Note: KSC1=Trust; KSC2=Collaboration; KSC3=Team; KSC4=Cooperation; KSC5=Mutual Trust; KSC6=Asking Question; KT1=Combination; KT2=Externalization;
KT3=Internalization; KT4=Socialization; SCN1=Innovation; SCN2=flexibility;
SCN3=Adoptive; SCN4=Dynamic; SCN5=Good Relationship; SCN6=Employee W/ Key Knowledge; SCN7=Employee Learning; SCN8=Excellent Culture; DKS1=Explicit Ability;
DKS2=Cognitive Ability;DKS3=Faith; DKS4=Resource Opportunity;DKS5=Distrust; KS6 Self Centered; DKS7=Arrogance; DKS8 Self-Protect; DKS9=Perception of Knowledge is Power; DKS10=Reward System; DKS11=Job Security; DKS12=NIH; DKS13=
Centralization; DKS14= Isolation; DKS15= Don’t Care
According to Cabrita and Bontis (2008), in spite of that the measurement and structural parameters are estimated together, a Smart PLS model analyzed and interpreted two stages:
the assessment of the reliability and validity of the measurement model, and the assessment of the structural model. The sequence ensures reliable and valid measures of constructs before we try to draw conclusions with regard to the relationships among the constructs.
Testing the Measurement Model
This study uses Cronbach’s alpha smartPLS approach to assess the measurement model
greater than .70 (.91 for KSC; .93 for KT; 0.94 for SCN; .70 for DKS).
Table 5.3.
PLS Cronbach’s Alpha, Internal Consistency and R2 in this Study
Constructs No. of Items Cronbach's Alpha Internal Consistency R2(%)
KSC 18 .91 .93
KT 19 .93 .94 .37
SCN 24 .94 .95 .81
DKS 45 .70 .81
Note: KSC=knowledge sharing culture; KT=knowledge transfer; SCN=survival and competitiveness of non-profits; and DKS= difficulties of knowledge sharing.
In order to evaluate the statistical significance of the loadings and the path coefficients (standardized betas), the bootstrapping 30x method was used to test the significance of the path coefficients. Four paths (Knowledge sharing culture, knowledge transfer, survival and competitiveness of non-profits and difficulties of knowledge sharing) proved to be significant at the p-value < .10 Results showed that the explanatory power (R²) for the model SCN is 81.1% which is substantially strong, whereas KT (R²) is 37.1% moderately substantial according to Chin (1998).
Next, Hair et al. (2011) indicate that the individual path coefficients in the PLS structural model can be interpreted as the standardized beta coefficient in ordinary regressions. Further, each of the path coefficients significance value can be determined by means of the bootstrapping procedures, using the t-value. Hair et al. (2011) also state that critical t-values for the two-tailed test are 1.65, 1.96 and 2.58, representing weak, moderate and strong. The casual relationship between variables can thus be assessed.
Table 5.4.
PLS Path Analysis Results (Standardized Beta Coefficients and Adjusted T-values)
Path Hypotheses β-path Adj.
t-value
Sig. Hypotheses Direction
KSC KT H1 .60 18.92 *** Reject +
KT SCN H2 .33 4.32 *** Reject +
KSC SCN H3 .10 1.66 * Reject -
DSK SCN H4 .71 13.38 *** Reject +
Note: N=97
*p< .10. **p <.05. *** p <.001.
“Table 5.4. Demonstrates the results for the structural model. The results finds that the four constructs that forms KST structural model significantly affect one another and the result show a positive influence so that it rejects the null research hypothesis; therefore this study accepts the alternative hypothesis. Also, difficulties of knowledge sharing (SCN) is the most important construct in the context of the model given its substantive beta value (.81). Refer to “Figure 5.1. KST Structural Model” to a complete picture of the measurement model in this study.
Figure 5.1. KST Structural Path
*p< .10. **p <.05. *** p <.001.
“Figure 5.1. KST Structural Model” demonstrates the results for the KST structural model.
The results pinpoint that the four constructs that forms the KST structural model really affect one another. One important benefit of the PLS methodology is that it makes it possible to separate direct and total effects of the variables included in the model (Cabrita & Bontis, 2008). As illustrated from “Table 5.5 Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects” and
“Figure 5. 1. KST Structural Model” decomposition of effects shows that KSC have important effects on KT. KSC influences SCN not only directly (.60) but also indirectly through the KT (.60x .33= .20), giving a total effect of .81. Furthermore, KCS also influences the survival and competitiveness of NPOs indirectly KSC KTSCN (.60 x .33).
Table 5.5.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects
Path Equation Influence
KSCKT Direct .61
KTSCN Direct .33
KSCSCN Direct -.10
DKSSCN Direct .71
KSCKTSCN Indirect .61 x .33 = .20
Next, as illustrated from “Table 5.5 Summary” and “Figure 5.1. KST Model”
decomposition of effects shows that KSC has a negative effect on SCN. KSC influences SCN directly (-.10). Also, KCS influences the KSC directly KSC SCN (-.10) indicating that KCS has a negative effect on SCN.
Finally, as shown in “Figure 5.1. KST Model” decomposition of effects shows that DKS is highly significant SCN. DKS influences DKS directly (.71). Likewise, DKS influences the SCN directly DKSSCN (.71) indicating that DKS has a positive significant effect on SCN.
According to the Smart PLS Figure 5.1, from the Knowledge Sharing Culture perspective the result show that trust culture has a positive parameter (.87) and t-ratio (37.14);
collaboration culture has a positive parameter (.83) and t-ratio (17.26); team culture has a positive parameter (.79) and t-ratio (22.19); cooperation culture has a positive parameter (.78)
significant at 1%. However, highly significant in knowledge sharing culture is mutual concern culture and asking questions trust respectfully.
From the Knowledge Transfer perspective, the result shows that combination (parameter=.78, t-ratio=13.03), externalization (parameter=.59, t-ratio=7.61), internalization (parameter=.69, t-ratio=11.62) and socialization (parameter=.81, t-ratio=20.51) have positive parameter and t-ratio, which are all significant at 1%. In addition it is noteworthy to say that socialization and combination are highly significant in knowledge transfer.
From the Difficulties of Knowledge Sharing perspective, the result show that each dimension have positive parameter for Employees Ability: explicit ability (parameter=.74, t-ratio=14.26) which are cognitive ability (parameter=.74, t-ratio=9.94), faith (parameter=.760, t-ratio=32.33), resource and opportunity (parameter = .82, t-ratio=26.05)’ also highly significant is resource and opportunity and faith for employees ability; Employees Attitude:
distrust (parameter=.52, t-ratio=5.68), self-centeredness (parameter=.80, t-ratio=20.82), arrogance (parameter=.82, t-ratio=23.35), and self-protection (parameter=.61, t-ratio=7.88), highly significant is arrogance and self-centeredness in employees attitude; Knowledge is Power: Perception of knowledge is power (parameter=.78, t-ratio=12.56); reward systems (parameter=..73, t-ratio=17.37); and job security (parameter=.72, t-ratio=19.90), also highly significant is job security and reward systems in knowledge is power; Organisation Culture Prospect: Not-Invented-Here (parameter=.61, t-ratio=7.86), centralization and storage of knowledge (parameter=.66, ratio=12.45), isolation and channel (parameter=.74, t-ratio=28.45), and don’t care about implicit knowledge (parameter=.73, t-ratio=17.14), also isolation and don’t care about implicit knowledge are highly significant in organization culture prospect. The general conclusion is that all of these four perspectives are significant at 1 %.
From the Survival and Competitiveness of NPOs perspective the result show that innovation has a positive parameter (.83) and t-ratio (23.58); flexible organizational structure has a positive parameter (.85) and t-ratio (21.85); adoptive to environmental capacity has a positive parameter (.84) and t-ratio (19.96); dynamic organization has a positive parameter (.84) and t-ratio (21.45); good relationship with customer, suppliers, and partners has a positive parameter (.87) and t-ratio (28.73); employees with key has a positive parameter (.81) and ratio (23.58), employees learning and update speed has a positive parameter (.78) and t-ratio (13.70); and excellent and distinctive culture and valve has a positive parameter (.87) and t-ratio (23.11) which all significant at 1%. However, good relationship with customer,
suppliers and partners, employees with key knowledge, innovation, and excellent and distinctive culture and value system are also highly significant.