Critical Review

ATTITUDE TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIOR

A CRITICAL REVIEW

Lenny Martini – 2900601419 Desember 2006

Agenda

• Overview of the Paper• Organization• Scope of Review• Overall strengths and weaknesses• Reviews

- Definitions and Construct- Methodology

- Interpretation of Result- Implication of Research

• Proposed Ideas• Conclusion

Overview of the Paper1

Title of the Paper“ Attitude Towards Knowledge Sharing Behavior”

Writers•Sai Ho Kwok – California State University, Long Beach, California•Sheng Gao – The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Kowloon

SourceThe Journal of Computer Information Systems; Winter 2005/2006; pg.45-51

Objectives of the StudyFocused on an individual’s behavior of knowledge sharing with respect to information systems/ information technology (IS/IT) by investigating their attitude towards knowledge sharing.

Variables3 variables (extrinsic motivation, absorptive capacity & channel richness) were examined as influential factors affecting people’s attitude towards knowledge sharing.

Hypotheses1. Extrinsic motivation will NOT positively influence an individual’s attitude

toward the behavior of knowledge sharing.2. Absorptive capacity will positively influence an individual’s attitude toward the

behavior of knowledge sharing.3. Channel richness will positively influence an individual’s attitude toward the

behavior of knowledge sharing

Methodology• Structural survey to 75 undergraduate students of the information systems

department• 3 measures for each construct = 12 questions• Reliability with alpha cronbach >.70• Convergent & discriminant validity with principal factor analysis indicated

satisfactory levels of convergent and discriminant validity• Data analysis with multiple regression. Overall model is significant


Findings• Link between Extrinsic motivation and attitude toward the behavior of

knowledge sharing is not statistically significant.(no effect or, if any, the effect should be negative)

• Link between absorptive capacity and channel richness with and attitude toward the behavior of knowledge sharing are positive and statistically significant.

Conclusion• Since knowledge sharing is an activity that requires much mutual trust and

influence people, the spring of the willingness to share knowledge is far away from taking rewards or avoiding punishment, but might be stemming from altruism and goodwill or simply out of personal interest.

• A higher level of absorptive capacity will lead to an individual’s more favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing.

• People would hold favorable attitude toward knowledge sharing behaviors if they feel convenient and flexible in time and place to engage in such activities.


Organization

Abstract- Purpose of the study- Methodology- Result- Keywords

Introduction- Previous research- Organization of the paper

Theoretical Development and Hypotheses- 3 hypotheses

Methodology- Data collection- Measurement- Attitude- Validity Assessment- Data Analysis

Discussion and Conclusion- Conclusion of the Results- Implications- Limitations of study

Scope of Review

Review on Definitions and ConstructSome of the definitions given in this paper were interpreted by the writer’s own meaning. Consideration of misinterpretation could lead to some flaws in composing measures and analyzing the result.

Review on MethodologySampling and methodology used in the paper are very important in determine validation of the result and usefulness for further research and other field.

Review on Interpretation of ResultEven if the methodology was good, but the way the writers interpreted the result could also lead the readers to different conclusion.

Review on Implication of ResearchDue to some limitations of sampling and methodology and also construct used in the research, the implications of this research for academic research and manangement profesionals are also limited.

Strength

• The overall organization of the written paper was good.

• The statements were clearly defined, table of result and form of questionnaire

were showed, made it easier for the readers to understand the paper.

• The writers stated the limitation of the research.

• Theoretical foundation used in this research were adopted from many good

sources that had already used as reference to other papers.

• Quantitative measurement was simple, good, reliable and statistically valid.

• The result are consistent with the psychological theories

• Inspired to study the effect of the variables in other fields, with other samples,

and also lead to further research with other potential variables.

Overall Strength

Weaknesses

• The title was wider than the research. There were only 3 variables

investigated in this research and limited to information system/information

technology.

• The writers used their own interpretation of some definition.

• The models and equations was not showed in the paper

• Sample used in this research limited the usefullness of the result. Even if the

statistical measurement were good, but limited sample could lead to

irrelevant questions.

• Some inconsistencies in statements about the variables.

• Some misinterpretation of result lead to weak suggestions for management

practices.

Overall Weaknesses

Review on Definitions & Construct1

• Theoretical foundation used in this research to define the constructs were adopted from many good sources that had already used as reference to other papers, but the writers tend to interpret it themselves and made their own definitions that could lead to misinterpretation by the other readers.

• Theory of Reasoned Action by Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) : an individuals intention to perform a behavior and their actual behavior can be determined by their attitude toward this behavior is a good foundation for this study. A person’s attitude toward a behavior is determined by saleint beliefs about certain outcomes caused by the behaviors and corresponding evaluation of the outcomes. The papers stated the salient beliefs : “I can learn new knowledge effectively through knowledge sharing”, “I can find out the knowledge I need efficiently through knowledge sharing” and “I can get reward by sharing knowledge” which support the extrinsic motivation and absorptive capacity variables, but there is no statements of salient beliefs to support the channel richness variables.


• The definition of absorptive capacity used in the paper adopted from Cohen and Levinthal (1990) which is the most widely cited definition viewed absorptive capacity as the firm’s ability to value, assimilate and apply new knowledge. The writers interpretation of this definition is absorptive capacity is a function of the richness ot the pre-existing knowledge structure, and learning is greatest when the object of learning is related with what is already known. These peoplewith larger absorptive capacity tend to have favorable attitudes toward knowledge sharing behavior.

• But in Cohen & Levinthal papers, the definition is at the firm’s level, and there are some stages needed to convert individual’s absorptive capacity to become firm’s absorptive capacity. It would be better the writer include some theory of learnings or knowledge to support the no 2 hypotheses. Principles of lerning from Keller & Schoenfeld (1950) Knowledge creating theory from Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) and might be appropriate in this context.

• The other definitions from Kim (1998,1997) : absorptive capacity requires the capacity to learn and solve problems might be better than the previous one, because of the its relations with the wording in the questionnaire.


• The papers did not investigate dimensions of absorptive capacity. Cohen&Levinthal (1990) and Henard & McFadyen (2005) said that there are 2 dimensions of absorptive capacity : the depth and the breadth, while Zahra&Gerard (2000) Suggest 4 dimensions of absorptive capacity : acquisition, assimilation, conversion and exploitation

• The items measures construct channel richness are conveniently and flexibility. The definition of the construct and the items were less relevant, thus can lead to misinterpretation of the result. There are no explanation nor definition about criteria of convenient and flexible channel, thus the answer can be very subjective, and there were only 1 question containing the form of channel and stated as “multiple channels”, without further explanations of the forms.

• Also the variable channel richness can be assumed as intervening or moderating variables to conveniently and flexibility, but a further research needed to explain this statements.

Review on Methodology

• The study was conducted in an undergraduate course with 75 students as respondents. Schools are already a learning organization that without explanation will continually do knowledge sharing in any means. The non-representative sample can be a threat to external validity (Chevalier, 2003). And also It is predictable that the extrinsic motivation (punishment, monetary rewards & reputation) will not significantly influent the attitude towards knowledge sharing.

• The questionnaire was short enough, made it easier for the respondent to understand and fill it. But with only 3 items to measures a construct it is vulnerable to get lost of a construct if the reliability score of the items are bad.

• Fortunatelly, the reliability and validity were statistically good.

• The participants were made judgment about their own absorptive capacity. This can lead to subjectiveness. Zahra & George (2000) proposed 2 types of absorptive capacity : potential and realized absorptive capacity. The question and methods used here tend to measures only the realized absorptive capacity.

• The wording of adopted questionnaires could be better adjusted to get better perceptions of the respondents.

Review on Interpretation of Result

• This paper stated that providing an external incentive is not an effective

strategy to motivate individuals in an organization to share knowledge. But it is

also stated that with the existence of some barriers, it is hard for individuals to

conduct knowledge sharing activities during their work unless they find such

activities adequately useful and beneficial. The external incentive could be

viewed as one of the benefit, so the statements were contradictive.

• Statements about relationship between knowledge contributor and the

recipient used in this paper help to understand easier about the result of

absorptive capacity variable.

• It is stated here that the richness of channel for knowledge sharing was mainly

measured from an individual’s perception, and the richness not only means the

number of sorts of available transmission channel but also their applicability

with specific settings. This statements cannot be obtained from the

questionnaires answers because there are no question related to applicability

of certain channels.

Review on Implication of Research

• The paper did not stated direct suggestions for school whom the students play part as respondent for this study.

• Among further researchs suggest by the writers are to study the effect of other variables such as leadership style, organizational structure, or the level of computer usage on knowledge sharing behavior

• The writers suggest that to reinforce the absorptive capacity, employees with close knowledge base should be arranged to work together more frequently for knowledge sharing. But according to Utterback (1971) and Cohen&Levinthal (1990) diverse employee knowledge stimulates new ideas, promotes creativity and increases the company’s knowledge integration skils. Also From Hamel&Prahalad (1994) it said that by possessing a broad base of knowledge, the company has a diverse range of knowledge to draw upon, thus better positioning its employees to make complex and novel information linkages.

• The second implications is, more research should be conducted within the organization to study the appropriate channels for knowledge sharing in specific settings and then to maximize the utility of the channells to facilitate employees knowledge sharing activities.

Proposed Ideas1

• Conceptual model for the paper and result of multiple regression analysis

Extrinsic motivation

Absorptive Capacity

Channel richness

Attitude toward knowledge sharing behavior

-.117*

.450

.189* = not significant

• Scope of Replication study

Knowledge sharing behavior

University/ schoolsBusiness Firms Other organizations

Student of IS

Proposed Ideas2

• A replication study can be conducted in the same field (schools) and other fields with adding more items to measure the constructs. The more items leads to a better scale,More adequately represent the construct domain and provide a more consistent total score. The Spearman-Brown Prophesy Formula can be used for this.• The hypotheses (relationship between 3 variables and attitude toward knowledge sharing behavior) can be used to conduct other research in broader field, such as firms and enterprises to gain more usefull implications on business fields.• As stated before, for construct absorptive capacity, we can investigate 2 dimensions of it, the depth and breadth and other 4 dimensions (acqusition, assimilation, conversion and exploitation)• Barriers of effective knowledge sharing such as source reliability, motivation to share, ability to learn (Szulanski, 1995) could be a better variable to be investigated in their influence on knowledge sharing behaviors.

Further research

Proposed Ideas3

• The biggest difficulty of managing knowledge is to change people’s behavior (Ruggles, 1998). An exploratory descriptive study can be conducted to discover the effective ways to change people’s behavior in respect to knowledge management using larger and broader sample.• Holtham& Courtney (1998) summarized 4 kinds of transmission channels (formal, informal, personal and impersonal). As suggested by the writers, further research can be conducted to study the appropriate channels for knowledge sharing in specific settings and then to maximize the utility of the channells to facilitate employees knowledge sharing activities.

Further research

Management Practices• The importance of absorptive capacity and channel richness to influence attitude toward knowledge sharing behavior can be seen as supporting argument to allocate more resouce related with the variables. Such as, research labs & studios in university and firms, conducting more seminars, routine brainstorming sessions or others form of knowledge sharing channels

CONCLUSION

• The research can be categorized as confirmatory research to test hypotheses

about factors that influence attitude towards knowledge sharing behavior.

• The original contribution of the paper is conceptual model about 3 variables

influenced attitude toward knowledge sharing behavior : extrinsic motivation,

absorptive capacity, and channel richness, and also an empirical findings of the

model tested in student of information system course.

• Although there are few disagreements related to this paper, I sincerely feel

that this paper is interesting and inspires because of the led to many ideas of

further research and its implications on management practices.

Thank you..

Education

Critical Review