Organizational Climate and Knowledge Sharing: A Moderating ... GDHEC/… · § Muhammad Wasim Akram, PhD Scholar- Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia. Email:

Organizational Climate and Knowledge Sharing: A

Moderating Role of Cognitive Based Trust among Health

Care Professionals Kiran Razzaq

*, Wasim ul Rehman

†, Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost

‡

and Muhammad Wasim Akram§

Abstract This study turns to examine the impact of organizational climate on

knowledge sharing using moderating role of cognitive based trust in

view that health care professionals are knowledge worker require

updated information to improve their knowledge productivity. A survey

approach (questionnaire) is used to collect the data from health care

professionals from four mega cities of Punjab, Pakistan. Using

convenient sampling, the results of internal reliability and confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) reveal the existence of internal reliability and

validity of the constructs on the sample of 450.The findings of the study

indicate that organizational climate significantly and positively

influences knowledge sharing (i.e. knowledge collecting and knowledge

donating). Nevertheless, the results of study also indicate that trust

moderate the relationship between organizational climate and

knowledge donating which implies that employees’ willingness to share

knowledge among peers depend on their degree of intimacy. This study

contributes in theoretical and practical lens by considering

organizational factors such as organizational climate and as well

individual factors trust to influences the knowledge sharing practices

among health care professionals.

Keywords: Knowledge sharing, Organizational climate, Cognitive

Based Trust, Health Care Professionals

Introduction

In cut-throat competition, businesses and economies are suffering from

continuous revisions to compete with each other due lack of knowledge

and intangible resources (Subramaniam and Youndt, 2005). Now

organizations achieve competitive positioning by focusing on knowledge

resources which are rare and inimitable (Grant, 1996; Zack et al., 2009).

These intangible refer to knowledge resources provide dynamic but long

* Kiran Razzaq, The Superior College Lahore, Pakistan Email:

[email protected] † Dr. Wasim ul Rehman, In-charge Department of Business Administration, GC

Women University Sialkot, Pakistan ‡ Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost , Hailey college of commerce, Punjab university,

Lahore, Pakistan § Muhammad Wasim Akram, PhD Scholar- Faculty of Management, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia. Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Global Development in Humanities, Education and Civilization (GDHEC 2017)

Journal of Managerial Sciences 444 Volume XI Number 03

term sustainable performance to organization than tangible resources

(Barney, 1991). Prior research acknowledges that unique resources are

tangible in nature but now the trend is dramatically shifted into

knowledge base resources than production based resources (Barney,

1991). Therefore, extant of research claims that organizations

competitive resources are non-imitable (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991;

Grant, 1996) which are comprise of intellectual and knowledge resources

(Coviello and Munro, 1997; Hadley and Wilson, 2003; Lu and Beamish,

2001;Barney, 1991; Fletcher, 2004; Hitt et al., 1997).Therefore,

presently organizations are more focused on intangible assets of the

organizations to get competitive advantage over other firms. The

knowledge resources of the organization are found in the form of tacit

knowledge and explicit knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;

Davenport & Prusak, 1998).Tacit knowledge resides in the minds of the

people working in organization (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Kapoor &

Adner, 2012; Zheng et al., 2010) whereas explicit knowledge refer to

formal and constructible knowledge found in the form manuals,

procedures and documents (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Junnarkar and

Brown, 1997)

Knowledge is to be considered as a crucial component of

knowledge based economies to attain sustained competitive advantage

(Grant, 1996). It is widely acceptable that knowledge is the strategic

asset of the organization (Barney, 1991). Knowledge sharing

significantly impacts organizational learning and effectiveness (Yang,

2007). The knowledge based view (KBV) of the organization contends

that the success in this era of cut-throat competition, depends upon

creation, application, protection and sharing of knowledge among

organizational actors to enhance organizational performance (Nonaka,

1991; Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann, 2008) where organizational

climate plays an effective role for knowledge sharing and

implementation.

This study focuses on the relationship between organizational

climate and knowledge sharing practices where trust is playing as a

moderating role among the constructs. Keeping in this view this study

claims that limited research considers the moderating role of trust

(Casimir et al., 2012). Therefore, this study aims at to bridge this gap by

considering trust as a moderator which may consequently be helpful in

broadening the literature both in context of knowledge sharing and trust.

This study also contributes that prior research only considers the one

dimension of knowledge sharing (i.e. knowledge donating) however

deserting the knowledge collecting (Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011;Amayah,



2013) therefore research takes into account both dimensions of

knowledge sharing.

Extant of literature indicates that most of the research attempted

to investigate the relationship between organizational culture and

knowledge sharing (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Park et al., 2004),

however, this study is intended to investigate the impact of

organizational climate on knowledge sharing practices as it is easy to

make improvements in organizational climate compare to organizational

culture because it is stationary, temporal and mostly inhibited to those

elements which are clearly perceived by individuals of the organization

(Dennison, 1996) moreover organizational culture is not as much easier

to recognize and typically it depends on social systems (Dennison, 1996;

McMurray, 2003).

Literature indicates that trust has intensively investigated in

research but there lacks a scarcity of empirically tested relationship

between organizational climate and knowledge sharing practices in the

presence of moderating role of trust (Chowdhury, 2005; Bakker et al.,

2006; Hsu and Wang, 2008; Chen and Hung, 2010; Amayah, 2013).

Knowledge is critical resource for knowledge workers in all

organizations particularly for health care organizations. Therefore,

knowledge sharing among health professionals is importance because it

keep them update about task oriented knowledge to deliver quality health

care services (Cohen & Levinthal 1990). Knowledge sharing among

health professionals take place in the shape of demonstration, discussing,

questioning and answering, lecturing, internet or video and audio

conferences (Zack, 1999; Ryu, Ho & Han 2003).

Theoretical Model and Hypotheses

Knowledge Sharing

One of the most critical challenges that organizations are

encountering is that people are reluctant to share knowledge with their

peers. It may circumvent optimal performance of organization because

individuals are unwilling to share product related knowledge (Rehman et

al.,2015) Knowledge sharing depends on individuals’ willingness

working in an organization where trust among them performs integral

part whether to share or not to share knowledge(Casimir et al., 2012).

Literature classifies two important types of knowledge i.e. tacit and

explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994: Zack, 1999; Gold and Malhotra

2001). Tacit knowledge is informal and unstructured knowledge which is

implanted in the minds of individuals and people take home after leaving

the organization is referred to as tacit knowledge (Zack, 1999).

Organization can be benefited from tacit knowledge only if the person

who possess it, is willing to share knowledge. On other hand, explicit



knowledge is structure and formal knowledge which is found in the form

of documents, reports and manuals etc. (Nonaka, 1994; Bock et al.,

2005).

Organization Climate and Knowledge Sharing Literature supports the argument that in order to achieve desired

performance out comes, competitive advantage, organizational climate is

a very important element (Danneels, 2008;Gibson and Birkinshaw,

2004)and further for effective flow of knowledge (Hansen and

Wernerfelt, 1989; Ray et al., 2004; Fainshmidt and Frazier, 2016).

Organizational culture refers to, organizational context for individuals’

and as well their actions relevant to culture but yet it is different from it

(Glick, 1985). It basically refers to experiences of the organizational

members which they link with their workplace (Schneider et al., 2013).

H1: Organizational climate impacts knowledge collecting.

H2: Organizational climate impacts knowledge donating.

Trust, Organizational Climate and Knowledge Sharing

The concept of trust recalls the social capital theory, a theory

which supports the idea that capital is created when individuals interacts

socially with each other (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Hoffman et al. (2005)

believe social capital as a structure that helps in the development of

“collective intellectual capital”. Social capital theory emphasizes

cooperative behavior among organizational actors and thus nurturing

social interactions. It promotes social relation which consequently

provide tangible and intangible benefits in the long run. Although, there

are various dimensions of social capital like strategic alliances, trust,

willingness to engage, etc. however, this study only considers relational

aspect i.e. trust (Putnam, 2000). McAllister (1995, p. 25) states the

“extent to which a person is confident in, and willing to act on the basis

of the words, actions, and decisions of another”.

Previous discussion shed light that knowledge sharing is one of

the strategic resources (Amayah, 2013; Fullwood et al., 2013; Huang et

al., 2013; Yeo and Marquardt, 2015), however, its sharing is paramount

in terms of numerous financial and non-financial benefits (Mills and

Smith, 2011; Andreeva and Kianto, 2012; Kianto et al., 2013;Yahyapour

et al., 2015). This debate points out that knowledge sharing is requisite

among organizational members however organizational factors

(organizational climate) need to understand for efficient flow of

knowledge in organization (Minbaeva et al., 2012) by building trust

among individuals within the organization. Therefore, this study attempts

to investigate the impact of organizational climate on knowledge sharing

practices (Deckop et al., 2003; Chen and Choi, 2005; Hansen, 2011;



Hansen et al., 2013; Lin and Lo, 2015) in the presence of trust as

moderator. Keeping in this view, following hypotheses are devised.

H3: Trust plays moderating role between organizational climate and

knowledge collecting.

H4 Trust plays moderating role between organizational climate and

knowledge donating.

Research Methodology

Data Collection

This study uses the questionnaire as survey instrument to collect

the data from health care professionals working in district hospitals from

major cities Lahore, Sialkot, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi Punjab,

Pakistan. Using the key informant approach, the study collects the data

from health care professional using convenient sampling technique.

Health care sector is one of the knowledge oriented sector where health

care professionals are knowledge workers. Therefore, knowledge sharing

practices keep them innovative and updated for the sustainable

performance of health institution. Knowledge sharing practices also add

value in human capital efficiency of knowledge workers. Initially this

study distributes 580 questionnaire among health professionals and 485

questionnaires were received. The sample size for analysis is 450 and

remaining questionnaires were rejected due to incomplete response.

Instrumentation

The measurement items of the survey instrument were adapted

from the previous research studies to make sure the internal consistency

and validity of the instrument. This study adapts four items of affiliation,

three items of fairness and seven items of innovativeness from the work

of (Bock et al.,2005). Five items of cognitive-based trust were adapted

from the work of (Yang ,2007), four items of knowledge collecting and

3items of knowledge donating were adapted from the study by Van Den

Hooff and de Ridder (2004) using 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1=

strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree. The control variables used in this

study are gender, age and experience of health profession which may

influence the knowledge sharing tendency among them.

Findings of the Study

Measurement Model

Table 1 reports the result of internal reliability, convergent and

discriminant validity of the items used in the measurement model.

Results of internal reliability Cronbach alpha’s (C-α) reveal that all the

measurement items satisfactorily meet the minimum threshold of 0.70.

Further, the study also employs principal component analysis (PCA) to

examine the pattern of data and loading (λ) values are reported to assess

the convergent validity of the items. Convergent validity helps in



assessing that whether items used in instrument validate to with each

other (Wang and Wang, 2012; Wang et al., 2014). First, Fornell and

Larcker, (1981) typology is used to assess the value of loading items

which should be statistically significant and greater than

0.60.Nevertheless, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is also employed

to evaluate the overall fitness of the model. According to Fornell and

Larcker, (1981) average variance extraction (AVE) is measured using the

loading items assess discriminant validity among the constructs. Hence

results of Cronbach alpha’s (C-α) and loading items resented in Table 1

indicate the establishment of internal consistency and convergent validity

in the measurement model.

Table 1

Reliability and Validity Analysis Constructs Items Mean Standard

deviation

Loading

Items

Cronbach

alpha’s

Average

Variance

Extracted

Affiliation A1

A2

A3

A4

3.86 .81 .63

.78

.78

.72

.811 .727

Fairness F1

F2

F3

3.72 .78 .69

.68

.72

.769 .696

innovativeness I1

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

I7

3.54

.72 .83

.78

.65

.98

.92

.87

.60

.759 .804

Cognitive-

based trust

CBT1

CBT2

CBT3

CBT4

3.25 .75 .73

.67

.91

.84

.759 .787

Knowledge

collecting

KC1

KC2

KC3

KC4

3.59 .77 .82

.62

.78

.69

.801 .727

Knowledge

donating

KD1

KD2

KD3

3.82 .79 .67

.81

.84

.872 .773

Table 2 indicates the results of discriminant validity through assessing

the values of AVE. In table 2 diagonal value presents square root of the

AVE whereas off-diagonal presents correlation among the constructs.

Hence, square root of AVE is greater than correlation among the

constructs which indicates the establishment of discriminant validity

which leads to further model estimation.



Table 2: Inter-correlations among constructs Variables Affiliatio

n Fairnes

s Innovativene

ss Cognitive

-Based

Trust

Knowledg

e

Collecting

Knowledg

e

Donating

Affiliation 0.85

Fairness .74 0.83

Innovativene

ss

.86 88 0.89

Cognitive

based trust

.71 .55 .65 0.88

Knowledge

collecting

.76 .80 .84 .53 0.85

Knowledge

donating

.69 .59 .65 .84 .58 0.87

Note: Diagonal Value: Square root of the AVE, Non-diagonal value:

Correlation

In order to investigate the model fitness, this study uses the CFA and

values of absolute fit measures, Incremental fit measures and

Parsimonious fit measures. The results of these measures are presented in

Table 3. The results indicate the absolute fit measures as X2/df = 3.65,

GFI = .890, RMSEA = 0.051. Parsimonious fit measures are PGFI =

0.792, PNFI = 0.759. Incremental fit measures are NFI = 0.789, AGFI =

0.807, CFI= 0.849. Hence Table 3 shows that standardized cut-off values

of all the three indices satisfactorily meet the recommended thresholds.

Table 3

Results of confirmatory factor analysis for fitness of model

Fit Indices Scores Standardized Cut-off

Value

Absolute Fit Measures

χ2/df 3.65 ≤ 2a; ≤ 5

b

GFI 0.890 ≥ 0.90a; ≥ 0.80

b

RMSEA 0.051 < 0.08a; < 0.10

b

Incremental Fit

Measures

NFI .789 ≥ 0.90a

AGFI .807 ≥ 0.90a; ≥ 0.80

b

CFI .849 ≥ 0.90a

Parsimonious Fit

Measures

PGFI 0.792 The more higher value is

the better value of PGFI

PNFI 0.759 The more higher value is

the better value of PNFI

Notes: Criterion of acceptability of the indices Acceptability Criterion: aacceptable;

bmarginal



Structural Model

The results of structural model are presented in table 4. The

standardized path coefficients of the structural model highlight the

relationship among underlying constructs. Hypothesis 1 reveals the

positive relationship between organizational climate and knowledge

sharing practices. The impact of organizational climate on knowledge

collecting is positive (β=0.92) and statistically significant (p<0.001) and

thus support the hypothesis 1.Similarly, H2, H3, H4 have significant and

positive relationship between organizational climate and knowledge

sharing practices i.e. knowledge collecting and knowledge donating.

Further, cognitive trust is also positive (β=0.82) and significantly

(p<0.001) influence the knowledge sharing.

Figure 1 SEM Model

Legends

OC=Organizational Climate

Moderation Analysis

Moderation analysis was conducted using the multiple

moderated regressions suggested by Aiken and West (1991). Affiliation,

fairness, innovativeness represents the organizational climate and trust

were mean centered before being entered in the analyses. Two steps were

followed. First, organizational climate was entered. Then trust was added

in the model. Knowledge collecting and knowledge donating were

explained by the organizational climate. The interaction among

organizational climate, knowledge collecting and knowledge donating

was significant.



Table 4 Standardized Path Coefficients Path relationship Estimate S.E. C.R. P Result

Knowledge

Collectingz

<--- Organizational

Climatez

.958 .020 48.821 0.001 Significant

Knowledge

Donatingz

<--- Organizational

Climatez

.204 .032 6.363 0.001 Significant

Knowledge

Donatingz

<--- Trustz .818 .026 31.096 0.001 Significant

Knowledge

Donatingz

<--- OC_x_Trust .081 .025 3.193 0.001 Significant

knowledge

Collectingz

<--- OC_x_Trust .011 .020 .557 .578 Not

significant

Knowledge

Collectingz

<--- Trustz -0.25 .025 -1.013 .311 Not

significant

Results presented in table 4 indicate that knowledge donating

and trust reveal the significant relationship which indicates that when

individuals trust each other they are more inclined towards knowledge

denoting. Similarly, organizational climate has positive and significant

impact on knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. Result also

indicate that trust moderates the relationship between organizational

climate and knowledge donating which indicates that if health care

professionals are more affiliated with each other they are more intend to

share knowledge with colleagues. However, trust partially moderates the

relationship between organizational climate and knowledge collecting.

Discussion of the Study

This study tested the hypothesized model that organizational

climate affects the knowledge collecting and knowledge donating where

trust acts as a moderator. The results indicate that the organizational

climate impacts the knowledge collecting and knowledge donating

among health care professionals. The findings of the study posit that

when health care professionals are strongly affiliated with each other

they are more tended to collect and donate knowledge to carry out their

tasks and thus these results are consistent with(Colquitt et al., 2007;

DeNeve and Cooper, 1998; Govier, 1994; Lewis and Weigert, 1985).

Conclusion

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of impact of

organizational climate on knowledge sharing using the cognitive based

trust as moderator. The results of the study conclude that organizational

climate positively and significant influence the knowledge practices

among the health care professionals. Further results of the study also

indicate that trust plays significant role effect flow of knowledge. This

study also concludes that health care professionals require better

organizational climate for effective flow of knowledge because when



they are more affiliated with each other, they will be more persuaded to

demonstrate their trust.

Implications and Future Directions

This study has provided both theoretical and managerial

implications to advance the literature on the impact of organization

factors such as organizational climate and individual factors such as trust

on knowledge sharing behavior. Extant of research identifies relationship

of organizational culture on knowledge sharing (McDermott and O’Dell,

2001; Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Suppiah and Sandhu, 2011), however this

study take into consideration the more visible organizational element

which is easy to change and modify i.e. organizational climate. Future

studies may consider that how personal and demographic factors like

gender, ethnicity, and job position may play moderate relationship

between organizational climate and knowledge sharing. Further, future

studies need to identify other knowledge sharing practices and

knowledge driven factors to get better results using both cross-sectional

and longitudinal research design.



References Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new

concept. Academy of management review, 27(1), 17-40.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing

and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter?

Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and

economic performance. Journal of knowledge management, 16(4), 617-

636.

Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter?

Linking knowledge management practices, competitiveness and

economic performance. Journal of knowledge management, 16(4), 617-

636.

Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A., Gabbay, S. M., Kratzer, J., & Van Engelen, J.

M. (2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product

development projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594-605.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal

of management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Breaking the myths of rewards: An

exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Pacis 2001

proceedings, 78.

Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral

intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of

extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational

climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111.

Casimir, G. L. (2012). Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and

cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 740-753

Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2007). How organizational climate and structure

affect knowledge management—The social interaction

perspective. International journal of information management, 27(2),

104-118.

Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect-and cognition-based trust in complex

knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial issues, 310-326.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new

perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science

quarterly, 128-152.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and

trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with

risk taking and job performance.

Cooper, Z., Gibbons, S., Jones, S., & McGuire, A. (2011). Does hospital

competition save lives? Evidence from the English NHS patient choice

reforms. The Economic Journal, 121(554).

Coviello, N., & Munro, H. (1997). Network relationships and the

internationalisation process of small software firms. International

business review, 6(4), 361-386.



Danneels, E. (2008). Organizational antecedents of second‐order

competences. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5), 519-543.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations

manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.

Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing unto others: The

reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations. Journal of Business

Ethics, 47(2), 101-113.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of

137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological

bulletin, 124(2), 197.

Fainshmidt, S., & Frazier, M. L. (2016). What Facilitates Dynamic Capabilities?

The Role of Organizational Climate for Trust. Long Range Planning.

Fletcher, D. (2004). International entrepreneurship and the small

business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(4), 289-305.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing

research, 39-50.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and

mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of

management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and

psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of

management review, 10(3), 601-616.

Gold, A. H., & Arvind Malhotra, A. H. S. (2001). Knowledge management: An

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management

information systems, 18(1), 185-214.

Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of

social reality. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue

canadienne de philosophie, 33(2), 237-252.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic

management journal, 17(S2), 109-122.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management's social

dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel. MIT Sloan Management

Review, 42(1), 71.

Hadley, R. D., & Wilson, H. I. (2003). The network model of

internationalisation and experiential knowledge. International Business

Review, 12(6), 697-717.

Hansen, S. D. (2011). Ethical leadership: A multifoci social exchange

perspective. The Journal of Business, 10(1), 41-55.

Hansen, S. D., Alge, B. J., Brown, M. E., Jackson, C. L., & Dunford, B. B.

(2013). Ethical leadership: Assessing the value of a multifoci social

exchange perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), 435-449.

Hinds, P. J., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations don’t “know what they

know”: Cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of

expertise. Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management, 3-26.



Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversification:

Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified

firms. Academy of Management journal, 40(4), 767-798.

Hoffman, J. J., Hoelscher, M. L., & Sherif, K. (2005). Social capital, knowledge

management, and sustained superior performance. Journal of

knowledge management, 9(3), 93-100.

Huang, M. C., Chiu, Y. P., & Lu, T. C. (2013). Knowledge governance

mechanisms and repatriate's knowledge sharing: the mediating roles of

motivation and opportunity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(5),

677-694.

Ismail Al-Alawi, A., Yousif Al-Marzooqi, N., & Fraidoon Mohammed, Y.

(2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success

factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22-42.

Junnarkar, B. and C. V. Brown (1997), Re-assessing the enabling role of

information technology in KM. Journal of Knowledge Management,

Volume 1(2), pp. 142-148.

Kapoor, R., & Adner, R. (2012). What firms make vs. what they know: how

firms' production and knowledge boundaries affect competitive

advantage in the face of technological change. Organization

Science, 23(5), 1227-1248.

Kianto, A., Andreeva, T., & Pavlov, Y. (2013). The impact of intellectual capital

management on company competitiveness and financial

performance. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(2),

112-122.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4),

967-985.

Lin, S. W., & Lo, L. Y. S. (2015). Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing:

integrating the reward systems and social network

perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 212-235.

Lin, S. W., & Lo, L. Y. S. (2015). Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing:

integrating the reward systems and social network

perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 212-235.

Lu, J. W., & Beamish, P. W. (2001). The internationalization and performance

of SMEs. Strategic management journal, 22(6‐7), 565-586.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for

interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management

journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing

knowledge. Journal of knowledge management, 5(1), 76-85.

McMurray, A., & Scott, D. (2013). Determinants of organisational climate for

academia. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6), 960-974.

Mills, A. M., & Smith, T. A. (2011). Knowledge management and

organizational performance: a decomposed view. Journal of knowledge

management, 15(1), 156-171.

Minbaeva, D. B. (2007). Knowledge transfer in multinational

corporations. Management international review, 47(4), 567-593.



Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. (2012). Linking HRM and

knowledge transfer via individual‐level mechanisms. Human Resource

Management, 51(3), 387-405.

Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company Harvard Business

Review November-December.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge

creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Byosiere, F. (2001). Handbook of organizational

learning and knowledge. New York: Oxford.

Nonaka, I. and H. Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How

Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford

University Press, USA

Park, H., Ribière, V., & Schulte Jr, W. D. (2004). Critical attributes of

organizational culture that promote knowledge management technology

implementation success. Journal of Knowledge management, 8(3), 106-

117.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American

community. Simon and Schuster.

Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business

processes, and competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable

in empirical tests of the resource‐based view. Strategic management

journal, 25(1), 23-37.

Rehman,U.W., Asghar,N.and Ahmed, Khalil (2015). Impact of KM Practices on

Firms Performance: A Mediating Role of Business Process Capability

and Organizational Learning, Pakistan Economics and Social Review,

53(1), 47-80.

Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians

in hospitals. Expert Systems with applications, 25(1), 113-122.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate

and culture. Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.

Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within

innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative

enterprises. Journal of knowledge Management, 12(1), 133-147.

Suppiah, V., & Singh Sandhu, M. (2011). Organisational culture's influence on

tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour. Journal of knowledge

management, 15(3), 462-477.

Subramaniam, M. and M. A. Youndt (2005). The innovation of intellectual

capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management

Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Titi Amayah, A. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector

organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 454-471.

Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context:

the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate

and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge

management, 8(6), 117-130.



Wang, J. K., Ashleigh, M., & Meyer, E. (2006). Knowledge sharing and team

trustworthiness: it's all about social ties!. Knowledge Management

Research & Practice, 4(3), 175-186.

Wang, Z and N. Wang (2012), Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm

performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899-8908.

Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual

capital and firm performance. Management decision, 52(2), 230-258.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management

journal, 5(2), 171-180.

Yahyapour, S., Shamizanjani, M., & Mosakhani, M. (2015). A conceptual

breakdown structure for knowledge management benefits using meta-

synthesis method. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1295-

1309.

Yang, J. T. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning

and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.

Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for organization—public relational

outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of

Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91-121.

Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2015). To share or not to share? Self-perception

and knowledge-sharing intent. Knowledge Management Research &

Practice, 13(3), 311-328.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan management

review, 40(4), 45.

Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. (2009). Knowledge management and

organizational performance: an exploratory analysis. Journal of

knowledge management, 13(6), 392-409.

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture,

structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of

knowledge management. Journal of Business research, 63(7), 763-771.



Appendix

Questionnaire

Scale

Strongly Disagree

1

Disagree

2

Neutral

3

Agree

4

Strongly Agree

5

Knowledge collecting

Colleagues within my department tell me what they know, when I ask them about it

Colleagues within my department tell me what their skills are when I ask them about it

Colleagues outside of my department tell me what they know when I ask them about it

Colleagues outside of my department tell me what their skills are, when I ask them about

it

Knowledge Donating

When I’ve learnt something new, I see to it that colleagues in my department can learn it

as well

I share the information I have with colleagues within my department

I share my skills with colleagues within my department

Affiliation

Members in my department keep close ties with each other

Members in my department consider other members’ standpoint highly

Members in my department have a strong feeling of “one team”

Members in my department cooperate well with each other

Fairness

I can trust my boss’s evaluation to be accurate

Objectives which are given to me are reasonable

My boss doesn’t show favoritism to anyone

Innovativeness

Our department encourages suggesting ideas for new opportunities.

Our department puts much value on taking risks even if that turns out to be a failure.

Our department encourages finding new methods to perform a task.

Management here are quick to spot the need to do things differently

This company is quick to respond when changes need to be made

New ideas are readily accepted here

Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available

Cognitive based trust

I can depend on my colleague to meet his/her responsibilities

I can rely on my colleague to do what is best at work

My colleague follows through with commitments he/she makes

Given my colleague’s track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence

Documents

Organizational Climate and Knowledge Sharing: A Moderating ... GDHEC/… · § Muhammad Wasim Akram, PhD Scholar- Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia. Email: