Research background and motivation

Knowledge is a critical factor and enhances an organization’s capability to implement effective actions. Further, the main concept of knowledge management is to get the most out of knowledge resources. On the other hand, organizational learning theory focuses on using earlier experiences to future actions. Moreover, organizational learning occurs when new knowledge is generated (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). Based on this perspective, knowledge is related to learning. When knowledge is shared, it facilitates an organization to perform effective actions and incorporates different perspectives. However, knowledge is not shared, knowledge exists in different organizational department, and this is an obstacle for organizational innovation (Bartunek, Trullen, Immediato, & Schneider, 2007). Therefore, knowledge sharing is important for an organization.

Organizational learning is an important issue for organizational adaption, survival, and performance. Moreover, organizational learning can create new knowledge to build new skills and capabilities, and then leads to competitive advantage (Zahra, 2012). Additionally, organizational learning is capable of improving organization in theories and practices (Robey, Boudreau, & Rose, 2000). Treating organizational learning as a process, and an organization increases the knowledge generated by individuals in an organized approach and transforms the knowledge into the knowledge system of an organization (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, &

Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012).

Knowledge sharing and organizational learning were very highly correlated at the significant level. Knowledge sharing made individual

learning to flow through a whole organization, then became organizational learning (Yang, 2010). Yang (2010) explored the correlation between knowledge sharing and organizational learning, and the correlation was 0.659. Moreover, Yang (2010) used knowledge sharing to predict organizational learning, and the result showed that knowledge sharing positively influenced organizational learning, and the coefficient was 0.58, and this result was significant. Additionally, knowledge sharing at individual level was important for an organization. Because knowledge sharing improves learning among employees and make them resolve problems similar to situations encountered by others (Law & Ngai, 2008). Siadaty, Jovanović, Gašević, Jeremić, and Holocher-Ertl (2010) considered successful knowledge sharing in an organization relied on three elements: individual, organizational, and technical facets.

As reported above, this study integrated knowledge sharing and exploratory organizational learning and created a new variable ─ learning behavior. Individual meant that motivation of employees to capture, disseminate, and apply existing and novel knowledge. Organizational referred organizational structure which improved transparent knowledge flows. Technology was the software solutions, and facilitated knowledge discovery, use, re-use, combination, and re-combination.

This study investigated the Taiwanese technology industry. The technology companies were knowledge-intense and provided an appropriate environment for knowledge management (Yang, 2005). Furthermore, innovation was very important for technology companies, because they had to learn and use new ideas, skills, and knowledge to perform their works.

However, Liu’s (2011) study indicated that a company’s experience could cause the better innovation results. What’s more, several studies (Ho, 2011;

Santamaría, Nieto, & Barge-Gil, 2009) have explained that the relationship

between innovative issues and technology industry. So, experience and innovation were important for technology companies. In order to discuss the learning situations in technology industry, this study did not focus on organizational learning instead of exploratory organizational learning.

Because exploratory organizational learning emphasized experience (de Freitas & Neumann, 2009) and the technology industry focused on experience, this study desired to discuss it.

Regarding the individual level factors, openness to experience has examined in one previous study, and in which described that openness was task-based, and opened individuals attempt to find new approaches to complete a task. Moreover, an individual had high openness, who was close to new experience (Cheng, 2011). Several studies discussed the relationship between emotion and working in Taiwan, such as Liang (2012), Tsai (2001).

Individuals have high need for cognition (NFC) could solve complicated problems; moreover, NFC played an important role for collaborative learning (Curşeu, 2011). Therefore, this study considered that NFC could influence learning behavior, and NFC could be used to solve complex problems, this concept was fit the core of exploratory organizational learning.

For the organizational characteristics factors, several Taiwanese studies (Lin, 2010) have described the issue about interpersonal relationship or interpersonal interactions, so this issue was important in theoretical and practical field in Taiwan. Social relationship also has discussed in Taiwanese study, such as Liu (2010) used it to explain the sharing of online information.

In Taiwanese studies, organizational culture was a key issue, such as Shih and Huang (2010), Lai and Lee (2007). Organizational climate was an important issue for Taiwanese studies, because many studies have used it to discuss, and it was demonstrated that could positive influence knowledge sharing (Chen, Chuang, & Chen, 2012). The study by Yang (2010) explored

the significant correlation between knowledge sharing and organizational learning, and knowledge sharing influenced organizational learning. As reported above, these issues were critical elements in Taiwanese theoretical and practical fields.

Thus, the issues of this study have determined. This study designed two levels: individual characteristics level and organizational environment levels.

Individual level included NFC, openness, and emotion; organizational level included interpersonal relationship, social relationship, organizational collaborative culture, and organizational climate. The researcher considered that the two facets influenced learning behavior. Therefore, this study used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine that two levels influenced learning behavior, and organizational environment factors moderated the relationship between individual characteristics factors on learning behavior.