of the firm – the problem-solving
perspective,”Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 6: 617-632, 2004.
Nonaka, I.,“A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation,”Organization Science,Vol. 5, No. 1: 14-37,
1994.
Nonaka, I.and H. Takeuchi,The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of
innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995.
Nooteboom, B., H. Berger and N.G. Noorderhaven,“Effects of trust and governance on relational risk,”Academy
of Management Journal,Vol. 40, No. 2: 308-338, 1997.
O‟Dell, C.and C.J. Grayson,“If only we know what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best
practices,”California Management Review,Vol. 40, No. 3: 154-174, 1998.
O‟Dell, C.and C.J. Grayson,If only we know what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best
practice,Simon and Schuster, New York, 1999.
O‟Dell, C., K. Wiig andP. Odem,“Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge management
strategies,”Benchmarking,Vol. 6, No. 3: 202-211, 1999.
Okhuysen, G.A.and K.M. Eisenhardt,“Excel through group process,”In Handbook of principles of
organizational behavior, E.A.Locke (ed.),Blackwell, Oxford, 211-225, 2000.
O‟Reilly, C.and L. Pondy,“Organizational communication,”InOrganizational Behavior, S. Kerr (ed.),Grid
Publishing, Columbus, 119-150, 1979.
Organ, D.W.,“Motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior,”InResearch in organizational behavior,
B.M. Shaw and L.L. Cummings (eds.), JAI Press, Greenwich, 43-72, 1990.
Organ, D.W.and M. Konovsky,“Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship
behavior,”Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 74, No. 1: 157-164, 1989.
Orr, J.E.,“Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a service culture,”In Collective
remembering: Memory in society, D.S. Middleton and D. Edwards (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
169-189, 1990.
Osterloh, M.and B.S. Frey,“Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms,”Organization
Science,Vol. 11, No. 5: 538-550, 2000.
Panteli, N.and S. Sockalingam,“Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for
facilitating knowledge sharing,”Decision Support System, Vol. 39, No. 4: 599-617, 2005.
Pfeffer, J.,Power in organizations,Pitman, Marshfield, MA, 1980.
Politis, J.,“The connection between trust and knowledge management: What are its implication for team
performance,”Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 5: 55-66, 2003.
Probst, G., S. Raub and K. Romhardt,Managing knowledge: Building blocks for success, John Wiley & Sons,
West Sussex, UK, 2000.
Quigley, N.R., P.E. Tesluk, E.A. Locke andK.M. Bartol,“A multilevel investigation of the motivational
mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance,”Organization Science,Vol. 18, No. 1: 71-88,
2007.
Rau, D.,“The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relationships
in top management teams,”Small Group Research,Vol. 36, No. 6: 746-771, 2005.
Reid, F.,“Creating a knowledge-sharing culture among diverse business units,”Employment Relations Today,Vol.
30, No. 3: 43-49, 2003.
Ridings, C.M., D. Gefan and B. Arinze,“Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities,”Journal
of Strategic Information Systems,Vol. 11, No. 3/4: 271-295, 2002.
Roberts, J.,“From know-how to show-how?Questioning the role of information and communication
technologies in knowledge transfer,”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,Vol. 12, No. 4:
429-443, 2000.
Robinson, S.L.,“Trust and breach of the psychological contract,”Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 41, No. 4:
574-599, 1996.
Robinson, S.L.and E.W. Morrison,“Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on
30 | Maria Yiu and Rob Law
civic virtue behavior,”Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 16, No. 3: 289-298, 1995.
Rolland, N.and D. Chauvel,Knowledge transfer in strategic alliances, Butterworth Heinemann, Boston, 2000.
Roth, J.,“Enabling knowledge creation: Learning from an R&D organization,”Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 7, No. 1: 32-48, 2003.
Rowley, J.,“Eight questions for customer knowledge management in e-business,”Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 6, No. 5: 500-511, 2002.
Ruggles, R.,“The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice,”California Management Review,Vol.
40, No. 3: 80-89, 1998.
Schneider, B., S.K. Gunnarson and N. Niles-Jolly,“Creating the climate and culture of success,”Organizational
Dynamic,Vol. 23, No. 1: 17-28, 1994.
Schrieshem, C.A., R.J. House andS. Kerr,“Leader initiating structure: A reconciliation of discrepant research
results and some empirical tests,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,Vol. 15, No. 2:
297-321, 1976.
Schultz, M.,“The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows,”Academy of
Management Journal,Vol. 44, No. 4: 661-681, 2001.
Shamir, B.,“Meaning, self and motivation in organizations,”Organization Studies,Vol. 12, No. 3: 405-424, 1991.
Sheppard, B.H., J. Hartwick andP.R. Warshaw,“The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research
with recommendations for modifications and future research,”Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 15, No.
3: 325-343, 1998.
Skyrme, D.J.,“Developing a knowledge strategy: From management to leadership,”InKnowledge management:
Classic and contemporary works, D. Morey, M. Mayburry andB. Thuraisingham (eds.], The MIT
Press,Cambridge, MA, 61-83, 2000.
Skyrme, D.J.and D. Amidon,“The knowledge agenda,”Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 1, No. 1: 27-37,
1997.
Smith, D.H.,“Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism,”Journal of Voluntary Action Research,Vol. 10, No. 1:
21-36, 1981.
So, J.C.F.and N. Bolloju,“Explaining the intentions to share and reuse in knowledge in the context of IT service
operations,”Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9, No. 6: 30-41, 2005.
Spender, J.C.and R.M. Grant,“Knowledge and the firm: Overview,”Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17
(Winter Special Issue]: 5-9, 1996.
Srivastava, A., K.M. Bartol andE.A. Locke,“Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on
knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance,”Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 49, No. 6:
1239-1251, 2006.
Stata, R.,“Organizational learning – The key to management innovation,”Sloan Management Review,Vol. 30,
No. 3: 63-74, 1989.
Stewart, T.A.,“Is this job really necessary? On balance, yes. The growing herd of corporate executives who
carry the title of Chief Knowledge Officer have real work to do- if they can figure out how to do
it,”Fortune, Vol. January: 154, 1998.
Surrey, J.L.,“The self-in-relation: A theory of women‟s development,”InWomen’s growth in connection:
Writings from the Stone Centre, J.V. Jordan, A.G. Kaplan, J.B. Miller, I.P. Stiver and J.L. Surrey (eds.],
The Guildford Press, New York, 51-66, 1991.
Sveiby, K.E.and R. Simons,“Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – An empirical
study,”Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 6, No. 5: 420-433, 2002.
Swan, J., S. Newell,H. Scarbrough andD. Hislop,“Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and
networking,”Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol. 3, No. 4: 262-275, 1999.
Szulanski, G.,“Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the
firm,”Strategic Management Journal,Vol. 17(Winter Special Issue]: 27-43, 1996.
Szulanski, G.,“The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness,”Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 82, No. 1: 9-27, 2000.
Taylor, E.Z.and U.S. Murthy,“Knowledge sharing among accounting academics in an electronic network of
practice,”Accounting Horizons, Vol. 23, No. 2: 151-179, 2009.
Thomas,K.W., B.A. Velthouse,“Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task
motivation,”Academy of Management Review,Vol. 15, No. 4: 666-681, 1990.
Thomas, M.,“In search of culture: Holy grail or gravy train?”Personnel Management,Vol. 17, No. 9: 24-27,
1985.
Tiwana, A.,The knowledge management toolkit: Practical techniques for building a knowledge management
system, Prentice-Hall, New York, 2000.
Tiwana, A.and A. Bush,“Continuance in expertise-sharing networks: A social perspective,”IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management,Vol. 52, No. 1: 85-101, 2005.
Tsai, M.T.and N.C. Cheng,“Understanding knowledge sharing between IT professionals – an integration of
Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior: A Social-Psychological View in Tourism | 31
social cognitive and social exchange theory,”Behavior & Information Technology,Vol. 1, No. 1: 1-12,
2011.
Tsai, W.,“Social structure of “competition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and
intraorganizational knowledge sharing,”Organization Science,Vol. 13, No. 2: 179-190, 2002.
Tsai, W. and S. Ghoshal,“Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks,”Academy of
Management Journal,Vol. 41, No. 4: 464-476, 1998.
Tynan, S.A.,“Best behaviors,”Management Review,Vol. 88, No. 10: 58-61, 1999.
Van Der Bij, H., X.M. Song andM. Weggeman,“An empirical investigation into the antecedents of knowledge
dissemination at the strategic business unit level,”Journal of Product Innovation Management,Vol. 20,
No. 2: 163-179, 2003.
Van den Hooff, B.and J.A. de Ridder,“Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing,”Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 8, No. 6: 117-130, 2004.
Vroom, V.H. andP. Yetton,Leadership and decision making, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA,
1973.
Wagner, B.A.,“Learning and knowledge transfer in partnering: An empirical case study,”Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 7, No. 2: 97-113, 2003.
Wang, S.and R.A. Noe,“Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research,”Human Resource
Management Review,Vol. 20, No. 2: 115-131, 2010.
Wasko, M.M.and S, Faraj,“It is what one does: Why people participate and help others in electronic
communities of practice,”Journal of Strategic Information Systems,Vol. 9, No. 2/3: 155-173, 2000.
Wasko, M.M.and S. Faraj,“Why should I share? Examining knowledge contribution in networks of
practice,”MIS Quarterly,Vol. 29, No. 1: 35-57, 2005.
Watson, S.and K. Hewett,“A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations: Determinants of
knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse,”Journal of Management Studies,Vol. 43, No. 2: 141-173,
2006.
Weir, D.and K. Hutchings,“Culture embeddedness and contextual constraints: Knowledge sharing in Chinese
and Arab cultures,”Knowledge and Process Management,Vol. 12, No. 2: 89-98, 2005.
Weiss, L.,“Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in professional service
firms,”Organization Development Journal,Vol. 17, No. 4: 61-77, 1999.
Wheatley, M.,“Can knowledge management succeed where other efforts have failed?”In Knowledge
management: Classic and contemporary works, D. Morey, M. Mayburry, B. Thuraisingham B (eds.], The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 3-8, 2000.
Wiig, K.M.,Knowledge management methods: Practical approaches to managing knowledge, Schema Press,
Arlington, TX, 1995.
Williams, M.,“In whom we trust: Group membership as an affective context for trust development,”Academy of
Management Review,Vol. 26, No. 3: 377-397, 2001.
Wu, W.L., C.H. Lin, B.F. Hsu andR.S. Yeh,“Interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing: Moderating effects of
individual altruism and a social interaction environment,”Social Behavior and Personality,Vol. 37, No. 1:
83-94, 2009.
Yang, J.T.,“Qualitative knowledge capturing and organizational learning: Two case studies in Taiwan
hotels,”Tourism Management, Vol. 25, No. 4: 421-428, 2004.
Yang, J.T.and C.S.Wan,“Advancing organizational effectiveness and knowledge management
implementation,”Tourism Management,Vol. 25, No. 5: 593-601, 2004.
Yukl, G.,Leadership in organizations, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.
Zand, D.E.,Information, organization, and power, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.
Zarraga, C.and J. Bonache,“Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: An empirical
analysis,”International Journal of Human Resource Management,Vol. 14, No. 7: 1227-1245, 2003.