This chapter provided an extensive review of literature on all the variables. Each variable was exhaustively covered regarding how previous researches supported their concepts in relation to this study. There were five different hypothesis for this study. Each of those hypothesis was stated at the bottom of the variable in question after its thorough review.
Knowledge is power. It is considered to be a very important resource for organizations as well as a critical factor that help organizations achieve their goals. With a strong body of knowledge, organizations are able to possess values that are rare to imitate which could eventually result into sustainability and success. In short, it gives them that competitive advantage (Nonaka
& takeuchi, 1995). The concept of knowledge sharing has gained a momentum in organizations of all types and sizes (Alvesson & Karreman, 2001). Meanwhile, despite the fact that organizations are toiling to set up knowledge management systems and practices so as to effectively utilize the available knowledge, there is still much to be learned and known as to how knowledge is created, shared, and used in these organizations (Varun Grover 2001; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001).
According to Fullwood et al. (2013) there is not enough research pertaining to knowledge sharing in universities. However, from the review of the literature, it revealed that the concept of knowledge sharing in organizations in general and universities in particular is affected by several factors, such as the nature of knowledge, motivation to share, opportunities to share and the culture of the work environment. These factors could also be viewed or narrower to aspects such as organizational culture, trust and availability of technology. Therefore, the review of the literature for this thesis focused on: organizational culture with focus on reward system, trust, ICT with focus on internet availability and accessibility, and leadership with their effect on knowledge sharing (KS). Previous researches conducted on this issue on public organizations indicated that these variables mentioned above did affect knowledge sharing.
Rewards
Naturally, every human being wants to be remunerated or given recognition for his/ her service, effort or achievement. That is one of the reasons why an organization’s reward system plays a very crucial role in ensuring that employees are willing and ready to share their knowledge.
Al-Alawi, Al-Marzoori, & Mohammed (2007) suggested that an organization’s leadership or
14
management must put into consideration the indispensable nature of collaboration and best practices of sharing when designing reward systems. This will help avoid employees feel unwilling to share knowledge for the fear of losing job or being replaced by another employee. This kind of reward system will encourage co-workers to openly share knowledge in order to achieve greater effectiveness. That is one of the reasons why Goh (2002) believed such rewards should be group based rather than individual contribution.
A vibrant and effective reward system serves as an ingredient in motivating employees to share knowledge among themselves as well as at the departmental levels. Rewards can serve as bait that will motivate people to share their knowledge. These rewards do not necessary always have to be monetary. When people share their knowledge either through a knowledge sharing session or on a database of the company, a mere personal recognition and reputation can make them feel good and in fact make them to be ever ready to share. Texas Instrument as cited by Disterer (2001) do organized an annual award to reward usage of other employees. He further cited that Buckman Labs did reward about their 150 top employees who were regarded as knowledge sharers by giving them brand new laptops as well as offering them with a trip to a particular resort.
The lack of motivation can result into employees having detest for sharing their knowledge.
Researchers such as Oliver and Kandadi (2006) affirmed that in order to ensure employees willingness to share their knowledge and foster that culture of knowledge sharing, there should be strong organizational rewards. In their studies on how to develop knowledge culture in organizations, based on the views of the respondents, they opined that the indirect rewards like expression of appreciation and recognition outweighed that of the monetary incentives in knowledge sharing. In addition, employee share options (ESOPS) as a long-term reward was said to be more effective than that of short-term rewards.
On the other hand, Islam et al. (2011), realised that monetary rewards have an effect but on short-term basis, but for long term, they believed that providing non-monetary incentives will be more effective. Furthermore, other researchers such as Davenport and Prusak (2000); Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) acknowledged the fact that reward system really enhances knowledge sharing. Similarly, Boateng and Agyemang (2016) outlined that for effective and sustainable knowledge sharing to take place in any organization, is to link it with rewards and performance appraisal, and went on to say that the monetary reward is more effective than non-monetary reward in encouraging organizational knowledge sharing.
15
Generally, there were research findings that highlighted the indispensability of rewards towards successful knowledge sharing. These researchers such as Bock, Zmud, Kim and Lee (2005) whose research focus looked into the motivational theory aspects stated that rewards are an important motivators for knowledge sharing. Fullwood et al. (2013) reiterated that efficient, effective and vibrant reward practices are rudiments to knowledge sharing.
Rewards according to Kalleberg (1977) and Mottaz (1988) are benefits that the workers derived from their job. In addition, organizational rewards refer to the benefits which could be both financial and non-financial that employees get through their employment relationship with an organization (Bratton & Gold, 1994). Similarly, Davenport and Prusak (1998) also buttressed the idea that organizational rewards include both monetary and non-monetary aspects. The monetary aspects they said include increased salary and bonuses whereas the non-monetary include promotions and job security. A lot of organizations have established vibrant reward systems as a way of motivating and encouraging their employees to share their knowledge. Some of these organizations do this by organizing an annual conference where the efforts of those employees who are committed to knowledge sharing are recognized and rewarded.
Types of Rewards
Rewards come in different forms and magnitudes. The literature revealed that rewards that people usually demand from their institutions can be basically categorized into three (3) main types.
These are: Extrinsic, Intrinsic and Social rewards (Williamson, Burnett, & Bartol, 2009).
Extrinsic rewards: These refer to rewards that are physically visible that the employees receive from managers. They include pay, bonuses and benefits.
Intrinsic rewards: These can be defined as the personal satisfaction that an individual derives from an accomplishment which is associated to the provision of conducive work environment. It is an intangible benefit that results into the inner feeling of psychological development and satisfaction- for instance, job autonomy. Similarly, according to Hackman and Oldham (1976), the intrinsic rewards are attached or derived from the nature of the job itself. They explained that it is anchored on the motivational characteristics of the job such as autonomy, clarity of the role and training as well.
Social rewards: These entail an individual’s sense of belongingness. It refers to the degree to which positive interpersonal relationships such as fluid relationships with colleagues, including peers, subordinates and superiors are created in the work environment.
16
Mathieu and Zajac (1990) in their research on ‘A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment’ clearly explained that these three (3) types of rewards play pivotal roles towards building employee’s organizational commitment. It is therefore, worth mentioning that a committed organizational employee is always willing and ready to walk on a path that leads to the achievement of the organization’s set goals.
So, rewards as such, are similarly important in agitating employees to share their knowledge for organizational progress and prosperity.
H1= Rewards have positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing.
Trust
Trust is defined as a set of beliefs about the trustee, which leads one trustor to believe that the trustee’s actions will have positive consequences for the trustor’s self (Bakker et al., 2006).
Islam et al. (2011) opined that if employees trust each other, then they are ever ready and willing to make their knowledge available to each other.
Previous research done by Andrews and Delahay (2000); Levin and Cross (2004);
Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007); Issa and Haddad (2008); David and Fahey (2000) acknowledged the fact that an individual’s desire and willingness to share his or her knowledge with the colleagues in an organization is indeed positively influence by trust. In other words, trust is positively related to knowledge sharing in institutions.
Trust among employees, and co-workers in particular is very instrumental in ensuring successful knowledge management and sharing (Issa & Hadda, 2008). Ismail and Yousif (2008), Connely and Kelloway (2002) explained that the readiness of an organization’s employees to share their tacit knowledge is highly dependent on their trust of the recipient of that knowledge. Connelly and Kelloway (2002) stressed that an employee would only depict his willingness to share the knowledge that he possessed if he trust the one seeking the knowledge from him.
Similarly, other authors such as David and Fahey (2000) also emphasized the idea of trust among employees. They emphasised that for an organisation to ensure the free flow of knowledge between its employees and also from employees into the institution’s general database, there should exist that bond of trust between the employees as between the organization’s different functions. An individual’s personality according to Awad and Ghaziri (2004) could be a hindrance to knowledge sharing. And Van den Brink (2003) viewed an individual’s personality as his/ her
17
values, attitude, mood and emotion. There is a different between Introvert and an extrovert’s attitude towards knowledge sharing. Extrovert employees are usually more confident, feel secured and therefore are more ready to share their experience and knowledge, unlike the introvert who are usually self-centred and security conscious (Awad & Ghaziri, 2004). This indicates that trust is an essential ingredient in promoting knowledge sharing among employees in an organization.
H2= Trust has positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing.
Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
In contemporary business environment, and organizations or institutions of any type, the use of ICT in executing and implementing policies and programmes is indeed indispensable, particularly an organization that wants to promote and encourage knowledge sharing among its employees. Information Communication Technology is defined as software and hardware that people in organizations use in order to do their tasks (Van den Brink, 2003). He continued to explain that the most relevant aspect of ICT in knowledge sharing is to serve as a bridge between and among people that acquired knowledge. However, according to Wenger and Synder (2000), organizational knowledge sharing has little or nothing to do with hardware or technology. On the other hand, Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) identified three different issues that are related to knowledge sharing in relation to Information and Communication Technology. They stated ICT tools, ICT infrastructure and ICT know-how. They further stated that a provision of sufficient and suitable ICT training to all employees have a positive relationship with knowledge creation and knowledge transfer.
In order to ensure that there is effective and efficient knowledge management practice and a resilient knowledge management system, employees should be determined, ready and willing to share their knowledge through the use of computer gadgets that can be made accessible to all and sundry within the organization (Syed Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004).
The use of ICT tools should not be compromised in an organization if it wants to initiate, build and strengthen its knowledge management and knowledge sharing system (Breen, Lindsay, Jenkins, & Smith, 2001). Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) referred to e-mails, groupware and computer-based information systems that facilitate knowledge sharing in public organizations as ICT tools. Dalrymple et al. (1998) as cited by Hendriks (1999) differentiated the functionalities of ICT tools into five different ones. The first category include: e-mail, messaging, calendaring and
18
scheduling; discussion databases, application sharing and electronic meeting sharing which are referred to as ‘office applications and groupware’. The second one is ‘document systems’ which include digital documents. The third one refers to the ‘work process systems’ (this group includes:
work flow management systems, process support systems and e-forms). The fourth category is the
‘analytical systems’ (such as decision support systems and data warehouse). Finally, portals, e-learning and knowledge sharing are seen as another segment or system which they referred to as
‘knowledge systems’.
The ICT infrastructure referred to those Information and Communication Infrastructure that aids the staff of an organization to be able to create, share and transfer knowledge among themselves (Sayed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). In order to support knowledge creation, knowledge structure, knowledge penetration and above all knowledge use, the use of ICT infrastructure is indispensable (Van den Brink, 2003). An employee’s know-how of how an ICT operates and functions helps towards the successful knowledge creation and transfer. The ICT know-how entails employees’ competency in using the computer to do their routine works.
There is wide perception among people that Information and communications technology is a substitute for Information technology (IT) but ICT is broader. The term has been recently used to refer to the convergence of several technologies and the use of common transmission lines carrying very diverse data and communication types and formats (www.techopedia.com). The absence of Information Technology in an organization can batter its hope of encouraging knowledge sharing among its staff Riege (2005), Van den Brink (2003) noted that the technological barriers to knowledge sharing include: lack of integrated IT systems/ processes, lack of technical support, lack of maintenance of integrated IT systems, people’s reluctance to use IT systems and finally, lack of training to enable employees familiarize themselves with IT systems and processes.
Moreover, the utilization of Information and communication technology in knowledge sharing is indeed very essential. This is because ICT aids quick search, access and the retrieval of information, thus bridging the distance and helping the organization’s employees to collaborate among themselves (Huysman & Wulf, 2006 as cited by Lin, 2007). ICT usage in organizational knowledge sharing brings in lot of new methods and applications which include online databases, intranet and virtual communities among others thereby helping in the magnification of the organization’s social networks by eradicating space or in other words eliminating the geographical boundaries and saving time as well (Lin, 2007). As a result of its indispensable nature, Lin
19
therefore, believes that the role of ICT in knowledge management and knowledge sharing can be in three folds: (a) Obtaining knowledge (b) Defining, storing, categorizing, indexing, and linking knowledge-related digital items (c) Seeking and identifying related content.
H3= Information and communication technology has positive influence on organizational Knowledge Sharing.
Leadership
Leadership is seen as an aspect of organizational culture. It occupies a significant portion in determining employees’ willingness and readiness to share their knowledge. According to De Jong and Hartog (2007) leadership is a process that deals with influencing other people towards achieving desire or set goals. In order to encourage knowledge sharing, leaders need to pave the way not by only making people to share their knowledge but to also provide incentives for knowledge sharing They bridge the gap between employees at different levels in the organization by encouraging best practices and by also ensuring that there is proper coordination and collaboration in their endeavours (Søndergaard, Kerr, & Clegg, 2007). They explained that leadership plays a very pivotal role in the provision of appropriate knowledge and networks which influences the willingness to share knowledge. Oliver and Kandadi (2006) also shared similar opinion of the role that leadership plays in KS. Their view is that the top management should lead by example in depicting to the rest of the subordinates that knowledge creation and knowledge sharing are valuable assets of organizational success.
A leadership of an institution has the potential to create that necessary knowledge hub by serving as facilitator among employees to willingly share their knowledge. A leader should be able to serve as a guidance counselor and also be able to put words into actions. According to Søndergaard et al. (2007), leadership is vital towards ensuring the building of networks which could positively translate into opportunities for knowledge sharing. As such, leadership takes a centre stage in the creation of that relevant knowledge and its sharing (Kreiner, 2002). According to Oliver and Kandadi (2006) as cited by Islam et al. (2011) “senior management should be actively involved in the evangelization process and convey that knowledge creation and knowledge sharing is highly valued in organizations”. Their findings laid emphasis on the indispensable role that management plays in initiating and developing a culture that will enhance knowledge sharing base on the depiction of certain leadership attributes.
20
The essentiality of attitudes, actions and the overall behaviours of leaders and managers in knowledge sharing has also been expressed by Fullwood et al. (2013). They believed that it is the leadership that encourages people’s experiential learning by putting in place all the necessary ingredients that support and encourage employees to share or transfer their knowledge. Similarly, they acknowledged that all the facilities that are required for effective knowledge sharing such as information technology, and the development of conducive systems such as reward systems, fluid interaction among employees and the availability of time for knowledge sharing are all initiated, developed, encouraged and maintained by the leadership or management. Wang and Noe (2010) also supported the idea. They stressed that if management leads by example by encouraging the culture of knowledge sharing then there is no doubt that the rest of the employees will have positive attitude towards knowledge sharing.
Private organizations differ from that of public organizations. In the same vein, product organizations also differ from that of service organizations. So, how about the role of leadership in knowledge sharing in universities? Well according to Fullwood et al. (2013) the role of a leader can be very different from that of the other organizations mentioned above. As cited by these authors, according to Yielder and Codling (2004) the form of leadership in universities can be categorized into two-academic leadership and managerial leadership. The former they said is anchored on knowledge, professional recognition and expertise, personal qualities and team acceptance and therefore, the power base is a personal one. On the other hand, the later i.e.
managerial leadership is rooted on hierarchical position, job responsibilities, control and authority and above all, power is vested in the position rather than the person. In addition, they clarified that academic leadership is more related to traditional more collegial university while that of managerial leadership has more to do with the corporate style model that a lot of universities are now a days moving towards. Yielder and Codling (2004) concluded that there can be conflict of interest and direction when those promoted for managerial ability are called upon to judge academic situations.
Most studies that were conducted on leadership focused on leader traits, leader behavior as well as the influence of situational characteristics on leader’s effectiveness. According to Schippers, Den Hartog, and Koopmman(2001), for the past two decades, the transformational and charismatic leadership styles or approaches were prevalent. For the purpose of this study, the focus
21
will be on the behavioural aspects- the extent to which the behavior of the UTG leadership affects
will be on the behavioural aspects- the extent to which the behavior of the UTG leadership affects