Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Degree Project
Level: Master of Business Administration
Knowledge Sharing in the Internal Audit Department
Author: Jaber Hassan and Enock Nana Mensah
Supervisor: Wensong Bai
Examiner: Tao Yang
Subject/main field of study: Business Administration Course code: FÖ3027 Credits: 15
Date of examination: 1st June 2020
At Dalarna University it is possible to publish the student thesis in full text in DIVA. The
publishing is open access, which means the work will be freely accessible to read and download
on the internet. This will significantly increase the dissemination and visibility of the student
thesis.
Open access is becoming the standard route for spreading scientific and academic information on
the internet. Dalarna University recommends that both researchers as well as students publish
their work open access.
I give my/we give our consent for full text publishing (freely accessible on the internet, open
access):
Yes ☒ No☐
Dalarna University – SE-791 88 Falun – Phone +4623-77 80 00
i
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to investigate the factors that affect the practices of effective knowledge
sharing in the Middle East region.
Method: The research paper is based on a single case study about the internal audit
department in a commercial Lebanese bank. Qualitative research methods have been applied
which included semi-structured interviews.
Results & Conclusion: The research results suggest that organizational, individual and IT
are the factors affecting knowledge sharing practices at the bank. However, one of the main
issues is related to the national cultural and more specifically to how power distance,
individualism, and masculinity are spread throughout the IA department and proving a
moderating effect towards organizational, individual and IT factors.
This research paper shows that power distance is one of the main contributing factors
concerning knowledge sharing. Barriers such as trust, lack of reward system, and centralized
organizational structure and lack of information technology infrastructure are regarded as
problems in knowledge sharing. However, the empirical results show that the principal issue
lies in the power distance.
Suggestions for future researches: Suggestions for further researches would be to get the
perspectives from an internal audit department at another organization in the Middle East that
is following a decentralized organizational structure, having advanced IT infrastructures,
along with reward system, in order to compare it with the results given in this study.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to make observations at the organization in order to
deeply understand how knowledge is being shared at the field.
Contribution of the study: This study shows that organizations that are identified with
centralized organizational structure, lack of trust, lack of IT support and special rewards
system entail different issues with individuals’ knowledge sharing practices. Besides, this
research paper provides the organization with insights into what thoughts its employees have
when it comes to knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this provides the literature about
knowledge sharing in the Middle East with a new model showing the impact of national
culture over the factors that affect knowledge sharing practices in the Middle East.
Keywords: Knowledge Sharing, Internal Audit, Reputation, Power Distance, Individualistic,
Trust, Rewards, Organizational Structure, Information technology, and Personality
ii
Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... i
List of figures ................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of tables ................................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iv
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Research Gap ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Conceptual framework ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Internal Audit: ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Knowledge Sharing in Developing Countries .................................................................................. 7
2.3 National Culture Dimensions ...................................................................................................... 8
2.4 Tacit Knowledge Sharing ......................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Knowledge sharing practices and benefits ....................................................................... 10
2.6 Factors influencing knowledge sharing ......................................................................... 12
3.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 Research Approach ........................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Case Selection ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.3 Case Description........................................................................................................................ 18
3.4 Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.5 Data Collection .................................................................................................................. 19
3.6 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 22
3.7 Data Quality .............................................................................................................. 23
3.8 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................... 25
4.0 Key findings and analysis: ..................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Trust .................................................................................................................................................. 29
4.2 Rewards Systems .......................................................................................................................... 33
iii
4.3 Organizational structure ........................................................................................................... 35
4.4 IT ............................................................................................................................................ 40
5.0 Discussion: ............................................................................................................................................ 44
5.1 Trust .................................................................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Reward system .............................................................................................................................. 48
5.3 Organizational Structure ........................................................................................................... 51
5.4 IT Usage ................................................................................................................................. 55
6.0 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................................ 60
6.1 Contribution of this study: ................................................................................................................ 62
6.2 Recommendation for future researches: ...................................................................................... 62
References: ................................................................................................................................................. 63
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 72
Appendix 1. Interview questions to the internal auditors ...................................................................... 72
Appendix 2. Interview questions to the human resource manager ................................................... 75
iv
List of figures
Figure 1: Knowledge sharing structure………………….………………...……………..P12
Figure 2A: Revised Structure of knowledge sharing A …………………………………P 58
Figure 2B: Revised Structure of knowledge sharing B …………………………………P 59
List of tables
Table 1: The respondents’ position, role, duration and date of interviews ……………..P 22
Table 2: Overview of the coding procedure……………………………………………..P 29
Table 3: Overview of the coding procedure…………………………………………..…P 44
Table of Abbreviations
IA Internal Audit
KS Knowledge Sharing
ICT Information Communication Technology
IT Information Technology
RQ Research Question
HPD High power distance
HRM Human Resource Manager
BDL Banque du Liban
et al., et alia (and others)
1
1.0 Introduction
Nowadays. Knowledge sharing has become an important discussion in various kinds of literature.
Yet many researches have been done on knowledge sharing in a developed world context and in
general business settings while less researches been focused on the basis of developing countries
(Shafique, 2015). Researchers have argued that it is important to investigate the reasons behind
the growth of knowledge hoarding behavior among employees in developing countries (Muhenda
& Lwanga, 2014). Besides, there are not many studies that justify how knowledge is being
managed and shared among internal auditors in developing countries (Nguyen & Kohda, 2017).
Accordingly, the authors of this thesis have realized the need to understand how knowledge is
shared among internal auditors by checking on factors that hinder knowledge sharing in the
internal audit department of a commercial bank in a developing country.
The institute of internal audit defines an internal audit as an independent, objective assurance and
consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. An internal
audit department helps an organization to accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic,
disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management and control
governance processes (the “Institute of Internal Auditors definition of Internal Auditing, Para.1”).
Internal audit is a pivotal part of an organization, particularly in developing countries as it
contributes greatly to combating fraud and corruption (Endaya & Hanefah, 2016). The
organization boards of directors and the departments` managers rely to a great extent on the
internal audit department as it carries out analysis and understanding of the internal control system
(Endaya & Hanefah, 2016). Internal auditors are seen as an assurance for the organization’s
services and as a consultant for managers of different department levels in an organization (Stewart
& Subramaniam, 2010). Hence the internal audit department proficiency is of great importance to
an organization (Endaya & Hanefah, 2016).
Internal auditing involves a large quantity of information as organizational knowledge is
considered to be flowing within the internal audit division (Petraşcu & Tieanu, 2014). Experience
and skills are considered as power for organizations to obtain a competitive advantage over its
rivals (Muhammad & Kevin, 2013). Accordingly, knowledge is considered to be a significant
precondition for the systematized and functional success of the internal audit department
(Mukherjee & Uttam, 2011). Both explicit and tacit knowledge is regarded as essential to the
2
internal audit department as it helps auditors to exercise due diligence in an organization (Endaya
& Hanefah, 2016). Internal auditors are expected to have a high level of knowledge about different
fieldwork that are specific to an organization to conduct their duties in the best possible way and
prevent fraud, corruption, and improper application of internal controls (Petraşcu & Tieanu, 2014).
Additionally, not all auditors codify their prior knowledge and experience, and not either share
all their new skills and experiences gained throughout audit engagements with their peers and as
a consequence, the audit quality for future audit assignments would not be enhanced (Munir,
Rasid, Jamil, Aamir, 2019). Another problem that exists is that the knowledge about different
department’s processes that are normally gained by auditors as tacit knowledge throughout their
interactions and audit engagements with other employees in different departments is not equally
distributed among auditors (Chow, Ho & Vera-Munoz, 2008).
The study of Bobek, Daugherty & Radtke (2012) had revealed that experienced auditors are not
communicating together effectively in a way that improves less experienced auditors' skills and
experiences which impacts the method of audit engagement and as a result, the quality of the audit
report is affected negatively. The knowledge about different departments' strategies and processes
within an organization is unevenly distributed among auditors making them unwilling to share and
this is a major factor that decrease the desired level of audit quality (Chow, Ho & Vera-Munoz,
2008). Thus, not transferring the knowledge gained by an auditor in the past audit engagement to
other new auditors is impacting the quality of future audit engagement (Janicot & Mignon, 2012).
The problem is that unwillingness to share valuable knowledge gained by an auditor or by a team
of auditors in a process of work won`t be used by other auditors in the same future audit
engagement or other similar contexts (Janicot & Mignon, 2012). This has led to a low enhancement
of the overall performance of the department and individual auditor performance (Janicot &
Mignon, 2012).
Sharing of knowledge is important as it involves the transfer of audit knowledge and experiences
among employees or a group of employees in which the social interaction between parties form
the knowledge that based on their judgments, beliefs, and perceptions in order to give these
information a wider meaning that turn it meaningful (Hislop, Bosua & Helms, 2018). Thus,
knowledge sharing is an important process in the domain of internal auditing because of the nature
3
of the industry whereas knowledge represents a critical success factor to the internal audit
department objectives (Munir et al., 2019). Managing this knowledge is seen as a bundle of
activities regarding the coordination and control of knowledge assets with attention to achieving
certain goals (Hislop et al., 2018).
According to Alvesson and Kärreman (2001) when the organization depends on the knowledge
of employees, the management must impose a minor impact on employees' actions, and behave
as a mediator that enables the flow of tacit knowledge sharing by promoting an environment that
encourages the usage of ICT`s, social interaction and trust among companies` employees.
Therefore, the problem lies with internal auditors that are unwilling to share the knowledge they
gained throughout their audits engagements and in such case assume that an internal auditor quits
her/his job without sharing a great part of his knowledge gained, then his/her departure will leave
a great shortfall in the internal audit department information about the bank (Mukherjee & Uttam,
2011).
Moreover, mentoring and training are key to the success of internal auditors in the execution of
their audits since training sessions enable the sharing of knowledge among auditors and improve
the communications especially for inexperienced auditors (Westermann, Bedard &Earley, 2015).
However, with an increased workload there is less time for having such mentoring and training
sessions (Mukherjee & Uttam, 2011; Westermann, Bedard &Earley, 2015).
Furthermore, many senior auditors are unwilling to share the knowledge they have as they look at
this knowledge as a source of power or job security (Chow et al., 2008). Apart from having
constrained time and workload pressure in most audit engagement which have given little or no
time for senior auditors to give feedback to junior auditors and that in turn affects negatively the
willingness of sharing the knowledge gained among all auditors in the same department (Chow et
al., 2008).
Furthermore, university education received by the junior auditors is not enough to executive audit
and with time constraints and workload pressures, the coaching and mentorship opportunities are
decreased which makes knowledge sharing among auditors very important.
4
1.1 Research Gap
Many studies have revealed that since the inception of knowledge management majority of studies
on knowledge sharing have been conducted in the context of developed countries, while a few
studies are rarely addressed in developing countries particularly in Lebanon that are hardly known
(Shafique, 2015). Muhenda and Lwanga (2014) argued that it is important to investigate the
reasons behind the growing knowledge hoarding behavior among employees in developing
countries especially in the service industries.
Many researches (including Rivera‐Vazquez, Ortiz‐Fournier & Flores, 2009; Mishra & Bhaskar,
2011; Pinho, Rego & Cunha, 2012; Masadeh, Gharaibeh, Tarhini, & Obeidat, 2015) have also
called for further researches to identify factors that lead to the occurrence of effective knowledge
sharing at firms in developing countries. Kamasak & Bulutlar (2010); Mills & Smith (2011); and
Masadeh et al., (2015) have also stressed the need to study the factors that affect knowledge sharing
in developing countries organizations. According to Nguyen & Kohda (2017), there are not many
studies that justify factors that affect knowledge sharing among internal auditors in the internal
audit department. Therefore, to respond to these scholars’ calls for further researches in this field,
and since few researches have been investigated into factors that affect knowledge sharing in
internal audit department of a bank in developing countries, understanding of knowledge sharing
in the internal audit department of a bank and the comprehension of the factors that hinder
knowledge sharing within an internal audit department from developing country context appear
very interesting.
Therefore, the study aims to investigate the factors that affect knowledge sharing within internal
audit department of a bank in a developing country specifically in the Middle East region. In order
to understand the issues within the knowledge sharing practices, it is important to understand the
structure of the knowledge sharing of the internal audit department and on what factors it’s being
affected. By understanding these factors, it becomes easier to develop and understand each one of
these factors. This study is expected to be valuable for the audit department and might be
considered as a guideline to improve audit department knowledge sharing in a developing country
in the Middle East region.
5
The study is based on the research question:
RQ: What are the factors that affect KS within the IA department in the Middle East region?
6
2.0 Conceptual framework
As the aim of this study is to understand knowledge sharing within the internal audit department
and to check on factors that hinder knowledge sharing, it is important to understand the underlying
concepts and theories behind knowledge sharing in the internal audit department. This section
presents concepts, highlighting knowledge and knowledge sharing factors that are linked to the
internal audit.
2.1 Internal Audit:
Due to events that are considered morally, legally unacceptable, and global financial crises, the
internal audit is receiving more attention and recognition in today's` world (Soh & Maritinov-
Bennie, 2011; El-Sayed Ebaid, 2011; Endaya & Hanefah, 2016). The recognition of internal audit
department importance in assuring corporate governance for organizations has increased demands
for a well-established internal audit department that provides control about internal processes and
risk management (Soh & Martinov‐Bennie, 2011). The institute of internal auditors defines the
internal audit as an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value
and improve an organization’s operations (the “Institute of Internal Auditors definition of Internal
Auditing, Para.1”). It helps an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic,
disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control, and
governance processes. The internal audit provides the organization with great benefits as it works
towards meeting stakeholders' needs and examines organization risk, resources to measure and
appraise the company activities in all aspects (Hodge, 2014). The internal audit protects the
organization`s assets and provides senior decision-makers at the company with reliable
information (El‐Sayed Ebaid, 2011). The internal audit executes an independent objective analysis
and evaluation of the quality of a company's risk management and internal control system and
compliance to law and regulations (Soh & Martinov-Bennie (2011). Thus, internal audit plays a
crucial supporting role for management, the board of directors, and other stakeholders (El‐Sayed
Ebaid, 2011). One of the most important activities of the internal audit is that following the audit
of financial, operations, systems and procedures within an organization, an audit report is issued
which has findings and recommendations for improvement that contributes to the improvement of
the auditee departments and to the organizations as a whole(Getie Mihret & Wondim Yismaw,
7
2007). However, for effective auditing, the internal audit needs to have certain important quality
such as effective audit planning, knowledge sharing between internal auditors about knowledge
learned in the field and effective communication (Getie Mihret & Wondim Yismaw, 2007)
2.2 Knowledge Sharing in Developing Countries
In recent years, knowledge sharing has been widely acknowledged in many academic and
professional literatures (Shafique, 2015). Since its origin from knowledge management, most
studies on knowledge sharing have been conducted in the context of developed countries, while a
few studies are rarely addressed in developing countries and thus not much known about this
context (Shafique, 2015).
According to the World Bank developing countries “are countries in general that have not achieved
a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and have in most cases, a
medium to a low standard of living". However, not much is known about how service-oriented
firms from these developing countries share knowledge (Masadeh et al., 2015). Studies have
revealed that factors such as plan and procedures, science and technology, telecommunication
infrastructure, organization structure and establishing knowledge sharing culture contribute to
massive knowledge sharing behavior in developed countries, but many firms in the developing
countries lack many of these factors and thus this contribute to low knowledge sharing practices
in developing countries (Bautista & Bayang, 2015).
A research conducted in Singapore had revealed that management support, teamwork spirit,
motivation to share, and knowledge are considered as strong factors that influence knowledge
sharing in the public sector while less is known about the knowledge-intensive firms such as banks
and accounting firms (Chaudhry, 2005). A study conducted by Mukherjee and Uttam (2011) had
also revealed that due to the bureaucratic nature of organizations and power distance in developing
countries, it makes it difficult to promote effective knowledge sharing.
Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) argued that knowledge sharing does well with structures that
ease the flow of information with fewer boundaries between divisions. Flexible and informal
structures facilitate effective internal communication within an organization, enhance employees'
8
willingness to develop a critical attitude in the interpretation of information, and encourage
individuals to share knowledge (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). But this is not the case in many
developing countries especially in Africa and the Middle East due to the centralized bureaucratic
nature of many organizations and the autocratic leadership style exhibited by many leaders (Syed-
Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). The decentralized organization structure encourages the collaborations
between individuals in the organization and thereby encourages individuals to share their
knowledge (Yang and Chen, 2007). But in the case of developing countries authoritarianism and
centralization of decisions have also been noted as factors that impede knowledge sharing.
Authoritarianism has been defined as authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and
conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1981). According to the study conducted by Shafique (2015), this is
very common in the Chilean labor setting, the Middle East, and other developing countries.
Information and communication technology are some of the most powerful forms of informal
networks and enhances knowledge sharing in the developed world (Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan,
2015). ICT has the potential to eliminate significant barriers of communication, the barriers of
time and space can be overcome and organizational barriers due to hierarchy or departments (Islam
et al., 2015).
2.3 National Culture Dimensions
Over a few years, many researchers have started to acknowledge the influence of culture on
knowledge sharing (Laitinen, Pawlowski, & Senoo, 2015). National culture has a great influence
on organization knowledge sharing (Laitinen, Pawlowski, & Senoo, 2015). According to Griffith
et al., 2006, national culture influences trust and commitment and subsequently affect knowledge
sharing. Hofstede (2011) argues that culture is a behavioral patterns and traits that are passed
through social interaction and developed over time. According to Mabawonku (2013), national
culture is the values, ethics, rules, and knowledge systems that are developed to attain group goals.
In the field of knowledge management, Hofstede's cultural dimension theory is the most widely
used and it is consisted of power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/feminism,
uncertainty avoidance, and long-term / short term orientation (Hofstede, 2011). Power distance
refers to how power is distributed and to the extent to which less powerful people accept that power
9
is distributed unequally (Alper, 2020). The study of Alper (2020) revealed that people in
developing countries accept a higher degree of unequally distributed power than peoples in the
developed world. When there is a high power distance in an organization, the relationship between
bosses and subordinates is affected which impacts negatively knowledge sharing (Mabawonku
2013). Where there is a low power distance in an organization, the relationship between bosses
and subordinates is one of interdependence (Alper, 2020). Within individualist culture, people are
more likely to see themselves as separate from others, people define themselves based on their
traits, and see their characteristics as relatively stable, unchanging and value personal
independence (Islam et al., 2015). This does not enhance effective knowledge sharing. In a
collectivist culture, people are more likely to see themselves as connected to each other’s. They
can build relationships with others easily and see their characteristics as more likely to change
across different contexts (Islam et al., 2015). Collectivism support effective knowledge sharing.
On the other hand masculinity represents the culture whereas performance, competition,
accomplishments, and materialism constitute vital components (Bagchi, Hart & Peterson, 2014).
While femininity represents an inclination for collaboration, humility, thinking about the weak and
the standard of living (Bagchi et al., 2014).
Uncertainty avoidance refers to society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity whereas societies
of this culture try to avoid risk (Griffith et al., 2006).
2.4 Tacit Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is regarded as the most significant part of the knowledge management
(Trivellas, Akrivouli, Tsifora, & Tsoutsa, 2015). Knowledge sharing is defined as a process of
exchanging knowledge, skills, information, expertise, experience, intelligence, and understanding
(Banker, Chang & Kao, 2002). Bartol and Srivastava (2002) viewed knowledge sharing as the
process of sharing organizational relevant information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with
others.
The knowledge that could be shared is categorized into two forms, which are explicit knowledge
and tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Chen, Sun, and McQueen (2010) viewed tacit
knowledge as driven by reasoning, experience, abilities, and skills of individuals. Sharing tacit
10
knowledge among members of an audit department of an organization has become essential as it
will create awareness and acceptance of new ideas, improve response time and offer rapid solutions
to different problems (Amayah, 2013).
Hendricks (1999) viewed knowledge sharing as a relationship between at least two parties, one
that possesses the knowledge and the other that acquires the knowledge. Tacit knowledge sharing
is more challenging (Hendricks, 1999) this is because tacit knowledge represents knowledge based
on the experience of individuals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). It expresses itself in human actions
in the form of evaluations, attitudes, points of view, and motivation (Pangil &Nasurddin, 2013).
2.5 Knowledge sharing practices and benefits
According to Abdillah, Lin, Anita, Suroto, and Hadiyati (2018) internal audit department is
considered to be a knowledge-intensive unit, as most of their work is of intellectual nature that
originates from well-educated, qualified and highly skilled employees who represent the minority
of the workforce. Lau and Tsui (2009) asserted that search engines, Internet, Intranets, and peer-
to-peer knowledge tools help in sharing knowledge anywhere and anytime. Chigada & Ngulube
(2015) revealed that departmental meetings, traineeship programs, mentorship, and team-building
sessions are the most widely used knowledge sharing practices. Team-building sessions are
platforms to foster awareness of team spirit and to reinforce the commitment to the team's shared
goals and objectives (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). The team-building sessions designed to
encourage individual team members to cooperate in a team's work environment which leads to
interacting and integrating skills into a united effort so that each goal is connected to the greater
overall team goals (Chigada & Ngulube, 2015).
Hislop et al., (2018) argue that the success of every knowledge management initiative is highly
dependent on the worker's willingness to share their knowledge. Knowledge sharing assists
organizational learning and, in its absence, the gap between the employee and organizational
knowledge widens (Ford & Chan, 2003). The central to organizational learning is the conversion
of individual knowledge into organizational knowledge (Pangil & Nasurddin, 2013). This happens
11
if an individual employee shares knowledge with the rest of the organizational members (Pangil
& Nasurddin, 2013).
The sharing of knowledge is beneficial to firms because it improves an employee's ability to
complete their work in a more efficient manner (Hansen & Haas, 2001). Knowledge sharing
provides a relationship between individuals and the department by moving knowledge that resides
within an individual to the department, where it is then converted into economic and competitive
value for the department (Hendriks, 1999). Cohen and Levinthal (1990) propose that interactions
between individuals and other employees who possess assorted knowledge improve the
organization’s ability to innovate beyond what only an individual can achieve. Knowledge sharing
can lead to the dissemination of innovative ideas which is considered critical to creativity and
subsequent innovation in an organization (Armbrecht, Chapas, Chappelow, Farris, Friga, Hartz &
hitwell, 2001).
12
2.6 Factors influencing knowledge sharing
Technical Factors
1. IT application
2. I T Usage
3. IT Infrasturature
Organisation
Factors
1.Organisationa
Culture
2. Reward System
3. Leadership
4. Organisation
Structure
5. Organisation
Policy
6. Work Process
7. Office Layout
8. Management
Support
Individual Factors
1.Trust
2. Personality
3. Job satisfaction
4. Self Efficacy
5. Awareness
6. Motivation
7. Willingess to
share
8. Pleasure of
sharing
Knowledge
Sharing
Figure 1: Knowledge sharing structure
Source: Bulan & Sensuse (2012)
13
Knowledge sharing depends on a variety of factors that contain different components that trigger
sharing knowledge, and in this study as shown above, Bulan & Sensuse (2012) knowledge sharing
module is used as a guideline. The authors have drawn their discussions from the above framework
by keenly looking into the data and observing any key themes that emerge from the data during
analysis and then discussed them appropriately.
According to Bulan and Sensuse (2012), as indicated above in figure one, individual factors,
organizational factors and technological factors influence knowledge sharing. Each factor contains
many variables. For example, individual factors contain the awareness, trust, personality,
motivation, the pleasure of sharing, self-efficacy, willingness to share, and job satisfaction.
Organization policy, organization structure, organization culture, management support, reward
system, leadership, work process, and office layout fall under the organizational factors. The
technological factor contains three elements which are: IT application, IT infrastructure, and IT
use.
Based on the literature reviews, knowledge sharing is determined by different key factors that are
included in this model and that would prompt knowledge sharing among employees of an
organization (Madugu & Manaf, 2018). Those three dimensions which each includes different
factors are general and can be applied to different organizations, among any institution or any
department. However, not all the variables are being applicable to our case study because each
company has factors based on its needs (Ali & Rajesh, 2020). In this case study, the authors chose
to analyze and discuss some of the elements of technical, organization and individual factors of
the knowledge sharing structure as indicated by Bulan and Sensuse (2012). The authors of this
study will only analyze and discuss in chapter 4 and 5, the elements from this model that emerged
from the data. Therefore, after making the transcripts of the interviews and studying the data, it
appeared that trust, organizational structure, rewards and IT were themes that are part of Bulan
and Sensuse (2012) model.
Below you will find a brief literature review explaining the factors of the knowledge sharing
structure.
14
Technical factors
With advancement of information and communication technology, IT became essential part for
organizations to help their employees with sharing knowledge activities (Zhang, Vogel & Zhou,
2012). The technical factors represent the information technology within an organization that
speed up the process knowledge sharing regardless of time and distances barriers (Yang & Chen,
2005). Thus, it is regarded as critical to the success of knowledge sharing. Technology helps
employees in distributing and getting access to knowledge (Yang & Chen, 2005). Thus, it is
regarded as one of the most important determinants for a higher level of effective knowledge
sharing (Yang & Chen, 2005). Information technology usage provides the users with fast access
to codified knowledge existing in sharable data networks (Janicot & Mignon, 2012). Besides, it
allows employees to codify and add their tacit knowledge to the same shareable data networks so
it will be available to everyone (Janicot & Mignon, 2012). To make and utilize new knowledge,
the sharing of current knowledge should be encouraged by providing different technological
platforms such as intranet, internet, data warehouses, software, social communication software and
much more (Islam, Jasimuddin & Hasan, 2015). Through technology the organization may
discover employee’s tacit knowledge, make it useful and generate new knowledge by transforming
individual knowledge into organizational knowledge through knowledge sharing with the support
of information technology (Islam et al., 2015). Thus, IT allows effective diffusion and sharing
among a number of recipients and allows employees to use others’ knowledge and simultaneously
add their knowledge to others (Zhang et al., 2012).
Organization factors
With the goal to motivate employees in an organization to share their knowledge, an organization
should provide its employees with different forms of motivations (Hung, Durcikova, Lai & Lin,
2012). Leadership style, work process, organization policy and the support of the management
plays a vital role in motivating employees to exercise higher level of knowledge sharing (Hung et
al., 2011). Every organization have different factors that enable knowledge sharing as factors
ranging from reward systems, leadership style and organizational structure would act as stimulator
or restrainer to knowledge sharing interaction between individuals (Yang & Wu, 2008). The
15
characteristics of organization would impact the outcome for knowledge transfer as employees are
inspired and motivated by the organization features which would influence their behavior and lead
to effective or ineffective knowledge sharing (Yang & Wu, 2008). Wand & Noe (2010) found that
the benefits of knowledge sharing would be limited if the organizational factors were not in line
with the employees needs and prerequisite for exercising effective knowledge sharing.
Organizations have different characteristics and those characteristics may sometimes act as
barriers for knowledge sharing whereas sometimes it helps in the creation of a culture of trust
leading for necessary conditions for effective knowledge sharing (Wand & Noe, 2010). The
organization factors prove to be a critical enabler for individuals to demonstrate greater level of
knowledge sharing tendency (Chumg, Cooke, Fry & Hung, 2015). Those factors develop
environment in which employees feel success and comfort in order to improve their desire to
transfer their tacit knowledge (Chumg et al., 2015). Thus, organization characteristics are regarded
as factors that gives employees a sense of commitment and make them feel part of the organization
leading to higher level of knowledge sharing (Lin, 2007).
Individual factors
Effective knowledge sharing in an organization depends on individuals’ characteristics that impact
knowledge sharing (Yang & Wu, 2008). Different individuals have different traits and are being
influenced by different individual characteristics such as pleasure of sharing, trust, motivation,
personality and so on (Yang & Wu, 2008). Individual factors may either facilitate or stand as
burden for information transfer and thus improve or impair the quality of information exchanged
(Wang & Noe, 2010). Individual factors contribute remarkably to increasing or decreasing
individuals’ tacit knowledge intentions as it makes employees committed or uncommitted to
organization and thus affecting the level of knowledge sharing engagement (Jo & Joo, 2011).
Individual factors are associated with intentions to exercise knowledge sharing practices, and thus
it is important to assess the individual factors that exercise strong impact on employee’s intention
to engage in knowledge sharing (Jo & Joo, 2011). Therefore, those individuals’ factors would
affect employees’ intentions to resume being involved in knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010).
16
3.0 Methodology
In this section of the paper, the overall steps taken to carry out this research will be presented,
describing the research approach, selection of respondents, data collection, and data analysis and
linking these to the aim of the research paper. The authors further present considerations about the
quality and ethical considerations connected to this research.
3.1 Research Approach
Consistently with the aim and the research question, this study follows qualitative research
approach which is used to understand how a phenomenon is “experienced” (Silverman, 2013, p.
201) and in this thesis to understand the factors that affect knowledge sharing specifically in the
internal audit department by interpreting the internal auditor’s interviews data. Using a qualitative
approach and more specifically by having interviews with internal auditors will allow the authors
to gain deeper insights and information and better understanding about the phenomenon under
study (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2016). The purpose of this qualitative case study is to obtain
a deeper understanding of how individuals from a Middle Eastern region share knowledge and
make it available to everyone. The selected research design is based on a qualitative approach with
aim to investigate how employees in one department work together with regards to knowledge
sharing. Selecting this approach will assist the authors in understanding the working environment
of this department in terms of knowledge transfer, and therefore different auditors will be
interviewed so that different point of views would be analyzed. Thus, in this study auditors'
opinions through detailed accounts of perceptions and experiences of knowledge sharing were
obtained.
The qualitative case study is valuable as the authors want to understand what is happening in a
real-life situation and to seek new insights into a phenomenon (Saunders et al., 2016) which in this
case study the focus is on internal audit department of a commercial bank in Lebanon. Using a
case study has helped the authors to understand the dynamics of knowledge sharing and its
contribution to the success of the internal audit department.
17
The authors used exploratory study because the authors intend to understand how knowledge is
being shared in order to determine the factors that affect knowledge sharing in the internal audit
department of a bank in Lebanon since little is known about that.
3.2 Case Selection
In this thesis, a commercial bank in Lebanon was used as a case. This bank in Lebanon was
selected because it is located in a developing country in the Middle East region. An internal audit
department of this Lebanese commercial bank was selected for this study. An internal audit
department of a bank was selected because such department is considered as knowledge
intensive firm since they require much knowledge and experiences in performing their task and
as a result they intend to share a lot of knowledge. Lebanon was selected because Lebanon is
considered as a developing country located in the Middle East. This bank is one of the well-
performing banks in Lebanon that has received numerous awards and recognitions. Moreover,
the selected bank is seen as representative for all other banks in Lebanon. The reason why it is
considered as representative is because all the Lebanese banks are regulated by BDL which sets
rules, regulations and procedures that must be abided by all commercial banks in Lebanon
(Dibeh, 2010). As per BDL circular number 77, all banks and financial institutions should form
an internal audit department that meets different conditions set by BDL whereas all its staff must
be Lebanese citizen, qualified, independent and given all power to conduct audit engagements
but the number of auditors in the department depends on the bank size. Therefore, since all banks
in Lebanon are governed by BDL, it can be said that the selected bank audit department for this
case study is representative to all the Lebanese commercial banks exempt in numbers of auditors
or the size of the internal audit department. In terms of size, the selected bank has 12 auditors
and that is perceived as eligible and effective number of staff (Dibeh, 2010).
Moreover, the internal audit department of the selected bank is considered as knowledge-
intensive where the majority of their daily activities are intellectual in nature, the majority of
their workforce are well-educated, qualified, and highly skilled employees where knowledge
sharing will be important to them (Abdillah et al., 2018).
18
The authors chose this bank focusing on its internal audit department as it is capable of fetching
the authors with the needed information to fulfill the aim of the study. Additionally, the bank asked
us to remain anonymous and not to reveal its identity and as per ethical considerations the authors
respected the bank request and kept it confidential.
3.3 Case Description
The selected bank was established in 1980, since then, it has grown exponentially year after year.
Today, the bank ranks as one of the largest and most awarded banks in the market. This bank was
the first to invest in a technology start-up in 2013 in their permanent quest towards developing a
more efficient economy. In the Lebanese banking history, it was the first to introduce a credit card
in 1995. Also, the selected bank was the first to launch Mobile Banking on the market in 2011.
The bank provides services on corporate banking, personal banking, online banking, and private
banking. The internal audit department of the bank has twelve young ambitious staff. The
department is managed by the head of the department who oversees all the work activities of the
department. The head of the department is supported by two supervisors that monitor the daily
activities of each group. All the staff of the internal audit department are graduates with the least
qualification of first degree.
3.4 Sampling
For this study, the authors considered a purposive sampling technique also known as a selective
sampling technique. This sampling technique is deemed appropriate and commonly used in
qualitative research (Locke, 2002). To the author's understanding, it is highly subjective and
determined by the authors to define qualified criteria that each participant has to meet and to be
considered for the study (Locke, 2002). Purposive sampling technique helped the authors to recruit
participants who were able to provide them with depth and detailed information about knowledge
sharing.
19
The authors found internal auditors and the human resource manager of the bank to be the best
people who can provide them with in-depth responses to the study research question.
Though the authors focused on internal auditor's knowledge sharing, the authors also looked at
how the human resource team can contribute to better knowledge sharing in the internal audit
department of the bank. According to Verma (2014), the human resource management plays a key
role in promoting effective knowledge sharing. Therefore, the authors realized the need to
interview six auditors and the human resource manager of the bank.
The sample size of a qualitative study has been severally debated by many researchers (Braun &
Clarke, 2019). However, based on the author's previous studies on qualitative research, for the
master's thesis 6-15 interviews are suggested to be enough. Overall, the authors interviewed seven
respondents, 6 internal auditors, and the human resource manager.
3.5 Data Collection
In order to fulfill the aim of the thesis, primary data were collected using semi-structured interview
questions. Interviews were useful in this thesis particularly to uncovering the story behind the
internal auditor’s experiences and pursuing depth information on factors that affect knowledge
sharing among them (Miller, 2019). Using interviews help the authors to understand the meaning
of what the auditors say. As indicated by Patton (1987), non-formal conversation along with a
general interview guide and open ended interview questions are various sorts by which interviews
can be performed during a research. For this case study, the authors have selected open ended
interview questions as it gives the interviewee the chance to reply to questions thoroughly and
explains all their concerns. Utilizing this method offers the interviewee the chance to communicate
their total perspectives and it supports the researchers with a lot of data (Turner III, 2010).
To ensure complete connection between the interview questions and to relate to the theoretical
framework and to the research aim, the interview questions were divided into 3 parts. The first part
relates to the background of the respondents because it gives a proper view of the respondents
background and how they can contribute to the study. The second part relates to general questions
about knowledge sharing practices in the IA department. The third part relates to the factors that
20
affects knowledge sharing. Though, the questions for the second part were divided into 3 sections
that relates to the theoretical framework which are individual, organization and Information
Technology factors that affect knowledge sharing in the internal audit department. The questions
that relates to the theoretical framework were divided into 3 different sections with the aim to have
depth understanding and explanation of the phenomenon under study.
This interview was tested ahead of the main interviews in order to address any possible
shortcomings found in the interview questionnaires (Teijlingen & Hundley 2002). Additionally,
the authors thoroughly discussed the various themes of the interview with the respondents ahead
of the interview. This enabled the respondents to understand the questions very well and guided
them to answer the questions as needed. The semi-structured interviews were guided by prepared
questions, space was left for further comments and directions within the themes and all the
interviews were recorded with an agreement of the participants.
In qualitative research it is important to capture experiences of the respondents in their own words.
Therefore, semi-structured interviews were conducted "to get inside the heads" of the respondents
and to tell things from their own "point of view" (Silverman, 2013, p. 201). Interviews were
conducted during the period 28th of April 2020 to – 5th of May 2020. The interviews were held
with the internal auditors over Skype video call and over WhatsApp with the human resource
manager. This enabled the authors to stumble upon and further explore complex phenomena that
may be hidden or unseen, where body actions were observed (Bryman & Alan, 2017). Body
language and non-verbal communication were revealed during Skype video interviews which
helped to capture better human experiences (McGehee, 2012). After each interview, transcriptions
and initial analysis were made to understand the different perspectives of knowledge sharing. After
five interviews, it became evident that each respondent had different stories, even though some
were similar. To get a better picture, the authors followed researchers Braun & Clarke (2019)
recommendations, and therefore two additional respondents were interviewed. After the seven
interviews, it was seen that new themes were no more emerging. Therefore, it was presumed that
saturation point was reached and for this reason, the authors decided to end the interview process
(Tracy, 2013).
21
Code of
Respondents
Position Role Duratio
n
Date Method of
Interview
Respondent 1 HR Manager In-Charge of Human
Resource department
18Min 5th May 2020 WhatsApp
Respondent 2 The Head of
Audit
Department
Oversees all the
activities in the audit
department by
controlling and
supervises all the
auditors to ensure that
they comply with
audit standards.
40Min 4th May 2020 Skype video call
Respondent3 Supervisor Assist the head of
audit department to
ensure successful
audit engagements,
support and supervise
the activities of all
auditors.
48Min 1st May 2020 Skype video call
Respondent4 Senior Audit Supervises and
controlling junior
auditors for successful
audit engagements.
42Min 29th April 2020 Skype video call
Respondent 5 Senior Auditor Controlling and
supervises the activity
of junior auditors to
ensure effective audit
engagements
27Min 28th April 2020 Skype video call
Respondent6 Junior Auditor Perform audit
engagement to
40Min 3rd May 2020 Skype video call
22
different departments
and branches
Respondent7 Junior Auditor Perform audit
engagement to
different departments
and branches
53Min 2nd May 2020 Skype video call
Table 1: The respondents’ position, role, duration and date of interviews
On the other hand, secondary data for this study was also obtained. Secondary data can be
characterized as information that have been gathered previously by other researches, though used
utilized for different purposes, for example in statistics, records and so on (Hox and Boeije,
2005). In this case study the bank website was used in order to collect general information about
the bank history, evolution and background. Furthermore, a bank presentation that provided the
authors with supporting information was given to the authors of this paper through the interview
conducted with the human resource manager which has helped the authors in comprehending
how the bank works.
3.6 Data Analysis
For this study template analysis was applied for the analysis of data. The authors applied template
analysis because data involved in template analysis are usually interviewed transcripts from open-
ended question responses (Locke, 2002; Dornan, Carroll, & Parboosingh, 2002). The idea for the
research design popped up from reviewed theoretical literature where the authors found a gap in
knowledge sharing in the internal audit department in developing countries. The analysis was
based on the questions asked during the interview and secondary data. All gathered pieces of
information were carefully compiled into one whole picture. In the first place all the responses
were transcribed to English since the interviews were conducted in Arabic. According to Saunders
et al., (2016), template analysis starts by coding parts of the data available before creating a list of
themes and codes. Thus, the data collected from the field were categorized and the framework was
23
created. All the central themes and patterns from the data were identified and summarized. The
key research question that the authors wanted to answer and explore was identified and keywords
or phrases that matched the topic and the research question were also identified. This helped the
authors to give meanings to the data collected. After coding the data, the authors began to identify
recurring themes and connections that were made with the data collected. The authors looked for
responses that seem important and claw out explanations from the data as the main objective here
is to gain a deeper insight into the meaning of the data (Saunders et al., 2016).
To ensure that the data collected is free from bias and according to the pre-test standard, the data
were then validated and compared. This was done by picking up a sample of research questions
and compared them with their responses to see if the answers provided correspond with the
questions been asked. Also, as part of the validation process, the authors compared their findings
to other related studies and the reason was to find out if there are any connections or different point
of views.
3.7 Data Quality
Data quality is very important to qualitative research. As observed by Saunders et al., (2016),
researchers using the qualitative approach might face the issue of proving the quality of their
research. This is because reliability and validity as characteristics of research quality are most often
associated with quantitative research (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Saunders et al., 2016). Data quality
explains how the study will be carried out to ensure trustworthiness. The term trustworthiness is
the one used to assure the quality of studies instead of referring to validity and reliability that are
common in quantitative research which are not the terms used in qualitative research (Golafshani,
2003; Bryman & Bell, 2011). The data quality problems associated with semi-structured
interviews and secondary data would be identified with reliability, forms of bias, validity and
generalizability (Saunders et al., 2016). To know about the risks and possible ways to moderate
them is very significant with the aim to avoid possible issues. Accordingly, the authors of this
paper have recognized the existing risks and will portray how they are taken care of in this paper.
24
The motivation behind this case study is to investigate and understand how knowledge sharing is
being done in the internal audit department of a commercial bank in the Middle East instead of
generalizing or have the option to repeat the outcome which contrasts from quantitative studies.
However, to attain higher reliability, the study is thoroughly described in the methodology part.
Regarding the analysis of the data, it was done independently by both authors and afterwards
contrasted and talked about dissimilarities with the aim to decrease possibilities of
misinterpretation of data so as a result validity is increased. As Gioia, Corley & Hamilton (2012)
suggested, when disagreement occurs, the authors are advised to revisit the data and discuss it
again in order to reach consensus.
Besides, to have better validity, the respondents received a copy of the interview guide as per their
request so that they can have a general idea about the subject under investigation and they can also
point out about any questions that they think that it needs more clarification. As to generalizability
of the case study, it is considered as constrained because only one case study was performed and
only 6 auditors out of 12 were interviewed since the aim of this study is to obtain rich
understanding of the phenomenon instead of generalizing to the whole population. The limited
generalizability of qualitative research is supported by Bryman and Bell (2015), who confirmed
that transferability in qualitative research can be problematic since case studies and small sample
sizes are often used. However, the transferability of this research paper can be put in the hands of
the readers since this study provides the readers with the "research questions, design, context,
finding and interpretations" (Saunders et al., 2016, p. 206).
To eliminate the risk of bias related to the interviewees, and as per the respondents request
anonymity of them is respected. The interviews took place over Skype as per their request and
the approval for recording was permitted. Furthermore, to decrease bias level, the author who
conducted the interview was knowledgeable about the subject under study by having a solid
interview guide divided into different themes. Additionally, to decrease bias, the interviewer put
the effort to remain neutral as much as possible and giving all attention to the respondents
answers.
A pilot study is commonly associated with a quantitative approach to test a particular research
instrument. Apparently, it has been extended to the qualitative researches where it is carried out as
25
full preparation for the major study (Majid, Othman, Mohamad, Lim & Yusof, 2017). Castillo-
Montoya (2016) found out that interview protocols are strengthened through piloting the
interviews. In this study, a pilot study was conducted with 2 participants in order to address
possible practical issues, and to try to find out whether the interview questions meet the research
paper aim and its research question (Teijlingen & Hundley, 2002). Though Saunder et al., (2016)
suggest to have more than 6 participants for pilot study, but due to time and budget limitation, it
was only conducted with 2 participants. The pilot study have helped the authors to identify
limitations within the interview guide and allowed the authors to refine and better structure the
questionnaires and modify any difficulties of understanding the questions when encountered by
the participants. It also helped the authors to know the time that would be needed for each
interview. Thus, the validity of the study is enhanced.
Additionally, to ensure credibility of this study, a summary was made available to the interviewees,
highlighting the main ideas extracted from the interview in order to obtain the consent of the
interviewees and allowing them to correct any errors or bias caused by misunderstandings.
3.8 Ethical Considerations
Research can be influenced by ethical and moral issues (Bryman & Bell, 2015; Saunders et al.,
2016). Therefore, the authors considered these aspects during the study. To eliminate plagiarism
and to ensure credibility, a list of all primary and secondary sources was provided according to the
American Psychological Association referencing standard.Hollweck (2016) claimed that
agreement from all respondents who are involved in the case study must be taken, which in this
case study all the interviewees agreed without any pressure to participate voluntarily. The
respondents were informed about the interview purpose and later briefed them on the themes. The
interviews were recorded with the consent of the interviewees. In this respect, the authors did not
violate any data protection by making use of such reports in our studies. Based on the same
argument, the names of the company mentioned, is anonymized.
We as researchers also handled the coding of data and interpret responses more professionally and
in objective manner to get rid of any accident causing harm to the image of any of the company
26
and people included in this research. All reports were subjected to the same criteria in terms of
coding and interpretation.
3.9 Research limitation
The junior interviewees were just recently employed by the bank and this could have harmed the
intensity of information. However, the authors assume that the company's information is shared
with all employees of the internal audit department that is why they don't expect a lack of data.
Nevertheless, the authors experienced that one respondent was not willing to answer strategically
based questions due to confidentiality reasons.
Since the primary data was recorded in Arabic and translated into English, the meaning can be
slightly distorted. This could reduce the amount and intensity of the information. But the authors
did not perceive it as problems as one of the authors understands Arabic and English fluently.
However, when the authors faced any misunderstandings of the respondents, they immediately got
back to the respondents through emails or WhatsApp contact for further clarification.
27
4.0 Key findings and analysis:
In this chapter, the empirical results from the primary data are presented that is derived from the
interviews with the internal auditors, reflecting the findings along with analysis. Additionally,
the empirical findings about the themes will be presented in accordance with the categories from
the table below showing the coding procedure.
Themes Categories Labels
Trust
Interpersonal relationships
Competence
• rustworthy
• Social interactions
• WhatsApp group
• Lunch break
• Outgoings
• Position
• Qualified
• Years of experience
• level
• unqualified
Rewards
Intrinsic
Extrinsic
• Non-financial
• Recognition
• Promotion
• Praise
• Training
• Cash
• Monetary
• Bonuses
• Salary
28
Organization
structure
Physical Strucutre
Centralization
• Separate rooms
• Open space
• Closed space
• Meetings
• Office design
• Hierarchy
• Communication
• Post
• Status
• Position
• Level
• Meetings
IT
Repositories
IT tools
IT Support
• Tools
• Software
• IT department
• Connecting tools
• Emails
• Applications
• Online
• Manually
• Automatically
• Program
• Request
• Help
• Needed data and information
29
IT Training • Training
• Learning
• Orientation
Table 2. Overview of coding procedure
Source: Own
The coding procedure includes arranging the interview results into themes, categories and codes.
This implies that the major concepts were recognized and from that point sorted out so as to
match with the research aim. As indicated by Stuckey (2015), coding themes ought to be
founded on genuine investigation and the perceptions are accurately comprehended by the
readers. Therefore, the whole pattern must be associated with the research aim. Thus, the authors
identified the main themes of the study, key phrases and words were identified which support the
research and give meaning to the data. Afterward the authors coded the information as per the
answers given by the interviewees into categories and codes. This permitted the authors to
concentrate on the purpose of this research paper and make the analysis in the best possible way
by understanding various perspectives and thoughts of every respondent.
4.1 Trust
Trust is a component that triggers knowledge sharing in an organization (Tan & Lim, 2009).
Trust between co-workers promotes a positive environment and contribute to achieving the
desired goals (Tan & Lim, 2009). According to respondent 3, the junior auditor in the internal
audit department of the bank, trust leads to a positive outcome and leads to higher level of
knowledge sharing practices. This is supported by the head of the internal audit department who
believes that trust brings employees together and result in consensus building which helps the
audit department to achieve its goal, as he stated: `` Trust is essential for achieving our mission
as internal audit department, it brings us all together, increase knowledge transfer and makes us
reach our goals and protect the bank `` respondent 2
30
In the internal audit department of the bank, interpersonal relationships and competencies form the
basis of the trust between auditors which result in enhancing tacit knowledge sharing during audit
activities and this will be more discussed below.
Interpersonal relationship
It was evident from the interviewees responses that interpersonal relationship eases the transfer of
knowledge between the auditors, especially with those whom the employees have earned a long-
standing relationship, and normally this relationships is built with employees of the same level and
status, as stated by respondent 5 `` when it comes to trusting my colleagues, I believe that trusting
him increases when I know him for a long while and most likely if we both have the same years of
experience at the bank``.
Trust is positively correlated to interpersonal relationships which in turn results in effective
knowledge sharing among employees, especially when it comes to tacit knowledge (Rutten, Blaas-
Franken & Martin, 2016).
Additionally, it is found that personal relationships developed through regular face-to-face contact
between co-workers is a must for developing trust which sets the ground for effective transfer of
tacit knowledge, as stated by respondent 6 `` The more I interact with my colleague and see him
regularly the more I trust him``.
Moreover, social interaction which according to the interviewees, refers to the frequency of
communications and to the amount of time team members spend together builds trust and enhances
knowledge sharing between the auditors. Therefore, trust is promoted via social relationship and
it is considered as the central point for an effective knowledge sharing among the internal auditors.
`` Most of the time I trust the auditor that we have the same engagement together since I see him
frequently so that I would share more knowledge with him`` respondent 5
`` For my part, I believe that daily interactions and outgoings with my colleagues increase the
level of trust between us and make me gladly share my knowledge with them`` respondent 7
Furthermore, all the employees in the internal audit department have a WhatsApp group where all
members seek and share knowledge whenever needed. However, junior and newly recruited
31
auditors feel hesitated to participate actively in ongoing discussions due to their lower position in
the department.
``I have a colleague that we hang out in after working hours, so I love to help him out and give
him beneficial information. We are 5 in the branch audit; we have a group on WhatsApp where
we share everything. The social networking builds trust between us and improves the level of
knowledge sharing between us but sometimes newly recruited auditors don't talk much in the
WhatsApp discussions`` respondent 3
`` We have a WhatsApp group where all auditors are member, but I am hesitant to join discussions
and give my knowledge, because I see myself occupying lower position so that makes me feel
hesitant to participate in discussions`` respondent 6
Thus, interpersonal relationships is essential to build trust which positively contribute to effective
knowledge sharing among the auditors in the IA department. This is an accordance with Rutten et
al., (2016) and Holste & Fields, (2009), who state that friendships and interpersonal relationships
empower trust among employees which result in easing the transfer of knowledge especially with
those whom employees have earned a long-standing relationship.
Competence
From the respondent’s answers, it was pointed out that auditors deal with different departments
and to make effective audit, they need specialized knowledge about every department.
Whatsoever, not all auditors have specialized knowledge about every department since
knowledge is distributed unequally between auditors as different auditors have different
departments and branches audit engagements. Therefore, the auditors are placed in a position
that demands seeking tacit knowledge from the correspondent colleagues in the department. To
ensure receiving the correct and accurate information, auditors always trust colleagues whom
they see as competent in the related subject since seeking information from incompetent auditor
may provoke a serious problem in the workplace. Thus, it is of high interest to ensure that as an
internal auditor, you seek knowledge from a competent, and well-trusted source.
32
"If I need knowledge from someone, I look for the other person's competencies. If I need from X
information, I would ask him whatever his competencies are because to know a little bit more info
is important to solve your issues and advance. If you know he has a bad reputation, you would
think twice before approaching him" respondent 4
”Sometimes I make audit engagement on a department for the first time, thus I need supporting
knowledge from my colleagues who have previously audited this department. In such situation, I
always look for the competency of him to ensure getting good information. I don’t want to be in
problems" respondent 3
``When I look forward to sharing or get sensitive knowledge from others, I consider his
competencies, along with his position as important factor `` respondent 5
This is in accordance with the literature which argue that career competencies of the employees
are of great importance when it comes to trust in which the receiver of this knowledge regards the
sender as a trusted source (Holste & Fields, 2009). Competencies give the employee who is seeking
information a guarantee that the information grasped is coming from a trusted source and can be
relied upon (Ling, 2011).
However senior and junior auditors have pointed out that there are a lot of instances where they
choose not make knowledge sharing with other auditors especially when they are not sure about
their personal knowledge. Some auditors go ahead and make it in a way that the person seeking
and sharing his knowledge is an incompetent employee who doesn't know his duties well and don’t
have the requisite skills, experience or knowledge to perform a specific audit engagement.
As Rutten et al., (2016) stated that employees are reluctant to trust and share knowledge with co-
workers due to fears of being criticized by other employees.
`` I avoid asking my colleagues many times regarding important knowledge especially those with
higher position, I am afraid that they make negative ideas about me as an auditor`` respondent 7
`` Not always we seek to share everything as maybe the others think I am unqualified and don’t
have good experience to perform my duties and in most cases I hesitate to ask those who occupy
higher positions`` respondent 4
33
Also, there are a lot of instances where the auditor with specialized knowledge are not willing to
share knowledge with other employees because the fellow might not be able to tell whether the
one seeking the knowledge will apply it correctly or not. According to respondent 4 `` to maintain
one reputation and competence against those who are not trustworthy, employees turned not to
seek knowledge from others or hide the knowledge they possess, and this is particularly with top
and middle-level auditors ``.
4.2 Rewards Systems
In organizational practices, rewards are used as an instrument to motivate knowledge sharing
(O'Dell and Hubert, 2011). The reward system could be in extrinsic or intrinsic form (Sajeva,
2014). Extrinsic rewards are tangible rewards that organizations give to their employees which
could be monetary, increase in salary, bonuses or allowances while Intrinsic rewards are in form
of prize, opportunity to take part in some prestigious project or educational opportunity (Sajeva,
2014).
Extrinsic rewards
In several of the interviews, the respondents bring up that there is no knowledge sharing incentive
package in the internal audit department and as a result auditors are not greatly motivated to take
knowledge sharing initiatives. Out of the seven interviews conducted six respondents pointed out
that there are no extrinsic incentives for those who share knowledge in the internal audit
department. This does not apply only the IA department, but also to other departments of the bank
as well.
“In general, the bank doesn’t have any policy that gives incentives for those who try to share
knowledge” respondent 1
“We do not receive financial rewards such as bonuses or increase in salary for sharing our
knowledge with our colleagues” respondent 4
34
“Personally, I have never been rewarded for sharing knowledge with others, and I don’t believe
my colleagues have been rewarded for making knowledge sharing as well” respondent 6
When discussing the reasons for the absence of the financial rewards, respondents revealed that
the bank had considered knowledge sharing as part of each auditor responsibility and it forms part
of their job description. Henceforth, there is no need to motivate those who share knowledge in
the department as knowledge sharing is an obligation.
"No, we do not have any kind of reward. Even if I teach other auditors, I don't expect any reward.
In terms of salary, you will not get an increase because this is considered as a duty of my job
description to teach others" respondent 3
”Sharing experience and information with other auditors is part of my job description as I am
supposed to, as per my job description to teach others especially junior auditors" respondent 4
When discussing the type of reward that matters the most to the auditors and whether it motivates
them to make knowledge sharing, 5 out of the 6 auditors revealed that auditor's willingness to share
knowledge is greatly influenced by extrinsic rewards which could be in a form of monetary award.
Respondents 3, 4, 6, 7, and 5 opted for cash.
"I wish there are incentives such as cash or bonuses, this will motivate me to work harder and to
share my experience and skills with others. Even if I attend training outside, they don't give me
anything even allowance, I am hoping that things will change in the coming years” respondent 5
"I suggest even an increase in the salary for individual auditors or giving bonuses will do well
with those who share knowledge with other employees in the bank" respondent 4
Therefore, having a reward system encourages highly experienced employees, particularly senior
auditors who have great knowledge to share and support their teammates. Extrinsic rewards helps
in developing teamwork mentality, and thus act as assurance for knowledge contributors for not
losing his knowledge power through promotion, bonuses, or other rewards means (Hsu et al.,
2013).
35
Intrinsic rewards
In terms of intrinsic rewards, the bank offers an “employee of the month” as form of intrinsic
reward given to the employee that works hard for the bank. This reward is not actually rewarded
to the employee who make effective knowledge sharing in particular. As stated by the human
resource manager: “As non-financial incentives, we have been giving a type of incentive wise for
an employee who works very hard and strives to improve the organization such as the employee
for the month. For example, every end of the month we send an email to all the employees in the
bank in which we share with them that employee X has been named the employee of the month"
respondent 1
Only one auditor out the six interviewed believes that his willingness to share knowledge is greatly
influenced by intrinsic rewards which could be in a form of praise or recognition.
“Thank you would be a reward. Gratitude matters to me the most. It may motivate me more when
you see that your work is being well seen it will give you credibility when people are grateful for
what you did and you will be more motivated “ respondent 2
Regarding training, there exist training but not all auditors are subject to receive training. Within
the department only the senior auditors have chances to attend external training. The decision of
who should go for external training is subject to the approval of the head of the audit department,
and in most cases only seniors' auditors are selected to attend training. As respondents 7 and 5
claimed respectively: `` I didn't receive much training. I didn't really get training. Only senior
auditors had training `` respondent 7
`` I received more than enough training, Not all the auditors received training, and the reason
why is that I am a senior auditor `` respondent 5
4.3 Organizational structure
Organizational structure is a set of methods dividing the tasks in determining duties and
coordination while it also represents the framework of the relations on job systems, operating
processes, people, and groups making efforts to achieve the organizational goals (Minterzberg,
1972, as cited in Ahmadi, Mehrpour & Nikooravesh, 2016).
36
Centralization
Although, there are some auditors who share experiences and skills among themselves in the
department but that is done to some limited extents, as some employees in the department keep
distance with others by not sharing much knowledge. Respondent 6 stated that `` human beings
are unpredictable, they can change at any point in time especially when realized a partner trust in
him so much``.
Furthermore, from the respondent’s answers it was noted that employees of the same statues draw
closer relationships to their colleagues in the department and share experiences with one another
on different subjects. Auditors of the same level, especially those who joined the bank in the same
year or month are more connected to each other and often share tacit knowledge with one another
because they feel that they are of the same status, as respondent 4 and 6 stated `` I make better
relations with auditors who hold the same title as me, which make the knowledge sharing process
easier`` respondent 4
`` I feel more connected to those with whom we joined the bank at the same period, they have the
same position as me`` respondent 6
Contrarily, they sometimes make sure to keep distance with the other, as those who share
knowledge and experience with you today will betray you the next day.
"As the leadership theory, you should keep some space and not go so intimate with your colleague
because who is your good friend that would keep your secrets may become your enemy one day
and that can destroy you and you will destroy him back so it's better to keep a safe distance but a
small amount of trust between colleagues is important" respondent 5
It is evident by the data from the conducted interviews that the bank is pursuing a centralized
organizational structure and that is negatively affecting the process of knowledge sharing. All
auditors feel that the type of communication that is based on position and status is offsetting the
process of knowledge sharing. As respondents 4, 5, and 6 stated:
`` We communicate with our supervisor and manager more about follow up, how much time you
need to finish fieldwork, to finish the report and so more of work-related stuff`. I think this type of
37
hierarchy is negatively affecting knowledge sharing because the follows up is not about
communication regarding technicalities of the work and if any problems occur, the head will be
trying to find solutions. Those solutions will be suggested by him and not us`` respondent 4
`` Usually the head of internal audit sets a meeting with auditors only to tell them about some
urgent matters at the organization and not to share our experience but only to discuss the plan.
The same with the supervisor we do not really communicate with him as he is busy with some
investigations stuff. I would say that it is not easy to manage to sit down with my supervisor or my
manager due to their high position `` respondent 5
`` To me I felt like the supervisor didn't feel like a supervisor. I think the structure of the audit
department wasn't very structured. The communication was more linked to the head of the
department. However, it wasn't done often, at the beginning and the final stages of the engagement
for him to review our report. I believe that I didn't get sufficient knowledge from my head. I believe
that my knowledge was more gathered from my partner than from my teammates or the head of
the department. My manager doesn't have an open door and the time to give to me as he does with
the senior auditors. I see this as an essential obstacle for improving myself``` respondent 6
That confirms what the senior auditors has stated in which she expressed that: `` in my experience,
senior auditors have higher chances and opportunities than other auditors to approach the
supervisor and the manager and discuss the knowledge we have about auditing different
engagements`` respondent 4
Therefore, employees who occupy higher level in the department hierarchy would affect the
process of knowledge sharing more than those who occupy lower levels.
Moreover, there exists an issue in terms of communicating in a group setting between all auditors
which is not leading to get the benefits from distinct experiences and skills. All of the
interviewees have mentioned that the inexistence of group meetings set by the manager is
affecting their work negatively. Respondent 5 stated `` we arrange meetings to discuss our
stuff together, but this is more of a personal effort and mostly it doesn’t work``; respondent 4
stated `` It would have been better if group meetings were arranged to discuss our knowledge
and our issues``.
38
Though, there is great concern about this structure as different auditors indicated that this aspect
with regards to form of communication should be improved and should not only be done in
informal settings. For example, respondent 6 claimed that `` the manager has to put a meeting
every week just to talk. Even if we don’t have an urgent matter because the auditors have to
share their experience and the problems they are facing, and maybe discuss the plan, share
positive and negative points``.
Another interviewee also expressed the same concerns stating that: `` Meeting for the whole
department staff happens only when there is something big to discuss and this happens normally
once every 2 months. It should be done more often as we need to share our knowledge and our
work struggles so that we can work better`` respondent 4
Furthermore, not only the communication with the manager was hard to establish but also with
the supervisor, as respondent 4 stated: ``The supervisor doesn't really accept in all cases that you
argue with him about some knowledge, and he often says that’s it, I told you to do it this way and
makes you feel that he already knows this. Sometimes, if something new to him, he understands
but only if you approach him in a very special and easy way``.
The problem of effectively communicating with those who hold higher hierarchical level at the
department also exists between auditors with the same position status or level as respondent 3
stated: ``for example, we have one that has been working for 6 years and he is senior, and
another auditor been working for 5 years and still not a senior. They have a lot of conflict in
communicating and sharing knowledge together and this in term is affecting the level of
knowledge sharing across the audit team``.
Physical structure
Concerning the physical structure of the department, it was apparent that there exists an issue in
terms of the office’s designs. Most respondents pointed out that the offices design is very
important for spreading the knowledge in the department and regarded this as one of the main
reasons why the auditors feel they have restricted opportunities to share knowledge. Respondent
1 claimed that: ``When you have each team placed in a part, there is less sharing of information,
each part will be like a different department``.
39
Respondent 2 claimed that: ``I know there have been researches on office designs, when you
open all of the offices and makes them near to each other more information is shared, not every
2 persons in a room than the other 2 persons in a different room! ``.
On the other hand, one respondent believes that open space promotes a negative environment,
while having a conference room is more important than being in open-spaced desks, as she
claimed: ``when we are all placed at the same room we have to respect the work of others
because we need to concentrate. Open space is important but better to have a conference room if
we all want to be in one room to share our knowledge`` respondent 5
However, the majority of the respondents feel that open space is the best way for knowledge
sharing. Apart from this, the HR manager has claimed that: `` However, in the past years the
offices for the internal audit department were designed just like all of the other departments in
the bank. Every 3-4 auditors were in a single room. We realized later on with the complaints
coming from the head of the department that this type of room's designs is not helping the
auditors to be in constant contact. Thereby we are planning on moving the department to a
different place in the same building, where we make sure they have open space office designs. In
this way, we make sure that they have more opportunities to be in contact which will help the
process of knowledge sharing``.
Thus, the management is aware of that the department offices design is hindering the process of
knowledge sharing but have not done anything serious to solve this issue at the minimum till the
present time. The majority of the interviewees confirmed this, claiming that moving to an open
space office design will increase the flow of the knowledge and improve their working activities.
Respondent 2 and 5 stated: `` if we move to open office design, we will be working sometimes
thinking out loud or asking about some things so other auditors would say you can do it in this
way`` respondent 2
`` from my previous job, when having open space offices, it will makes you get to know more the
others and makes the process of knowledge sharing easier`` respondent 4
40
4.4 IT
Wipawayangkool & Teng (2016) argue that the IT usage would improve employees` knowledge
sharing if it is regarded as fit to both tasks and users` needs. ICT`s make the knowledge
accessible, available to everyone, and effective to get over communications barriers (Hortovanyi
& Ferincz, 2015).
IT tools
From the data extracted from the interviews transcripts, it turned out that information
communication technology is arguably not successful and inefficient. This is supported by all of
the internal auditors interviewed who expressed their concerns about the IT tools available to
their disposal. Respondent 1 stated`` It was not efficient because we didn't have all the servers
and tools to communicate and give all the needed knowledge. We have only a common folder
between you and the subordinate. So, it was a little difficult to share knowledge with others ``;
Respondent 2 stated: `` we didn't have such connecting tools other than emails and telephone
calls which were the basics of communication. ``;
Respondent 3 stated that `` It is not the best. We have a lack of IT tools applications. I would
have appreciated if we have an application that would boost our work so everything such as
notes will be entered in the software, and I can have an online discussion with my supervisor, my
partner, and with the auditees. This application will give all the risks and recommendations. If I
want to communicate about anything at work, I should be able to do it online. However, in our
case it is mostly paper works and not technology-based``.
The ineffectiveness of IT tools applications during audit engagements is worsening the auditing
work process between the same team members, as it is making the work more complex and time-
consuming. Respondent 5 and 6 stated respectively that: ``When I am working on a job I will not
know what my colleague has already done and I will not avoid the duplication of work unless
there is an IT tool in which you can build on what your colleague has done already instead of
repeating everything from scratch `` respondent 5
41
``The ICT is not much of connection. ICT is very simple and underdeveloped we have to do
certain things in a way that consumes more time. For example, we are a team of 2, we need to
discuss in person, sometimes double work happens`` respondent 6
The emails help auditors in terms of sharing some knowledge whenever they are in a field
operation and it is regarded as a way of communication but it was not very helpful as it doesn't
support the high capacity of data attachments as respondent 2, 6 and 4 stated: `` Only emails
were helpful but in a way. We didn't have all the capacity to share everything with emails such
as to share a big report or a PowerPoint presentation because email doesn't take high
capacities`` respondent 2
`` Basically we were communicating through emails, but it was not always helpful as we need to
stick always to formalities `` respondent 6
``We didn't have connecting tools other than emails which were the basics of the communication
but still we need to stick to formalities in emails which is not an easy task!`` respondent 4
Repositories
The repositories were very helpful in terms of helping auditors to share their knowledge through
storing and accessing knowledge being learned throughout and at the end of every audit
engagement which helped auditors in saving time. Respondent 2 and 6 stated respectively that:
`` we have something called shared document; I can go in the shared document, which is
available in the intranet, but we cannot chat there. It can be a common folder between different
auditors where you store different knowledge in it so it will be common to different auditors``
respondent 2
`` Repositories are very helpful, we store what we have found out and all the new information we
learn at the start and the end of every audit mission so that my teammates can have access to our
knowledge`` respondent 6
However, all the interviewed auditors complained that there doesn’t exist a tool that facilitates
searching for keywords existing in all folders especially for information shared in PDF formats
so that the auditor waist a lot of time that could be invested in other tasks by having to read many
42
numbers of pages in order to reach what he is looking for. Respondent 2 and 4 stated
respectively: `` many of the circulars are scanned as pdf so if you are trying to search a thing
you are auditing you have to read a lot of pages instead of writing a keyword to look for what
you want quickly`` respondent 2
`` I depend on the repositories to access some knowledge, but there is so much information with
no tools that makes it easy for us to search and access them quickly `` respondent 4
IT support:
In all interviews it is pointed out that the IT department is not giving the needed support for the
auditors whenever they have some tasks that stand in need of the IT staff support. Three
examples are stated by respondent 3,5 and 6 respectively: ``there is so much information we wish
to have from the IT, but for some reasons, we couldn't have this information maybe because
there are some conflicts between the IT department and our manager`` respondent 3
`` when I need data and information with the help of the IT department I have to talk with my
head, the head will talk to the head of IT and a meeting will be done to discuss what are the
things we are trying to get, it is so complicated`` respondent 5
`` The IT department wasn’t helpful and not trying to give us as much as data as possible
because we will be making them do extra work`` respondent 6
IT training
From the conducted interviews, it was evident that the auditors lacked training about efficient
usage of IT tools and repositories. All of the 6 interviewed internal auditors have revealed that
they did not have any kind of IT training. For example, respondents 3 and 2 stated:
`` The company is not training us to use IT tools much. I need to rely on the IT auditor``
respondent 3
``Never received. They do not focus on the ICT tools and that is a big problem`` respondent 2
That is not accordance with many researchers who state that auditors must be competent in
utilizing ICT tools and knowledge repositories, as this will not only increase the flow of
43
information across the department, but it will improve the organization general performance
(Zhang et al., 2012; Panahi, Watson & Partridge, 2013). Though, as the literature placed great
importance for employees to know how to use the IT tools effectively, a question of why
auditors lack training on that subject was posed to the human resource manager. The HR
manager justied this by claiming that such training requires special monetary budget and the IT
department is in place to support the auditors with all the needed help.
44
5.0 Discussion:
To be fruitful and prosperous in exercising knowledge sharing in the internal audit department of
the bank, we have distinguished a theme called Power distance. This is obtained from the
empirics of this case study of the internal audit department, where a sum of various labels have
been distinguished as vital for making the conditions expected to trust the coworker and exercise
knowledge sharing. The category and labels can be found below in table 3.
5.1 Trust
In the first place, it was apparent in the internal audit department that process of sharing the
knowledge is viewed as deliberate by all the respondents. Notwithstanding, the guideline and the
job descriptions as said by the internal auditors are quite explicit on the auditors obligations that
the auditors must effectively take part in knowledge sharing.
The authors understanding is that there is an issue with the commitment of internal auditors to
their job descriptions, and this can be contended to be an impact of existing trusting relationships
based on the position and ranking of the internal auditors at the IA department. Therefore,
sharing the knowledge with other is viewed as intentional because of the nature of the trusting
relationships among the respondents where trusting the person that occupies same position or
have same years of experience is viewed as a condition for taking an interest in the exercises of
knowledge sharing.
Theme Category Labels
Power distance
Reasons to trust
Position
Interpersonal relationships with the same level
Communication with same status
networking with same level
Hesitate trusting those with higher position
Hesitate trusting those with lower position
45
Table 3. Overview of coding procedure.
Source: Own
This theme is related to Hofstede's national cultural dimensions and which seems different from
what the knowledge sharing influencing factors framework predicts (Figure 1). When it comes to
trust the other for exercising knowledge sharing, power distance between different auditors
appears to have a strong impact on the trust factor that affects knowledge sharing.
There are many instances of respondents expressing that knowledge sharing isn’t effectively
happening between all auditors. Those whom expresses that it isn’t happening, believe that they
always think twice before approaching other auditors who occupies higher or lower hierarchical
position at the department since it could make individuals share less and restrain the knowledge
sharing. One example expressed by respondent 6, the junior auditor, who pointed out that there is
a threat that the sharing gets blocked by individuals who occupies higher position since they
believe that as a junior he is not in a position to participate and give knowledge to others. Thus
the lack of motivation to share knowledge with different individuals due to their positions
reflects the high-power distance society (Hofstede, 2001). According to Cowperthwaite (2010),
the cultures with high power distance accept power distribution inequality and that is based on
the hierarchy system.
The power distance at the IA department exist between all of the different levels of auditors.
Junior auditor have difficulties in sharing knowledge with senior auditors. Meanwhile, senior
auditors faces hard time during making knowledge sharing with those who occupies higher and
lower level than them such as the supervisors and junior auditors. This type of communication,
has impacted the trust factor between all auditors.
In this study, to reflect on the mutual relationship between the members of the internal audit
department of the bank, trust was defined by respondent 1, the senior auditor as member's belief
to have confidence in one another in terms of interpersonal relationships, competency, and his
position. The term position used by respondent 3 and also mentioned by respondents 5, 6 and 7,
reveals that it is easier to share tacit knowledge with auditors of the same statues rather than
sharing with auditors who have higher or lower status than their position. That represents the
46
great effect power distance that is being imposed over the trust factor which initiate the
knowledge sharing practices.
As respondent 6 confirmed `` I trust auditors who are at the same level as me and I expect to be
told what to do from my superiors``.
This is line with the existing literature whereby a junior auditor in a culture with high power
distance does not expect to have direct communication with the lead auditor on an engagement
(Cowperthwaite, 2010)
All the senior auditors and the supervisor interviewed have given the same answers as stated by
respondent 6 above confirming that trust is always based on position. That shows the nature of
the culture of this department that is based on high power distance (Cowperthwaite, 2010).
As expressed by respondent 7, he sees himself as lacking the motivation to participate in
knowledge sharing with senior auditors, also with supervisors, especially sharing knowledge about
some departments whereby he has great skills and experiences. The reason behind demotivation
lies in the low position he holds at the department, as other auditors perceive his knowledge
capacity as low and it would not serve their needs. Respondent 4, the senior auditor expressed his
concerns when he would like to approach his supervisor for sharing knowledge. He believes, that
supervisor wouldn't accept having a debate about some knowledge and the supervisor's knowledge
must be taken as it is given without need for discussion. Besides, this senior auditor and the other
senior auditor interviewed consider themselves having all the experiences and skills it takes to
carry out their daily tasks, and thus they do not realize the need to contact auditors that are lowers
in level than them for additional knowledge or for sharing knowledge with them. One example
expressed by respondent 4, the senior auditor who confirmed this stating `` I don't see the need to
communicate with the junior auditor about some work he has good experience ``.
It is also not right for a middle-level auditor to share and discuss knowledge with top-level auditor,
due to lack of trust put into him from the top-level auditor. The Top-level auditors don't trust the
knowledge possessed by the middle-level auditors as they believe they lack competencies and the
47
knowledge they possess could be inaccurate. As expressed by the supervisor `` even if an auditor
possesses good knowledge in a particular task, I would not take it seriously, because he may have
interpreted the work incorrectly, I don't trust his position and consequently his judgment”
respondent 3
This clearly proves the existence of high power distance in the department, which is according to
Hofstede (2001) the communication in high power distance context goes vertically, from bottom
to top and orders being from top to bottom. This is the key reason for having limited employees
knowledge sharing engagements and leading to the loss of knowledge that would have benefited
the organization (Walton & Parikh, 2012).
Moreover, in this IA department, the inexistence of trust among internal auditors is affecting the
trade of knowledge and leading to restricted opportunities for the growth and development of
auditors in general. This is confirmed by respondents 3 and 6. ``Although I am junior auditor, I
consider myself having a lot of audit information which I keep to myself``` respondent 3
`` As a senior auditor, I have gained lots of knowledge throughout my working experience at the
bank, but the culture here is standing as an obstacle for learning from others or teaching others
and mostly I have to rely on personal efforts to improve my knowledge`` respondent 6
This implies that lack of trust between team members that is being impacted by the high power
distance is strongly affecting the willingness to share important information. This goes in
accordance with Rutten et al., (2016) who determined that the absence of trust will deteriorate
employees will to exercise knowledge sharing.
Though, it is found that explicit knowledge such as codified knowledge is easily shared among the
senior auditors without any hindrances especially when returning from important external training.
As expressed by different auditors, important documents containing knowledge related to audit
processes and standards are being shared among all the auditors through emails and sometimes in
hard copy form. However, tacit knowledge gained from seminars and training is not frequently
shared as stated by most respondents.
48
5.2 Reward system
The reward is an important instrument to encourage knowledge sharing among employees (Riege
2005). Within the internal audit department there is no reward system, specifically for those who
share knowledge within the internal audit department. The bank has only one award for the general
staff of the bank, which is "Employee of the month". This reward is not specifically for those who
codify knowledge but in general a reward for the employee who is showing top management that
he is working hard for the bank. Riege (2005) pointed out that one of the organizational barriers
to the sharing of knowledge is the absence of explicit and implicit rewards systems.
Respondent 4 and 5 who are senior auditors at the IA department, considered that having fringe
benefits or any type of extrinsic reward would have helped them to overcome the complicated
structure of the department that is based on the position and would have encouraged them to share
more knowledge with their colleagues. As the senior auditor stated: `` If there were incentives I
will be more motivated to share info with some colleagues I don't have personal relationships with,
regardless of the IA department structure`` respondent 4
`` Lacking those rewards will demotivate me to share the knowledge. I will lack motivation in
knowledge sharing `` respondent 5
The auditor’s responses goes in line with the literatures of Kankanhalli, Tan & Wei (2005); Zhang,
Ribiere & Chintakovid, (2008) who argue that a reward system enhances knowledge sharing
between employees in organizations.
That confirms that the absence of a reward system to auditors who share knowledge is standing as
a factor preventing them from improving the sharing of tacit knowledge within the department.
Moreover, the auditor's knowledge sharing behaviors are supposed to be influenced by the culture
of Lebanon. Surprisingly, the knowledge sharing behavior in the internal audit department of this
bank is in contrast with Lebanon's national culture. According to Ayyash-Abdo (2001), the
Lebanese are known to be more collectivist which is the opposite of individualist that does not
enhance effective knowledge sharing. All of the respondents interviewed comes from the same
country which is Lebanon. Thus, they must reflect the Lebanese national culture of being
collectivist.
49
Five out of the seven respondents showed individualism characteristics. Individualism is very
sensitive to monetary value and personal interest. Thus, this implies that individualism strengthens
the effects of rewards over knowledge-sharing intentions. There exist a positive relationship
between rewards and knowledge-sharing intentions and this relationship is reinforced by
individualism because people with individualistic inclinations tend to look after their own interests
and personal goals
The interviews had also revealed that because the employees are endowed with individualistic
culture, they prefer to be rewarded individually not collectively. Thus, it can be argued, that
individual knowledge-sharing ability is not always determined by the national culture, but
individual core values as well. On the other hand, individualist prefers individual rewards rather
than group reward (Wang et al., 2014). Most respondents preferred to be rewarded individually
rather than as a group. Respondents 3 and 4 expressed their wishes to be awarded at the individual
level.
`` I would rather having individual awards`` respondent 3
`` Individual awards are great motive to share knowledge`` respondent 4
They are glad about the monthly award and also very happy of having the end of the year award
that the bank award to the employee whose performance is considered superb. As stated by
respondent 2 and 5 respectively:
`` I think the employee monthly award is a great incentive`` respondent 2
``the monthly award is good incentives from the bank, but maybe having a weekly award would
increase competitiveness and overall will improve the bank`` respondent 5
That reflects how individualistic and not collectivistic most auditors in the IA department are. In
organizations with individualistic characteristics the employees turn to pursue and protect their
selfish interests and benefits (Chang, 2003). This is what is happening in the audit department and
as a result, the employees always strive to be their best interest, holding a lot of their knowledge
in order to be rewarded individually.
Nonetheless, within the bank, most employees always think of their self-development exempt two
employees that are respondent 1 and 6 who exhibited collectivism. Those two employees always
50
think for the interest of the group and not individually and mostly they try to put effort to practice
knowledge sharing effectively. Respondents 1 and 6 stated: `` although rewards are a great
incentive, I don't think of it when I want to support auditors with knowledge`` respondent 1
`` It is good to have rewards, but personally I like to help others regardless if I will be rewarded
or not`` respondent 6.
These two employees thrive to participate in knowledge sharing more than employees with
introverted character as displayed by the majority of auditors. An employee with these
characteristics would share their knowledge whether there is a reward or no reward (Wang, Noe
& Wang, 2014).
Besides, according to Hofstede (2001), masculinity is a cultural characteristic found in the people
of Lebanon. This characteristic has been inherited by the internal auditors. The auditors are derived
by competition, achievement, and success. Most respondents revealed that they always strive to
be granted the "employee of the month". Hence, sharing their specialized knowledge and skills
about a particular task with other auditors will increase their chances to be competed and limit
their opportunities of earning the award.
"There is high competition here, we all wanted to be an employee of the month, for you to be
selected you must have specialized knowledge to perform your task well, so should I share this
knowledge in order to be competed? No!" respondent 4
As a consequence, sharing good experiences and skills with others will bring up a lot of
competition, and what makes the situation worse is that with the absence of collective rewards, the
knowledge sharing practices are being impaired as auditors are hoarding the knowledge.
Apart from this, there exist intrinsic reward in form of educational training. However, not all the
auditors get the chance to participate and the decision of who should attend is decided by the head
of the department. This is considered as a kind of bias that leads to tension among auditors, and as
a result the general practice of knowledge sharing is impaired (Riege, 2005). The human resource
manager justifies this by claiming that the bank in many occasions organize training for the audit
team, but due to financial constraints only one or two senior auditors attend the training. The senior
51
auditors are expected upon their return, to share the knowledge learned with the rest of the auditors.
However, according to the junior auditors, the senior auditors hoard the knowledge when they
return.
"I make sure the auditors and IT staff upgrade their knowledge in their field of work by organizing
seminars and workshop for long-serving auditors, but to my surprise sometimes when they return
they are unable to share the overall experiences with their colleagues and I think is because of
their workload" respondent 1
5.3 Organizational Structure
It was evident that the organizational structure is standing as a factor that refrains employees from
exercising knowledge sharing. Following the empirical results, the Bank does not encourage its
employees to share their knowledge and information which doesn't increase distinct viewpoints
and generate active and energetic knowledge sharing within the IA department. The majority of
the auditors in the bank especially the senior auditors think of their self-interest before the interest
of others. Individual auditors think knowledge is power and sharing their experiences and skills
with their fellow auditors will erode their power. Both senior auditors, respondent 4 and 5 stated
that: `` I am a senior auditor because of my working experience, if I give my knowledge to others
I will lose my status, as others will not rely on me as much`` respondent 4
`` My knowledge is the guarantee to stay employed at the bank, sharing everything with others will
make me feel insecure`` respondent 5
This is confirmed with the study conducted in Singapore by Chaudhry (2005), which revealed that
many employees in the Singaporean public sector are not willing to share their tacit knowledge
because they perceived knowledge as a source of power and sharing will erode their power and
self-respect. An emerging theme here as well is that power distance is playing a major role in the
shaping of the bank structure. This power distance which is characterized to be high, is in term
making the centralized structure of the bank affect strongly the knowledge sharing practices in the
IA department. As stated by all the respondents, the high-power distance is illustrated in the IA
department through highly structured communication. The HPD is witnessed by the centralized
52
structure of the IA department in which inequalities of control and communication are evident
(Alzeban, 2015). As a result, subordinates such as junior auditors who all expressed that they are
expected to be told what to do from those occupying higher levels in the department hierarchy
without questioning that arrangement. That goes accordingly with a study performed by Alzeban
and Gwilliam (2014) over the audit department of a Singaporean public sector which revealed that
subordinates do not take self-initiatives to improve the work or exercise knowledge sharing as they
always wait for orders to act . There is much of hierarchy in the department based on power as it
is not as easy for lower-level auditors to approach supervisors or middle-level auditors regarding
knowledge struggles about a particular task, unless senior or supervisors themselves questions
lower-level auditors if they are facing challenges in their work. Neither senior auditors are willing
to seek knowledge from the junior auditors about a particular area which they have thorough
knowledge about. Therefore, knowledge sharing practices here are being impeded by the
hierarchical structure. For this reason, centralized organizational structure hinders knowledge
sharing (Al-Alawi, Al- Marzooqi & Mohammed, 2007; Zheng, Yang & McLean, 2010). As stated
by respondent 2 and 6.
“It is more likely that information will be shared between subordinates or employee of the same
status especially between those who work in the same team” respondent 2
“As we go up in levels such as to the supervisor it becomes more difficult, it won’t be easy to go
to them, ask them and share your knowledge with them and it is less likely that him asking you and
sharing with you the knowledge as a subordinate, exempt him asking you to do this and the same
thing with the seniors” respondent 6
Thus, KS is being negatively correlated to the IA department structure. A decentralized
knowledge sharing in accordance with Zheng et al., (2010) and Fullwood et al., (2009) will
improve knowledge sharing activities when every information and knowledge is given attention,
despite the position occupied by the employee at the organization. A decentralized knowledge
sharing is not being applied in the IA department of this bank and as a result, the employees are
hesitated on many occasions to share their knowledge with others due to the thinking of their
positions. Hence, it is clear that the IA department is characterized by a centralized and
bureaucratic structure based on hierarchy. Centralized and bureaucratic organizational styles
prevent the knowledge sharing activities from taking place and this style will increase
53
competitiveness among employees and as a result the knowledge will reside with the holder
(Amayah, 2013).
The interviewees agreed that having a flat relation not based on position and with more group
meetings in formal settings will improve the department's level of knowledge and make their end
work appears more professional. That goes in accordance with Al- Alawi et al., (2007) who
found out that having a flat relationship between employees from a different position in the same
department will create stronger relationships and helps to spread the knowledge, ideas and
experiences.
The auditors are aware of such hierarchy and exercising their audit duties accordingly, as
respondents 4 and 7 stated respectively. `` We have a formal hierarchy in the department and it
must be respected `` respondent 4
`` When I communicate with others, I follow the department pyramidal structure `` respondent 7
That reflects the high-power distance representing this department as in high power distance
organizations, workers are knowledgeable of the organization structure that needs to be followed
(Alzeban, 2015). Thus, the internal auditors of this bank, exercise their duties and communication
with others according to the hierarchy which goes in general as for line of communication from
top to bottom. Having a strong hierarchy, which is based on position status such as the case of this
IA department, will not tolerate employees to share their knowledge. Mainly employees from a
lower level such as Junior auditors, in which they are more encouraged to hoard or hide knowledge
because of job security reasons, as seniors employees would be unsatisfied that junior-level
employees are more knowledgeable in a particular subject than them (Riege, 2005).
Furthermore, besides ineffective communication between employees, all senior auditors and junior
auditors find it difficult to sit down with their supervisor and manager. The supervisor is mainly
giving orders to others while the manager manages to give time to the auditors only at the start and
at the end of their audit engagement. The auditors relate this fact to the high position occupied by
the supervisor and the manager. Besides, when it comes to important decision-making, it is always
done by the head of the department and communicated to the supervisor and senior auditors. The
lower level staff are excluded from such decisions and this does not speak well about the
department. According to Hofstede (2001) that shows that this department is characterized by high
54
power distance as the participation of low-level auditors in decision-making is regarded as low.
Also, the success achieved is not always communicated to every member of the department. First
the information is communicated to supervisors and senior auditors and at later stages senior
auditors are expected to share the success with the subordinates.
Moreover, the inexistence of formal meetings is affecting the level of KS negatively. In formal
meetings such as weekly group meetings, the auditors would have the opportunity to share their
problems and share with others different knowledge perceived in their engagements, which will
increase the overall level of knowledge and improve their work and trust among each other.
Mahmoudsalehi et al., (2012) and Chen et al., (2010) argue that with prearranged assignments and
with the absence of formal group meetings, the likelihood of employees engaging in conversations
will be diminishing, and as a result knowledge sharing practices are deteriorated.
On the other hand, the auditors are not being all placed in one room. Every 2 to 4 auditors are
placed in one room and that is making the KS process so difficult. The findings from the
department offices designs, confirms that the department structure is highly centralized.
According to Fullwood et al., (2019) and Riege, (2005), the physical structure and design of the
offices have a strong impact on the process of knowledge sharing. In this case study, the physical
structure is imposing a negative effect on knowledge sharing as expressed by the respondents. The
auditors are demotivated to share what they know with other auditors who are sitting in different
rooms, as they are having minimum regular contact engagements. Respondent 6 stated: ``
Currently, I have audit engagement over the anti-money laundry department with another senior
auditor, both of us are sitting in one room alone. The others are placed in other department rooms
and we barely meet each other and if ever I need specific knowledge from others, I feel hesitant to
go to their rooms and ask``
Thus, having closed office designs that are distanced and separated from each other will
demotivate employees to share knowledge as they have fewer opportunities to meet with each
other (Fullwood et al., 2019; Riege, 2005). However not all interviewees have agreed that having
an open space design will improve the level of knowledge sharing and the effectiveness of their
work. Whatsoever, five of the interviewees have stated that being in a closed office, has led to a
low flow of knowledge sharing among each other due to the design of the offices that make them
distanced from each other. That is in accordance with Fullwood et al., (2019) and Riege, (2005),
55
that argue about being in an open space office design will increase the likelihood of employees’
contacts and improves the level of personal relationships, which in turn increases opportunities for
tacit KS.
5.4 IT Usage
IT is a mean that helps in communicating tacit knowledge to others by socialization through IT
applications (Panahi et al., 2013). There exist no IT tools in the IA department that help online
socialization and support internal auditors to share their possessed tacit knowledge online with
each other. This represents a problem to the auditors especially when they are spread apart and
they need some help in getting a task done. They are expected to put more personal effort and try
to search if there exists any kind of explicit knowledge that is stored on the system. This is
supported by Zheng et al., (2012 aw 2010), in which they point out that the IT characteristics of
the department may have a negative effect on knowledge sharing activities and the workflow, as
it may affect tasks clarity since what the others are doing is not observable.
It was apparent from the empirics, that power distance here as well is an emerging theme that is
impacting the benefit of IT as a mean that facilitate knowledge sharing practices. Although there
were some IT activities taking place in the bank to facilitate the knowledge sharing between
auditors such as the usage of emails and repositories to share knowledge, but it was limited.
Auditors need to be very formal in the emails they send as they are only permitted to send formal
emails and before sending, they must show it to their supervisors or manager for approval. That
is supported by the head of internal audit who stated that `` Yes we use email as a tool for
communication and for sharing knowledge; however if auditors are sending an email to another
department I need to see it and look at formalities for approval unless they are sending an
internal email in the internal audit department, but still it has to be formal ``
Moreover, there exist a problem with the IT tools and that is hindering the process of KS from
being effective. That is supported by Saleh et al., 2015 who state that the more advanced are the
IT tools especially in terms of online socializing, the more knowledge, skills, and experiences are
shared between the auditors. Respondent 6 stated: `` we have nothing that connects us to each
56
other. It should be definitely improved; it will improve the formal knowledge sharing and the
coordination at work”.
Hassan and Dista (1999), had extensive research on IT adoption in the Middle East and West
Africa, and discovered that the culture of the country plays an important role. Bagchi, et al.,
(2014) studied the impact of Hofstede`s national culture dimensions on the usage of IT and
discovered that technology usage is the same as the use of any social practice. Bagchi, et al.,
2014 argued that the presence of high-power distance in the Middle East is negatively impacting
the adoption of technology.
Furthermore, the repositories help in sharing the knowledge, but at this department it was a hard
task to do since there is a lot of information in repositories and if one auditor needs to look up for
a specific knowledge that is existing in the repositories, he will have to go through all the shared
files and documents. This is supported by Saleh et al., (2015) and Lopez-Nicolas & Soto-Acosta
(2010) in which they claim that repositories improve knowledge sharing among employees
where knowledge of every individual can be extracted and more skills, information and
experiences would be shared, but with no helpful instruments this process will be so complicated
and time consuming.
Due to the lack of IT tools that facilitate knowledge access and knowledge sharing, the auditors
were often relying on the IT department to get the needed knowledge. However, it was clear that
the IT support to auditors' job practices was ineffective. Instead, it is standing as an obstacle to
the continuity and the effectiveness of their engagements. As stated by all auditors, on many
occasions they needed the IT department to provide them with a lot of information so they can
complete their engagements. However, not always the department was providing them with what
is needed. To do so, either they take a lot of time which make them tight on meeting the
engagement deadline or they will have to approach the audit department manager and he in turn
will communicate with the IT department manager to request access. What is happening at this
department is seen as an opposition to what has been stated by Pee, Kankanhalli & Kim (2010)
whereas they argue that there must be a collaboration between the IT department and different
departments, as the IT department shall act as a mediator that facilitates the work of different
departments, especially when it comes to improving the knowledge of the individuals (Pee et al.,
2010). IT should provide solutions that facilitate transferability and accessibility by providing
instruments for processing of large quantity of data that contributes to a higher level of
57
knowledge sharing (Panahi et al., 2013). Hence, power distance appears also here is considered
as playing a major role. IT personnel who possess special knowledge are in a position of power
(Isaacs, 2001). The power distance influences the relation between IT personnel and the IT users
whom are the auditors. The technology accessible to employees is regarded as a sign of power,
and the usage of it will decrease the centralized organizational structure (Nickles, 2003). This is
the case of the bank whereas having an IT department that is totally supporting other
departments will decrease the power distance between different actors, and as a result, that will
go against the bank structure characterized by being centralized (Isaacs, 2001).
Furthermore, auditors have not received any kind of IT training. As expressed by the
respondents, they lack IT skills and that is making their audit engagements more difficult. Thus,
the lack of training will deter the auditors and the organization in general from developing, as
full advantage of ICT tools usage is not attained (Hortovanyi & Ferincz, 2014). The HRM
declares that employees are not receiving IT training due to lack of budget as the human resource
department regards such training as unnecessary. Such training is costly and instead, the IT
department would help them in their work tasks. However, training on such IT tools must be
regarded as a strategic investment, and not looked at as an extra cost to an organization (Salleh et
al., 2015). Besides, knowledge is distributed unequally between auditors, as different auditors
have experience with different departments. Therefore, due to the unequal distribution of
knowledge among auditors, the bank needs to invest in ICT and train its employee about its
applicability (Hortovanyi & Ferincz, 2014). Thus, it is vital to train staff on how to use IT tools
and make it a routine in their daily work activities (Hortovanyi & Ferincz, 2014).
Though, through the analysis of the empirical findings of the bank IA department, it was found
out that Power distance is an emerging theme that is strongly moderating the effect of different
factors that affect tacit knowledge sharing practices. Power distance is one dimension of
Hofstede`s national culture dimensions and is defined as ``The extent to which less powerful
members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally``
(Cowperthwaite, 2010, p. 180). At the IA department, there is strong control and influence
utilized from Top levels auditors over Lower level auditors. That can be explained by the
58
influence of power distance. The power distance at the IA department is high since Top-level
auditors are applying rigorous supervision and control over Lower level auditors with minimum
interaction between both sides. With high power distance there is low interaction between
subordinates and superiors and thus employees are unwilling to exercise effective tacit
knowledge sharing with the others (Walton & Parikh, 2012; Omotoya, 2015). Masculinity and
individualism are also emerging themes that were found out from the interview data.
Therefore, as seen below in figure 2A and 2B, the authors of this paper managed to revise the
structure module for knowledge sharing by adding the national culture as new element to the
model to show the effect that national culture impose over the individual behaviors and over the
factors that influences knowledge sharing practices.
Figure 2A: Revised Structure of knowledge sharing A
Source: Own
As seen above in figure 2A, the national culture is exercising a strong impact over the
employee's behavior concerning knowledge sharing. The culture of the country plays a major
role in the way employees' interaction is taking place since the culture itself decisively affects
individuals' attitudes and that impacts the factors which affect knowledge transfer among
employees (Kegluvits, 2013). More specifically, Hofstede`s cultural dimensions impose great
influence over the individuals attitudes and behaviors which in turn affects the factors that
contribute to effective knowledge sharing. Walton & Parikh (2012) support this fact by
expressing that the degree to which knowledge is shared inside an organization relies intensely
upon how compelling the cultural entourage is.
59
Figure 2B: Revised Structure of knowledge sharing B
Source: Own
Figure 2B gives a bigger overview of how national culture is making an impact over the factors
the affect knowledge sharing. Based on our data, it was realized that Hofstede`s cultural
dimensions are making a strong impact on the factors that leads to knowledge transfer. Power
distance, individualism, and masculinity correspond to Hofstede`s cultural dimensions. Trust,
organizational culture, and IT usage have been marked with red to make it easier to understand
that they are being affected by power distance. On the other side, the reward system has been
marked with green and orange to show that the reward system is being affected by individualism
and masculinity.
60
6.0 Conclusion:
The necessity of knowledge sharing is inescapable in the world we live in today. Knowledge
sharing plays a vital role in improving audit engagement activities by allowing employees to
exchange information, ideas, experiences, and thus improve the overall activities of the
department. For this case study, it is evident that the bank is not taking the importance of
knowledge sharing thoughtfully. From the empirical study it can be confirmed that the bank
internal audit department is falling behind in terms of advanced knowledge sharing practices and
that knowledge sharing is not being managed properly by the internal audit department. There
exist no plans or strategies on how to let the knowledge flow smoothly between auditors. The
head of internal audit is not pursuing any steps towards managing knowledge sharing, instead,
the knowledge sharing activities are totally unplanned, and knowledge is flowing
unintentionally, as attention is not placed on knowledge sharing in the IA department.
Knowledge sharing is not the culture of the internal audit department of the bank and its` roots
can be traced from the working culture of many developing countries including Lebanon. In a
typical knowledge-sharing community, the supervisors are an open book to the middle level and
junior employees, whereas there is a flow of knowledge from top-level management to lower-
level management and vice versa. However, in this particular department there is nothing as
such. There exists a high-power distance where it is difficult for junior auditors to even approach
senior auditors when he requires further clarification on a particular task. The bureaucratic nature
in the department prevents the exercising of effective knowledge sharing. Each auditor thinks
about how to improve and maintain his knowledge, experience, and power without relying on
others. Within the audit department of the bank, employees are driven by competition,
achievement, and success and each worker wanted to be the best employee of the month of the
year. This is very common in many developing countries that do not enhance effective
knowledge sharing. Employees rely usually on sharing knowledge informally, through personal
relationships and when is needed. It follows the conclusion that the department is following an
informal way of handling the process of knowledge sharing through letting knowledge sharing
activities go with the flow of work.
61
It follows the conclusion that the factors that affect knowledge sharing are not being recognized
by the auditors as observed in the empirical findings. Although the auditors were practicing to
some extent some KS, they had no idea about the meaning of knowledge sharing, Trust is a
factor regarded as an important element that influences and support knowledge sharing. To share
knowledge with the other auditors, an auditor needs to trust the other by building a personal
relationship and most likely by looking at the other position status. It follows that power distance
plays an important factor in shaping the factors that affect KS practices as it guides behavior
towards knowledge sharing in the IA department and is perceived as a moderator effect to the
factors that impact tacit knowledge sharing. Concerning the reward system, we found that reward
is a factor that is affecting knowledge sharing negatively. The inexistence of special rewards for
KS is demotivating employees to exercise less transfer of knowledge; however, the only reward
presented by the bank to the best employee of the month shows how much the auditors are
driven by masculinity and individualism. Furthermore, the bank organizational structure, which
is affecting the department structure is negatively impacting the transfer of knowledge in the IA
department. The organization is following a centralized and bureaucratic style which is providing
a negative influence on the flow of knowledge between auditors and especially to the flow of
knowledge from those experienced auditors who are ranked at the top level of the department to
those who occupy lower positions. Power distance here is playing a major effect and making the
negative organization structure practiced by the department to be even worse. Moreover, the
bank is lacking an advanced IT system that improves knowledge transfer. Internal auditors are
lacking advanced tools that improve their knowledge transfer activities. There exists no IT tool
that connects auditors to each other. Employees mainly rely on the IT department to get
knowledge, but the IT department is not facilitating the search for knowledge which is making
the audit engagements very complicated. That is also due to the power distance in which the IT
department personnel would possibly lose the power they have at the bank.
62
6.1 Contribution of this study:
We can conclude that the thesis's empirical findings have led to an academic understanding of
some of the factors that affect knowledge sharing activities. Additionally, the empirical findings
and discussion are beneficial for the internal audit department manager and the bank as a whole.
Additionally, Figure 2A and 2B which the authors of this paper have created, are seen as a
contribution of the authors to the literature about knowledge sharing in the Middle East, as up to
the authors knowledge, previous academic literature have not taken into account the national
culture effect over knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, the research paper would support the manager on how to tackle the negative factors
that are reported by his employees and that are affecting negatively the audit work. The
familiarity with those factors and how is knowledge being managed may add to the
organization's comprehension and directions of the KS exercises of the bank.
6.2 Recommendation for future researches:
For future studies, it would be remarkable to interview a group of employees working for the
same company, but in different departments with the aim to compose a comparison between the
knowledge sharing management and activities between internal audit and different departments.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate whether the knowledge sharing practices in
other organizations operating in the Middle East such as Lebanon, that are following a
decentralized organizational structure and advanced IT tools, along with reward systems
practices are being affected by the cultural characteristics of Lebanon of being high in terms of
power distance.
63
References:
About Internal Auditing. (n.d.). Retrieved 2020, from https://global.theiia.org/about/about-
internal-auditing/Pages/About-Internal-Auditing.aspx
Abdillah, M. R., Lin, C.-T., Anita, R., Suroto, B., & Hadiyati, H. (2018). Knowledge-sharing
behavior among banking officers in Indonesia. Journal of International Studies, 11(2), 136–153.
Ahmady, G.A. Nikooravesh. A &Mehrpour. M (2016) Effect of organizational culture on
knowledge management based on Denison model Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 230
387 – 395
Alzeban, A. (2014). The Impact of Culture on the Quality of Internal Audit. Journal of Accounting,
Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 57–77.
Alper, S. (2020). Power Distance. Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
3999–4001.
Al-Qadhi, Y. H., Nor, K. M., Ologbo, A. C., & Knight, M. B. (2015). Knowledge sharing in a
multi-nationality workforce: Examining the factors that influence knowledge sharing among
employees of diverse nationalities. Human Systems Management, 34(3), 149–165.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right Wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press
Amayah, A. T. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 454–471.
Armbrecht, F. M. R., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F., Friga, P. N., Hartz, C. A.,
hitwell, G. E. (2001). Knowledge Management in Research and Development. Research-
Technology Management, 44(4), 28–28
Bagchi, K., Hart, P., & Peterson, M. F. (2004). National Culture and Information Technology
Product Adoption. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 7(4), 29–46.
Banker, R. D., Chang, H., & Kao, Y. C. (2002). Impact of Information Technology on Public
Accounting Firm Productivity. Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 209–222.
64
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 64-76.
Bautista, R.G. and Bayang, M.A. (2015), “Social network, social trust and shared-goals towards
organizational-knowledge sharing”, American Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp.
66
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nursing
Plus, 8–14.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research
in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597.
Bulan, S. J., & Sensuse, D. I. (2013). Knowledge Sharing Model among Academic Staffs In
Universities. Journal System Information, 8(2), 133.
Bryman, Alan. (2017). Social research methods (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. 1. (2015). Business research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Third edition. New York: Oxford
University Press Inc.
Chaudhry, A. (2005), Knowledge sharing practices in Asian institutions: a multi-cultural
perspective from Singapore”, 71th IFLA General Conference and Council on World Library and
Information Congress.
Challenges to the World Bank and IMF: developing country perspectives. (2004). Choice Reviews
Online, 41(11).
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas. Organization Studies,
23(5), 687-710.
Chen, J., Sun, P. Y. T., & McQueen, R. J. (2010). The impact of national cultures on
structured knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 228–242.
Chigada, J., &Ngulube, P. (2015). Knowledge management practices at selected banks in
South Africa. SA Journal of Information Management, 17(1).
65
Choi, Lee, & Yoo. (2010). The Impact of Information Technology and Transactive Memory
Systems on Knowledge Sharing, Application, and Team Performance: A Field Study. MIS
Quarterly, 34(4), 855.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128
Cowperthwaite, P. (2010). Culture Matters: How Our Culture Affects the Audit*. Accounting
Perspectives, 9(3), 175–215
Chumg, H., Cooke, L., Fry, J., & Hung, I. (2015). Factors affecting knowledge sharing in the
virtual organisation: Employees’ sense of well-being as a mediating effect. Computers in
Human Behavior, 44, 70-80.
Dirani, K. M. (n.d.). Individualism and collectivism in Lebanon: Correlations with socioeconomic
factors and effects on management and human resources practices. The Global Diffusion of Human
Resource Practices: Institutional and Cultural Limits Advances in International Management,
211–233
Dornan, T., Carroll, C., &Parboosingh, J. (2002). An electronic learning portfolio for reflective
continuing professional development. Medical Education, 36(8), 767–769.
Dibeh, (2010). Decision to Emigrate amongst the Youth in Lebanon. International
Migration, 56(1), 5-22.
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Mclean, J. (2018). Exploring the factors that influence knowledge
sharing between academics. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1051–1063.
Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11–27.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 15-31.
Griffit, A., Gidado, K., & Painting, N. (2006). Delays to Mechanical Services-Type Projects
Associated with National Culture in Saudi Arabia. Proceedings of the 2014 (5th)
International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management.
66
Golafshani. N (2003).Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative
Researcher's Companion, 36-64
Hasan, H., & Ditsa, G. (1999). The Impact of Culture on the Adoption of IT. Journal of Global
Information Management, 7(1), 5–15.
Hansen, M. T., & Haas, M. R. (2001). Competing for Attention in Knowledge Markets: Electronic
Document Dissemination in a Management Consulting Company. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(1), 1.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100
Hislop, D.; Bosua, R.; Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge Management in Organizations: A critical
introduction. (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (344 s.). ISBN: 9780198724018
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd edition): Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
Hsu, M.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2012). Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty
as an inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 24(2),
119–142.
Hodge, S. (2014). The Use and Effectiveness of the Internal Audit Function on an External
Audit. SSRN Electronic Journal
Hortovanyi, L., & Ferincz, A. (2015). The impact of ICT on learning on-the-job. The Learning
Organization, 22(1), 2–13.
Hollweck, T. (2016). Robert K. Yin. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 282 pages. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation.
67
Hsu, C.-P., Chiang, C.-Y., Chang, C.-W., Huang, H.-C., & Chen, C.-C. (2013). Enhancing the
commitment of nurses to the organisation by means of trust and monetary reward. Journal of
Nursing Management, 23(5), 567–576.
Hu, M.-L. M., Ou, T.-L., Chiou, H.-J., & Lin, L.-C. (2012). Effects of Social Exchange and Trust
on Knowledge Sharing and Service Innovation. Social Behavior and Personality: an International
Journal, 40(5), 783–800.
Hung, S., Durcikova, A., Lai, H., & Lin, W. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation on individuals' knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 69(6), 415-427.
Islam, M. Z., Jasimuddin, S. M., & Hasan, I. (2015). Organizational culture, structure, technology
infrastructure and knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from MNCs based in Malaysia. VINE,
45(1), 67–88.
Isaacs S. (2001). The power distance between users of information technology and experts and
satisfaction with the information system: implication for cross cultural transfer of IT. Studies in
health technology and informatics, 84(Pt 2), 1155–1157.
Janicot, C., & Mignon, S. (2012). Knowledge codification in audit and consulting firms: a
conceptual and empirical approach. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 10(1),
4–15.
Jo, S. J., & Joo, B. (2011). Knowledge Sharing: The Influences of Learning Organization
Culture, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(3), 353-364. doi:10.1177/1548051811405208
Kamasak, R. and Bulutlar, F. (2010) The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Innovation.
European Business Review, 22, 306-317
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and
Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.
Laitinen, J. A., Pawlowski, J. M., & Senoo, D. (2015). A Study on the Influence of National
Culture on Knowledge Sharing. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
Knowledge Management in Organizations, 160–175.
Lau A and Tsui E (2009), “Knowledge Management Perspective on E-learning Effectiveness”,
Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 324-325.
68
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on
knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4), 473–491.
Lin, C. (2006). To Share or Not to Share: Modeling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Its Mediators and
Antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411-428.
Locke, K. (2002). Book Review: Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., by
Michael Quinn Patton (2001). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 688 pages. Organizational Research
Methods, 5(3), 299–301.
Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2010). Analyzing ICT adoption and use effects on
knowledge creation: An empirical investigation in SMEs. International Journal of Information
Management, 30(6), 521–528.
Laws and Circulars https://www.bdl.gov.lb/circulars/index/5/33/0
Mahmoudsalehi, M., Moradkhannejad, R., & Safari, K. (2012). How knowledge management is
affected by organizational structure. The Learning Organization, 19(6), 518–528.
Majid, M. A. A., Othman, M., Mohamad, S. F., Lim, S. A. H., & Yusof, A. (2017). Piloting for
Interviews in Qualitative Research: Operationalization and Lessons Learnt. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4).
Masadeh, D. R., Gharaibeh, E. A. H., Tarhini, D. A., & Obeidat, D. B. Y. (2015). Knowledge
Sharing Capability: A Literature Review. SSRN Electronic Journal.
McGehee, N. G. (2012). Interview Techniques. Handbook of Research Methods in Tourism.
Mills, A. M., & Smith, T. A. (2011). Knowledge management and organizational performance: a
decomposed view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 156–171.
Miller, C. (2019). Interviewing Strategies, Rapport, and Empathy. Diagnostic Interviewing, 29–
53.
Mishra, B., and Bhaskar, A. (2011). Knowledge Management Process in Two Learning
Organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15 (2), pp. 344-359.
69
Mukherjee, Uttam. "Knowledge sharing: encouraging staff members to share their expertise and
skills can ensure that the internal audit function maintains the knowledge it needs to complete its
work--even when conditions change." Internal Auditor, vol. 68, no. 1, Feb. 2011, p. 56+.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company how Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press
Nguyen, L., & Kohda, Y. (2017). Toward a Model of Wisdom Determinants in the Auditing
Profession. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017).
O’Dell, C., & Hubert, C. (2011). The New Edge in Knowledge How Knowledge Management Is
Changing the Way We Do Business. EBL - LIBRARY ORDERS ONLY.
Omotayo, F.O. (2015). Knowledge Management as an important tool in Organisational
Management: A Review of Literature Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) 1238 1-23.
Pangil, F., &Nasurddin, A. M. (2013). Knowledge and the importance of knowledge sharing in
organizations. Business Management Research, 1983, 349-357.
Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2013). Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web
tools. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 379–397.
Pee, L., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H.-W. (2010). Knowledge Sharing in Information Systems
Development: A Social Interdependence Perspective. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 11(10), 550–575.
Pinho, I., Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2012). Improving knowledge management processes: a
hybrid positive approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 215–242.
Riege, A. (2005). Three‐dozen knowledge‐sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18–35.
Rivera-Vazquez, J., Ortiz-Fournier, L., and Flores, F. (2009). Overcoming Cultural Barriers for
Innovation and Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13 (5), pp. 257-270.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (7th ed.).
New York: Pearson Education.
70
Šajeva, S. (2014). Encouraging Knowledge Sharing among Employees: How Reward
Matters. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 156, 130-134.
Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Shafique, F. (2015). Where is information society, it is lost in the knowledge society: Survival
issues for developing countries in the knowledge society and need of knowledge management
initiatives in the education sector. 2015 Science and Information Conference (SAI).
Syed‐Ikhsan, S. O. S. B., & Rowland, F. (2004). Benchmarking knowledge management in a
public organisation in Malaysia. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(3), 238–266.
Tan, H. H., & Lim, A. K. H. (2009). Trust in Coworkers and Trust in Organizations. The Journal
of Psychology, 143(1), 45–66.
Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Trivellas, P., Akrivouli, Z., Tsifora, E., & Tsoutsa, P. (2015). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing
Culture on Job Satisfaction in Accounting Firms. The Mediating Effect of General Competencies.
Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 238–247.
Turner, D.W. (2010) Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators.
The Qualitative Report, 15, 754-760.
Teijlingen, E. V., & Hundley, V. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nursing
Standard, 16(40), 33-36.
Van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V. (2002). The importance of pilot studies. Nursing Standard,
16(40), 33-36
Verma, M. K. (2014). HRM Strategy and Its role in Knowledge Management
Walton, J. & Parikh, V. (2012) Power Distance and Knowledge Management from a Post-Taylorist
Perspective International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and
Industrial Engineering 6(10) 2506-2513.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
71
Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2008). The importance of language in international knowledge
transfer. Management International Review, 48(3), 339–360
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., & Coffey, V. (2013). Organizational culture and
willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian
context. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1163–1174.
Wipawayangkool, K., & Teng, J. T. C. (2016). Paths to tacit knowledge sharing: knowledge
internalization and individual-task-technology fit. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 14(3), 309–318.
Yang, C., & Chen, L.-C. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge
sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95–109.
Yang, H., & Wu, T. C. (2008). Knowledge sharing in an organization - Share or not? 2008
International Conference on Computing & Informatics.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & Mclean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy,
and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business
Research, 63(7), 763–771.
Zhang, X., Vogel, D. R., & Zhou, Z. (2012). Effects of information technologies, department
characteristics and individual roles on improving knowledge sharing visibility: a qualitative case
study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11), 1117–1131.
72
Appendices
Appendix 1. Interview questions to the internal auditors
Background information
- What is your position in the department?
- What is your role as internal auditor in the department?
- How long have you been employed at the bank?
Knowledge sharing
- What type of knowledge do you need to perform your work effectively?
- In your opinion how important is knowledge to reach the goals of the internal audit
department?
- What in general affects the level of knowledge sharing in the department?
- Do you share knowledge in the department? If yes, how often it is shared?
Factors that affect knowledge sharing
Individual factors
- In your opinion, do you think that social relationships and networking with your
colleagues lead to an improved contribution to knowledge sharing?
- Is the willingness to share knowledge linked to co-workers’ competencies?
- What factors would you be looking for in the person when seeking knowledge about
something?
- Have you encountered a situation where your colleague has a special knowledge but
feeling reluctant to share?
73
- What are the characteristics of the person who is most willing to share knowledge? And
those who aren’t?
- What individual factors affect internal auditors’ attitude the most towards knowledge
sharing when receiving a request from your co-worker regarding some tasks? Can you
give an example?
- Do you receive training? And what type of training (in-house training, external training)?
Organization factors
- In your opinion, do rewards motivate you to be more engaged in knowledge sharing?
And who is responsible for giving the rewards?
- Are there any rewards for those who share knowledge in the department? If yes, what
form of rewards? And what kind of rewards matter to you the most?
- How is your department structured in terms of communication between subordinates and
managers and the frequencies of meeting in person?
- How and when do you share this knowledge between team members (subordinates and
supervisors) in the department?
- Doe the position status matters in terms of knowledge sharing between junior or less
experienced auditors and those with high experiences such as senior auditors,
supervisors, and managers?
- Do you think this type of communication or hierarchy affects the level of knowledge
sharing?
- Describe the office’s designs in your department? What effect does this structure have on
knowledge sharing?
74
Information Technology
- Describe the information system technology that connects you to your co-workers in the
department? How efficient it is? How could it be improved?
- Do you think that the IT system (emails, social network services, libraries, repositories,
etc.) helps you in sharing knowledge?
- Do you regularly depend on the IT system to store and access knowledge? If so, do you
have the needed professional skills?
- Is there are any IT training on how to use IT tools effectively?
75
Appendix 2. Interview questions to the human resource manager
Background information
- What is your position in the department?
- How long have you been employed at the bank?
- What is your role as human resource in the bank?
Knowledge sharing
- Are you aware of how is knowledge being shared in the internal audit department?
- Are there any incentives for those who share knowledge in other departments?
- What form of incentives are given to them?
- Does the human resource organize external training for the internal audit department as
appreciation for those who contribute to knowledge sharing?
- How do you promote a culture that encourage effective knowledge sharing among
workers?
- What is your role in ensuring knowledge sharing in the internal audit department?
- Have you witnessed an improvement in the audit reports performed in your department
through different auditing years? If yes, do you think that knowledge sharing is a reason
for improvement or the other way around?
![New “What if” Environmental Design Degree Audit · 2018. 8. 20. · “What if” Environmental Design Degree Audit 1] Under Student tab: Click on Degree Audit 5] Required Courses](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/6065939c6063d7463d76930e/new-aoewhat-ifa-environmental-design-degree-audit-2018-8-20-aoewhat-ifa.jpg)
