Empirical Study In Organizations In Vietnam Management Essay

For assignment help please contact at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

1. IntroductionKnowledge has been identified as one of the most important resource that contributes to the competitive advantage of an organization (Applegate et. al, 1996). Since early 1990's, many organizations moving towards the implementation of Knowledge Management to achieve the competitive advantage among their competitors.

Recently, the importance of knowledge within organizations has been addressed by several researchers (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Berman, Down & Hill 2002; Bock et al., 2005). However, knowledge resides within individual (Nonaka and Konno 1998) and, more specifically, in the employees who create, recognize, archive, access, and apply knowledge in carrying out their tasks.

One part of managing knowledge is knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing can be used as a tool for retaining and developing new knowledge in the organization. Consequently, the movement of knowledge across individual and organizational boundaries, into and from repositories, and into organizational routines and practices is ultimately dependent on employees' knowledge-sharing intention.

Although knowledge sharing field have been carried out in Western and South-East Asian countries but they do in different ways. This research is to develop an understanding of the factors that support or constrain the individual's knowledge sharing behavior in the Vietnamese organizations, and how they eventually influence the knowledge sharing intentions that lately cause the sharing knowledge behaviors.

2. Literature review

A revision of literature regarding KM shows a variety of definitions and viewpoints to knowledge and Knowledge Management (Small and Sage, 2005/2006). Nonaka recognizes knowledge as a multidimensional concept (Nonaka, 1994); likewise Davenport and Prusak (1998) recognize knowledge as something deeper and richer than data or information. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) consider knowledge a broad concept which "includes information, ideas and expertise relevant for tasks performed by individuals, teams, work units and the organisation as a whole". Despite different wordings, there is a common agreement among academics and practitioners that knowledge is a vital resource for organizations' success. The late Drucker (1999) states that most part of today's work is knowledge work. Knowledge sharing practices coordinate organizational knowledge bases with knowledge workers and vice versa (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Knowledge sharing takes place when organizational members share organization-related information, ideas, suggestions and expertise with each other (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002).

Besides, Pierce and Gardner (2004) suggested that an employee's organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) has a great effect on his motivation, attitudes, and behaviors within an organization. OBSE can be conceptualized as an employee's belief that he can satisfy his needs by participating in an organizational role (Pierce, et al., 1989). People with high OBSE will believe themselves to be important, capable, and worthwhile as organizational members.

Another factor that seems to have a considerable impact on knowledge sharing is organizational climate. To some practitioners, creating a knowledge sharing culture is one of the main concerns when devising a KM program (Reid, 2003). Without a proper atmosphere in organizations, other attempts to share knowledge might be pointless. A meager social climate in an organization might lessen the level of engagement in knowledge sharing (Van Den Hooff and Van Weenen, 2004). In addition, the lack of an aspiring culture to communicate and explore new ideas may become a major barrier to knowledge sharing (Sun and Scott, 2005). Concerned about these kinds of setbacks, managers try to provide favorable climate for knowledge sharing. In addition, managers play some other important roles: they grant extrinsic rewards (Saleh and Wang, 1993; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Bock et al., 2005). But even when organizations provide technological facilities and demand employees to

share their knowledge, in most cases, employees are the ones who finally decide whether to share their knowledge (Constant et al., 1994). Although motivation and expertise might account for individual participation in knowledge sharing (Wang and Lai, 2006) it is not always easy to predict when and why employees share their knowledge (Duguid, 2005). Thus, individual factors are also among those key elements that need to be considered while studying knowledge sharing behavior (Nonaka, 1994; Constant et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000; Bock et al., 2005; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kuo and Young, 2008).

3. Research modelSince our focus was on knowledge sharing behavior, we developed our model based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) ((Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). This theory implies that a person's intention is a key determiner of behaviour (Sheeran and Orbell, 1999). Each of the TRA elements include attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, behavioral intention.

Attitude toward a specific behavior is defined as a person's evaluation of that behavior when deciding to perform it (Kim et al., 2009). Attitude toward knowledge sharing can be predicted by evaluating employee's belief about knowledge sharing (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1970), furthermore the perceived consequences of knowledge sharing can influence attitude toward this behavior (Chiou, 1998). Behavioral control is the person's perception of the extent to which s/he has control over a specific behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). People's knowledge sharing is affected by their confidence in the opportunities and resources that enables them to share their knowledge. Intentions are affected by the person's approval of distinctive norms; thereby the person tends to adapt to norms and is rationally criticisable whenever s/he ignores them (Bratman, 2009). In other words, intentions are formed by the motivational factors that affect behavior; they are indicators of people's willingness to try hard.

As Ajzen and Fishbein suggest it's possible to add some other behavior-specific variables to the TRA; thus, we reinforced the TRA model by

adding some other factors that were considered as effective predictors by previous studies (Armitage and Conner, 1999; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Bock et al., 2005; Kuo and Young, 2008).

Many organizations have established reward systems in order to motivate employees to share their knowledge (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge sharing is most likely to occur when employees perceive that incentives exceed costs (Kelly and Thibaut 1978). Rewards are likely to affect people's behavior (Homans, 1974). Absence of clear reward and recognition systems may frustrate employees to share their knowledge (Riege, 2005). Introducing a proper knowledge sharing incentive system can promote organizational members' knowledge contribution (Chua, 2003). Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H1: anticipated extrinsic reward has positive relationship with the attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Social exchange differs from economic exchange in that its value is not defined clearly. Organ and Konovsky (1989) remark social exchange establishes bonds of friendship with others, and creates unspecified obligations. It means that the value of social exchange lies in the maintenance of long-term relationships itself, and not necessarily by any extrinsic benefit (Blau 1967). Reciprocity acts as a benefit because it results in feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust. Furthermore, individuals engage in knowledge sharing with the expectation that their future knowledge needs and demands will be met by others (Wasko & Faraj, 2000; Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Bock et al, 2005). Thus, individuals who believe that their mutual relationships with other members can improve through their knowledge sharing and through their desire for fairness and reciprocity (Huber 2001) that seem to have positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing. This leads to the second hypothesis:

H2: anticipated reciprocal relationship has positive relationship with attitude toward knowledge sharing.

When we show our expertise or a particular kind of knowledge to others, we expect to achieve recognition and respect resulting in improved self-concept (Constant et a, 1994; Hall, 2001). O'Dell and Grayson (1998)

note we share our best practices because of our desire to be recognized by experts and peers. This cognition is defined as an individual's sense of self-worth from their knowledge-sharing behavior. Perceived Self-worth Enhancement refers to the notion that if an individual believes he/she could make contributions to the organization's performance. In a knowledge-sharing context, self-efficacy has showed to be one of the main determinants in forming optimistic attitude toward knowledge sharing (Ye et al., 2006). So the third hypothesis is:

H3: sense of self-worth has positive relationship with attitude toward knowledge sharing.

As people experience higher levels of self-expression and personal control, there is an increased likelihood that the individual will attribute positive events to themselves, thereby affecting their level of organization-based self-esteem. It could be argued that as work environment structure decreases and personal control increases, people will come to see themselves as capable of independent action and thereby develop a sense of self-worth consistent with that personal image. Individuals who have successful experiences and who attribute that success to themselves are more likely to experience an increase in self-efficacy, which in turn and over time impacts OBSE (Gardner & Pierce, 1998, 2001). Similarly, an individual who experiences failure and attributes it to the self will eventually experience a diminution of self-esteem. Employing self-consistency motivation, Korman (1970) hypothesized that "all other things being equal, individuals will engage in and find satisfying those behavioral roles which maximize their sense of cognitive balance or consistency". He predicted that (a) "individuals will be motivated to perform on a task or job in a manner which is consistent with the self-image with which they approach the task or job situation," and (b) "individuals will tend to choose and find most satisfying those jobs and task roles which are consistent with their self-cognitions" (Korman, 1970: 32). This means that people who have positive images of themselves will engage in behaviors, possess attitudes and share knowledge that reinforce that positive image. Thus, we propose the fourth hypothesis is:

H4: organization based self-esteem has positive relationship with attitude toward knowledge sharing.

Organizational climate is also expected to directly influence individual's intentions to share knowledge. Scholars in cross-cultural research argue that cultural factors such as group conformity and face saving in a Confucian society can directly affect intention (Bang et al. 2000; Tuten and Urban 1999). According to Schneider et al. (1996), the climate of an organization results from the feeling of members; these inferences are in turn built upon policies, practices, procedures and motives that members face in organizations. In this regard, the main theme of an organization's climate is the common discernment of its members' about the organization as a whole (Ashkanasy, 2008). So we expect organizational climate to directly influence employees' behavioral intentions to share knowledge. This leads to our fifth hypothesis.

H5: organizational climate has positive relationship with knowledge sharing intention.

Attitudes can be a mediator between personal factors and knowledge sharing intention (De Vries et al., 2006). Attitudes influence an individual's evaluation of a particular behavior (Blue et al., 2001). Attitude toward knowledge sharing has been examined in a lot of previous studies (Bock et al., 2005; Lin and Lee, 2004). Attitude toward a particular behavior can be seen as the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior and is reflected in their sharing behaviors (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). Kolekofski and Heminger (2003) also conclude that an important factor in explaining one's knowledge sharing activities is his/her attitude. Similarly, Bock et al. (2005) reason that a positive attitude toward knowledge sharing results in a positive intention to share knowledge. In general, an individual will have a good attitude toward a given behavior if he/she believes that it will lead to positive outcomes (Mykytyn and Harrison 1993). Therefore, it suggests that people think about their decisions and the possible outcomes before they decide to perform a particular behavior. Overall, According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), an individual's intention to engage in a behavior is determined by his/her attitude toward that behavior, which leads to the sixth hypothesis:

H6: attitude toward knowledge sharing has positive relationship with knowledge sharing intention.

Fig.1. Research model

4. Research methodologyThe sampling frame for this study consists of companies in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong Province (Vietnam). The primary means of data collection in this study involves a mailed questionnaire survey of selected companies doing in Ho Chi Minh City with a concentration on industrial organizations. The study draws a random sample of 220 respondents working at administrative offices of organizations, including local (Hoa Sen Group, Ha Tien 1, Viet Delta…) in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong Province, one of the most dynamic economic centers of Vietnam and South-East of Asia. In the case of this study, the data selection criterion was designed to increase validity, rather than to ensure that the sample was representative of a given population. Therefore, this study uses a purposive sample, which is most desirable when certain important segments of the target population are intentionally represented in the sample.

The questionnaire consists of two sections. First section contains items to measures research model constructs by asking general questions about the real situation of knowledge sharing in organizations. Second section of the survey is formed to get information about respondent's profile. Most of items were adapted from the TRA questionnaire designed by Ajzen (2002) together with applying in previous studies mainly with a TRA context (Pierce et al., 1989; Blue et al., 2001; Bock et al., 2005; So and Bolloju, 2005; Lin, 2007). To ensure content validity of the scales, these items have to represent the concept about general statement. All times in questionnaire were adopted by 7 point Likert scales and the respondents will rate as strongly agree to strongly disagree.

A list of items for each of the structures is presented in the Appendix, Table A. Anticipated extrinsic reward referred the degree of employee regarding receiving organizational rewards for knowledge sharing activities (Bock et al. 2005, Kim & Lee et al. 2006, Lu et al. 2006). Anticipated reciprocal relationship describes an employee's perception

about improving his/her mutual relationships through knowledge sharing (Bock et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2006). Sense of self-worth reflects the degree perception's employees regarding about their ability to valuable contributions and criticality (Bock et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2006). Organization-based self-esteem is defined as the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable, significant, and worthy as an organizational member (Pierce et al. 1989). Organizational climate impacts the employee's positive or negative feeling on organizational environment Bock et al. 2005, Sun & Scott (2005), Lu et al. 2006). Attitude toward knowledge sharing is as a degree of employee's positive feeling about sharing knowledge (Fishbein & Ajzen 1981, So & Bolloju 2005, Bock et al. 2005). Intention to share knowledge is the degree of employee believes that one will engage in the knowledge sharing activities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1981, So & Bolloju 2005, Bock et al. 2005).

Table 1 Sample characteristics

Component

Category

Number

%Gender

Men

Women

Missing value

67

37

0

35.6

64.4

0.0

Age

Under 25 years old

From 25 to 35 years old

From 36 to 45 years old

Over 45 years old

Missing value

55

46

3

0

0

52.9

44.2

2.9

0

0.0

Education Level

High school

University/College

Graduate

Others

Missing value

3

79

20

2

0

2.9

76

19.2

1.9

0.0

Monthly income

Under 2 million VND

2 to under 5 million VND

5 to 10 million VND

Over 10 million VND

Missing value

13

52

8

26

5

12.5

50

7.7

25

4.8

Working experience

Under 1 year

1 to under 2 years

2 to under 5 years

Over 5 years

Missing value

35

35

21

13

0

33.7

33.7

20.2

13.5

0.0

Department

Operating

Trading

Accounting

Others

Missing value

10

23

4

65

2

9.6

22.1

3.8

62.5

1.9

Field

Industry

Agriculture

Service

Others

Missing value

39

3

36

25

1

37.5

2.9

34.6

24

1

5. Data analysis and resultsThe research model shown in Fig. 1 was analyzed primarily using SEM, supported by AMOS 16.0 software. The ï¬ �rst step involves the analysis of the measurement model, while the second step tests the structural relationships among latent constructs. The aim of the two-step approach is to assess the reliability and validity of the measures before their use in the full model.

5.1. Measurement model validation

We performed conï¬ �rmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the properties of the measures addressing latent constructs. CFA indicated that the ï¬ �nal measurement model satisfied level of fit χ 2/df = 1.201, GFI = .895, AGFI = .876, NFI = .842, CFI = .969, and RMSEA = .044, as shown in Table 2. All the model-ï¬ �t indices exceed the respective common acceptance levels indicated by previous research, demonstrating that the measurement model exhibited a fairly good ï¬ �t with the data collected.

The convergent validity was tested by assessing factor loadings should be signiï¬ �cant and exceed 0.6, construct reliability should exceed 0.7(Hair et al., 1998) and average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct should exceed 0.5 for all constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 5 shows the CFA results were highly consistent with the relationships expected between the measured items and their respective constructs. All the factor loadings for all items exceed the recommended level of 0.6. Composite reliability (CR) was used to assess the internal consistency of the measurement model. In our model the composite reliability of the constructs ranged from .831 to .894 all exceeded the generally accepted value of 0.70. In addition, the AVE ranged from 0.54 to 0.66. Hence, all three conditions for convergent validity were met.

The discriminant validity of the scales was tested using the benchmark suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). In this approach the AVE for each construct should be higher than the squared correlation between the construct and all of the other constructs. Table 4 shows that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity. In summary, the measurement model demonstrated adequate and sufï¬ �cient reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity.

Table 2 Model ï¬ �t indices for CFA model

Model ï¬ �t indices

Measure model

Recommend

value

Chi-squares/degree of freedom (X2 /df)

1.201

< 2

GFI

0.895

> 0.90

RMSEA

0.044

< 0.08

NFI

0.842

> 0.90

AGFI

0.876

> 0.90

CFI

0.969

> 0.90

5.2. Test of the structural model

All of the model-ï¬ �t indices of the structural model exceeded their respective common acceptance levels. As shown in table 3, χ 2/df, GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, and RMSEA all met satisfactory levels. We could conclude that measurement model ï¬ �ts the data well and thus is able to explain the research hypotheses. The results of hypotheses tests along with the path coefï¬ �cients and their signiï¬ �cance values are shown in Fig. 2. In factors effect on the attitude toward knowledge sharing included: anticipated extrinsic reward, anticipated reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth, organization based self-esteem respectively H1, H2, H3, H4. The results show that H2, H3, H4 were supported, while H1 was not supported. It means anticipated reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth, organization based self-esteem positively influenced attitude toward knowledge sharing, anticipated

extrinsic rewards had no signiï¬ �cant relationship with attitude toward knowledge sharing. Additionally organizational climate and attitude toward knowledge sharing had positive relationship with knowledge sharing intention.

Fig. 2. SEM analysis of research model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Table 3 Results of structural model

Hypothesized path

S.E.

Path coefficient

P

H1

ATT <--- AER

.015

-.047

.056

Not Supported

H2

ATT <--- ARR

.044

.144

.002

Supported

H3

ATT <--- SENSE

.060

.437

***Supported

H4

ATT <--- OBSE

.062

.431

***Supported

H5

INT <--- ORG

.042

.886

***Supported

H6

INT <--- ATT

.048

.094

.019

Supported

Table 4 Discriminant validity

Measure

AVE

AER

ARR

SENSE

OBSE

ORGC

ATT

INT

AER0.66

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARR0.63

(.004)b

1

 

 

 

 

 0.066

 

 

 

 

 

SENSE0.61

(.012)

(.292)

1

 

 

 

 .108

.540

 

 

 

 

OBSE0.61

(.027)

(.116)

(.295)

1

 

 

 .165

.340

.543

 

 

 

ORGC0.55

(.040)

(.373)

(.393)

(.141)

1

 

 .200

.611

.627

.375

 

 

ATT0.54

(.116)

(.219)

(.203)

(.329)

(.288)

1

 .341

.468

.450

.574

.537

 

INT0.57

(.018)

(.376)

(.460)

(.264)

(.226)

(.219)

1

.133

.613

.678

.514

.475

.468

a Average variance extracted (AVE) = (sum of squared standardized loading)/[(sum of squared standardized loading) + (sum of indicator measurement error)]. Indicator measurement error can be calculated as 1 - (standardized loading)2.

b Squared correlation

Anticipated extrinsic rewards kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkehavior. 0.852 0.66

AER1 .892

AER2 .778 8.330

AER3 .757 8.134

Anticipated reciprocal relationship 0.66 0.63

ARR2 .758

ARR3 .802 8.277

ARR4 .740 7.247

ARR5 .668 8.681

Sense of self-worth 0.894 0.61

SENSE1 .795

SENSE2 .720 9.834

SENSE3 .827 9.760

SENSE4 .832 7.339

SENSE5 . 786 9.242

Organization based self-esteem 0.852 0.61

OBSE1 .737

OBSE2 .739 8.124

OBSE3 .661 7.226

OBSE4 .761 10.519

OBSE5 .756 8.321

Organizational climate 0.886 0.55

ORGC1 .775

ORGC2 .776 10.737

ORGC3 .773 8.898

ORGC4 .815 9.504

ORGC5 .764 8.762

Attitude toward knowledge sharing 0.843 0.54

ATT1 .731

ATT3 .759 9.210

ATT4 .782 9.064

ATT5 .750 8.633

Intention to share knowledge 0.863 0.57

INT2 .759

INT3 .812 8.775

INT4 .785 9.513

INT5 .771 9.084

Construct and indicators Factor loading t-value Composite reliability AVETable5 Conï¬ �rmatory factor analysis results of measurement model.

6. Discussion and conclusionThe study was found factors that are likely to positively influence knowledge sharing behavior. Five potentially salient motivational factors (anticipated extrinsic reward, anticipated reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth, organization based self-esteem and organization climate) were found and applied as antecedents to the constructs of TRA model. In this study was on the individual, that means every respondent answered the survey represented their own perspective. The analysis of research results adopt from the previous studies (Kuo and Young, 2008; Kimand Lee, 2006; So and Bolloju, 2005; Blue et al., 2001). Base on the

result of anticipated extrinsic rewards; it is not significant towards attitude to share knowledge. Therefore, this factor can be omitted.

Implications: The result of this study, when applying the model into Vietnam, there appears some suitable motivated factors to encourage the employees to share knowledge with the others. The managers can use the result as a reference to know more about the factors that affect the intention to share knowledge for the employees in Vietnam.

Contributions: This research focuses on studying factors influence on the intention to share knowledge among the employees. So, this model can help them get profit from the knowledge sharing among their employees through understanding clearly which factors can be used to motivate the employees to share their valuable knowledge. Beside that, the results of this research contribute directly to the body of knowledge by adding to cumulative results of previous studies and the overall field of knowledge sharing intention. The results also support the theoretical explanations of this research field.

Limitations: There might have been some other factors that could affect knowledge sharing behavior. These factors include demographic determinants such as age, gender and natural barriers such as time and space. Field survey is limited within employees and limited sample size. Moreover, this research was conducted with respondents who are a part of Vietnam, therefore, with the same culture but could not represent for the whole employees all over the country. Therefore, it is necessary to increase the sample size for future study to generalize the results to the general population of knowledge sharers.

Suggestions: Further study is suggested to be conducted in a more popular section of the process to share knowledge between the managers to employees, the citizens and the foreign in the companies because of the rapidly increasing number of foreign companies investing in Vietnam. The findings are consistent with the cumulative results from previous research and support theoretical explanations in the field. Future researchers can be done to extend and test research's model and examine the reasons behind the existing signiï¬ �cant and non-signiï¬ �cant relationships. Furthermore, in this study we were noteworthy to mention that our ï¬ �ndings are consistent with those of the studies carried out in

countries in which cultures are characterized with high levels of collectivism. Hence, we suggest that the type of dominant culture might also be a factor that influences knowledge sharing behavior and can be a topic for future researches.

ReferencesAlavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. 2001. "Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues". MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136.

Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (1996). "The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness." European Journal of Work and Organizational Behavior, 19, p. 235-258.

Bartol, K.M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). "Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems". Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76.

Bock, G. W. & Kim Y.G. 2002. "Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing". Information Resources Management Journal, 14, 14-21.

Bose, R (2002). "Customer relationship management: key components for IT success", Industrial Management & data systems, 102(2), 89-97.

Bowman, B. J. 2002, "Building knowledge management systems", Information systems management, summer: 32-40.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975), "Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research", Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1981), "On Construct Validity: A Critique of Miniard and Cohen's Paper", Journals of Experimental Social Psychology (17), pp. 340-350.

Fuller JB, Barnett T, Hester K, Relyea C. "A social identity perspective on the relationship between perceived organizational support and

organizational commitment". Journal of Social Psychology 2003;143(6):789-91.

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. 1998. "Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context". Group and Organization Management, 23(1): 48-70.

Gardner, D. G.,&Pierce, J. L. 2001. "Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context: A replication". Journal of Management Systems, 13(4): 31-48.

G.W. Bock and Y.G. Kim, "Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing", Information Resource Management Journal 15(2) (2002) 14-21.

Hyoung, K. M., and Moon, S. P. "Effective Reward Systems for Knowledge Sharing," Knowledge Management Review (4:6), 2002, pp. 22-25.

Lee, J. 2003b. "An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in two Korean banks". International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 1046-1066.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). "The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation". New York: Oxford University Press.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. "Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation". Academy of Management Journal, 32: 622-648.

Pierce, J. L. & Gardner, D. G. 2004. "Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature". Journal of Management, 30 (5), 591-622.