This section presents a review of the literature on organization contexts relationship with knowledge sharing. As previously stated, in this study organization contexts encompass information technology, top management support, collaborative culture and organization structure. The hypothesis formulated for this section is as follow:
Hypothesis 1: Organization contexts have an effect on knowledge sharing.
24 Information Technology and Knowledge Sharing
Information technology’s role in facilitating knowledge sharing is often a contested topic among researchers and scholars. It is widely argued that although information technology provides a platform for knowledge sharing, it does not suffice to entice nor motivate employees to be engaged in knowledge sharing behavior. Among the empirical studies that asserted the limited role of information technology in ensuring knowledge sharing is the study of a knowledge intensive firm by Robertson and O’Malley (2000) which showed that consultants favored face to face interaction rather than intranet discussion. Similarly, Bordia, Imer, and Abusah’s (2006) study also suggested that knowledge sharing were more significant in the interpersonal context than in the database context. Lin (2007b) study findings showed that information technology was positively associated with knowledge collecting and not related with knowledge donating.
Likewise Lin & Lee’s (2006) research concluded that information technology support did not significantly influence knowledge sharing. Alavi, Leidner , and Kaywoth (2005, 2006) found that the values of organizational members influenced the ways in technologies were used, indicating that organizations cannot expect unanimity in the ways in which different groups within the organization will utilize management tools. Contrary to these findings, Bock and Kim’s (2002) research results from the field survey of 467 employees of four public organizations in Korean showed no relationship between information technology usage and knowledge sharing.
Various studies, however have found a positive association between information technology and knowledge sharing. For example, Kim and Lee (2006) used a convenience sample of 322 employees in five public and five private organizations in South Korea to analyze the impact of organizational culture, organizational structure, and information technology utilization on employee’s perceptions of knowledge sharing capabilities. The findings revealed that information technology had a significant impact on employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing capabilities in both public and private sector and among other factors was found to be the most significant factor determining employee knowledge sharing in public organizations.
Additionally, Tan, Lye, Hock Ng and Lim (2010) examined the motivational impact of intrinsic factors such as trust, learning, behavior and extrinsic factors as for instance
25
organizational culture, rewards systems, and information technology on knowledge sharing among 195 employees in Malaysian banks and found that information technology was not only significantly correlated with knowledge sharing, but compared to the other studied factors had a greater influence on knowledge sharing.
Information technology capability for knowledge sharing has also been claimed to depend on knowledge type. Some authors have suggested explicit knowledge sharing is enabled through information technology (Mian, Takala, & Kekale, 2008; Reychav & Weisberg, 2009) while others maintained that tacit knowledge due to its embodied nature cannot be shared through information technology. For example, Leonard and Sensiper (1998) noted that much tacit knowledge is generated and transferred through body language, therefore, the use of information technology is only partly possible.
Similarly, Haldin-Herrgard (2000) and Hislop (2002) suggested the role of information technology in the sharing of tacit knowledge is somewhat limited. Other authors have adopted difference stances by recognizing that information technology plays a stronger role in supporting the sharing of explicit knowledge rather than the sharing of tacit knowledge (Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Lu et al., 2006).
Top Management Support and Knowledge Sharing
Some studies have shown that top management can be a key inhibitor of knowledge sharing (Ling et al., 2009; McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). Other studies have found that top management support can be positively associated with employees’ perceptions of a knowledge sharing culture, willingness to share knowledge, knowledge sharing behavior (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Lin
& Lee, 2004; Lin, 2007a; Kang, Kim & Chang, 2008). For example, Connelly and Kelloway (2003) research findings suggested that perceptions of a positive social interaction culture and perceptions about management’s support for knowledge sharing can be significant predictors of a positive knowledge culture. Similarly, Xiong and Deng (2008) used a multi-case study approach to investigate the impact of culture on knowledge sharing in two Chinese joint ventures. They found that top management manifested support for knowledge sharing by advocating active communication between all levels of staff as well as developing a strong team spirit. In addition, their support was apparent in overcoming cultural differences for knowledge sharing by 1)
26
employing project interpreters to resolve language barrier between the foreign and local employees; and 2) carrying a regular outward training to enhance organizational cohesiveness of employees (p. 1096). Likewise, Lin and Lee (2004) in a survey of 154 Taiwanese senior managers showed that a supportive supervisor and his/her attitude toward knowledge sharing behavior positively influenced intentions to encourage knowledge sharing.
Based on a survey of 172 employees from 50 large organizations in Taiwan, Lin (2007a) found that top management support is strongly associated with employee willingness to share knowledge (i.e. knowledge donating and knowledge collecting). Similarly, Kang, Kim and Chang (2008) analyzed the perceptions of 323 public employees in South Korea to determine knowledge sharing impact on work performance and found that support from top management was perceived to have a positive impact on knowledge sharing. Using a sample of 42 organizations in Korea, Lee et al. (2006) found that top management support affected both level and quality of knowledge sharing through influencing employee commitment through KM. Ling et al.’s (2009) found that top management support is vital to ensure knowledge sharing success in organizations. Studies conducted by (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000) also indicated that management support is essential to promote knowledge sharing within the organization.
Top management support has also been found to influence employees’ knowledge through information technology use. Lu, Leung and Koch (2006) found that organization support seemed to promote both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing through encouraging the use of information technology. Moreover, management support for knowledge sharing is also reflected through the provision of rewards. Reychav and Weisberg (2009, p.289-290) noted that while employee tacit knowledge sharing is “expensive”, explicit knowledge sharing is “cheap” and contended that individuals willingness to share both may depend on monetary and non-monetary benefits. Thus management offering rewards for knowledge sharing is also expected to have a positive influence on both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing.
Organization Culture and Knowledge Sharing
Organization culture has been shown to be positively related with knowledge sharing.
Empirical studies conducted by (Alam, Abdullah, Ishak, & Zain, 2009; Tan, Lye, Hock Ng, and Lim, 2010) reported a positive association between organization culture and knowledge sharing.
27
In contrast, Cheng, Ho, and Lau (2009) study reported no relationship between organization culture and knowledge sharing. Organization culture commonly refers to the set of shared values, beliefs, and norms that influence the way employees behave toward each other and accomplish their tasks. According to some researchers, culture affects knowledge by determining how it is used and shared within the organization.
Several reasons why organization culture should be seen as the basis of how well knowledge is shared are highlighted in de Long & Fahey (2000) study. According to their study:
culture shapes what knowledge is and what knowledge is worth sharing,
culture defines the relationship between the employee and organizational knowledge. It determines what knowledge belongs to the organization and to their members.
culture establishes the context for employee interaction, determining how knowledge should be and will be shared in any particular situation,
culture shapes the creation and adoption of new knowledge.
Research has shown that organization culture types, characteristics and norms affect knowledge sharing. For example, Suppiah and Sandhu (2011) investigated the influence of organization culture types on tacit knowledge sharing by surveying 362 participants from seven organizations. The research results indicated that organization culture types may have a positive or negative influence on tacit knowledge sharing. Lu et al.’s (2006) study surveyed 246 part-time MBA students and middle- level employees for five firms in China, and found that co-worker collegiality facilitated knowledge sharing.
Akgun, Keskin and Gunsel (2007) used a sample of 101 samples from small and medium sized firms located in Gebze to investigate the impact of organization culture on tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. They found that a stable culture had no impact on knowledge sharing whereas a flexible culture and trust were positively related to tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. In contrast, Kim and Lee (2006) found no statistically significant associations between trust, organization goals/ vision and knowledge sharing. Lin (2008) found that trust, creative and supportive characteristics of organization culture are essential to knowledge sharing. Likewise,
28
Islam et al. (2011) study indicated that cultural dimensions such as trust, communication and leadership were positively and significantly associated with knowledge sharing.
Others researchers maintained that organization culture’s influence on knowledge sharing is based on the norms that are held by the organization. Ahmed et al. (2002, p.59) urged that adequate norms need to be held within the organization in order to promote knowledge sharing.
They stated that “if the wrong cultural norms exist, regardless of the effort and good intention of individuals trying to promote knowledge, little knowledge sharing is likely to be forthcoming as a result”. In other words, organizations need to promote norms that are supportive of knowledge sharing. Yang (2007) used a sample of 499 employees working in international tourists hotels in Taiwan, and found that collaborative culture is strongly correlated with knowledge sharing.
Similarly, Islam, Mahtab, and Ahmad (2008) study findings indicated that a supportive and collaborative culture was positively associated with knowledge sharing.
Collaboration is often cited as one of the cultural norms that lead to effective KM (e.g.
Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner, 2005, 2006; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Bhatt, 2001; de Long & Fahey, 2000; de Long 1997; Lopez et al., 2004). In a thorough review of literature, Slater (2004) pointed that although terms such as collegiality, congeniality, cooperation, consultation and collaboration are often used synonymously, he argued that collaboration include key components such as: a) common goals, joint work and interdependence; b) parity or equality in relationship; and c) voluntary participation. Hurley and Hult (1998) and Tahir et al. (2010) defined collaboration as the degree to which people actively support and help one another in their work. Since sharing knowledge may involve risks to an individual and rely on individuals’ relationship strength and level, a culture that promotes collaboration is expected to facilitate knowledge sharing (i.e. tacit and explicit). Moreover, Gold, Malhotra and Segars (2001) pinpointed that interaction and collaboration among employees is crucial when attempting to transmit tacit knowledge between individuals or convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, thereby transforming it from the individual to the organizational level.
Organization Structure and Knowledge Sharing
Zhou and Fink (2003) indicated that organization structure compared to organization culture and information technology plays prominent role for effective knowledge sharing. Studies have
29
shown that organization structure characteristics have an impact on knowledge sharing. For example, Kim and Lee (2006) study findings showed that centralization is negatively associated with knowledge sharing. In addition, their results reported no significant association between formalization and knowledge sharing. Lin (2008) empirically investigated five high tech industries in Taiwan and found out the lower the formalization in the organization is, the greater the knowledge sharing among units of an organization is. In addition, these authors also found the higher the complexity of an organization structure, the lower the knowledge sharing among organization units is.
In contrast, Islam, Ahmad, and Mahtab (2010)’s empirical study did not found formalization in the organization structure to be a significant predictor of knowledge sharing. In addition, the research also showed that an organization structure characterized by decentralization did not have any impact on knowledge sharing. Islam et al. (2008) study also indicated that a centralized organization structure was not related with knowledge sharing. Kim and Lee (2006) study suggested that a less centralized structure is preferred for facilitating knowledge sharing. Al-Alawi et al. (2007) study results indicated that knowledge sharing is enabled in a structure where the level of participation is increased and where boundaries of organization levels are reduced. Song (2009) advocated a flat organization structure in project work in order to encourage tacit knowledge sharing.
While hierarchical structure has been claimed to inhibit knowledge sharing, an open and flexible organization structure has been claimed to support knowledge sharing best (e.g. De Long
& Fahey, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Consequently, O’ Dell and Grayson (1998) and Gold et al. (2001) have emphasized the need for organizational structures to be flexible in order to encourage sharing and collaboration across boundaries within the organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995) further advanced that formal hierarchical structure can be maintained while the dimension flexibility is added and thereby increasing the chance for knowledge sharing and collaboration. Such claims were not supported by an empirical study conducted by Kang, Kim, and Chang (2008) which investigated the impact of knowledge sharing on individual work performance by using a sample of 323 public employees in South Korea. The findings revealed that a flexible organization structure did not have any significant influence on knowledge sharing.
30
A flexible organization structure has also been claimed to affect the sharing of knowledge types. Organizational structure is the way of organizational arrangements of people and jobs to meet in order to achieve organizational goals effectively and efficiently (Zulfqar et al., 2010).
Structure is believed to affect KM processes by shaping patterns and frequencies of communication among organizational members. Consequently, it also affects knowledge sharing which is facilitated by interactions and communication between individuals. For example, Chen and Huang (2007, p.114) suggested that organizations should design their structure as less formalized, more decentralized in order to provide autonomy and make them feel honored to participate in their work. The authors added that this would motivate employees to increase their behavior of social interaction and result in favorable knowledge sharing.
With regards to knowledge sharing types, Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann (2008) argued that the organization structure often hinders tacit knowledge sharing by establishing wrong authorities. Walczak (2005) suggested that an organization structure that encourages teamwork may facilitate the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge. Sharrat and Usoro (2003) noted that organizations with a centralized, bureaucratic management style can stifle the creation of new knowledge, while a flexible, decentralized organization structure encourages knowledge-sharing, particularly knowledge that is more tacit in nature.