When investment in employee development promotes knowledge sharing behavior in an uncertain post-Soviet context
| Published date | 27 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-12-2018-0523 |
| Date | 27 November 2019 |
| Pages | 370-388 |
| Author | Sanat Kozhakhmet,Sharmila Jayasingam,Nauman Majeed,Samia Jamshed |
| Subject Matter | Hr & organizational behaviour,Global hrm |
When investment in employee
development promotes knowledge
sharing behavior in an uncertain
post-Soviet context
Sanat Kozhakhmet
Department of Doctoral Studies,
Narxoz University, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Sharmila Jayasingam
Department of Business Strategy and Policy,
Faculty of Business and Accountancy,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Nauman Majeed
Institute of Business Administration,
University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan, and
Samia Jamshed
Institute of Quality, PIQC, Lahore, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of perceived investment in employee
development (PIED) on knowledge sharing (KS) behavior by examining the mediating role of psychological
capital and moderating role of organizational identification.
Design/methodology/approach –Questionnaires were used to collect data from 340 employees from
largest MNCs working in Kazakhstan.
Findings –The results show that psychological capital mediates the relationship between PIED and
knowledge sharing behavior (KSB). Moreover, it was found that organizational identification moderates the
association between individuals’psychological capital and their KSB. The mediated moderation analyses
supported the hypothesized model.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to a more complete understanding of how investment in
employee development may support or build employees’psychological capital which in turn facilitates KS.
Keywords Quantitative, Knowledge sharing, Advanced statistical, Organizational identification,
Psychological capital, Perceived investment in employee development
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In today’s knowledge-driven business world, knowledge is regarded as a vital
organizational resource that contributes to the competitive advantage of any organization
(Grant, 1996). In order to sustain competitive advantage, companies should emphasize on
developing effective knowledge management (KM) strategies. There are various definitions
of KM, which represent the complexity and multidimensionality of this concept. According
to Davenport and Prusak (1998), KM is a process of acquiring, storing, sharing and utilizing
knowledge. Among these components, knowledge sharing (KS) has been seen as an
indispensable enabler of KM (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). It might be explained by the logic
that the potential value of acquiring and storing knowledge may be realized when it is
shared and used. At the same time, Ipe (2003) argued that KS can positively influence the
level of knowledge creation. Accordingly, KS is increasingly viewed as a major core
component of KM.
Personnel Review
Vol. 49 No. 2, 2020
pp. 370-388
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-12-2018-0523
Received 23 December 2018
Revised 30 April 2019
25 May 2019
12 June 2019
Accepted 9 July 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
370
PR
49,2
Prior studies about knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) have indicated that
organizational members cannot be forced or obliged to share their knowledge, instead
theycanbeencouragedorfostered(Bocket al., 2005). Following this direction, various
human resource management practices were designed to facilitate KSB (Minbaeva et al.,
2013; Nien and Min, 2011). Our literature search has identified that employee development
has emerged as a key human resource management practices that may directly affect
employees’KSB. However, some scholars have challenged the straightforward
relationship between human resource development (HRD) practices and employee extra-
role behaviors (e.g. KSB). In other words, they have shown that this relationship might be
mediated or moderated by different variables (Buch et al., 2015; Jung and Takeuchi, 2012;
Naeem et al., 2019). It can be strengthened by the argument that today’sworking
environment (increasing task complexity, stress and workload) creates extra challenges
for organizational members to engage in KSB, which requires from them to sacrifice their
own time and resources. Moreover, this working environment demands employees to
show psychological strength to engage in such voluntary behavior as KSB. Hence,
individuals’psychological resources may play a significant role in understanding KSB.
As a result, this research considers psychological resources (e.g. psychological capital) as
a mediating mechanism through which employee development practices might influence
KSB. Finally, given the complex nature of KSB, the literature review has shown that
the HRD practices –psyc hological capital –desired employee behaviors (e.g. KSB) links
are contingent on some moderating variables (Newman et al., 2014).
The organizational identification (OID) appears to be a “root”concept in the
organizational studies that has attracted an increasing research attention (Humberd and
Rouse, 2016). It can be explained by the argument that OID is viewed as an important
psychological state that can influence link or bond between employees and their companies.
Therefore, it has a potential to explain or predict the attitudes and behaviors of the
employees (Lee et al., 2015). Thus, it seemed reasonable to investigate the moderating effect
of OID in the relationship between HRD practices –psychological capital –KSB. The initial
goal of the current article was to examine the joint effect of organizational investment in
employee development activities and psychological capital (PsyCap) on KSB. The next goal
was to analyze the moderating role of organizational identification and the mediating role of
PsyCap using a mediated moderation model. In sum, this empirical work gives a broader
view of how these factors interactively affect individuals’KSB.
The contribution of this research is threefold. First, it is a response for a call to conduct
more research on the direct and the indirect effects of employee development practices on
KSB (Andreeva and Sergeeva, 2016; Buch et al., 2015; Kuvaas et al., 2012). Second, we expect
to improve our understanding of how various organizational and individual factors interact
to predict employees’KSB. The third contribution is the formulation of a theoretical model
that incorporates notions of social exchange theory (SET) and social identity theory (SIT).
To our knowledge, there is a lack of research that includes OID, perceived investment in
employee development (PIED) and PsyCap within the models of reciprocal workplace
relationships. This research will widen our understanding of social exchange relationships
between individuals and organizations by considering OID as a moderating variable. More
specifically, the findings of this paper provide strong support to the notion that SIT might
complement SET in explaining employees’KSB. In sum, the outcomes of this study may
help HR professionals to develop motivational strategies to facilitate employees’KSBs in a
more effective way.
Literature review and hypotheses development
Two main views can be used to better understand factors that may influence KSB. The first
one refers to psychological factors that can be associated with KS. In this work, we will use
371
Investment in
employee
development
To continue reading
Request your trial