You are on page 1of 27

Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal

The impact of knowledge sharing and Islamic work ethic on innovation capability
Naresh Kumar Raduan Che Rose

Article information:

Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT)

To cite this document:
Naresh Kumar Raduan Che Rose, (2012),"The impact of knowledge sharing and Islamic work ethic on
innovation capability", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 142 - 165
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 06 January 2015, At: 21:12 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 103 other documents.
To copy this document:
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1775 times since 2012*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Naresh Kumar, Raduan Che Rose, (2010),"Examining the link between Islamic work ethic and
innovation capability", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 79-93 http://
Abbas J. Ali, Abdullah Al-Owaihan, (2008),"Islamic work ethic: a critical review",
Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 Iss 1 pp. 5-19 http://
Darwish A. Yousef, (2001),"Islamic work ethic – A moderator between organizational commitment
and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context", Personnel Review, Vol. 30 Iss 2 pp. 152-169 http://

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540740 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit for more information.

About Emerald
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive

Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Universiti Putra Malaysia. 2. Shoham and Fieganbaum. 2012 pp. 1999.emeraldinsight. it has considerable implications for the development of an optimistic workforce in other regions and across sectors. Public sector organizations. A total of 472 Administrative and Diplomatic Service Officers from the Malaysian public sector organizations participated in the survey. The mounting articles. The public sectors have been reputed to address innovation feebly as oppose to the business organizations which deem to reside in a highly competitive environment and need amplified novelty to stay focus and profitable. 1998. Practical implications – An understanding of the pledge of the workforce to knowledge sharing. 19 No. Innovation capability Paper type Research paper Cross Cultural Management Vol. 142-165 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1352-7606 DOI 10. 2005). Serdang. Keywords Malaysia. The relationship between knowledge sharing capability and innovation capability of employees in the public sector organizations was found to be contingent on IWE. Knowledge sharing capability. books and so forth being evidence that innovation is a sphere receiving heaps of attention at present which lagged among management fraternity in the earlier years. Knowledge sharing. Employees behaviour. IWE and its consequences for innovativeness facilitates public sector organizations in designing and implementing modernization initiatives. conferences.1108/13527601211219847 Introduction It is relatively hard to come across practitioners and scholars who oppose the view that innovation is a decisive enabler for organizations to thrive ahead in an epoch of rapid revolution (Drucker. Originality/value – In response to the substantial need to examine IWE and workplace outcomes in a non-Western environment. Subramaniam and Youndt. seminars.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www. 2009. Research limitations/implications – While the study was salient and confined to the Malaysian public sector organizations. 2002. Hamel. Findings – The empirical results indicate that the intrinsic motivation to share knowledge is significant in the public sector organizations. Islamic work ethic. Malaysia Abstract Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an in-depth analysis of the knowledge sharing enablers and the moderating role of Islamic work ethic (IWE) on the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capability in the public sector CCM 19. Cross-sectional studies are encouraged to further confirm the results. Both scholars and practitioners will find the study valuable. IWE and innovation capability were assessed using a validated survey instrument. the paper embraces the extent to which IWE sways the link between knowledge sharing and innovation capability in the public sector organizations. discussions. Porter.2 The impact of knowledge sharing and Islamic work ethic on innovation capability 142 Naresh Kumar and Raduan Che Rose Received 1 October 2010 Revised 18 February 2011 Accepted 3 May 2011 Graduate School of Management. The bureaucratic administrative structures and monopoly nature of the public sector organizations . Design/methodology/approach – The foundations of knowledge sharing capability. talks.

5). 2009.. Chatzoglou and Vraimaki. 2008). Bhirud et al. Hsu et al. 1994). 2001. 2002). 2009). However. akin to business organizations (Berg et al. 2005. 2005). 1997). Nonaka and Takeuchi. values. 2005. Evidently.. 2009. Ling et al. Sohail and Daud. Rainey. The intrinsic worth of hard work that originated from the Western tradition in the ideology of the PWE is similarly a quality revered in the Islamic civilizations which are Knowledge sharing and IWE 143 . The principles and perceptions about work which have been denoted as work ethic. 2003. 1995. 2005. Wasko and Faraj. Despite the growing research initiated to ascertain success factors of knowledge sharing. fabulous knowledge management tools and structure alone do not guarantee successful knowledge sharing across the organization. Taylor. 2006. 2009. Stewart. The recent emergence of innovation shapes a myriad of scholarly work that has ultimately led to the development and strengthening of knowledge management concept and theory (Davenport and Prusak. knowledge storage and retrieval. Moreover. Consequently. in response to an array of political. Nevertheless. 2001). Chiu et al..Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) perhaps drive their employees chiefly as an official governmental agent delivering official state purpose. remain critical in convincing individual decision on knowledge sharing intentions at workplace. Knowledge can be viewed as “a fluid mix of framed experience... Paroutis and Saleh.. 1998. The belief that the implementation of drastic innovation stratagem in the public sectors is typically more problematic compared to the business organizations has failed to induce sufficient research in years back. Nonaka and Takeuchi. The optimum use of innovation and creativity in every spot of the organizational functions entail pecuniary boost which aid further nation building. Wasko and Faraj. Bock et al. Indeed the multidimensional research on Protestant work ethic (PWE) as advocated by Weber (1958) has been incessantly relevant and widely deliberated in major research journals at the present time. 2007. 2009. Chen et al. contextual information and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experience and information” (Davenport and Prusak. social and technological turmoil. Needless to say. 1998. 1995. many public sector organizations swiftly recognize innovation as an integral facet for well-organized service deliverance to the nation. 2009. knowledge has been highly regarded as an impetus for achieving persistent innovation (Ipe. p. most of the available literature. besides being a diverse scope of understanding. 2000). the public sector organizations are nurturing knowledge management considering the fact that they breath and grow in a competitive environment which compel hasty rejoinder to change. rather than a service to the customers as in the business organizations (Bendell et al. It has been noted that there is a dearth of studies pertaining to knowledge management in the public sectors that have been reported (McAdam and Reid. Scarbrough. Knowledge management involves discrete but inter-reliant processes of knowledge creation. 2005). It has been robustly affirmed in the literature that knowledge sharing is a foremost contributing component of an effective knowledge management (Alavi and Leidner. knowledge transfer and knowledge application (Alavi and Leidner.. economic.. there has been a steady call for better understanding of the factors that silhouette knowledge sharing behaviours in the public sector organizations (Berg et al.. Kankanhalli et al. practitioners and researchers tend to focus on knowledge sharing and various enablers were alleged as definitive to knowledge sharing success. 2003. 2003. 2005. overtly has established that constant research on knowledge sharing is persistently significant and inspiring for practitioners and researchers (Chatzoglou and Vraimaki. 2008.. Chowdhury.

2003. Cabrera and Cabrera. management and organization studies have devoted minimal attention to Islamic work ethic (IWE) and its influence on various workplace outcomes such as organizational innovation (Ali. Yousef. Ali and Al-Owaihan. p. 2005. 2005. Ipe. Kankanhalli et al. Individuals are intrinsically motivated to share knowledge if they believe it is meaningful and interesting to help others solve exigent problems besides their nature of love and enjoyment in helping others (Davenport and Prusak. 1998. pp. information and communication tools are vital. 2008. Scholars are able to intensify their awareness on the knowledge sharing behaviours. The dearth of access to literature on Islam and Eastern business and organization possessions contributes to this phenomenon. Knowledge sharing is a human activity that is deemed critical to the organization (Wang et al. 2008. 133. thus to triumph over knowledge hoarding requires an understanding of the extrinsic and intrinsic antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviours among people which is lag in empirical research at present (Argote and Ingram. 2000. There are high potential for new research in consequence of this study. 2005.2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 144 embedded in the Quran [1]... 2007a. 2005). Lin. Beekun and Badawi. personalization approach which focuses on direct communication between individuals and undocumented means of knowledge sharing (Wu and Li. Kumar and Rose. 2010. 153). 2000). Rizk. 1997. The human resource professionals and higher authorities in the public sector organizations are able to clutch relevant information in their endeavour towards moulding high performance organization by means of innovative employees. b. Liao et al. Lin. 10-12. 2007a. The present study aims to investigate the factors that contribute to knowledge sharing behaviour and subsequently examine the combined effects of IWE on innovation capability in the Malaysian public sector organizations. IWE and its consequence for innovativeness in non-Western public sector organizations. 507. 2000). Robertson. 2001. Wasko and Faraj. Yousef. 2008. 2008) seeing that by and large “knowledge is a resource that is always located in an individual” (DeLong and Fahey. Davenport et al. Lin. p. We believe that Malaysia is an ideal location to perform the study since it is an Islamic country with a harmonious multicultural society.. . “no earnings are better than that of one’s own effort” and more specifically “swork is a worship” (Ali and Al-Owaihan. Wang et al. Lin et al. 114). 2005. 2008. Ali. 2000. 2007. 2002. 2002). b). Hew and Hara. and the early Islamic leaders. 2005. 249.. p. 1998. 2002. 2007a. 2007.. Rizk. 2000. 10. p. 2008. Cabrera and Cabrera. p. p. PBUH urged that hard work caused sins to be absolved and that “no one eats better food than that which he eats out of his work” (Ali. 2008. 2010.. 2007) is deduced to diminish the tendency of knowledge leakages beyond the boundary of an organization and perhaps induce the knowledge sharing culture (Argote and Ingram. embedding ideas and skills that facilitate knowledge for innovation at workplace. 2005). Reciprocity behaviour is another motivation element that has been reported imperative in facilitating knowledge sharing (Bock et al. the sayings and practices of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) [2]. Employees’ willingness to share knowledge across the organization is noteworthy (Argote and Ingram. To some extent. 2000. Knowledge sharing enablers Knowledge sharing is a human behaviour which apprehends activities such as exchanging explicit and/or implicit experiences. 2008.. Beekun.. Despite its magnitude. 1992. Rokhman. Ali and Al-Owaihan. Kankanhalli et al.CCM 19.

Reciprocity behaviour entails a sense of communal indebtedness thus employees are more likely motivated to transfer personal knowledge if they foresee the extrinsic benefits associated with the information dissemination (Ryu et al. 2010. In the public sector organizations. and risk taking is encouraged... In general. Kankanhalli et al. 2003). Chowdhury. intrinsic motivator is likely to encourage employees to share knowledge at workplace.. Lin and Lee. increased trust between employees improves the chances of knowledge sharing (Adler. 1996. (2005. 2008). 2008. 2005. 2002. 2006. low-fear culture. Donath (1999) and Constant et al. Knowledge self-efficacy refers to individuals’ discernment of their ability to provide knowledge to others en route for execution a given task at the designated degree of performance. Committed employees are those who espouse to the organizational norms and belief system. 2008. knowledge sharing involves sharing some degree of governmental confidentiality and this necessitates the presence of trust culture. Individual trust on others is mainly influenced by the degree of honesty. In such an environment. diligence and efficiency. Kang et al. 2007a. In the same way trust and pro-sharing norms are salient determinants of effectiveness of knowledge sharing activity. Wasko and Faraj. Likewise. Conversely. Lin. Kankanhalli et al. Constant et al. 2006. 2008). demonstrate a strong eagerness to put in effort for the organization and desire to remain with the organization while maintaining a sense of belongingness. Hamel (2009. as one of the considerable enablers for knowledge sharing. 2005. 117) noted that in a “strong generalized trust. 2000. 2010). Cabrera and Cabrera. 2001. Wasko and Faraj (2000. Indeed previous studies have argued that the value of knowledge perceived by its holder also significantly influence employees’ willingness to share knowledge (Ford and Staples. innovation. (2005). It is merely impossible for public sector employees to share work related information in the absence of mutual honest and sincere attitude towards work and organization. people may trust each other without having much personal knowledge about each other. direct reciprocity perhaps leads to pessimistic knowledge sharing behaviour. (1996) also allude a similar thought that enhancement of one’s standing at workplace due to remarkable recognition induces significantly the intention to share knowledge. 2002. 2004. responsibility. Webster et al.” Previous studies have examined trust as an antecedent of knowledge sharing and empirically proved a significant relationship (Ardichvili. contentious opinions are freely expressed. and employee engagement can only thrive in a high-trust. pro-sharing norms compel consensuses on true Knowledge sharing and IWE 145 . Soliman and Spooner.. 2005). Porter. Chow and Chan. Wang and Noe. 2003).Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Lin et al. it is interesting to measure the extent public sector employees are demanding reciprocal benefits in favour of their knowledge sharing intentions. Lu et al.. 2008). dedication. MacNeil.. 2008. 93) emphasized that: Organizational adaptability. p. 2005.. Thus. Bock et al. Choi et al. In other words. 2007a. p. Davenport and Prusak. 2008.. Individuals who feel confident that their knowledge is significant for organizational performance have a propensity to discharge their intellectual propriety to others as well as to be actively involved in acquiring new knowledge for future sharing and application (Bock and Kim. Lin. Lin et al. 2002. (2009) affirm that depending on circumstances.. fairness. Prior findings suggest that commitment to the organization make employees more willing to share knowledge with others (Bock and Kim. Wasko and Faraj. 2008. 2006. 2005) advocate self-imaging that is individuals’ perceptions that sharing knowledge with others will lead to higher recognition and subsequently their social status within the organization raises. 1998. Hsu. Lin et al. information is widely shared.

2008. 2006.CCM 19. 2008.. generalized trust and reward systems in depicting public sector employees’ knowledge sharing intentions.. Jarvenpaa and Staples. It is values that drive an individual to share knowledge and work beyond the interest of the self transcending into the well-being of the organization and society.. 2003). Wheatley (2005) noted that a myriad of our aged beliefs and practices not only are inapplicable to the greater world but also detrimental and distancing us from the skills. 535) maintains “a work ethic is the manifestation of personally held values”. Davenport and Prusak. There are wide array of approaches used in developed and emerging economies to deliberate innovation capability and it espoused a multitude of definitions in the management literature (Trott.. The mix results in literature encourage the present study to systematically examine the following individual motivational constructs: enjoyment in helping others. reciprocity. Bock and Kim.. 2009). Taminiau et al.. Kulkarni et al. 2003. Kim and Lee.. p. Kim and Lee... In this study. Liao et al. If the 1900s represented the century of bureaucratic and mechanistic frame . 2009. 2009. knowledge self-efficacy. 2002. p. 2000.. 2006). knowledge and wisdom that would be beneficial. Sharing of both explicit and tacit knowledge surmised to be critical in cultivating fabulous innovation that appreciably perks up organizational effectiveness (Barachini. 2006. innovation capability is understood as the degree of belief that the public sector organizations produce novel ideas to enhance the provision of public services or establishment of new products (Lee and Choi. Ling et al. pro-sharing norms. thus public sector organizations much alike business organizations ought to prioritize employees’ interaction and purposeful knowledge sharing behaviour across the workplace. 2008. 1998. Kim and Lee. the values within which those individuals steer the organization’s innovation direction become instrumental in ensuring continuous and increased customers and overall employees’ contentment. The public sector organizations apparently exist in a post-bureaucratic environment whereby pro-sharing norms been expected and alleged to pilot employees to involve voluntarily in knowledge sharing endeavours. b). 2007a. Chang and Lee. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) contended that knowledge sharing intentions among employees could be increased at workplace when it is linked to appropriate reward systems. Knowledge sharing. 2007. The literature persistently reported that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards are deemed to be functional motivators for employees to share their insight (Abdullah et al. 1998).. 2000. Choi et al. Porter (2010. Dose (1997. Kwok and Gao. 2009. Lee and Ahn. Lin and Lee. 2009. 228) regards work values as “evaluative standards relating to work or the work environment by which individuals discuss what is ‘right’ or assess the importance of preferences”. 2009.. Bock et al.. Sa´enz et al. 2005. Given that public sector organizations’ performance represents the outcome of collective deeds of individuals hence human-dependent. 2006).2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 146 knowledge sharing among users. Lin. work ethic and innovation capability Knowledge is indispensable to innovation.. Previous literature suggests that pro-sharing norms could enhance the knowledge sharing culture and thus encourage individuals to contribute their knowledge liberally (DeLong and Fahey. 2009. conversely. It is values as well that allows for an internalization of knowledge sharing responsibilities among individuals in the public sector organizations. Lin et al. 2006). 2005. Ling et al. Ling et al. there are studies that report insignificant relationship (Abdullah et al. Several empirical studies revealed positive relationship between reward systems and knowledge sharing (Ipe. 2004. 2009. 2009. Rivera-Vazquez et al. Yeh et al. 2007. self-image.

Beekun. Who created – Created man. that will bring you nearer to Us in degree: but only those who believe and work righteousness – these are the ones for whom there is a multiplied Reward for their deeds. p. – He Who taught (the use of) the pen. Some examples of the Quran verses about faith and work righteousness are: (74:38) “Every soul will be (held) in pledge for its deeds.”. (2:62) “Those who believe (in the Qur’an). One’s religious conviction would adjoin the behaviour towards incessant self-learning. – Taught man that which he knew not (96:1-5). 2005. Islam prescribes some ethical values which silhouette the way of life at individual and societal levels (Ali. shall have their reward with their Lord. 1997). and not the least injustice will be done to them. they are companions of the Garden: Therein shall they abide (For ever). willingness to communicate and share knowledge without any distortion and devoid of feint. and work righteousness. blind or weakening faith and ethical faculty. Such practice may further hinder agile decision making. 2008). – no burden do We place on any soul. the needs for eminent work ethics are crucial to maintain the required provision of public services. cultures and ideologies. and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures). (19:96) “On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness. (7:42) “But those who believe and work righteousness. 249) noted “ethical teachings of most religions are largely compatible with each other”. therein to dwell (for ever). Employees in the public sector organizations have the opportunities to do the best or the adverse for the community because of the nature and privileges attached to their work positions and. The Quran states: Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher. p. 154). while secure they (reside) in the dwellings on high!”. – any who believe in Allah and the Last Day. Knowledge sharing and IWE 147 . they will enter Heaven. (4:124) “If any do deeds of righteousness. The commitment and responsibility towards knowledge sharing facilitates transfer of implicit and explicit competencies to the workplace community keen on arresting detrimental work ethics and instead continually update on best practices. 1997). hence. teach knowledge and share knowledge for celestial intents and to drive those who struggle in the darkness of ignorance. – they will be Companions of the Garden. Unfortunately.”. (2:82) “But those who have faith and work righteousness. – be they male or female – and have faith. and man will be rewarded or punished accordingly” (Yousef. nor shall they grieve. Knowledge sharing is realistic and can be cultivated since it is grounded in major religions. on them shall be no fear. and the Christians and the Sabians. but that which it can bear. Ethics should be mirrored on every Muslim’s deeds in all aspects of life. the 2000s and beyond are the epochs of innovation and forte for creation which position knowledge sharing and work ethic at the frontage. 2010.”. Beekun and Badawi. (34:37) “It is not your wealth nor your sons.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) of mind. out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood: Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful. professional standards of behaviour or value enactment and work ethics.”. thus awareness and sharing knowledge of ethical practices at workplace should be a natural behaviour as it is one of the basic tenets of Islam and the way one shows his or her gratitude to God (Beekun. will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow love. a sacred duty of the highest order (Rizk. Rizk (2008. counterfeit commitment to knowledge sharing cannot vigorously weaken the nature of knowledge hoarding by employees who perceive themselves at a disadvantage.” PBUH maintained “actions are recorded according to intention. 2001.”. It is important to note that various Quran verses as well as the Hadith emphasized the importance of knowledge or rather made it obligatory to seek knowledge.

“And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle. pp. p. heaven. 2008. God does not look at your matters [shapes or forms] and wealth. p. 53-5). p. Yousef. but work and knowledge are always blessed” (cited in Ali. and that it guides to the Path of the Exalted (in might). The Quran declares (25:70). Ali and Al-Owaihan. knowledge. 2008. 2010. those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. are they of various colours. 1992. Except such as have Faith. and promotes the return to the Quran and Hadith to resurrect the truth and righteousness in executing professional duties. rather God examines your intentions and actions. summarized by Ali (2005. 2009. p. among His Servants. 2008. Khalil and Abu-Saad. 2000. who have knowledge: for Allah is Exalted in Might. 110. those of you who believe and who have been granted (mystic) Knowledge. the sayings and practice of PBUH (Al-A’ali. Those truly fear Allah. 2010. This indicates how comprehensive the notions of knowledge sharing are from the perspective of Islam. The best of people are those who benefit others. rise up Allah will rise up. Muslims are urged to pursue knowledge from cradle to grave.” Being as God’s trustees or vicegerents on earth. p. The generous person is closest to God. “Is one who worships devoutly during the hour of the night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration). Yousef. Rizk. Knowledge sharing provides constant opportunities for mankind to draw attention to each other’s work negligence or collapse in work ethic. pp. 13. who takes heed of the Hereafter. and work are blessed. 11-12) and Ali and Al-Kazemi (2007. Verily Man is in loss. 2003. and works righteous deeds. God blesses in this world and the hereafter. The Quran states (39:9).. p. God loves a person who learns precisely how to perform his work and does it right. Ali. 81. 283. 2010. p. people and far from hell. p. p. 22. and Allah is Oft-Forgiving. God blesses a person who perfects his craft (does the job right). for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good. Kumar and Rose.” This emphasis on knowledge pursuit is also clear in the Quran (35:28). 153). 2001. to (suitable) ranks (and degrees).CCM 19. p. Mohamed et al. Some of the sayings of PBUH which are relevant to the principles of the IWE. “Unless he repents. And when ye are told to rise up. Oft-Forgiving. and ( join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth.. they are not blessed. (spread out and) make room: (ample) room will Allah provide for you. Rokhman. There is nothing worse than avariciousness. 334.2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 148 By (the Token of) Time (through the ages). and of Patience and Constancy (103: 1-3). And those to whom knowledge has come see that the (Revelation) sent down to thee from thy Lord – that is the Truth.” The recent literature on IWE clearly reinforces that IWE is based on the Quran. 2010. Worthy of all praise (34: 6). 95): The best work is the one that results in benefit. p. and do righteous deeds. Most Merciful. 2005. and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord – (like one who does not)? Say: Are those equal.” and (58:11) “O ye who believe! When ye are told to make room in the assemblies. PBUH reinforced by stating that “Learned people. 507. And Allah is well-acquainted with all ye do. 247. Abu-Saad. Ali and Al-Owaihan (2008. . believes. 704). 2010. He who removes a distress. 40. When those who have knowledge do not act upon it. Shamsudin et al. p.

2000) on the relationship between IWE and workplace attitudes confirm the call for and significance of research on IWE (Mellahi and Budhwar. trust. Uygur (2009) studied IWE in the context of Turkish small and medium-sized enterprises. goodness. 2005. sincerity. honouring promises (commitment). persistence and cooperation are duly germane to attain excellence and success for work and human conducts which been enumerated in Quran and PBUH’s sayings and practices (Khalil and Abu-Saad. accountability. which is moving towards greater assimilation of Islamic values (Beekun and Badawi. 1997. Ali and Al-Owaihan (2008) reported that managers working in the public sector scored higher on IWE than those working in the private sector. 2005). 2003. 696). Islam is declared as the official religion of Malaysia while liberty is granted for other religions and belief systems as such Buddhism. 2005. 2005. The IWE stresses that it is individual’s duty to work hard and smart to upload creative and innovative works which ends as a source of happiness and accomplishment. 2010). 2001). Knowledge sharing is espoused in IWE and indeed the Quran has in various verses revealed the substance of knowledge for work. Yousef.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) IWE affixes greatest weight to all forms of productive work and “life without work has no meaning and engagement in economic activities is an obligation” (Yousef. 1992) and subsequent studies (Abu-Saad. Yousef. universalism. Taoism. Thus. he found that it was not a significant factor in the emergence of devout business people in Turkey. 2008. Ali (2005) highlights Islamic values such as equality. kindness. The IWE is analogous to the concept of Islam Hadhari (Islamic civilization) was instigated by former Prime Minister of Malaysia. 153. research on work ethic has flourished in the Western literature. Kumar and Rose (2010) examined the influence of IWE on innovation capability in the Malaysian public sector and reported positive relationship between the constructs. Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in 2004. 2009. consensus. p. Ali and Al-Kazemi. Khalil and Abu-Saad (2009) found a strong and highly significant correlation between the IWE and individualism scales. Being an Islamic state. Beekun and Badawi. 1992. Jalil et al. Most recently. The initial research by Ali (1988. there is a substantial need to examine the join effects of knowledge sharing and IWE on innovation capability in Eastern setting. Rizk. 152) argued that organizational ethical practice can be maintained if IWE is well concerned among employees. Hinduism. Yousef. (2010. The public sector organizations in Malaysia have undergone a fabulous intensification and success over the years after independence from the British which had colonized the country for almost two centuries. job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Mohamed et al. Similarly. p. p. behaviour and human evolution. However. 335. 2010. It emphasizes civility. consistent with the tenets of Islam with a focus on enhancing the Knowledge sharing and IWE 149 . 2000. 132) and making effort to inculcate the practice of Islam in business and government dealings (Ali. 2001. justice. specifically in Malaysia. The IWE is also oriented more toward life fulfillment than life denial and holds business motives in the highest regard as fervour for the life in the Hereafter (Ali. hardwork. the government of Malaysia rapidly endeavour to infuse Islamic values and implement the approach of Islam throughout the public sector organizations. p. 284). Beekun and Badawi. Christianity and Confucianism. 2007. consultation. p. Beekun. p. (2010) found that IWE within a university environment is significantly related to individuals’ attitudes towards computer use ethics. self-discipline. Like studies of knowledge sharing and innovation. humility. Yousef (2001) reported in his findings that employees working in government organizations showed stronger support of the IWE.

2 150 quality of life through the mastery of knowledge and the development (physical and spiritual) of the individual and the nation as a whole. self-image. Ali and Al-Kazemi. it was identified that the Cronbach’s a for all knowledge sharing enablers and KSC were between 0. The questionnaire items are provided in the Appendix. The current Cronbach’s reliability coefficient is 0. 1998).76 to 0. strongly validated by Lee and Choi (2003) and widely used in many research studies. 1992. To recapitulate (Figure 1).7 (Hair et al. Innovation capability measure was adapted from the work of Lee and Choi (2003). 2000.89. From the analysis. Items from established instruments were adopted and modified appropriately while ensuring contextual consistency to suit the objectives of the study. Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Research method The primary data was obtained through a survey using self-administered questionnaire. 2001. the purpose of this study was: . are alleged to be universally valid and therefore it is germane to the minority of non-Muslim employees in the public sector organizations (Badawi. Knowledge sharing capability (KSC) was measured using a three-item scale adapted from Kim and Lee (2006). Yousef.. . (2005). 2005). The Cronbach’s a coefficient for the current study is 0. exceeding the recommended threshold value of 0. knowledge self-efficacy. pro-sharing norms and organizational reward were adapted from Kankanhalli et al.89 (Ali. and . Previous research has shown a satisfactory level of internal consistency of the IWE measure.CCM 19.81 and 0. The motivational constructions: enjoyment in helping others. The last part of the questionnaire collected the Enablers Process Personality Disposition outcome Enjoyment in helping others Reciprocity Self efficacy Trust Figure 1.86. with Cronbach’s a ranging from 0. with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree”.94. to identify the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capability among employees of public sector organizations in Malaysia. The IWE was measured using 17 items developed by Ali (1992). The innovation capability scale had Cronbach’s reliability coefficient of 0. Islamic values. 2007). generalized trust. All the question items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale. to identify the antecedents of knowledge sharing among employees of public sector organizations in Malaysia. Overview of the relationships of the study variables Knowledge sharing Capability Innovation Capability Pro-sharing norms Self-image Organizational Reward Islamic Work Ethic . reciprocity.87. being proliferative. Indeed. to measure the moderating effect of IWE on the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capability among employees of public sector organizations in Malaysia.

Of the 1. The liaison officers of various ministries and departments helped in the distribution and collection of the survey.0 36.00 8. the response rate for this study was 49 percent.0 6.0 7. Respondents’ demographic profiles .0 52.0 56.000 questionnaires distributed. The Statistical Package for Social Science and Analysis of Moment Structures were used to analyze the collected data.00 57. Knowledge sharing and IWE 151 Results Profile of respondents Respondents’ demographic profiles are shown in Table I.00 75. The Administrative and Diplomatic Services officers are selected to participate in this study since they hold almost all the strategic and important positions in Malaysian public sector organizations.0 12. The majority of the respondents which encompassed 52 percent were in the age group of 20-29 years. 472 usable questionnaires were returned. Indeed it is a Respondents’ profiles Classification Gender Male Female 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 and above Less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21 . In terms of service tenure. This shows that the public sector organizations in Malaysia are expanding and thus more Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers have been employed in the last few years to shoulder the increasing responsibilities on provision of public services. 64 percent of the respondents have been serving in the public sector for fewer than five years. Among the 472 respondents. Convenience sampling was deemed to be a feasible arrangement acceptable to the responding public sector organizations located in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya. Taking into account the invalid responses. To overcome the problem of low response rate and accurate mailing list.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) demographic information. 76 percent of the respondents hold a Bachelor’s degree and only 23 percent had a Master’s qualification.0 8.0 24. a drop and pick method was employed.0 1. whereas 36 percent of the respondents were aged between 30 and 39 years. The choices are classified and respondents are required to choose the ones that are most applicable to them.0 21.0 64.00 2.0 18. 44 percent were male and 56 percent were female. years Bachelor Master PhD M41 M44 M48 M52 M54 Age Year of service Educational level Managerial grade Frequency Percentage 210 262 247 168 29 28 302 83 38 10 39 356 112 4 268 55 100 34 15 44.0 6.00 3.00 Table I. In terms of educational level. About 18 percent have been in service between five to ten years and the balance has worked for more than ten years.

it can be concluded that 43. and intercorrelations for all variables of the study. signifying that the statistics are not affected by a serious co-linearity problem (Hair et al. no statistical support was noted between the predictors (reciprocity.52 * 0.0001).2 152 mandate for Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers to attain at least a Bachelor degree prior to employment in the Malaysian public services.51 * – 0. and generalized trust ( p ¼ 0. This allow for a multiple regression analysis to discuss further on the strength of relationships between the variables.73 0. to the highest grade. enjoyment in helping others ( p ¼ 0.77 0. it was concluded that multicollinearity between the predictor variables does not exist. It is noted that all knowledge sharing enablers except organizational reward prompt a positive significant relationship with KSC in the public sector organizations.50 * 0.48 3.24 – . Table II.18 * 0.38 * 0.30 2. Based on the results. respectively. The significant F-value provides evidence that the model fit the data.988) values were below the commonly accepted threshold value of 10. These demonstrated significant high correlations between the study variables.34 * 0. with the best model R 2 ¼ 0.35 * 0.38 * 0.439. Pro-sharing norms 7.82 Notes: Significant at: *p .02 0. Pro-sharing norms ( p ¼ 0. The recorded correlations for all variables were less than the suggested level of 0. This justifies the lesser number of positions available in the higher service scheme of Administrative and Diplomatic officers.004) were revealed to be the best predictors of KSC. M41 and followed by 21 percent in grade M48. Despite high standard deviation counts.26 * 0.90.36 * 0.52 * 0.08 20. and correlation between variables 1. self-image and organizational reward) and KSC. Thus.9 percent of the variance in perceived KSC could be attributed to the joint effect of these four significant knowledge sharing enablers. KSC 2. it has been concluded that there is a linear relationship between the predictors and the KSC. Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Knowledge sharing enablers Table II provides means.19 * 0. There were only 7 and 3 percent of respondents from the higher grades of M52 and M54. The organizational reward is not seen as imperative probably enthusiasm to ones work and expansion of public entities via shared knowledge espoused by the Malaysian Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers. Self-efficacy 8.18 * – 0.73 0.. The tolerance (0. standard deviations. the results indicated that the Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers by and large embrace positive knowledge sharing position.61 * 0.65 0. Means.00.04 0.25 20. Enjoyment in helping others 3. respectively. The respondents’ grades of service scheme ranges from the lowest grade.CCM 19. Self-image 5. The findings from the ordinary least squares multiple regression analysis appears in Table III.844) and variance inflation factor (VIF ¼ 1.40 * 0. standard deviations.0001).0001).77 3.69 0.02 4. 1998).74 0. n ¼ 472 1 2 – 0.72 4. 0.20 * 0. M41. self-efficacy ( p ¼ 0.63 0. About 57 percent of the respondents were in the public service scheme.662).21 * – 0. M54.06 3 4 5 6 7 8 – 0.503-0. Based on the analysis.56 * 0. Organizational reward M SD 4. On the other hand. Trust 6.87 0.16 * 0.01 2 0. Reciprocity 4. The multiple R for KSC model was (R ¼ 0.01.75 3.358-1.60 * – 0.41 * – 0.00 and 1.76 3.

581 2. Table IV shows that KSC positively and significantly correlated with IWE (r ¼ 0. The bivariate correlation coefficients between the independent variable (KSC).02 4.428 * 0. when both KSC and IWE were included.185 2 Mean SD 1 2 3 4.561 0.000 0.01. both exhibited significant main effects on innovation capability and could explain 20.396 * – 0. and correlation coefficients .604 20. 0.027 0. 1998). Nevertheless. KSC had significant main effect on innovation capability and could explain 15.5 percent of the variance in innovation capability for public sector organizations in this study sample.548 20.508 0.503 0. 0. IWE and innovation capability Table IV contains the descriptive statistics and intercorrelation matrix of research variables.0001.177 2 0. A series of regression analysis was further carried out to examine the strength of relationships among the variables. 0. IWE positively and significantly correlated with innovation capability (r ¼ 0.439.736 0. R ¼ 0.01). standard deviations.022 2 0.267 2 0.04 3.122.000 0. F ¼ 51. Means.428. IWE served as a moderating factor in the relationship between KSC and innovation capability (b ¼ 0.292 0.057 3.771. as moderated by IWE.5 percent when it was included in step 2 of the analysis. KSC 2. p ¼ 0. These results demonstrate that IWE and KSC has been important predictors of innovation capability in the public sector organizations in Malaysia.01).970 1.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Relationship between KSC.01).396.50 0.584 0.. df ¼ 7 1. Model summary for perceived KSC Table IV.90.985 5.515 0.760 1.45 0.004 0. As exhibited in Table V.988 1. 0. Table V provides regression analyses results for the relationship between KSC and innovation capability. It should be noted from the Variable Enjoyment in helping others Reciprocity Self-image Trust Pro-sharing norms Self-efficacy Organizational reward b t-value p 0. p . the moderating variable (IWE). as evidenced by the significant interaction.89 – 0. and the dependent variable (innovation capability) were less than the suggested level of 0. 0. Besides.9 percent of the variance in innovation capability. These correlations also present evidence of validity and reliability for measurement scales employed in this study.547 0.137 0.77 0.130 2 0. IWE 3.920 5. n ¼ 472 153 Collinearity statistics Tolerance VIF Notes: Model statistics: R ¼ 0.430. signifying that the statistics are not affected by a serious co-linearity problem (Hair et al.672 21. p . R ¼ 0. p .568 0.358 1. Further.382 * – Notes: Significant at: *p .844 1. p . In particular the moderating role of IWE in explaining the relationship between KSC and innovation capability among employees in the public sector organizations was tested.662.544 0.000 0.837 1.01) and innovation capability (r ¼ 0.382. Innovation capability Knowledge sharing and IWE Table III. IWE raise the total amount of variance explained merely by 5. adj.828 1.

01.542 * * 0. 2002. Lu et al.224 6.356 – – 6. Kankanhalli et al.220 45. perseverance.2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 154 Table V. sturdy intensity of pro-sharing norms likely to increase employees’ motivation to engage in knowledge sharing deeds. Cabrera and Cabrera.122 * 0. 0. 2008. Knowledge self-efficacy is shown to significantly contribute to knowledge sharing behaviour.209 63. 2002. providing additional evidence that pro-sharing norms is a strong intrinsic motivator for vigorous participation in knowledge sharing endeavour. 2008.396 * * 0. Kulkarni et al. 2000.155 87.910 * t-value Collinearity statistics Tolerance VIF 9. dignity of simplicity.909 * * 0. .724 6. character.212 0. Discussion The results indicate that a significant predictor of knowledge sharing is the pro-sharing norms in the sampled public sector organizations.737 0. influence of examples. R 2 F R 2 change F change Step 1 (b) Step 2 (b) Step 3 (b) 0. The shared-values that funnel the conduct of the entire Malaysian civil servants.389 * * 0.013. Hierarchical regression results with innovation capability as dependent variable Variable Step 1 KSC Step 2 KSC IWE Step 3 KSC IWE KSC X IWE R2 Adj...224 1..136 Notes: Significant at: *p .281 1. 2008) has discussed the incitement effect of trust on knowledge sharing behaviours. improvement of talent and joy of originating (the 12 pillars) appears to significantly help them trust each other.781 0. Choi et al.055 32. 2006).260 * * 0. This result is also consistent with prior research (DeLong and Fahey.281 5. patience. valuing time.264 1. wisdom of economy. 2006. The pro-sharing norms simultaneously with the associated desire of employees with those of the public sector organizations probably impinge on the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. Jarvenpaa and Staples. p . * *p .287 * * 0. 0.0001.817 1. namely..817 0. The findings of this study extend the previous literature by revealing that the knowledge sharing among employees in the public sector organizations could be phenomenal when generalized trust is well-built.813 0.881 1.225 0. 2005.542 * * 0. The findings of this study is consistent with previous research which put forward self-efficacy as an intrinsic motivator for knowledge sharing behaviour (Bock and Kim.285 * * 0. Because knowledge sharing serves to benefit public sector organizations.197 * * 0.157 87. n ¼ 472 regression analysis that although the interaction was statistically significant. 0..157 0.791 0. The sheer trust and conviction among the employees should craft workplace relationship that warrants trustworthy behaviours. obligation of duty. Lin et al.308 * * 0. 2000.CCM 19. Existing literature (Ardichvili.240 2. corresponding change in R 2 were relatively small (R 2 change ¼ 0. pleasure of working.013 7.0001). kindness.

protectors of national peace and integration. A feasible explanation for this finding could be credited to the fact that respondents were at a higher rank in the public sector organizations. and guardians of the future generation’s wellbeing and prosperity. 2008. Following the basic elements of IWE. efficiency and performance in facing the challenges encapsulated in the national development stratagem paves way to unexpected reciprocation. 2010). The positive relationship between KSC and innovation capability of employees in the public sector organizations was found to be contingent on IWE. enforcers of law. Lin et al. The results from this study provide strong evidence that individuals who enjoy in helping others appear significantly heartened too. These officers are generally very versatile individuals who act as providers of services. the Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers in the Malaysian public sector organizations are custodians of the interests of the government. Wang and Noe. (2009) but supporting the findings of some other studies (Bock et al. the respondents of this study collectively perceived that they are against laziness and time wastage through idling or engaging oneself in unproductive activity. The present findings somewhat advance the mix results of studies on organizational rewards and knowledge sharing culture. This demonstrates that a large number of employees in the Malaysian public sector organizations demonstrate the “Excellent Work Culture” efforts of the Malaysian Government introduced more than two decades ago. b). they should embrace greater confident on their ability to share knowledge that would be constructive to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the execution and success of national policies. They tend to stay focus on other intrinsic benefits compared to extrinsic rewards. Besides. The results indicate that neither self-image nor reciprocity benefits are significantly linked to KSC. Previous literature also suggests mix relationships between these variables. facilitators of the nation’s economic growth. Islamic values have always been advanced in the Malaysian public sector administrations. Islam is a way of life and indeed work ethic is applicable to every facet of individuals’ life including organizational administration (Abuznaid. with the need to achieve their common goals. (2008) and Ling et al.. The presence of a workplace environment that is viewed to allow for religious belief and contemporary management thinking appears to benefit the social order. Lin. Lin et al. The lower value placed by the respondents on organizational rewards and the lack of influence of reward on knowledge sharing perhaps support their role as leaders where knowledge sharing is perceived as professional obligation. 2008). The current work situation which to some extent contributes to positive knowledge sharing traditions among the public sector employees should be further explored and amplified so as to preserve the sharing tradition. Ardichvili. The Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers are the e´lite corps of generalist administrators who occupy virtually the key positions in the Malaysian public sector organizations. contrasting the results of Choi et al.. 2007a. 2009). Since the officers are recruited and exclusively trained. (2008). 2005. This may be due to the positive and significant possessions of pro-sharing norms. Government servants are to serve Muslims and non-Muslims alike without discrimination. as suggested by prior studies (Lin. This study found that organizational rewards did not demonstrate significant predictive relationship on employees’ KSC. The Malaysian Government continues to emphasize the nurturing of Islamic values and building of noble characters to pave ways for the spirit of Knowledge sharing and IWE 155 . generalized trust and enjoyment in helping others across the public sector organizations in Malaysia.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Wasko and Faraj. 2007a. to uphold the integrity. The professional communal relationships. to share knowledge. 2005.

self-efficacy and generalized trust were other significant intrinsic motivation to share knowledge expressed by the selected respondents. Greater innovation means public sector organizations will be more resilient in responding to changing environments and arrive to the desired outcomes. Considerable investments in the human resource development hint to the employees that their knowledge and work competencies are appreciable by the organizational authorities. This result implies that a sense of belongingness and pledge of the Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers perhaps be a prerequisite to engage in knowledge sharing activities. IWE is a key input meant for such value creation process or behaviour to be instilled within individuals in the public sector organizations. Evidently. The norm of recruiting and selecting officers who observe soaring cognitive propensity and self esteem should be sustained in the public sector organizations as to establish a progressive generation of leaders. knowledge sharing and the spirit of discovery are consistent with the direction of IWE (Ali.2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 156 excellence in innovation. sharing genuine knowledge boost the organizational capability to perform rigorously against the varying work condition through the collective competencies of individuals insights. it is the persuasive education among Malaysian Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers on the importance of work principles in Islam to facilitate the process of innovation that has led to the current findings. The KSC significantly affect innovation capability under conditions of sturdy IWE has a far-reaching implication for organizational studies. Not surprisingly. Besides. pro-sharing norms contribute much on the relationship. Notably. Ali and Al-Owaihan. 2005. Conclusion Results from this study suggest four knowledge sharing antecedents strongly influence the perceived KSC in the Malaysian public sector organizations. Enjoyment in helping others. employees who believe in their competency to contribute constructive knowledge in advancing their division or work unit tend to demonstrate stronger motivation to contribute knowledge to their contemporaries. Moreover. the need for the employees in the public sector organizations to embark seriously on knowledge sharing. the Malaysia Remunerative System emphasize on work competencies and positive values as key enabler to improve the performance and efficiency of the government sectors. as an enabler for Malaysia to emerge successfully in the new economy while preserving its cultural heritage. beginning 2002. innovation arms depend heavily on employees’ KSC which is not a natural behaviour of many individuals but considerable could be cultivated. Explicitly. 2008). This indeed boosts their knowledge sharing behaviour and work culture which leads to many novel knowledge base product or services. Parallel with the direction and policy of the government of Malaysia. Perhaps. employees of public sector organizations have to undergo mandatory trainings or courses to boost their work related competencies while venture into lifelong learning culture. It is also proved that the relationship between KSC and innovation capability is moderately influenced by IWE. . progressive work values and implementation of innovative norms are timely. Besides.CCM 19. IWE encourages the pursuit of knowledge as a way to improve oneself and balance the effort in wealth creation and attaining spiritual tranquillity.

Materialism is the precursor that renders down good values among organizational citizens. future studies should consider using both objective and perceptual measures of knowledge sharing and specific innovation capability. the internal (e. Knowledge sharing and IWE 157 . one may contend that strong pro-sharing norms. The IWE elements in this study focus merely on the human capital side of the public sector. Perhaps. the findings are deem to be applicable to the public sector organizations or to large organizations that functions in a similar capacity. self-reported measures might not exactly or truly reflect a concrete state of affairs variables selected in this study. The scope of this study is limited to examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing and the extent to which IWE moderate the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capability among Administrative and Diplomatic Service officers in Malaysia. Notes 1. But to further enhance the innovation capability in the public sector organizations. This is essential for constant advancement of knowledge in organizational and management literature. It is strongly suggested that cross-national studies using relatively non-Muslim in large and representative sample are conducted to compare the strength of the IWE scale in influencing organizational variables across varying public sectors. Therefore. The findings also suggest that reciprocity and self-image not succeed to contribute significantly to KSC. The genuine responsibilities to the stakeholders are tolerable and should be remain in one’s mind to thrive into the next stage of legitimate feat. values. A notable limitation of the quantitative research is the exclusive use of perceptual measures. Future research is encouraged to explore these variables across many other levels of employees in the public sector organizations. future study may concern to further explore the specific type of organizational rewards that probably encourage knowledge sharing in the public sector organizations. translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and published by Amana publications. This attempt perhaps helps in drawing more robust conclusion on the moderating effect of IWE on the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capability. goals. The position held by respondents in this survey may tend to diminish the concerned about the image and reciprocity benefits. The translations of the Quran used in this paper were from: The Holy. trust and enjoyment in helping others contribute to this condition. It is important to note that there are many other issues contribute equally to innovation capability. Translation and Commentary.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Limitations and future research It was anticipated that organizational rewards will induce the pleasure of sharing knowledge as recorded in the literature.g. Despite gaining a significant support from psychological research literature. Beltsville. specifically IWE. MD (1989). Future studies are encouraged to include all level of employees in variety of public sector service schemes to strengthen the generalization of the findings. Although the study included respondents from diverse divisions. organization’s vision. and hierarchical orders. Quran: Text. functions. PBUH is an abbreviation of “peace be upon him”. but this study found the reverse condition. public policy and regulation) structures call for further exploration. Thus. culture and philosophy) and external (stakeholders. strategies. 2.

pp. 4. 93-104. Beekun. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. Cheltenham. 126 No. 1. MIS Quarterly. “Islamic work ethic in Kuwait”. .I. Hassim. 1. and Ingram. Vol. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. Vol. pp. 107. Vol. 131-45. (2003). “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”. 2. and Al-Kazemi. 4. “Islamic challenges to HR in modern organizations”. and Leidner. Ali. A. P. A. 6 No. “Knowledge sharing in a knowledge intensive organisation: identifying the enablers”. M. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. J. Vol. 13 No. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. S. pp. Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Al-A’ali. 12. “Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management. 24 No.J. 215-34. pp. A. A. A.CCM 19. 2 No. (2008). International Journal of Business and Management. and Srivastava. L. J. Journal of Knowledge Management.J. Ali. 5. pp. Vol. Alavi. L. Ali. Vol. Beekun. Islamic Perspectives on Management and Organization. pp. K. pp. (2009).J. barriers. 4 No. Communication & Ethics in Society. (1994). 1. “Business ethics in Islam: the glaring gap in practice”. Vol. T.J. p. R. Vol. I.. (2005).2 158 References Abdullah.S. pp. “Scaling an Islamic work ethic”. Kuala Lumpur. (1992). 14 No. Bartol. (2000). A. pp. pp.. Vol. A. and trust: the knowledge economy and the future of capitalism”. and Kelly. 39 No. 128 No. H. 64-76. “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems”. pp. (1997). F.A. pp. Barachini. pp. 10 No. Vol. (2010). Vol. 692-711. International Institute of Islamic Thought.J. Herndon.J. (2009).A. (2001). 541-54. Pitman. Ali. 136. and Badawi. A. 39-51. (2007). “Cultural and social issues for knowledge sharing”. pp. Abu-Saad. Islam Hadhari: A Model Approach for Development and Progress. (2008). Advances in Developing Human Resources. 60 No. (2001). 1. VA. Islamic Business Ethics. Vol. Vol. “Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: the Islamic perspective”. “The work values of Arab teachers in Israel in a multicultural context”. Boulter. 507-20. (2005). 115-23. Journal of Business Ethics. A. 15 No. 1. Vol. and Al-Owaihan. 150-69. “Islamic work ethic: a critical review”. 82. Abuznaid. hierarchy. (2005). P. Adler. London. “Market. 278-88.S. Badawi. Journal of Psychology. and enablers”. “Islamic work ethic in Arabia”. (2002). R. Argote. Bendell. Ali. 575-83. “Computer ethics for the computer professionals from an Islamic point of view”. 5. Organization Science. (2008). Journal of Beliefs and Values. 5-19. A. M. (2009). 28-45. Journal of Social Psychology. 4. Vol. 98-110. Implementing Quality in the Public Sector. and Chik. pp.A. “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”. Vol. (1988). Journal of Information. A. Pelanduk Publications. 6. 9 No. Personnel Review.I. D. A. Edward Elgar. R. Ardichvili. 2.M. Ali.

G. G. 113-27. Vol. (2006). 29 No.. (2000). 2. Vol.S. “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”. (1999). Choi. Bhirud. Rodrigues. Y. E. pp.. I. 27-57. G.. “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas”. Vol. (1997).H. London. 87-111. Dean. 1. pp. Organization Science. MIS Quarterly. H.W. A.G. and Fahey. Chiu.F. 14-21. T. 43-57. Drucker. “Successful knowledge management projects”. Hsu. Routledge.S. social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing”.A. 6.. Dose. social-psychological forces. Journal of Managerial Issues. Sproull. “Examining the factors influencing participants’ knowledge sharing behavior in virtual learning communities”. Boston. 5. Vol. P.. “Work values: an integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization”. (1999). Chang.. 5. (2005). (1998). “Knowledge-sharing behavior of bank employees in Greece”. L. (1996). “Identity and deception in the virtual community”. 134-48. Information Resources Management Journal. Donath. in Smith. 271-84. 742-54. pp. Y. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology.S. (Eds). Cabrera. P. “Knowledge worker productivity: the biggest challenge”. 23 No. Harvard Business School Press. “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators. Knowledge sharing and IWE 159 . “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing”.. pp. W. pp.N. “Social network. California Management Review. 70. L. Vol. Journal of Information Science. Vol. Constant. P. 1. 12 No. T. pp. and Kiesler.J. D. pp.. and Vraimaki. M. P. and Cabrera. (2008). “The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice”. Sloan Management Review.Y. 2. 219-40. (2005).Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Berg.S. L. “The role of affect. G. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2. Davenport. D. and Kollock.W. and Chan. and Kim. pp. 458-65. 1. N. D. J. Vol. Vol.S.and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing”. S. and Karlsen. Chowdhury. 310-26.W. Kang.. 39 No. pp. Vol. M. 3. Chatzoglou. 3.G. (2008). S. and organizational climate”. and Prusak. 15 No. T. Information & Management. Chow. Bock. Davenport. 1872-88. 245-66. E. Journal of Knowledge Management Practices. (2005). Bock. M. and Desai. pp.W. Vol.C. (2002). 7 No. and Lee. C. Vol. pp. L. Zmud. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. 3. 79-94. pp. J. DeLong.L. 687-710.S. De Long. 17 No. “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”. 21 No.D. Vol. 119-35. 2. 34 No. and Beers. MA. Vol. “Police management roles as determinants of knowledge sharing attitude in criminal investigations”. 42 No. M. Kim. Vol. S. Vol. L. Business Process Management Journal.. Communities in Cyberspace. 45 No. 2. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. and Lee.Y. 1. Decision Support Systems. Y.W. pp. P. pp. and Kinshuk (2009).C. (2009). 1-13. R. 3-20.H. E. and Wang. 12 No. pp.E. pp. pp. Vol. “The linkage between knowledge accumulation capability and organizational innovation”. Academy of Management Executive. Organization Studies. pp. Chen. Journal of Knowledge Management. “The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination”. 4. (2008). M. 41 No. S. Chen. 15 No. Gottschalk. S. (2008). (1998). J. Vol. “Knowledge sharing practices in KM: a case study in Indian software subsidiary”. 14 No. and Lee. (2002).

(2006). (2010). Liao. C. 4. pp.H..J.Y. 3 No. Vol. 33 No.K. 20 No. Ju. pp. 31 No. and Wei. Kim. Hair. 55 No. G. pp. Vol.W. “Attitude towards knowledge sharing behaviour”. C. “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation”.L. M. 14. Engelwood Cliffs. Lee.F. and Chang. and innovation capability: an empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries”.. Vol. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 23 No. 4. 1. Journal of Management Information Systems. 91-8. “The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities”. “Perceived value of knowledge: the potential informer’s perception”. D.M. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. G.. (2007). K.K. pp. and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination”. (2009). 5th ed. D. F. 180. 3. 179-228. T. self-efficacy. D. (2003). Vol. S.L. Tatham. “Moon shots for management”. 3. 153-69. . (2006). pp. 9 Nos 2/3. 29 No. Hew. 1548-68. (2000). pp. Kulkarni. and Lee. M. pp. Kim. 3. N. Vol. 1. N. A. I. and Staples. 2 No. Kang. Kankanhalli. M. “A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation”. Vol. pp. Vol.E. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. p. Educational Technology Research & Development. 35. M. 6. Harvard Business Review. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. pp. pp. Journal of Management Information Systems. Public Administration Review... 2.H.C. and Gao. 2. W. Vol. and Chang. 333-46. (2008). 79-93. M. pp. (2005).H. pp. (2007). S. and outcome expectations”. “Implementation mechanism of ethics in business organizations”.CCM 19. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings.E. C. “Knowledge sharing practices as facilitating factor for improving organizational performance through human capital: a preliminary study”. 46 No. European Journal of Operations Research. Hamel. Vol. 16 No. 66 No. “Rewards systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing”. pp. Yen. (2006).J. “The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants”. Khalil. 573-95. R. “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”. Vol. Fei. Azam.F. “Knowledge sharing. Vol. 2. Hsu. pp.S.2 Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 160 Ford. Jr. (1998). R. 145-55. 1. R. 309-47. Vol. and Abu-Saad. Vol. S.D. R. and Rose. (2010).. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 337-59. NJ. and Staples. (2007). (2003). International Journal of Public Administration. (2005).L. pp. and Rahman. S. and Chen. and Hara. Ipe.R. (2009). pp. Vol. Kumar. 938-56. Kwok. J. Anderson. “Knowledge management enablers. Journal of Information Science. 370-85. K. and Black. “Islamic work ethic among Arab college students in Israel”.L. Hsu. processes. Vol. S. Vol. U. Human Resource Development Review. 3-16. 129-54. 87 No. “Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing”.C.. (2007). Tan.. International Business Research. (2008). Vol. 4.S. Experts Systems with Applications. Jarvenpaa. 113-43. B. Vol. “Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: the relationship between trust. Journal of Management Development. S. “The impact of knowledge sharing on work performance: an empirical analysis of the public employees’ perceptions in South Korea”. Ravindran. and Choi. 4. W.C. H. J. pp. absorptive capacity. B.P. Lee.. 65 No. and Ahn. I. 29 No. and Freeze. D. Prentice-Hall. “Examining the link between Islamic work ethic and innovation capability”. 1316-26. H.K.C. MIS Quarterly. S. 340. Jalil. 45-51. Y.

13 No. H. M. 317-29. Vol. A. New York. (2009).A. Porter. Journal of Workplace Learning.J. 295-308. and Saleh.. Ling. S. Paroutis. 3. Journal of European Industrial Training.W. (2010). pp. (2008). 135-49. NY. pp. Vol. job satisfaction and organisational commitment in Malaysia”. Vol.P.R. pp. and Chen. Lin. H. P. (1998). pp. Leung. N. pp. pp. 6 No.S. (2002).M.C. C. (2009). (2009). “Line managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams”. F. Journal of Knowledge Management. McAdam. “Knowledge sharing in an American multinational company based in Malaysia”. Lee. G. Vol. pp. 108-25. Knowledge sharing and IWE 161 . Journal of Business Systems... Journal of Business Ethics. 35 No. 257-70. pp. 4 No. 13-23. Karim. “Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour”. Jossey-Bass. pp. 4. “Fostering the determinants of knowledge sharing in professional virtual communities”. “Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing”.S. Vol. (2010). Journal of Business Ethics. pp. San Francisco. S. H. (2003).J.K. Vol. Nonaka.J. pp.S. and Hussein. “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions”. 929-39. P. pp. Ortiz-Fournier. K. Journal of Information Science. CA. (2003). 52-63. (2006). 685-91.F. “Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach”. 5 No. H. Knowledge Management Research and Practice. “Work ethic and ethical work: distortions in the American dream”. and Lee. R. Journal of Information Science.T.F. Rizk. and Wang. (2007b). H. 5.S. G. “A tale of two knowledge-sharing systems”. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. 25 No. and Flores. (2010). “A comparison of public and private sector perception and use of knowledge management”. pp. Robertson. Journal of Knowledge Management. I. 2 No. 4 No. Social Responsibility Journal.V. 6. pp. K.F. Rainey. Mohamed. 2. 70 No. On Competition. 411-28. (2008). M. Vol. 1. 1. H. (2000).. 25 No. Vol. C. Rivera-Vazquez. “Managerial knowledge sharing: the role of individual.F. “To share or not to share: modeling tacit knowledge sharing. 25-44. 246-54. Lu. Boston. (2009). 96. 1.W. Harvard Business School. K.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Lin. “Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge sharing”. 1. Vol. Vol. N. MacNeil. Hung. H. and Takeuchi. 13 No. 3. Lin. and Reid. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Lin. Personnel Review. Lin. J. “Back to basics: an Islamic perspective on business and work ethics”. and Budhwar. its mediators and antecedents”. M. 294-307.0 technologies”. R. Employee Relations.W. Management Decision. 125-42. (1995).. Vol.E. 21 No. pp. S. D. 1. and Jain. Porter. (2006). and organizational factors”. 2. Sandhu. (2004). C. Vol. 26-35. Computers in Human Behavior. L. Vol.R. Oxford University Press. Vol. 33 No. Governance and Ethics. (2007a). Mellahi. 4. “Introduction: Islam and human resource management”. “Linking Islamic work ethic to computer use ethics. 4. Vol. 15-41. Vol. 535-50. and Koch. Management and Organization Review. 39 No. R. Vol. 2. “Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.A.. C. 24 No. pp. 6..G.G. Journal of Knowledge Management. Lin. 3rd ed. L. R. interpersonal. pp. 42 No. MA.

Subramaniam. H. 1. Vol. (2002). Sohail. Vol. F. 13 No. Vol. N. 35-57. 125-42. and Lange. pp. (2000). Vol. P. 40 No. (2009). 29 No. Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organisation. pp. 1..S. and Noe.2 162 Rokhman. 335-55. European Journal of Information Systems. N. Sa´enz. “Knowledge management orientation: construct development and empirical validation”. Taylor. M. P. 10 No. “Knowledge sharing and innovation performance: a comparison between high-tech and low-tech companies”. and Rivera. Information Processing & Management. W. Smit. 4. (2009). O. (2000). pp. NY.H. Vol. Hassan. C. Vol. A.S. “Competitive determinants of organizational risk-taking attitude: the role of strategic reference points”. S. Journal of Business Ethics. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies. (2010). Soliman. “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”. 88 No. Human Resource Management Review. 25 No. Kasim. NY.A. M. “Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing”. M. and Johari. S. S. Vol. “The Islamic work ethic and the emergence of Turkish SME owner-managers”. (1998). 1. HRM and innovation process”. M.K. 155-73. Vol. 6 No. Taminiau.L. Vol. pp. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. and Spooner. Vol.G. Aramburu. “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice”. (2009). W.A. 115-31. pp. M. M. Journal of Knowledge Management. (2008). and Rafiq. 2. . Wang. S. “The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities”. (2003).. 21-7.CCM 19. 106-14. 113-22. 450-63. International Journal of Manpower. “Preliminary insights on the effect of Islamic work ethic on relationship marketing and customer satisfaction”. “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals”. Academy of Management Journal. S. Vol.D. 2.A. and Han. 37. A. 211-25. 9 Nos 2/3. Wasko. M. Vol. 20 No. and Youndt. Y. 3. New York. “Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: perspectives from Malaysia”. M. Uygur. 219-35. A. 1. pp. 15 No. Management Decision. and Daud. “Knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. pp. and Faraj. (2003). Vol. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning.. J. I. Vol. (2010). 1. Ryu. Pitman. 4 No. Vol. R. pp. pp. 22-36. 24 No. S. S. T. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. and Fieganbaum.A. (2005). “Innovation in management consulting firms through informal knowledge sharing”. Scarbrough. and Faraj. Wang. 48 No. Weber. 39 No. Stewart. pp. Expert Systems with Applications. MIS Quarterly. A. Wasko. Doubleday Currency.. (2009).. (2005). Innovation Management and New Product Development. A. Ho. (2010). pp. 127-41.W. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Ahmed. “The effect of Islamic work ethics on work outcomes”. Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Shamsudin. K. “Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of human resources management”. 1. “It is what one does: why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice”.. 42-55. New York. pp. 501-16. W. Shoham. pp. 3. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. 2.M. pp. London. (1958).A. pp. 5. 1. Trott. 17 No. Charles Scribner’s Sons. (1997). (2002).

Brodt. Vol.Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Webster. G. S.Y.. D.E. (Ed. (2008).com Or visit our web site for further details: www. San Francisco. Vol. Journal of Information Science. 283-302. Yousef. 6. 33 No. CA. D.upm. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 275. Vol.emeraldinsight. 106 No. C. p.. Zweig. pp. Vol. (The Appendix follows overleaf. W. “The Islamic work ethic as a mediator of the relationship between locus of control. 30. pp. 1-37.T. “Beyond knowledge sharing: withholding knowledge at work”.Q.. S. Personal Review. emotional and social influence into a TAM for KM programs”. and Ho. D. S.Y. J. 793-810. and Li. 27. and To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. C. “Islamic work ethic. C. Wheatley. (2007).. 15 No. (2000). Brown.J.). pp. pp. Knowledge sharing and IWE 163 . “Knowledge management enablers: a case study”. Yeh. Lai. Elsevier. Finding Our Way Leadership for an Uncertain Time.) Corresponding author Naresh Kumar can be contacted at: naresh@putra. 3. role conflict and role ambiguity”. (2006).J. Wu. 4. (2005). 152-69. Berrett-Koehler. “A contingency approach to incorporate human. a moderator between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context”. Industrial Management & Data Systems. Y. Oxford. J. in Martocchio. Connelly. M. (2001). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management.

(2005) Kankanhalli et al. I believe that my queries for knowledge will be answered in future I have confidence in my ability to provide knowledge that others in my organization consider valuable I have the expertise needed to provide valuable knowledge for my organization It does not really make any difference whether I share my knowledge with others Most other employees can provide more valuable knowledge than I can I believe that people in my organization give credit for other’s knowledge where it is due I believe that people in my organization do not use unauthorized knowledge I believe that people in my organization use other’s knowledge appropriately I believe that people in my organization share the best knowledge that they have There is a norm of cooperation in my organization There is a norm of collaboration in my organization There is a norm of teamwork in my organization There is a willingness to value and respond to diversity in my organization There is a norm of openness to conflicting views in my organization There is a norm of tolerance of mistakes in my organization Sharing my knowledge improves my image within the organization People in the organization who share their knowledge have more prestige than those who do not Sharing my knowledge improves others recognition of me When I share my knowledge. I believe that I will get an answer for giving an answer When I share my knowledge.CCM 19. Survey items (used with permission from the authors) Kankanhalli et al. my superiors praise me It is important to get a better work assignment when I share my knowledge It is important to be promoted when I share my knowledge It is important to get a higher salary when I share my knowledge It is important to get a higher bonus when I share my knowledge Kankanhalli et al. (2005) Kankanhalli et al. (2005) Kankanhalli et al. (2005) Kankanhalli et al. I expect to get back knowledge when I need it When I share my knowledge. the people I work with respect me When I share my knowledge.2 164 Appendix Construct Item Source Enjoyment in helping others I enjoy sharing my knowledge with others I enjoy helping others by sharing my knowledge It feels good to help someone else by sharing my knowledge Sharing my knowledge with others gives me pleasure When I share my knowledge. (2005) Kankanhalli et al. I expect somebody to respond when I am in need When I contribute knowledge. (2005) Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) Reciprocity Self-efficacy Trust Pro-sharing norms Self-image Organizational reward Table AI. (2005) (continued) .

Construct KSC Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) IWE Innovation capability Item It is important to get more job security when I share my knowledge I voluntarily share my know-how. . and knowledge with other employees I cooperate or communicate with other employees in teams or groups for sharing information and knowledge I can freely access documents. information. and knowledge held by other divisions within the organization Laziness is a vice Dedication to work is a virtue Good work benefits both one’s self and others Justice and generosity in the work place are necessary conditions for society’s welfare Producing more than enough to meet one’s needs contributes to the prosperity of society as a whole One should carry work out to the best of one’s ability Work is not an end in itself but a means to foster personal growth and social relations Life has no meaning without work More leisure time is good for society Human relations should be emphasize and encourage Work enables man to control nature Creative work is a source of happiness and accomplishment Any person who works is more likely to get ahead in life Work gives one the chance to be independent A successful person is the one who meets deadlines at work One should constantly work hard to meet responsibilities The value of work is delivered from the accompanying intention rather than its result My organization has produced many novel and useful ideas (services/products) My organization fosters an environment that is conducive to our own ability to produce novel and useful ideas (services/products) My organization spends much time in producing novel and useful ideas My organization considers producing novel and useful ideas as being important activities My organization actively produces novel and useful ideas (services/ products) Source Kim and Lee (2006) Knowledge sharing and IWE 165 Ali (1992) Lee and Choi (2003) Table AI. information.

Olivier Roques. Tiong Ling Tan. Journal of Business Ethics . Afsheen Khalid. Roziah Mohd Rasdi. Ghulam Murtaza. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] . . Usman Raja. Impact of Islamic Work Ethics on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors. 2013. Uchenna Cyril Eze. 2014. Bahaman Abu Samah. [CrossRef] 3. Muhammad Abbas. 2015. [Abstract] [PDF] 2. Rizwan Mushtaq. Maimunah Ismail. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:1. Fostering knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed model for the Malaysian public service. Choon Yih Goh. VINE 43:2. RoryL Chase. Gerald Guan Gan Goh. Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge sharing. Gangeswari Tangaraja. 210-236.This article has been cited by: Downloaded by SEGi University At 21:12 06 January 2015 (PT) 1.