• 沒有找到結果。

Challenges and Solutions of Knowledge Sharing in University of The Gambia

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Challenges and Solutions of Knowledge Sharing in University of The Gambia"

Copied!
78
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)Challenges and Solutions of Knowledge Sharing in University of The Gambia by Saikou Sanneh. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Chih-Chien Steven Lai, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan August 2017.

(2) ABSTRACT Knowledge is the bedrock of any successful undertaking. As such, its sharing is vital for both parties-the giver and the recipient. Knowledge sharing (KS) creates a win-win situation for both parties and thus contributes to personal and organizational progress and prosperity. These are some of the reasons why it is gaining momentum and growing in prosperity and posterity in organizations, irrespective of type or size. However, previous researches highlighted that there is very limited research on KS in universities and its sharing is usually also either promoted or hindered by certain factors. This study therefore, revealed the factors that affect KS in University of The Gambia (UTG) thereby also contributing to the limited literature. There are 220 faculty staff in UTG. 150 questionnaires were distributed. Out of this number, 113 were received with 1 invalid one. SPSS was used to analyse the collected data using descriptive statistics and, multiple regression. This was to help to present research results clearly and concisely, to examine the relationships between the independent variables and the dependent variable. Also, Smart PLS was utilised for the Factor Analysis. The results indicated that rewards, trust, and leadership have significant effects on KS in UTG. On the contrary, the results showed that ICT had no significant effect on KS in UTG. This could be as a result of the lack of the needed ICT infrastructure. Finally, based on the results of the study, recommendations were provided for UTG authorities as well as on the aspect of a future research. Keywords: knowledge sharing, rewards, trust, information and communication technology, leadership. I.

(3) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1 Background of the Study ......................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 4 Research Purposes ................................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions.................................................................................................................. 5 Significance of the Research ................................................................................................... 5 Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................................ 6 An Overview of University of The Gambia ............................................................................ 8. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................13 Rewards.................................................................................................................................. 13 Trust ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) ............................................................. 17 Leadership .............................................................................................................................. 19 Organizational Knowledge Management Practice................................................................. 21 Knowledge Management in Universities ............................................................................... 21 Knowledge Sharing (KS) ....................................................................................................... 23. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD .................................................................27 Research Framework ............................................................................................................. 27 Research Hypothesis .............................................................................................................. 28 Research Procedure ................................................................................................................ 28 Research Design..................................................................................................................... 31 Sample and Data Collection................................................................................................... 32. II.

(4) Instruments ............................................................................................................................. 33 Peer and Expert Reviews ....................................................................................................... 33 Measurements ........................................................................................................................ 34 Reliability and Validity .......................................................................................................... 36 Methods of Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 39. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................41 Descriptive Statistics .............................................................................................................. 41 Pearson Correlations Analysis ............................................................................................... 44 Relationships between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variable ................... 46. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS .......................................53 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 53 Research Implications ............................................................................................................ 54 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 55 Suggestions ............................................................................................................................ 56. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A: COVER LETTER .........................................................................65 APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES .....................................................................66. III.

(5) LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Various Schools in UTG ............................................................................................... 9 Table 3.1. Sources of Questionnaire Items .................................................................................. 36 Table 3.2. Results of Cronbach’s Alpha Value for the Scales ..................................................... 37 Table 3.3. PLS Loading for Knowledge Sharing, Reward and Trust (N=32) ............................. 38 Table 3.4. PLS Loading for ICT and Leadership (N=32) ............................................................ 39 Table 4.1. Demographic Data of Respondents ............................................................................ 42 Table 4.2. Mean, Standard Deviation and Correlations ............................................................... 44 Table 4.3. Relationship between Reward and Knowledge Sharing ............................................. 46 Table 4.4. Relationship between Trust and Knowledge Sharing ................................................. 47 Table 4.5. Relationship Between ICT & Knowledge Sharing ..................................................... 47 Table 4.6. Relationship between Leadership and Knowledge Sharing ....................................... 48 Table 4.7. Relationships between the Four Independent Variables and the Dependent Variable (N=112)………………………………………………………………...……………..49 Table 4.8. Results of Summarisation of Hypothesis Testing ................................................ 51. IV.

(6) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Academic positions at UTG ................................................................................ 12 Figure 3.1. Research framework ........................................................................................... 27 Figure 3.2. Research procedure ............................................................................................. 31. V.

(7) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter gave an insight on the background of this study. Also, it highlighted the purposes of the study, the significance of the study, research questions, definitions of terms that this research was anchored on, and finally, it wrapped up with an overview of UTG.. Background of the Study Knowledge has been the driving force behind the success of many organizations particularly the private sector. Several researches acknowledged that this was as a result of knowledge sharing including both tacit and explicit knowledge. Sharing knowledge especially tacit one among employees in organization can enhance quality service delivery and greater productivity thereby giving it that competitive advantage and uniqueness among its competitors. The most valuable part of possessing knowledge is when it is shared because that can result into increase job performance and facilitate new knowledge creation (Ismail & Yusof, 2008). The delivery of efficient and effective services in public sector has always been questioned in many developing countries which The Gambia is not an exception. This issue can be addressed through proper knowledge management and knowledge sharing. The success of society and organizations depend on how well they are able to share knowledge, learn from the knowledge they hold, and how they use it to create new values (Boateng & Agyemang, 2016). However, how about if the person possessing that tacit knowledge is reluctant to share it with the colleagues or those in need of it? According to Ismail and Yusof (2008), knowledge sharing seems to be a very daunting challenge to the individual holder, and most often he/she will only share it if it will yield a beneficial result for the one sharing it. Some researchers believed that the individual’s unwillingness to share knowledge could be as a result of the organization’s culture or better still how well or to what extend the individual trusts the one that he/she wants to share the knowledge with as well as the means available to transfer from one individual to the other such as the availability of ICT (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). Universities serve as centres of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. There are other excellent universities in The Gambia one example is the American International University (AIU), but all those universities are privately owned. University of The Gambia or UTG as it is called is the only conventional public university in The Gambia. It was founded in 1998, but it was not until 1.

(8) March, 1999 that UTG began to offer courses, following a law passed by the National Assembly of The Gambia. Since then, the number of students enrolled each year continues to rise. The UTG has several schools which include: School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, School of Arts and Sciences, School of Business and Public Administration, School of Education, School of law, School of Medicine and Allied Health Sciences, School of Information Technology and Communication amongst others (UTG Conditions of Service, 2016). This study discussed how reward system, trust, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and leadership influenced knowledge sharing (KS). There were several studies that were conducted in relation to Knowledge Management and knowledge sharing in public sector organizations in various countries. However, research into knowledge management in universities was very limited. And as stated earlier, universities are learning centres, and that means they play very pivotal role in the creation of knowledge and in its propagation. In addition, they also take a very significant stance in sharing that created knowledge by working with businesses and other institutions both public and private to support innovation, social and cultural enterprise besides enhancing learning through their teaching as well as the conduct of research and training programmes (Fullwood, Rowley, & Delbridge, 2013). With these great attributes associated with universities, there is a general belief that universities will be at the forefront in building and maintaining effective knowledge management and knowledge sharing strategies and put in place vibrant mechanisms as to how to manage and optimize their knowledge assets, but according to Fullwood et al. (2013) that is not the case. An organization’s overall environment has a magnificent influence on knowledge sharing. The overall organizational environment entails the environs and practices that are developed by organizations to enhance the manner in which they control their employees as well as facilitate their adoption of organizational values and beliefs. According to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), organizational environment involves six major categories: Information systems, people, process, leadership, reward system, and organization structure. Organization’s environment is seen as one of the factors that strongly affect effective knowledge creation, sharing and usage among employees in an organization (David & Fahey, 2000; Leonard Barton, 1995; Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). Cook and Yanow (1993), stated that organizations are cultural entities in nature, and to buttress this notion, regardless of what they. 2.

(9) (organizations) do to manage knowledge, the influence of the organization’s environment are indeed stronger (McDermott & O’Dell, 2001). The organization’s environment determines the norms regarding knowledge sharing among and between employees in that organization (Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2001). Ipe (2003) said it is the organization’s environment that tells one what to do and what not to do regarding the processing of knowledge and the manner in which it should be communicated in organization. Similarly, it is the environment that shapes assumptions about which knowledge is important. In addition, it controls the relationships between the different levels of knowledge i.e. organizational, group and individual. An organization’s culture does also shape the perceptions and behaviours of its employees, and it does this by establishing the context for social interactions within that particular organization (David & Fahey 2000; Trice & Beyer, 1993). The norms and practices in an organization that promote individual ownership of knowledge, will severely hinder the process of knowledge sharing within that particular organization because “organizational culture orients the mindset and action of every employee” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p.167). Corporate vision is also a very important component of organizational environment (Gold & Malhotra 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1995). According to Gold and Malhotra (2001), it does not only demonstrate a sense of purpose of the organization but also facilitates a system of organizational values. O’Dell and Grayson (1998) explained that organizational values that influence knowledge sharing include the creation of a sense of involvement and contribution among employees. Several authors such as Hislop (2009); McDermott and O’Dell (2001) acknowledged the crucial role that organization’s environment plays in terms of designing the organization’s knowledge management strategies and subsequently promoting and facilitating knowledge sharing. The organization’s culture which falls under the broader organizational environment has a significant impact on the level of knowledge sharing between and among its employees (Walczak, 2005). Similarly, Hsu (2008) opined that for any knowledge management initiative to be successfully implemented, it should put into consideration the existing culture that exists within that organization’s environment. And some research findings on knowledge sharing regarding organizational aspect proposed five different variables. These include organizational structure and organizational culture which were captured by (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004; Sharrat & Usoro,. 3.

(10) 2003). Rewards and recognitions, work process and office layout were highlighted by (Lee & AlHawamdeh, 2002). Universities share lots of things in common, but their structures are different from those of the other public organizations and by extension commercial institutions. Lai and Lee (2007) therefore, explained that the nature of academic departments also have influence and Fullwood et al. (2013) believed that loyalty to the individual’s area of interest matters rather than the organization’s culture or environment, Lai and Lee (2007) further elaborated academics can be viewed. Tippins (2003) explained that the way physical and psychological barriers hinder knowledge sharing, is the same way that the functional organizational structure of higher education institutions can also serve as barriers to knowledge sharing. This supports other research findings such as that of Disterer (2001). In his research on individual and social barriers to knowledge sharing, he highlighted some factors such as loss of power, uncertainty, language, and conflict avoidance among others. Disterer (2001) further expressed that there are lot of empirical findings which depict how the overall environment of the organization and cultural traits in particular such as employee's individual and social barriers are critical for knowledge management initiatives and knowledge sharing. According to Wenger and Snyder (2000), knowledge sharing already exists in higher education through what they referred to as communities of practice as groups of individuals are linked together by their enthusiasm for sharing and spreading their knowledge. They opined that a lot of benefits can be derived by an organization from this practice of sharing of one’s tacit knowledge. Once again, this study explored how the factors mentioned earlier will affect knowledge sharing at the University of The Gambia thereby contributing to the limited literature on KS at universities that share similar attributes with University of The Gambia and also help the UTG authorities to determine how these factors facilitate or hinder their staff willingness and readiness to share their Knowledge.. Problem Statement Knowledge sharing can be defined as exchanging experiences, events, thoughts or understanding of anything (in general) with an expectation to gain more insights and understanding 4.

(11) about something for temporary curiosity (Sohail & Daud, 2009). Through knowledge sharing, the individual’s tacit knowledge which is unique to him and sometimes very difficult to be accessed turns into tacit knowledge for another person or party (Boateng & Agyemang, 2016). According to Fullwood et al. (2013) in their research on knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities, there was a strong body of research conducted into knowledge management and knowledge sharing in commercial environments as well as in the public sector organizations. However, the trend of a research into knowledge management and knowledge sharing was very limited in universities. As a result, in the year 2000 according to Rowley as quoted by Fullwood et al. (2013) the question that was posed was whether higher education is ready for knowledge management?. Research Purposes There was little research on the level of knowledge sharing in universities. University of The Gambia being a young university in the African continent in general and the West African region in particular has no literature regarding knowledge sharing. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to explore how reward, trust, Information and Communication Technology and Leadership promote or hinder knowledge sharing (KS) in University of The Gambia and also contribute to the limited literature on KS.. Research Questions This research intends to explore how Organizational Culture and trust impacts on knowledge sharing and Organizational Performance at the University of The Gambia. Based on this, the research will aim to answer the following questions: 1. Does the reward system has an influence on Knowledge Sharing? 2. Does trust has an influence on Knowledge Sharing? 3. Does Information and Communication technology has influence on Knowledge Sharing? 4. Does leadership has influence on Knowledge Sharing?. Significance of the Research Knowledge sharing is one of the most important components of knowledge management. University is seen as the centre of knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. It is the place where 5.

(12) the workforce needed for all the disciplines by various organizations both public and private are trained and prepared for the various job openings. This is done through the teaching and learning that take place there as well as research and training programmes (Fullwood et al., 2013). It is important to note that inculcating the idea of knowledge sharing into these students will go a long way in helping the leadership of organizations that are toiling to encourage their employees to always share their knowledge- tacit knowledge for that matter to become a reality. There has been limited research conducted to determine the factors that might facilitate or hinder knowledge sharing in universities, and there was no research conducted on knowledge sharing on UTG. Therefore, the focus of this study was to explore the factors that affect (facilitate or hinder) knowledge sharing in University of The Gambia (UTG) thereby also contributing to the limited literature. Again, it brought into limelight how the perceived factors facilitated or hindered knowledge sharing in University of The Gambia thereby helping the authorities to come up with solutions to solving or strengthening them.. Definitions of Terms This part gave definitions of the variables in terms of theoretical and operational aspects. The definitions for the former were based on the concept of the constructs whereas the definitions of the later were based on how the variables were measured.. Knowledge Sharing (KS) Before defining the term knowledge sharing, a definition of the word knowledge is stated first. “Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provide a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998, p.5). Other authors such as Ahmad and Daghfous (2010) defined knowledge as a state of knowing that establishes facts, concepts, principles, laws, casual relationships, insights, judgments, intuition, and feelings. There were varying definitions of knowledge sharing. The other term that was also commonly use or that was interchangeable with the term knowledge sharing was knowledge Transfer. This according to Disterer (2001), was referred to as the sharing of knowledge either between individuals or among groups in an organization.. 6.

(13) Moreover, for Mooradian, Renzl, and Matzler (2006), knowledge sharing was defined as “the endowment or acknowledgement of task information, know-how and feedback regarding a product or procedure, and they believed that this was in connection to a variety of managerial desirable outcomes including productivity, task completion time, organizational learning and innovativeness. Alternatively, Boateng and Agyemang (2016), defined knowledge sharing as trading experiences, events, thoughts or understanding of almost everything and anything with an expectation to gain more insights and understanding about something for temporary curiosity. In this study, KS referred to the exchange of ideas, opinions, experiences, and information between and among the academic staff at UTG.. Rewards A reward is a thing given in recognition of service, effort, or achievement (Oxford Living Dictionaries). In this study, reward referred to the monetary as well as the appreciation and recognition of the efforts of the academic staff that were ready and willing to share their knowledge.. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Information and Communications Technology was defined as software and hardware that people in organizations use in order to do their tasks (Van den Brink, 2003). Also, according to www.techopedia.com, Information and communications technology (ICT) refers to all the technology that is used to handle telecommunications, broadcast media, intelligent building management systems, audiovisual processing and transmission systems, as well as network-based control and monitoring functions. For this study, information and communication technology was referred to the availability and the use of Internet to access, retrieve and share knowledge.. Trust Trust is a set of beliefs about the other party (trustee), which leads one (trustor) to believe that the trustee’s actions will have positive consequences for the trustor’s self (Islam, Hasan, Ahmed, & Ahmed, 2011). Recent studies have stressed the importance of building social capital in knowledge sharing. This basically means the relationship between and among employees in organizations have a great impact on trust and knowledge sharing (Levin, Cross, Abrams, & Lesser, 2002). In this study, the. 7.

(14) term Trust focused on between and among staff in terms of confidentiality of the one sharing knowledge and the recipients of that knowledge.. Leadership The perception of people on the term leadership varies. As such, there is no fixed definition of it. However, De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) defined Leadership as a process that deals with influencing other people towards achieving some desired outcomes or goals. In addition, Chemers (1997) defined it as the process of social influence where an individual can enlist the help and support of others in the accomplishment of a task. Leadership in this study was defined as the support that UTG management gives to the staff in terms of the provision of funds and facilities for knowledge sharing.. An Overview of University of The Gambia University of The Gambia (UTG) is the only public university in The Gambia. It was founded in 1998, but until March, 1999 that the UTG began to offer courses, following an Act of Parliament. In section 4 (1) of University of The Gambia Act, 1999, it was established based on six aims.. Aims of University of The Gambia The aims of the University, as prescribed in Section 4 (1) of University of The Gambia Act, 1999:  Provide higher education;  Undertake research;  Advance and disseminate knowledge;  Further training and continuing education;  Contribute to the social and economic development of The Gambia; and Foster appropriate relationships with any person or institution, both nationally and internationally (UTG Conditions of Service, 2016). Guided by these aims, UTG staff –both faculty and administrative work tirelessly towards achieving them. The number of students enrolled each semester continues to rise and it has trained and produced lot of talented people in The Gambia. Currently, lot of the top positions in government as well as in the private sector and parastatals are occupied by people who obtained their first degrees at UTG before proceeding for graduate programs either within The Gambia (UTG) if the area of study is available or abroad. 8.

(15) However, University of The Gambia is yet to get a main campus that can accommodate all the students’ dormitories and the staff offices. As such, the various schools are located within Banjul, Kanifing and Brikama administrative areas. UTG has several schools some of which offered both undergraduate and graduate programmes. This means some students sometimes have to travel or trek from one campus to the other. University of The Gambia’s various locations are found in table 1.1. Table 1.1. Various Schools in UTG Number 1. Name of the School. Location of the Campus. School of Business and Public. MDI Road, Kanifing. Administration (SBPA) 2. Faculty of law. MDI Road, Kanifing. 3. School of Journalism and Digital. MDI Road, Kanifing. Media 4. School of Education. The Gambia College Campus, Brikama,. 5. School of Medicine and Allied. Edward. Health Sciences. Hospital, Banjul.. School of Information Technology. The Gambia College Campus, Brikama,. 6. Francis. Small. Teaching. and Communication 7. School of Arts and Sciences. The Gambia College Campus, Brikama,. 8. School of Agriculture and. The Gambia College Campus, Brikama,. Environmental Sciences 9. School of Public Health. The Gambia College Campus, Brikama. Like many other public universities in Sub-Saharan Africa and some parts of the world, UTG relies on government funding, research grants as well as other intermittent gestures from philanthropists within and outside The Gambia. In addition, the students’ tuition fee also serves as a source of income for the institution. UTG employees serve or hold offices in the academic or administrative cadres. These employment appointments fall under different categories. However, it should be understood that there are also two important decision making bodies at UTG. These include the Senate and the Governing Council (UTG Conditions of Service, 2016). There are five 9.

(16) hundred and thirty-eight (538) staff at University of The Gambia. Two hundred and twenty (220) are faculty staff whereas the rest (318) are administrative and auxiliary staff. The faculty staff included Graduate Assistants, lecturers, professors, Associate Professors amongst others. On the other hand, the administrative staff included Administrative Assistants, Deputy Registrar, Registrar, Vice chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellors, Accountants etc. On the other hand, the auxiliary staff comprised the drivers, cleaners, securities etc.. Types of Appointments in University of The Gambia The appointment of staff into to the academic cadre at University of The Gambia come in different forms and durations. These different types of appointments at UTG are discussed below.. Tenure Appointment A member of staff, on his or her first employment, shall be subjected to a probationary period of three years during which, if he has performed to expectations, may be recommended by the Dean of Head of College, Faculty, School or Department to the Appointment and Promotions Committee or Board and the Governing Council for confirmation of his or her appointment till the retiring age. Such confirmation shall be based on the employee’s annual performance appraisal report for at least three consecutive years.. Contract Appointment This refers to any employment for a fixed period; normally up to three years. It may be reviewed on mutual agreement. Contract appointment may be made to two categories of staff: (1)Candidates seeking appointment for the first time, and (2) Persons who have retired from Public Service, Universities or cognate establishments, and who are fit to make reasonable contributions to the work of the University based on their education, knowledge, cognate experience and skills.. Temporary Appointment As the name implies, it refers to an appointment made for a period not exceeding one year.. 10.

(17) Adjunct Professor/Lecturer Adjunct Professors/Lecturers may be for a specific session to participate in the academic activities of the University (including seminars and colloquia) and to make use of the University’s facilities. They may have academic responsibilities as other academic staff members of the University, but their teaching duties may not normally exceed the equivalence of 3-4 semester/credit hours in each academic year.. Part-time Appointment The Vice-Chancellor can approve a part-time appointment on the recommendation of the Head of Department (eventually through Dean/ Provost/Director) to meet an academic need that is properly identified. Such appointment may be for one or more courses in an academic year. Part-time staff members are entitled to an honorarium at a rate determined by Council.. Sabbatical Leave Appointment Subject to availability of a vacancy or need of service, senior academic staff (from the rank of Senior Lecturer) from other Universities may be employed at UTG for not more than one academic year during the period of their Sabbatical Leave and paid approved allowances only.. Gambians in Diaspora Special rules and conditions shall apply to Gambians in Diaspora who may wish to take up appointment at UTG.. 11.

(18) Professor. Associate Professor. Senior Lecturer. Lecturer I. Lecturer II. Assistant Lecturer. Graduate Assistant. Figure 1.1. Academic positions at UTG The figure above showed the various academic positions at The University of The Gambia.. 12.

(19) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 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. 13.

(20) 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. 14.

(21) 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. 15.

(22) 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 16.

(23) 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 17.

(24) 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, elearning 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 18.

(25) 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. 19.

(26) 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. 20.

(27) will be on the behavioural aspects- the extent to which the behavior of the UTG leadership affects knowledge sharing. In any organization, the support rendered by its top management in supporting organizational knowledge creation and sharing serves as a very concrete pillar (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Several studies cherished that top management’s support is a fundamental pillar to the creation of a vibrant environment that leads to the provision of the required resources (Lin, 2007). MacNeil (2004) stressed that an organisational top management’s support to creating an atmosphere of organization knowledge sharing, cannot be underestimated. In addition, top management’s stand on knowledge sharing serves as a building block for the creation and maintenance of a vibrant knowledge sharing atmosphere (Lin & Lee, 2004). This study therefore, intends to examine how UTG’s top management influences the staff’s willingness to share their knowledge with colleagues in terms of sharing and receiving. H4= Leadership has positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing.. Organizational Knowledge Management Practice Proper management of any property, asset or resource of any organisation is fundamental for its efficient and effective utilization. In contemporary organizations of any type or size, proper knowledge management is relevant for its prosperity. There has been a great shift from industrially oriented economy to knowledge oriented economy-meaning in present times, service and expertise are the nucleus of business outcomes instead of the usual business target in ancient times. Less consideration is being given to the organizational hierarchical structure because knowledge work flourishes more on collaboration. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), an organization’s sustainable advancement and development is accrued from what it collectively knows, how efficiently that is utilised and how swiftly it acquires and uses the new knowledge.. Knowledge Management in Universities Universities focus on developing prospective potentials and other innate skills and abilities embedded in students. Some of these skills include: analytical skills, problem solving skills, as well as their interpersonal skills thereby contributing to building a society of knowledge. This is according to Mikulecky and Mikulecka (1999) is made possible because universities are one of the most suitable and appropriate centres for practising knowledge management principles and 21.

(28) methods. Cronin (2000), described universities as embodiments for knowledge creation as well as the proper place for initiating and implementing knowledge management system. When knowledge is properly managed and utilized, by sharing and reusing, more new knowledge is produced which can result into greater service delivery and performance. Society and the world at large, has high regards for universities. In fact, the much needed human resource base of governments and organizations (both public and private) are mostly provided by universities through their graduates after they have under gone years of studies in various fields in the university and have successfully fulfilled all the requirements to be conferred degrees or diplomas. Rowley (2000), expressed the fact that for efficient and effective knowledge management initiatives to take shape in universities, the leadership needs to ensure that the process that is associated with the creation of their knowledge assets as well as notice the value that is attached to their intellectual capital and their eventual continuing role in society. Meeting the technical requirements of knowledge management such as computer literacy and the provision of sufficient information and communication infrastructure is not enough for knowledge management. Instead, the leadership should also try to improve the social and cultural problems that might hinder appropriate knowledge management practices. In the university, like any other institution, the knowledge is usually available in the forms of tacit that is in the minds or heads of the people (skills and competency) as well as explicit, in the forms of documents, notes, manuals and reports ( information, know-how and know-who) (Ismail & Yusof, 2008). On the other hand, the propagation of this available knowledge is usually done by utilizing numerous channels of communications among which include, conferences, seminars, lectures, training programs and forums. However, the coming in of information and communication technology has indeed complemented these methods of knowledge sharing and even fortified and improved its storage and management thereby ensuring its effective and efficient delivery. According to Mikulecky and Mikulecka (1999) an establishment of Knowledge Management (KM) modus operandi and its instruments in universities, facilitate them to effectively share their knowledge as this help to ameliorate the working relations among the staff and students as well as other parties. They further reiterated that universities are the most viable institutions of knowledge management because of the following reasons: (a) They do have modern information infrastructure, (b) lecturers are seen as the most suitable people for sharing knowledge 22.

(29) with others and finally, (c) students are zealous to seek knowledge from convenient sources as much as they can and as quick as possible. On the other hand, Metaxiotis and Psarras (2003) viewed universities as centres with the following three missions. These include: Firstly, Teaching, secondly, Research and thirdly, Service. It is through the teaching aspect that universities craft students in a manner that they become successful learners throughout their lives. For research, universities use it to expound the boundaries of knowledge, creativity and innovation. And finally, the service part of the universities helps them to serve those very universities and the communities within which they are. In addition, the service aspect of the universities’ mission makes them to handle leadership portfolios and serve in public and private organisations both at local and on the international stages. As institutions of both learning and working undergo transformations as a result of the dynamic changing economic environment, the stance of universities in particular and learning institutions in general as citadel of knowledge are being thoroughly examined and challenged as well by the different groups that have a stake in them-such as the public. As such, the universities have been tasked to initiate, implement, and practicalised knowledge management ideas and principles with an intent of carrying out fundamental and applied research, tutoring appropriate curricular program, harnessing of knowledge for leadership decision support so as to facilitate and ameliorate internal document management and utilization in order to increase the status of knowledge dissemination, and accurate and proper usage of knowledge for a valuable change in the learning process (Metaxiotis & Psarras, 2003). However, according to Marwick (2001) the effective and efficient attainment of knowledge management goals is anchored on the right conglomeration of organizational, social, and managerial initiatives as well as the utilization of the right technology. One of the aspects of organizational knowledge management is organizational knowledge sharing, so what is knowledge sharing?. Knowledge Sharing (KS) Organizational knowledge sharing entails dissemination of knowledge between and among employees. Disterer (2001) clarified that the other term for knowledge sharing is knowledge transfer, which he described as the sharing of knowledge between individuals and among groups in an organization. And Yang (2004) explained knowledge sharing as a dissemination of information and knowledge to the entire organization or department.. 23.

(30) Van den Hooff, Elving, Meeuwsen, and Dumoulin (2003) referred to knowledge sharing as a process where employees reciprocally exchange knowledge thereby creating a new knowledge. Similarly, and in a wider context, knowledge sharing entails the communication of both tacit (skills and competency) and explicit (information, know-how and know-who) (Ismail & Yusof, 2008). They defined knowledge sharing as a form of deliberate act that makes knowledge reusable by other people through the transfer of knowledge. The sharing of the individual tacit knowledge makes it available to other employees in an organization. Moreover, for Mooradian et al. (2006) knowledge sharing is about the provision or receipt of task information, know-how and feedback regarding a product or procedure, and they belief that this is in connection to a variety of managerial desirable outcomes including productivity, task completion time, organizational learning and innovativeness. Knowledge sharing between individuals thus results in individual learning, which in turn may contribute to organizational learning. Dodgson (1993) and Huber (1991) considered knowledge sharing as a very key component of organizational learning. Knowledge sharing between employees is a process that facilitates and encourages organizational learning (Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Nidumolu, Subramani, & Aldrich, 2001). On the contrary, the absence of knowledge sharing serves as an obstacle to the effective management of knowledge in organizations (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Hendriks, 1999). This indicates that lack of knowledge sharing can breed inefficiency and ineffectiveness in an organization. There is limited research on knowledge management and knowledge sharing in public organizations and universities for that matter (McAdam & Reid, 2000). As stated above, although there is little research on the topic of knowledge sharing in universities Davenport and Prusak (1998) explained that a lot of benefits can be accrued. They stated that encouraging knowledge sharing among employees in an organization breeds lot of potentials and enhances organizational performance and competitive advantage. There is no study on the level and nature of knowledge sharing in the University of The Gambia, and knowledge sharing among employees in an organization has lot of benefits which helps towards achieving organizational goals. Four key areas have been highlighted as outcome of knowledge sharing in organizations by Zhang, Li, and Shi (2005). These include: (a) Increase intellectual capital structure in the organizations; 24.

(31) (b) Change individual competitiveness into organizational competitiveness, minimize organizational dependency on individual and reduce the possibility of loss of employee because of changing place of work; (c) Change organizational competitiveness into individual competitiveness in which individual can gain knowledge from organizational repository. This will increase individual competitiveness; (d) Finally, the cost to gather knowledge in organization will be reduced compare to those available in the market. Moreover, Hislop (2009) said the practice of knowledge sharing usually has advantages and disadvantages for employees i.e. the ones sharing their knowledge. The employees are usually concern with the evaluation of these pros and cons of knowledge sharing. The pros might be intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, improved performance of the organization and increased status. On the other hand, Hislop (2009) said the cons of sharing one’s tacit knowledge means the individual likely gives away a source of power and expertise to other. Bock et al. (2005, p.92) similarly explored the concept of reward in knowledge sharing. They argued that the interaction among employees and the good things they exchange during the course of that interactions cannot be quantitatively measured, but entails personal obligation, gratitude and trust. According to Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) reward system is a key motivator for knowledge sharing. Oliver and Kandadi (2006), Davenport and Prusak (2000) and Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) all share similar views with them. They buttressed that an organization’s reward system motivate employees to share their knowledge which in turn foster a knowledge culture. They further clarified that the social aspect, such as appreciation and recognition outweigh the monetary aspect of incentives in knowledge sharing. Al Alawi et al. (2007) also agree that there is positive relationship between rewards and knowledge sharing in organizations. They highlighted trust, communication between staff, information systems, reward system and organizational structure as some factors that influence the successful knowledge sharing. Also, the absence of rewards, nonexistence of support from the top echelons of management, poor human resource management practices, weak organizational structure, poor or inadequate infrastructure, weak organizational culture, office politics, inadequate knowledge management or knowledge sharing strategies, the absence of formal and informal platforms to share knowledge, rivalry between the various units in an organization and finally, the lack of. 25.

(32) training has its hindrance on knowledge sharing in an organization (Boateng & Agyemang, 2016; Riege, 2005;Yao, Kam, & Chan, 2007).. The Need for KS No one has a monopoly of knowledge, therefore, it is meant to be shared. Knowledge sharing is a ‘win-win’ situation for individuals and teams as well as the one sharing and the one receiving (Reid, 2003). Knowledge is a phenomenal trend in organizations of variant sizes and structures. It is through knowledge sharing that organizations are able to differentiate themselves from one and another- either positive or negative identity. In an organization where knowledge sharing is the norm, no particular task or challenge becomes insurmountable. As a result, there is innovation, creativity and continuous improvement. The most valuable part of possessing knowledge is when it is shared because that can result into increase job performance and facilitate new knowledge creation (Ismail & Yusof, 2008). Knowledge sharing breeds organizational success. This is because every individual employee is always up-to-date with current issues and trends that affect his/ her routine work. This further helps organizations build unique values that become hard to imitate. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) in their book on “The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation” they highlighted the fruitfulness of how knowledge sharing can lead to organizational innovation. They asserted that with strong culture of organizational knowledge sharing, organizations possess a competitive advantage over their competitors. Similarly, Yang (2007) also buttressed the idea that organizational learning cannot take place in the absence of knowledge sharing, and it is through learning that new ideas are emerged which facilitates excellent delivery of job tasks. He considered knowledge sharing as a prerequisite for individual and organizational progress and prosperity. Also, Spender (1996) corroborated the idea of KS as a way of supporting organizational success. He stressed that knowledge sharing generates skills and abilities and also brings in value growth and ensures sustainable competitive advantages. The overall end result of organizational knowledge sharing is an increase in organizational performance and effectiveness. Finally, knowledge is meant to be shared because without sharing, the knowledge becomes obsolete. For the purpose of this paper, knowledge sharing is referred to as process that involves UTG staff to share their knowledge or ideas between and among themselves for effective service delivery. 26.

(33) CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD Overall, this chapter focused on the process and procedure of the research methodology. The contents of this chapter basically included: the research framework, research hypothesis, research procedure, research design, research instruments and measures, data collection and it finally explained the statistical analysis methods that were used to evaluate the research data.. Research Framework Upon reviewing the literature, which led to the identification of the existing gap, the research framework was then developed. The research analysed the reward system, internet availability, leadership and trust as factors affecting knowledge sharing in The University of The Gambia. Rewards Remuneration Recognition H1 Trust Trust in Management Trust in Colleagues. H2. H3 ICT. Internet Availability Internet Infrastructure. H4. Leadership Leadership Support Leadership Behaviour. Figure 3.1. Research framework. 27. Knowledge Sharing.

(34) Research Hypothesis Going by the research questions, the literature review, and the research framework, the researcher then developed the following hypotheses: 1. Rewards have positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing. 2. Trust has positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing. 3. Information and Communication Technology has positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing. 4. Leadership has positive influence on organizational knowledge sharing.. Research Procedure The procedure for this research follows eight (9) different steps. These are: 1.. Research motivation and topic identification. 2.. Review of the existing literature. 3.. Research population and sampling identification. 4.. Data collection for the pilot test. 5.. Process the data. 6.. Analyse and interpret the data. 7.. Produce the Results. 8.. Make necessary adjustments. 9.. Thesis defense. This research procedure is illustrated in figure 3.2. on page 32.. Research Motivation and Topic Identification The foundation for this research began after the research completed a particular course studied at the end of the second semester of his studies. The topic of interest then followed suit which was based on the researcher’s particular institution of interest.. Review of the Existing Literature At this stage, the researcher’s reviewed of the existing literature was guided by his motivation and area of interest as stated in step one. A lot of journal, conference as well as books were reviewed. The relevant ones were then downloaded and saved for references for the writing process. 28.

(35) Research Population and Sample Identification The faculty and administrative staff of University of The Gambia were then chosen to be the focus of this study. A detail information about the institution was sought and utilized for the study.. Data Collection for the Pilot Test After the institution and the population for the study have been identified, the institution was notified through one of the employees. This individual will serve as the focal person for this research in order to facilitate the mobilization of the staff to fill the questionnaires as well as facilitate the distribution and the collection of the said questionnaires. The questions for the pilot test will be sent to him immediately after the proposal has been defended.. Process the Data When the questionnaires are filled and sent to the researcher, he will then gather them and start the necessary processing of the data.. Analyse and Interpret the Data The collected data was then analysed using the right software such as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Smart Partial Least Square (PLS). The results were then interpreted in simple explanations for easier and better comprehension by all and sundry.. Produce the Results After the analysis and the interpretations of the data, the results were produced and made available for peer and expert review.. 29.

(36) Make Necessary Adjustments When the results were produced, and the content was discussed with peers and the advisor as the expert, then the necessary adjustments were made on the entire content if the need be. For instance, changing, deleting or restructuring some questionnaires.. Final Thesis Defense This part saw the thesis being eventually defended and accepted. After the defense, suggestions were made by the various committee members which were later incorporated into the final draft.. 30.

(37) Stage 1 Stage 2. Research motivation & topic identification. Developed research methods and instruments. Review of the Literature. Expert review. Research population and sample identification. Final Thesis defense. Submit research work. Develop research frame work & hypotheses. Figure 3.2. Research procedure. Research Design This study made use of the quantitative approach using a questionnaire-based survey. A survey questionnaire was used as it availed the researcher to get detail information on the background, beliefs, or the attitudes of a substantial number of people (Neuman, 2014). Some of the reasons why this study utilized survey were that they were built around pertinent items and topics, thereby making it readily analyzed and interpreted. Survey also ensured confidentiality for the research participants who may be reluctant to give honest feedback if their identity remained undisclosed. In addition, according to Debowski (2006), a quantitative results can as well be compared across periods and group. Finally, survey was also seen as the most effective and suitable 31.

參考文獻

相關文件

• Children from this parenting style are more responsive, able to recover quickly from stress; they also have better emotional responsiveness and self- control; they can notice

 Create and present information and ideas for the purpose of sharing and exchanging by using information from different sources, in view of the needs of the audience. 

 Create and present information and ideas for the purpose of sharing and exchanging by using information from different sources, in view of the needs of the audience. 

Microphone and 600 ohm line conduits shall be mechanically and electrically connected to receptacle boxes and electrically grounded to the audio system ground point.. Lines in

This study intends to bridge this gap by developing models that can demonstrate and describe the mechanism of knowledge creation activities from the perspective of

Therefore, this research paper tries to apply the perspective of knowledge sharing to construct the application model for the decision making method in order to share the

This study aims to explore whether the service quality and customer satisfaction have a positive impact on the organizational performance of the services and whether the

The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of learning organization culture on teachers’ study and teaching potency in Public Elementary Schools.. The research tool of