Attitude-To-Process Model, Social Network, Social Trust and Shared Goals In Organizational Knowledge Sharing: Empirical Evidence From Pakistan

Yıl 2023, , 209 - 223, 30.06.2023

Rabia Shah , Wali Rahman , Zekeriya Nas , Haji Rahman

https://doi.org/10.53568/yyusbed.1233431

Öz

This paper conceptualizes the theory-of-reasoned-action and attitude-to-behavior process model and integrates them into previous research. The target is to see whether social capital has any significant role in sharing of knowledge in organizations. To achieve the purpose, the researchers empirically tested 11 hypotheses (nine were put to validation as these hypotheses have already been tested in other settings while two were put to test for the first time) by employing confirmatory factor analysis as a statistical technique. Data for the study were collected from 114 faculty members of two universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The results validated the majority (8 out of the 9) of the previously tested hypotheses and evidence of the significant contribution of social networks and shared goals on an employee’s willingness of sharing knowledge. However, social trust has shown a significant contribution in the reverse direction which is very interesting and needs further in-depth exploration. Similarly, hypotheses 10 and 11, which were put to test for the first time, were not supported by the empirical data. As a whole, the results of this study warrant organizations that knowledge sharing is indisputable for remaining viable in the market. The results have also made this evident that employees are willing to share knowledge if organizations provide a more conducive atmosphere to affect knowledge sharing. The results also challenge the absoluteness of trust and demand organizations that could have negative results as well. The results have practical as well as theoretical implications. The study has some limitations as well.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tutum-süreç modeli, bilgi paylaşımı, paylaşılan hedefler, sosyal sermaye, sosyal güven

Örgütsel Bilgi Paylaşımında Sürece Yönelik Tutum Modeli, Sosyal Ağ, Sosyal Güven ve Paylaşılan Hedefler: Pakistan'dan Ampirik Kanıt

Öz

Bu makale, gerekçeli eylem teorisi ve davranışa yönelik tutum süreç modelini kavramsallaştırır ve bunları önceki araştırmalara entegre eder. Amaç, sosyal sermayenin örgütlerde bilgi paylaşımında önemli bir rolü olup olmadığını görmektir. Bu amaca ulaşmak için, araştırmacılar istatistiksel bir teknik olarak doğrulayıcı faktör analizi kullanarak 11 hipotezi ampirik olarak test ettiler (bu hipotezler başka ortamlarda zaten test edildiğinden dokuz tanesi doğrulandı, ikisi ilk kez test edildi). Çalışma için veriler Pakistan'ın Hayber Pakhtunkhwa eyaletindeki iki üniversitenin 114 öğretim üyesinden toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, daha önce test edilen hipotezlerin çoğunluğunu (9'da 8) ve sosyal ağların ve paylaşılan hedeflerin bir çalışanın bilgi paylaşma isteği üzerindeki önemli katkısına dair kanıtları doğrulamıştır. Bununla birlikte, sosyal güven, çok ilginç olan ve daha derinlemesine araştırmaya ihtiyaç duyulan ters yönde önemli bir katkı göstermiştir. Benzer şekilde ilk defa test edilen 10. ve 11. hipotezler ampirik verilerle desteklenmemiştir. Bir bütün olarak, bu çalışmanın sonuçları, kuruluşlara pazarda varlığını sürdürmek için bilgi paylaşımının tartışılmaz olduğunu garanti eder. Sonuçlar ayrıca, kuruluşların bilgi paylaşımını etkilemek için daha elverişli bir atmosfer sağlaması durumunda çalışanların bilgiyi paylaşmaya istekli olduklarını açıkça ortaya koymuştur. Sonuçlar aynı zamanda güvenin mutlaklığına da meydan okumakta ve aynı zamanda olumsuz sonuçlara da yol açabilecek organizasyonların da olabileceklerini ileri sürmektedir. Sonuçların teorik olduğu kadar pratik çıkarımları da vardır. Çalışmanın bazı sınırlılıkları da bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tutum-süreç modeli, bilgi paylaşımı, paylaşılan hedefler, sosyal sermaye, sosyal güven

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1969). The prediction of al intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 400-416.
• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behaviour relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
• Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.
• Aujiprapongpan, S., Vadhanasindhu, C., Chandrachai, A., & Cooparat, P. (2010). Indicators of KM capability for KM. The Journal of Information and KM Systems, 40(2), 183-203.
• Bautista, R. G. & Bayang, M. A. (2015). Social network, social trust and shared-goals towards organizational- knowledge sharing. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(5), 662-667.
• Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411-426.
• Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180-188.
• Billari, F. C., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2005). The influence of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived control on union formation intentions. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, XXV International Population Conference Tours, France.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Application and Programming (2nd Ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group 270.
• Chen, C.-J., & Hung, S-W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information & Management, 47(4), 226-236.
• Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
• Chow, W. S., & Chan, S. L. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458-465.
• Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, (94), 95-120.
• Cooke, R. & French, D. P. (2008). How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psychology and Health, 23(7): 745-765.
• Dastgeer, G., Rehman, A., & Rahman, W. (2012). Examining data and measurement model specification in SEM: An illustration from management development. Journal of Business & Economics, 4(1), 62-88.
• Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual-focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 439-58.
• Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20-29.
• Ellis, J. M. & Helaire, L. J. (2020). A theory of reasoned action approach to examining academic help-seeking behaviors among adolescents in a college readiness program. The Urban Review, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11256-020-00549-z
• Fauzi, M. A., Nya-Ling, C. T., Thurasamy, R., & Ojo, A. O. (2018). An integrative model of knowledge sharing in Malaysian higher learning institute. Kybernetes, 47(5), 1031-1052.
• Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford.
• Fazio, R. H., Powell, M. C., & Williams, C. J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude to process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 280-288.
• Fazio, R. H., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Acting as we feel: When and how attitudes guide. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 41-62): Sage Publication, Inc.
• Fernie, S., Green, S. D., Weller, S. J., & Newcombe, R. (2003). Knowledge sharing: Context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 177-187.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
• Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L. (2002). The theory of reasoned action. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 259-286): Sage Publication, Inc.
• Ho, C.-T. (2009). The relationship between knowledge management enablers and performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(1), 98-117.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
• Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
• Jolaee, A., Nor, K. M., Khani, N., & Yusoff, R. M. (2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(4), 413-431.
• Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (2003). Linking trust values and perceived benefits. Proceeding of the International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM), Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur, July 7-9.
• Kwok, S. H., & Gao, S. (2005). Attitude towards knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 45-51.
• Lin, H.-F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.
• McInerney, C. R., & Mohr, S. (2007). Trust and knowledge sharing in organizations. In J. Mackenzie Owen (Ed.), Rethinking Knowledge Management (pp. 65-86): Springer.
• Lee, J. (2018). The effects of knowledge sharing on individual creativity in higher education institutions: Socio- technical view. Administrative Science, 8(21), 2-16.
• Lee, W. J., Jun, J., & Lee, T. (2016). Sharing behavior and its relationship with core competencies of a company: a grounded theory approach. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(5), 1-9.
• Michailova, S., & Minbaeva, D.B. (2012). Organizational values and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations: the Danisco case. International Business Review, 21(1), 59-79.
• Mohajan, H. K. (2019). Knowledge sharing among employees in organizations. Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 8(1), 52-61.
• Molina-Morales, F. X., Martínez-Fernández, M. T., & Torlò, V. J. (2011). The dark side of trust: The benefits, costs and optimal levels of trust for innovation performance. Long Range Planning, 44(2), 118-133.
• Nadason, S., Saad, R. A., & Ahmi, A. (2017). Knowledge sharing and barriers in organizations: A conceptual paper on knowledge-management strategy. Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance, 1(4), 32-41.
• Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
• Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.
• Okoli, C., & Oh, W. (2007). Investigating recognition-based performance in an open content community: A social capital perspective. Information & Management, 44, 240–252.
• Omotayo, F. O. (2015). Knowledge management as an important tool in organizational management: A review of literature. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 18 (1238), 1-23.
• Rahman, W. (2012). The Relationship of Attitudinal and Behavioural Outcomes with Employee Development in the Context of Performance Appraisal in Public Universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. PhD Thesis, National University of Modern Languages, Islamabad.
• Rahman, W., & Shah, B. (2012). The mediating effects of perceived employee development on the relationships between performance appraisal and job performance in public universities of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Business and Management Review, 2(1), 11-26.
• Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2007). Structural equation modeling. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 21(4), 41-71.
• Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
• Rouse, M. (2015). Social Networking. Retrieved on August 06, 2016, from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/social-networking
• Schmetz, F. (2002). Introduction to KM in the public Sector. Knowledge Board, October.
• Sende, M. (2016). Potential negative impacts of trust on coopetitive relationships. Paper presented at the 7th IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, University of Twente, The Netherland.
• Silverman, B. G. & Lim, S. (2016). Artificial intelligence and human behavior modeling and simulation for mental health conditions. In D. D. Luxton (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Behavioral and Mental Health Care (pp. 163-183). Naval Health Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
• Salgues, B. (2016). Health Industrialization. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2015-0-06845-9
• Sharrat, M. & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of practice. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196.
• Snyder, M., & Kendzierski, D. (1982). Acting on one’s attitude: Procedures for linking attitude and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 165–183.
• Southey, G. (2011). The theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour applied to business decisions: A selective annotated bibliography. Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 9(1), 43-50.
• Sutton, S. (2001). Health behavior: Psychosocial theories. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 6499-6506). Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
• Van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & Management, 46(1), 1-8.
• Vines, R., Jones, M., & McCarthy, G. (2015). Collaborating across institutional and jurisdictional boundaries: enabling the emergence of a national innovation system through public knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13, 187–197.
• Wagner, J. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups, Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-172.
• Wasko, M. M. & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 35-57.
• Willem, A., & Scarbrough, H. (2006). Social capital and political bias: An exploratory study. Human Relations, 59(10), 1343-1370.
• Yu, C. P., & Chu, T. H. (2007). Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective. Information & Management, 44, 321–331.
• Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 90-101.