Model and Framework Establishment determining ...indusedu.org/pdfs/IJREISS/IJREISS_2507_98228.pdf · The strategies of knowledge management employed in an organization vary from organization

Special Issue-2 for International Conference on Sustainability Development – A Value Chain Perspective,

Management Development Institute (MDI), Murshidabad, West Bangal, India.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences Page 206

http://indusedu.org

Model and Framework Establishment determining Organizational

Performance through Knowledge Management Efficacy and Human

Resource Empowerment

Dr. Tanusree Chakraborty1 and Dr. Madhurima Ganguly

2

1(Associate Professor, Rajalakhsmi School of Business, Chennai, India)

2(Associate Professor, Heritage Business School, India)

Abstract: Human Resource (HR) Efficacy through knowledge management (KM) initiatives

rests on the fact that knowledge is shared in the organization. Efficacy of knowledge

management practices and empowering human resources in an organization are interlinked. An

increased emphasis on quality orientation, leadership, creativity and problem solving skills for

employee development is emerging to be the focus in knowledge enhancement. A gap still exists

in understanding the relationship between human resource management practices and knowledge

management. Researches reveal that employees' unwillingness to share knowledge within an

organization is very critical in deciding the contribution of human resource practices to

knowledge management (Alvesson and Karreman, 2001 ). As one of the factors that affect the

quality of human resources is knowledge, it is pertinent to understand the antecedent conditions

of knowledge management, constructs of knowledge sharing initiatives and shortcomings of

knowledge management practices in organizations. With this background, the present paper tries

to integrate the diverse approaches to empowerment and efficacy found in both the management

and psychology literatures, and identifies certain efficacy and human resource practices that have

been hypothesized to empower employees of an organization based on the SECI model of

knowledge management. It is important that there is a tradeoff between the knowledge

management efficacies and HRM mapping to define the level of the knowledge map which

offers the best strategic development. The present paper explores the relation between human

resource empowerment, knowledge sharing motivation among employees, knowledge sharing

practices and knowledge management efficacy and finally organizational performance assuming

a number of critical KM characteristics and HR practices determining KM efficacy. In today‟s

knowledge-based economy, it is central to intercept and explain the connections between the

mentioned constructs and knowledge management.




http://indusedu.org

Keywords: Human resource management, HRM empowerment, KM efficacy, Knowledge

management, SECI model.

I. INTRODUCTION

The idea of knowledge management (KM) is now one of the most popular issues in any

organization and business. Knowledge management today has developed to be so very

imperative because of improved cognizance of the prominence of knowledge for any

organization‟s affluence and prosperity as well as growth, and because of the increased

accessibility of IT to store, dispense and generally „manage‟ knowledge. The efficacious

execution of new technologies is of course largely dependent on multiple other determinants

which also encompass efficient management of human resources in an organization. The

strategic role of human resources department of an organization plays the crucial role in

recognizing strategic knowledge gaps using knowledge mapping, and has become today a

requisite footstep in knowledge management. An amassed number of businesses are now looking

forward to the collective knowledge of their employees as a decisive and competitive

contrivance from which innovation can emerge. A fundamental constituent in the business cases

with respect to knowledge management is to carve out a fantastic way as how to allocate

energies aimed at captivating the two major categories of knowledge; i.e. tacit knowledge and

explicit knowledge. As Hansen et al. (1999) claims, that managing tacit and explicit knowledge

together is a difficult job and may eventually ruin the essence of the business. Previously,

sharing of knowledge in any organization did not have that importance as it has become of late.

Today organizations believe that knowledge sharing (KS) is essential and it enhances the unity of

purpose among fellow members. However, as Davenport (1997) defends the idea, by saying that

sharing of knowledge does not come to people very naturally; rather people do not want to share

their knowledge as they consider knowledge to be solely possessed by them and it is their

valuable asset. Before going further to the idea of knowledge sharing it must also be stated that the

biggest challenge lies in understanding truly what are the processes of tacit knowledge and

explicit knowledge (Orlikowski, 2002; Tsoukas, 2003). The strategies of knowledge

management employed in an organization vary from organization to organization. The challenge

is how much knowledge sharing is encouraged through human resources in the organization. The

sharing of knowledge which is a major component of the SECI model is a culture. The culture of

knowledge sharing encourages whether knowledge gathered and stored are shared or not.

With this background, the present paper explores the relation between human resource empowerment, knowledge sharing motivation among employees, knowledge sharing practices and knowledge management efficacy and finally organizational performance assuming a number of critical KM characteristics and HR practices determining KM efficacy. In today‟s knowledge-based economy, it is central to intercept and explain the connections between the mentioned constructs and knowledge management. Before going to further discussion on SECI model and concept of knowledge sharing, an attempt has been made to amass the different ways in which knowledge management is defined-

<Insert Table 1 about here>




http://indusedu.org

II. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND SECI MODEL

Knowledge management is viewed through different perspectives and different theories. Most of the

theories are built around the concept of quality management where the aim is to advance developments as components of (internal) quality management systems (e.g. Argyris, 1977), or basing on the

competitiveness and the requirement of the company to expand knowledge base (e.g. Szulanski, 1996). Among the many other models, the SECI model of knowledge management is seen as a wheel of tacit and

explicit knowledge transformation, which includes four sub processes: socialization, externalization, combination and finally internalization (Nonaka, 2008).

1. The essence of socialization is knowledge sharing.

2. The essence of externalization is writing (codification) of knowledge. 3. The essence of combination is storage, systemization and processing of data, information and

knowledge. 4. Finally, the essence of internalization is learning.

III. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Present generations are experiencing a period which is commonly called as the “knowledge age”

(Forghani and Tavasoli, 2017). With this view knowledge is the collective efforts of human

proficiency in terms of considering their abilities, knowledge and communication with the

person‟s surroundings (Chatzoudes et al., 2015). Knowledge is acknowledged as the only basis

of wealth production, whilst creating and applying the knowledge also in achieving its

sustainable competitive advantages (Hongmei et al., 2013; Kumar and Ganesh, 2011;

Hosseingholizadeh, 2014). As a result, KM is the necessary explanation that each organization

tends toward for achieving a greater organizational performance, as well as competing in the

present active global business environment (Acar et al., 2017). If one accepts the truism that

knowledge is power, one could even say that knowledge is dynamic because of the energy and

change inherent in its very nature. Traditionally, in information theory, knowledge has been

distinguished by its place on a hierarchical ladder that locates data on the bottom rung, the next

belonging to information, then knowledge, and finally wisdom at the top (Broadbent, 1998;

Cleveland, 1982; Haeckel & Nolan, 1993; Streng, 1999). Although Davenport and Prusak (1998)

and others write about knowledge processes operating in the mind, in such phrases as

“knowledge originates . . . in the minds of knowers,” this concept is problematic because it

restricts knowledge to being exclusively an intellectual activity. Knowledge goes beyond mind

activity; it is based on sensory experience and physical activity, as well as mindful cognition.The

function of knowledge management and the advancement for administering it has turned out to

be fundamental for the continued existence of the business. Although a developing model in

management, knowledge management continues to serve as a strategic business task in the

organization and has an impact on human capital, joint effort, and in general the organizational

performance and effectiveness (Feng, Chen, & Liou, 2005; Lee, Lee, & Kang, 2005; Marques &

Simon, 2006; Yeniyurt, Cavusgil, & Hult, 2005).




http://indusedu.org

IV. METHODOLOGY

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses:

No. Hypotheses H1 Human Resource Empowerment has a positive relation with KM Efficacy. H2 Knowledge Sharing Motivation has a positive relation with KM Efficacy. H3 Knowledge Sharing Practices has a positive relation with KM Efficacy. H4 KM Efficacy has a positive relation Organizational Performance.

Sample

The present study was conducted on 12 organizations in the service sector, interacting and collecting data from the human resource team on their empowerment. Total sample size was 150.

Employees provided data on the Knowledge Sharing Motivation, Knowledge Sharing Practices

and Knowledge efficacy. Later data was collected on Organizational Performance from the leadership team.

Tools Used

Data was collected by the use of questionnaires. For the purpose of the present study, a tailor

made questionnaire was developed. After a wide range of literature review, a number of sample

questionnaire regarding the variables under study and surveyed. From consideration of those

questionnaires, a questionnaire was developed covering the constructs in the study Human

Resource Empowerment (5 items), Knowledge Sharing Motivation (5 items), Knowledge

Sharing Practices (5 items), Knowledge Management Efficacy (5 items) and Organizational

Performance (4 items). The final scale had total 24 items. A panel of three experts was requested

to check the content validity and face validity of the scale. Items that received 85% or more

approval were retained for the study. Few items were revised in the light of experts‟ comments.

Measurement of the Variable

The very important criterion in order to appropriately analyze the variables of the research model is to understand the nature and direction of causality among the constructs studied (Esposito Vinzi, Chin, Henseler, & Wang, 2010). Analysis of this type determines the statistic to employ and permits us to understand and assess more correctly the measurement model and the structural model (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015).

As per the study has been designed and the features of the questions in the used scale, the research was developed with reflective type of variables. The variables studied in this paper were Human Resource Empowerment, Knowledge sharing Motivation, Knowledge Sharing Practices, Knowledge Management

Efficacy and Organizational Performance. The control variables were the natural logarithm of the number of employees working in the organization in 2018. The age of the company was measured with the

number of years since the constitution or start-up of operations of the company. Traditionally, researchers have added these control variables to their models to examine the effect they generate in organizations.

The size of the company has frequently been related to organizational growth and economic and financial performance (C. Jensen &Peng, 2013)




http://indusedu.org

The reliability and validity of the instrument used was calculated through a structural equation model (SEM) in order to evade measurement errors and multicollinearity (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010).

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data for the study was collected and analyzed to obtain results and validate the formulated hypotheses. To calculate and validate it measurement model with the reflective variables, the individual

reliability of the item, the internal consistency or reliability of a scale, and convergent validity have been

discussed. The reliability of each individual item of standardized load-related factors is recommended to exceed .70, (Carmines & Zeller, 1991). The composite reliability shows stronger values in a range of .845-.920, meeting the requirement that indicator should be above .80 for basic research. The average variance extracted (AVE) indicates the average amount of variance explained by the indicators of a construct. Our values for AVE range from 0.53 to 0.77. These results are above the threshold of 0.5, as proposed by J. F. Hair et al. (2010).


After this, the discriminant validity of the constructs in the model have been examined the square root of

AVE. The results indicate that the AVE is more vertical and horizontal in relation to the correlation of the constructs that are below the diagonal (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000). This test does not detect any

anomaly (see Table 4). Additionally, the results of the correlations between the constructs of the measurement model are presented. Obviously, in the present study reflective constructs used show good

measures of both convergent validity and discriminant validity and reliability properties.



From the data collected and the analysis made thereof, it can be said that knowledge sharing

motivation in this study can be emphatically identified with knowledge management efficacy. In

his examination Andriessen (2006) recommended about the different typologies knowledge sharing motivation all of which contribute towards knowledge management efficacy. They are as

following.

His research talks about Value based motivation which refers to individual‟s plan to exchange knowledge since it is a fundamental human value and it is in this way considered as an ethical

commitment to do so. This value should be free of existing motivating forces in the association and its quality might be impacted by the hierarchical culture. In this way a positive authoritative

culture can advance promote knowledge sharing motivation and hence upgrade the promote knowledge management efficacy. The present study has also found that Knowledge Sharing

Motivation impacts Knowledge Sharing Efficacy (beta=0.625). This leads to the acceptance of

the hypothesis; Knowledge Sharing Motivation has a positive relation with KM Efficacy (H2).Motivation in knowledge sharing might be triggered by the benefit that the individual

obtains from sharing the knowledge. This leads to understanding the relation between and outcome received and motivation to share knowledge. Andriesson has referred that as Outcome




http://indusedu.org

based motivation which means employees are stimulated to share (or withhold) knowledge ,

since this is key to accomplish certain imperatives , for example fame , natural learning , acknowledgment or credits. This upgrades the knowledge management efficacy of employees

that starts from a positive knowledge sharing motivation. The more the positive outcome of sharing knowledge, more should be the intensity and frequency of knowledge sharing.

Both the findings of our study that knowledge sharing motivation is positively related to knowledge management efficacy and knowledge management efficacy is positively related to performance is supported by the framework of the Self Determination Theory proposed by Deci & Ryan, (1985, 2000), that provides a multidimensional outline with two second-order– level types of motivation, namely-autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation implies getting activated in a deliberate movement because it is pleasing in nature (intrinsic motivation), and individuals tend to chase it because it is individually significant and gets accommodated into one‟s value system (acknowledged regulation). Research shows that autonomous motivation leads to more optimistic behavioural

conclusions than controlled motivation (Gagné& Deci, 2005), such as superior performance on

difficult and original tasks (Amabile, 1982; Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brack-field, 1990; Grolnick &

Ryan, 1987; McGraw & McCullers, 1979), active information seeking (Koestner &Losier,

2002), and goal attainment (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Knowledge-sharing behavior is expected to

be motivated in a way related to helping and prosocial behavior, which are complicated to inspire

through rewards and pressure (Frey, 1993),

Literature on reciprocity is abundantly available, where researches have cited that through applying Social Exchange Theory (SET) (Blau 1964), individuals have social exchanges with the belief that their input will lead to in mutual terms, an expectation guided by feelings of

individual duty, thankfulness and conviction. Social exchange refers to reciprocal acts by which

citizens make available assistance or support to one another without information or knowledge

about whether there will be any reciprocation at all or not (Molm, Takahashi and Peterson 2000,

p. 1396). Therefore, such interactions are obvious with hazards as to what and while the takings

of one‟s offerings could be. They have acknowledged that organizational knowledge sharing is

accelerated by a dominant sense of reciprocity (Constant et al. 1996; Kankanhalli et al. 2005;

Wasko and Faraj 2005, Hall (2001), Dyer and and Nobeoka (2000).

Alarming situations arising with exploitation could be a manifestation of utmost worry that individuals go through after they understand that they are being asked to surrender with valuable information with little or no profit to them in return. Park et al. (2004) instituted that a culture that support teamwork, employee support, and self-sufficiency is more likely to nurture knowledge sharing motivation resulting into knowledge management efficacy, whilst a culture that calls for authoritativeness and stringent procedures, deject knowledge sharing motivation and then knowledge management efficacy . Lin (2007a) revealed that participative decision making was absolutely connected to knowledge sharing motivation while trust enhanced the influence of individual self-efficacy on knowledge transfer. Knowledge management efficacy is an individual‟s belief that efficient knowledge sharing will augment an individual‟s capability to achieve tasks.




http://indusedu.org

Why at all should one share knowledge? Why at all should an organization encourage knowledge

sharing and move towards better knowledge management practices? The gain draws its origin

from the theory of self-efficacy, which resides, at the core of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and SET (Blau 1964). The idea of self-efficacy considers that

people have their own viewpoint about their potential to arrange and perform courses of action

necessary to attain detailed levels of performance (Bandura 1997). This notion has led to the

concept of positive reinforcement, which suggests that any action occurs when people suppose

that their behavior or actions could add on towards the organizational performance. Reversely,

the restriction imposed by individual‟s hesitance to perform will be witnessed when they

understand that their activities or practices don't make any impact on organizational

performance. Bock and Kim (2002) recommend that self-efficacy could be dealt with as a main

consideration of self-motivational source for knowledge sharing. Their findings unveil that the

individual‟s decision of his involvement towards the organization‟s performance has positive

influence on knowledge sharing. The influence of self-efficacy as an intrinsic motivator is

expected to develop KS (Bock et al. 2005; Cabrera et al. 2006; Lin 2007; Wasko and Faraj

2005). This will afterward guide the process of useful knowledge management efficacy and

consequent enhancement of performance. Employees with a high level of self-reliance in their

capacity to give important knowledge are more probable to achieve detailed tasks (Constant et al.

1994). Knowledge management efficacy usually will be visible in making people believe that

their knowledge can facilitate in the way of resolving job-related problems and achieve better

work efficacy (Luthans et al 2003). Employees who think that they can endow with

organizational performance by sharing knowledge will increase superior eagerness to participate

in the knowledge sharing functions.

Besides ascertain that knowledge sharing efficacy is influenced by knowledge sharing

motivation the present study has been able to link that human resource empowerment in an

organization impacts knowledge efficacy (KE). (Benbya and Belbay 2005) discuss the

connection between senior management support and KMS effectiveness, the relationship

between socialization and knowledge use, the incorporation and availability of KMS, and the

association between knowledge usage, knowledge excellence, and perceived paybacks.

Knowledge sharing is also likely to enhance team performance because of its valuable impact on

team coordination. Knowledge sharing may also lead to enhanced coordination because of the

expansion of transactive memory, which is also called as the knowledge of “who knows what” in

a team (Wegner, 1987). As team performance improves and also individual performance gets

enhances, overall organizational performance improves. Researches claim that the term

“management team” has mainly been used to symbolize teams that must assimilate the energies

of key interdependent subunits/departments to guide the overall performance of a business entity

(Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Thus it can be said that we found

empowering human resource in management teams having a relation on organizational

performance. Empowering human resource was positively related to both knowledge sharing and

knowledge efficacy. This in turn, was both positively related to organizational performance. The implications of our study and the limitations of the research are deliberated below.




http://indusedu.org

FIGURE 1: Standardized Path Coefficients

Human Resource

Empowerment

Knowledge Sharing

Motivation

Knowledge Sharing

Practices

0.523**

Knowledge 0.533** Organizational

Management Performance

0.625 Efficacy

0.171**

VI. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although the paper suggested useful insights for both researchers and practitioners, the research

presents some limitations, which may provide scope for future research. First, the study may take

into consideration and further explore the relationships existing between HRM and KM,

including some more variables which can be tested as mediating and moderating variables and

their impact upon this relationship can be studied. Besides, we measured organizational

performance through a different source of data, but we examined HRE, KSM, KSP and KE

through the same survey, so the likelihood of common method bias must be considered while

understanding the relationships among these three variables. However, our confirmatory factor

analysis has indicated that these concepts were supposed to be distinct from each other. The role

of team performance and team engagement in knowledge management practices and their direct

relation with organizational performance can be explored. Besides, a deeper investigation in this

area of research concerns the inclusion into the model of other KM processes, such as knowledge

and sustainability of an organization that complements the organizational KM processes defining

a more comprehensive model. Further research can also probe in to the factors of human

resource, knowledge management practices with ethical decision making of leaders.




http://indusedu.org

VII. CONCLUSION

The present study adds to the knowledge of an important prevailing process of knowledge

management in organizations. The study has found that through empowering human resource in

an organization, knowledge sharing motivation, knowledge sharing practices among them

positively impacts knowledge efficacy. Knowledge efficacy in turn impacts Organizational

Practices. Our findings highlight the importance of empowering human resource for knowledge

sharing.

VIII. REFERENCES

1. Abdul-Jalal, H., Toulson, P., & Tweed, D. (2013). Knowledge sharing success for

sustaining organizational competitive advantage. Procedia Economics and Finance, 7,

150-157.

2. Acar, M., Tarim, M., Zaim, H., Zaim, S. and Delen, D. (2017), “Knowledge management

and ERP: Complementary or contradictory?” International Journal of Information

Management, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 703-712. 3. Kumar, A. Ganesh, L.S. (2011) "Inter‐individual knowledge transfer and performance in

product development", The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 Issue: 3, pp.224-238,

https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111123270 4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. 5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 6. Akbari N, Ghaffari A, (2017) "Verifying relationship of knowledge management

initiatives and the empowerment of human resources", Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 21 Issue: 5, pp.1120-1141, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-

0435 7. Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and

knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2),

22-42

8. Amabile, T. M. (1982). "The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Consensual Assessment

Technique." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43, no. 5 pp 997–1013. 9. Amabile, T. M., Goldfarb, P., & Brackfield, S. C. (1990). Social influences on creativity:

Evaluation, coaction,and surveillance.Creativity Research Journal, 3, 6–21. 10. Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring

knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic. 11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY, US: W H

Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. 12. Benbya, H. and Belbaly, N.A. (2005), “Mechanisms for Knowledge Management Systems

Effectiveness: An Exploratory Analysis”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol.12,

No.3, pp.203-216.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471111123270




http://indusedu.org

13. Blau, P. M., (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York. 14. Bock, G. -W., & Kim, Y. -G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study

of attitudes about knowledge sharing.Information Resources ManagementJournal, 15(2),

14−21.

15. Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N.(2005). Behavioral intention

formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsicmotivators, social-

psychological forces, and organizationalclimate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. 16. Bruno s. Frey (1993). Does Monitoring Increase Work Effort? The Rivalry with Trust

and Loyalty Economic Inquiry 31(4):663-70 17. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of

functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of

Management Journal, 45: 875– 893. 18. Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual

engagement in knowledge sharing. InternationalJournal of Human

ResourceManagement,17(2), 245−264 19. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1991). Reliability and viability assessment. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. 20. Carter, G and Scarbrough, H, (2001), towards a second generation of KM: The people

management challenge, Education and Training, 43:4/5, 215-224. 21. Chatzoudes, D., Chatzoglou, P. and Vraimaki, E. (2015), “The central role of knowledge

management in business operations: developing a new conceptual framework”, Business

Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1117-1139. 22. Chua, A., (2002), Taxonomy of organisational knowledge, Singapore Management

Review, 24(2), 69-76. 23. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness

research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239 –

290. 24. Constant, D., S. Kiesler and L. Sproull, “What‟s mine is ours, or is it? A study of

attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, Vol. 5, No. 4: 400-

421, 1994.

25. Constant, D., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness

of electronic weak ties for technical advice.Organization Science 7(2), 119−135. 26. Cui, A.S., Griffith, D.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2005), The influence of competitive intensity

and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational

corporation subsidiaries, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 32-53. 27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York:Plenum. 28. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68




http://indusedu.org

29. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. 30. Dyer, J. and K. Nobeoka, (2000). Creating and managing a high performance

knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota Case, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21,

No. 3: 345-367,

31. Vinzi E, V., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least

squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 32. Feng, K., Chen, E. T. &Liou, W. (2005).Implementation of Knowledge Management

Systems and Firm Performance: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 45(2), 92-104. 33. Feng, K., Chen, E. T., &Liou, W. (2005). Implementation of knowledge management

systems and firm performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 46(2), 92-104. 34. Forghani, M.A. and Tavasoli, A. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between

knowledge management dimensions and organizational performance in lean

manufacturing”, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, Vol.

4 No. 3, March, pp. 218-225. 35. Gao, L. (2006), Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective,

Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214. 36. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and

regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, 4- 7. 37. Gourlay, S. (2001). Knowledge management and HRD. Human Resource Development

International, 4(1), 27-46. 38. Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental

and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

52(5), 890-898. 39. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). SEM: An

introduction Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (pp. 629-686). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

40. Hall, H. (2001). Social exchange for knowledge exchange,University of Leicester

Management Centre, England. 41. Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ``What's your strategy for managing

knowledge?'', Harvard Business Review , March-April, pp. 106-16 42. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing

discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115135.

43. Hongmei, L., Chai, K.H. and James, F.N. (2013), “Balancing codification and

personalization for knowledge reuse: a Markov decision process approach”, Journal of

Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 755-772




http://indusedu.org

44. Hosseingholizadeh, R. (2014), “Managing the knowledge lifecycle: an integrated

knowledge management process model”, The 4th International Conference on Computer

and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), pp. 102-110. 45. Hsu, M.-H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C.-H., & Chang, C.-M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior

in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome

expectations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. 46. Huang, K.C., Su, C.M. and Chen, N.S. (2012), E-learning: Theory &Practice, DrMaster

Press Co. Ltd., New Taipei. 47. Jensen, C., & Peng, L. M. (2013). SMEs, institutions, and performance. In Information

Resources Management Association (Ed.), Small and medium enterprises: Concepts,

methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 46-64). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

48. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic

knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly, 29(1), 113-143. 49. Kim Y.W. &Ko J. (2014). HR Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behavior: Focusing on

the Moderating Effect of Trust in Supervisor. Public Personnel Management., Vol: 43 No: 4, pp 586-607

50. Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly

motivated: A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L.

Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101-121).

Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press. 51. Kumar, A. and Ganesh, L. (2011), “Balancing knowledge strategy: codification and

personalization during product development”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.

15 No. 1, pp. 118-135. 52. Lee, K. C., Lee, S. & Kang, I. W. (2005). “KMPI: Measuring Knowledge Management

Performance”. Information & Management 42, 469-482. 53. Lee, S., Kim, B.G. and Kim, H. (2012), “An integrated view of knowledge management

for performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-203. 54. Liao, S. and Wu, C.C. (2009), “The relationship among knowledge management,

organizational learning, and organizational performance”, International Journal of

Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 64-76 55. Lin, C. -P. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using

exchange ideology as a moderator.Personnel Review,36(3), 457−475

56. Liou, D., Chih, W., Yuan, C., & Lin, C. (2016). The study of the antecedents of knowledge

sharing behavior. Internet Research, 26(4), 845-868. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802127394?accountid=177896 57. Luthans, F. Stajkovic, A.D. and (2003) Behavioral Management and Task Performance

in Organizations: Conceptual Background, Meta-Analysis, and Test of Alternative

Models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-194.

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802127394?accountid=177896




http://indusedu.org

58. Marques, D. P., & Simon, F. J. G. (2006). The effect of knowledge management practices

on firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 143-156. 59. Marqués, D.P., Simón, F.J.G. and Caranana, C.D. (2006) „The effect of innovation on

intellectual capital: an empirical evaluation in the biotechnology and

telecommunications industries‟, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.

10, No. 1, pp.89–112. 60. McGraw, K. O.,& McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic

incentives on reaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-

294. 61. Molm, Takahashi and Peterson (2000). Trust and Transitions in Modes of Exchange‟

Social Psychology Quarterly Vol. 73, No. 2, 176–195 62. Orlikowski, W. U. (2002). „Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability in

distributed organizing‟, Organization Science, 13 (3), pp. 249–273 63. Sharmila Gope, GianlucaElia, GiuseppinaPassiante, (2018) "The effect of HRM 64. Syeda Mehak Fatima Gillani, Salman Iqbal, Shumaila Akram, MamoonaRasheed,

(2018) "Specific antecedents of employees‟ knowledge sharing behavior", VINE

Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 48 Issue: 2, pp.178-

198, https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2017-0023

65. Tsoukas, H. (2003). „Do we really understand tacit knowledge?‟. In M. Easterby-Smith

and M. A. Lyles (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge

Management, pp. 410–427. Oxford: Blackwell.

66. Wasko, M. M., &Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and

knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice.MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57. 67. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group

mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior: 185– 208. New York: Springer-Verlag.

68. Yeniyurt, S., Cavusgil, S. T., &Hult, G. T. M. (2005). A global market advantage

framework: The role of global market knowledge competencies. International Business

Review, 14(1), 1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2004.10.002

https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2017-0023




http://indusedu.org

Tables

Table 1: Literature Review Table S. Authors and Year Findings

No

1. Akbari and Ghaffari Found positive impact of KM procedures on human resources. 2017

2. Kim and Ko, 2014 HR practices and trust on one‟s supervisor play pivotal roles in promoting

knowledge sharing behavior. In addition, results display that trust in supervisor

moderates the associations between HR practices and knowledge sharing.

3. Gilani et al 2018 The results revealed that employees viewed trust, recruitment and selection and performance appraisals have a positive relationship with KS behavior.

However, training and development and incentives have no impact on KS.

4. Alawi and Marzooki, Trust, communication, information systems, rewards and organization 2007 structure are positively related to knowledge sharing in organizations.

5. Jalal et al, 2013 knowledge sharing capability is important for knowledge sharing success, suggesting its significant role in the design of knowledge-driven HRM practices

6. Argote, 1999 Knowledge sharing is a critical team process because if knowledge is not shared,

the cognitive resources available within a team remain underutilized

Liou (2016) He anticipated reciprocal relationship, norm of reciprocity, and anticipated extrinsic rewards had a significant and positive effect on knowledge sharing

behavior, respectively; knowledge sharing behavior had a significant and positive

effect on community participation.

7. Soliman and Spooner Knowledge management activities should (2000) result in improving productivity, enhancing

the business environment and increasing

Levels of innovation.

8. Turulja, Bajgoric, IT capability enhances HRM capability which enhances KM capability. As a (2018) result, KM capability together with IT capability enhances organizational business

performance.

10. Gope, Elia, Passiante, Results show the existence of HRMP aiming to enhance the individual learning, (2018) motivation and retention of employees for knowledge acquisition and knowledge

sharing, in the strategic perspective to improve the organizational performance.

11. Huang et al (2012) Driven by knowledge management, knowledge innovation has accelerated and online learning communities require continuous management innovation to meet

evolving requirements

12. Hsu et al (2007) Examined the effect of environment and personal factors on knowledge sharing

behavior and the relationship between these factors.

Special Issue-2 for International Conference on Sustainability Development – A Value Chain Perspective, Management

Development Institute (MDI), Murshidabad, West Bangal, India.


http://indusedu.org

Table 2: Internal Consistency and Convergent Validity of the Theoretical Model Construct Load Factor Composite Cranach alpha AVE

Reliability

Human Resource Empowerment

HE1 0.844 0.867 0.812 0.641

HE2 0.744

HE3 0.762

HE4 0.823

HE5 0.710

Knowledge Sharing Motivation

KSM1 0.740 0.845 0.888 0.564

KSM2 0.765

KSM3 0.765

KSM4 0.754

KSM5 0.665

Knowledge Sharing Practices

KSP1 0.700 0.865 0.792 0.536

KSP2 0.745

KSP3 0.665

KSP4 0.685

KSP5 0.785

Knowledge Management Efficacy

KME1 0.869 0.892 0.865 0.856

KME2 0.785

KME3 0.769

KME4 0.862

KME5 0.869

Organizational Performance

OP1 0.856 0.920 0.856 0.772

OP2 0865

OP3 0862

OP4 0.803

*: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.01, ***: p < 0.001

Table 3: Discriminant validity of the theoretical model AVE Human Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Resource Sharing Sharing Management

Empowerment Motivation Practices Efficacy

Human Resource Empowerment 0.532 0.719

Knowledge Sharing Motivation 0.746 0.453 0.875

Knowledge Sharing Practices 0.641 0.459 0.521 0.863

Knowledge Management Efficacy 0.688 0.361 0.356 0.322 0.719

Organizational Performance 0.532 0.559 0.596 0.553 0.211

Table 4: Results of Hypothesis Tests

Hypothesis Beta T Score P Value Hypotheses

Value Supported/Unsupported

Human Resource Empowerment->Knowledge 0.523 8.269 < 0.00001 Supported

Management Efficacy

Knowledge Sharing Motivation-> Knowledge 0.625 9.891 < 0.00001 Supported

Management Efficacy

Knowledge Sharing Practices-> Knowledge 0.171 2.546 < 0.00001 Supported

Management Efficacy

Knowledge Management Efficacy- 0.533 2.365 < 0.00001 Supported

>Organizational Performance

Documents

Model and Framework Establishment determining ...indusedu.org/pdfs/IJREISS/IJREISS_2507_98228.pdf · The strategies of knowledge management employed in an organization vary from organization