How knowledge sharing leads to innovative work behaviour. A moderating role of transformational leadership
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-11-2018-0148 |
Date | 12 August 2019 |
Pages | 277-303 |
Published date | 12 August 2019 |
Author | Van Dong Phung,Igor Hawryszkiewycz,Daniel Chandran |
Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information systems,Information & communications technology |
How knowledge sharing leads to
innovative work behaviour
A moderating role of transformational
leadership
Van Dong Phung
Faculty of Information Technology, Hanoi University, Hanoi, Vietnam, and
Igor Hawryszkiewycz and Daniel Chandran
The University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –Studies have examinedthe influence of knowledge-sharing factors on attitudes and intentionsto
share knowledge;thus, there is a need to add to the limited research to examineindividuals’actual knowledge-
sharing behaviour (KSB). Drawing upon the social cognitive theory (SCT) and transformational leadership,
this study aims to develop a new researchmodel which modifies the standard SCT model and augments it
with othertheories to examine academics’KSBs.
Design/methodology/approach –Questionnaire surveys based on literature and pilot study were
conducted with 785 academic staff from four Vietnamese public universities. This study applied structural
equationmodelling to test the proposed research model and hypotheses.
Findings –The findings show that environmental factors (subjective norms, trust) and personal factors
(knowledge self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others) had positive impacts on KSB; KSB had a strongly
positive effect on innovative behaviour;and transformational leadership positively moderated the effects of
subjective norms, trust and knowledge self-efficacy on KSB. Interestingly, psychological ownership of
knowledgewas found to have insignificant associations with KSB.
Practical implications –The study findings can be used by university leaders, academic staff and
researchersin other similar contexts.
Originality/value –Until now, to the best of the researchers’knowledge,no studies have applied SCT as a
primary lens, in which transformational leadership positioned in a focal behaviour also affected KSB, to
investigateresearch on KSB in organisations, especially in institutionsof higher education.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Social cognitive theory, Knowledge sharing,
Innovative work behaviour
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Universities, as knowledge-intensive organisations, have struggled to promote knowledge
sharing (KS) as a recognised key component of successful knowledge-management (KM)
initiatives (Kuo and Young, 2008). There are three significant benefits associated with
increased KS, specificallyin higher education institutions.First, creating a KS culture where
sharing knowledge is practised throughout the organisation, and every person generates,
promotes and uses knowledge in imaginative ways (Hawryszkiewycz, 2010). Another
important advantage is that it can initiate improved decision-making processes that could
enhance learning and teaching and speed up curriculum development and research
(Fullwood and Rowley, 2017). Finally, KS also benefits universities through the creation,
Innovative
work
behaviour
277
Received21 November 2018
Revised4 June 2019
Accepted19 August 2019
Journalof Systems and
InformationTechnology
Vol.21 No. 3, 2019
pp. 277-303
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1328-7265
DOI 10.1108/JSIT-11-2018-0148
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1328-7265.htm
storage and accessibility of a large amount of knowledge from key persons to maximise
organisation capability (Lin, 2007a;Fullwood and Rowley, 2017). Consequently, promoting
KS among employees has become a critical agenda for many organisations, especially
universities today(Tangaraja et al.,2015).
In response, researchers have advanced critical arguments supporting KS in university
settings. Ramayah et al. (2013) claimed that it is expected that universities are places in
which university members freely share and exchange their knowledge with colleagues.
Nevertheless, the reality has shown that KS is barelypresent within universities (Ramayah
et al., 2013). Moreover, Fullwood and Rowley (2017) have recently asserted that it could
rationally be supposed that universities would be proactive organisations, successful in
promoting KS to achieve the success of KM. However, KM has not met many universities’
expectations. Indeed, previous studies have reported that KM often fails in encouraging KS
practices because it ignores the importance of individuals’willingness to share knowledge
(Lin et al.,2009).Cheng et al. (2009) claimed that knowledge hoarding instead of KS could be
more popular in universities. It is because the publication of research and lecturing by
academics are a personal task (Fullwood and Rowley, 2017). Knowledge hoarding leads to
negative effects such as inefficiency, fragmentation of services or service breakdownin the
organisation (Konstantinou and Fincham, 2011). Such negative results have prompted
researchers to examine further influential factors on knowledge-sharing behaviours (KSBs)
and KS outcomes (Tangarajaet al.,2015).
Studying the impact of influential factors on KSB and KS outcomeshas been considered
from three main perspectives. The first set of studies examined the relationships between
factors influencing KS. The focus is on the investigation of the effect of KS factors. To
identify this effect, researchers have examined several KS factors such as attitude,
subjective norm, intention, organisation culture, top management support and IT support
(Bock et al., 2005;Lin, 2007b;Fullwoodand Rowley, 2017). A second considerably larger set
of studies investigated, analysed and identified therelationships among factors influencing
KS and KSB. A central proposition is that KS factors (attitude, intention or subjective
norms) should influence KSB (Bock and Kim, 2002;Liao, 2008;Ramayah et al., 2013). The
final and small group of studies identified and recognised relationships among factors, KS
and KS effects. The primary objectiveof these studies was to identify and assess KS factors
(e.g. attitude, intention or organisational culture) and KSB for improving organisational or
individual performance (e.g. organisational innovation capacity, innovative behaviour and
individual work performance)(Lin, 2007a;Lin et al., 2009;Yu et al.,2013;Radaelli et al.,2014;
Henttonen et al.,2016). Thesevarious approaches have highlighted the importance ofKSB in
promoting KS leading to improved organisational and personal capacities (e.g.
organisationalinnovation capacity, individual work performance and behaviour).
Of the above studies, only a limited number of studies (Cheng et al.,2009;Sohail and
Daud, 2009;Ramayah et al., 2014;Rahman et al., 2016;Fullwood and Rowley, 2017) have
specifically investigated whether KS factors (e.g. organisational factors, individual factors,
technology factors) facilitate or impede individual KSB. These studies were mostly
conducted in public and private universities in Malaysia and the UK. How environmental
and personal factors have direct effects on KSB leading to individual innovative work
behaviour in university settings, however, remains an open question. Furthermore,
leadership also plays a vital role in motivating and nurturingKSB by providing employees
with experiential learning and opportunitiesfor managing the processes whereby their staff
participate in sharing knowledge (Bircham-Connolly et al.,2005;Fullwood and
Rowley, 2017). However, far fewer studies explore the joint influence of transformational
leadership (TL) and factorsaffecting KS on KSB.
JSIT
21,3
278
To continue reading
Request your trial