International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing intentions
Yong Sauk Hau a , Byoungsoo Kim b,∗ , Heeseok Lee c , Young-Gul Kim c
a
Industry & Strategy Department I, Samsung Economic Research Institute, 29th Fl, Samsung Life Insurance Seocho Tower, 1321-15, Seocho 2-dong, Seocho-gu,
Seoul 137-955, South Korea
b
Department of Business Administration, Seoul Women’s University, 621 Hwarangro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul 139-774, South Korea
c
KAIST Business School, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul 130-722, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Due to the importance of knowledge in today’s competitive world, an understanding of how to enhance
Available online 25 December 2012 employee knowledge sharing has become critical. This study develops an integrated model to understand
key factors of employee knowledge sharing intentions through constructs prescribed by two estab-
Keywords: lished knowledge management research streams, namely, those concerning individual motivations and
Tacit knowledge sharing intention social capital. This study classifies employee knowledge sharing intentions as either tacit or explicit
Explicit knowledge sharing intention
and investigates whether the level of the determinants and their influences differ between the two. The
Rational action theory
research model is tested with survey data collected from 2010 employees in multiple industries. Analysis
Individual motivation
Social capital theory
results show that the proposed model significantly explains the variance of employees’ tacit and explicit
knowledge sharing intentions. This finding indicates that the model’s unified perspective enhances our
knowledge of how to improve employee knowledge sharing. The new findings reveal that organizational
rewards have a negative effect on employees’ tacit knowledge sharing intentions but a positive influence
on their explicit knowledge sharing intentions. The analysis results confirm that reciprocity, enjoyment,
and social capital contribute significantly to enhancing employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing
intentions. Additionally, these factors have more positive effects on tacit than on explicit knowledge
intentions. The implications of the new findings are discussed.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction contributing factors. Previous studies, however, seem to be limited

Knowledge sharing is critical to a firm’s success in today’s highly
competitive environment (Grant, 1996). Effectively encouraging
employees to share useful knowledge across the organization can
increase and sustain a firm’s competitive advantages (Barney, 1991;
Grant, 1996; Liu & Phillips, 2011). Numerous studies on organiza-
tion and knowledge management (KM) have proven that employee
knowledge sharing enhances firm performance such as absorptive
capacity and innovation capability (e.g., Liao, Fei, & Chen, 2007; Liu
& Phillips, 2011). Choi, Lee, and Yoo (2010) have shown that knowl-
edge sharing among team members is essential in maintaining high
levels of group and organizational productivity.
Since employees’ knowledge sharing intentions are one of the
strong predictors of actual employee knowledge sharing behaviour
(Ajzen, 1988, 1991), many researchers have studied its various
∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Business Administration Seoul
Women’s University, 621 Hwarangro, Nowon-Gu, Seoul 139-774, South Korea.
Tel.: +82 2 970 5510; fax: +82 2 958 3604.
E-mail addresses: ys.hau@samsung.com (Y.S. Hau), tree9901@swu.ac.kr (B. Kim),
hsl@business.kaist.ac.kr (H. Lee), ygkim@business.kaist.ac.kr (Y.-G. Kim).
in that they did not address the type of knowledge to be shared.
Knowledge shared among employees can be classified as either
tacit or explicit (Dhanaraj, Lyles, Steensma, & Tihanyi, 2004;
Nonaka, 1994; Reychav & Weisberg, 2009). Tacit knowledge is not
easily codified or articulated because it is embedded in an individ-
ual’s brain or experience, such as know-how or skill (Nonaka, 1994).
On the other hand, explicit knowledge is easily expressed and com-
municated in the form of written documents, such as reports or
manuals (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore, tacit knowledge is
harder than explicit knowledge to share among employees, since
sharing it costs significantly more time and effort (Dhanaraj et al.,
2004; Ipe, 1998; Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). This implies that
the knowledge sharing enablers of previous studies may have had
different effects on tacit or explicit knowledge sharing intentions
because people are likely to adjust their knowledge sharing inten-
tions according to the different resource requirements of tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing activities. Therefore, the objective of
this study is to re-examine the impact of major knowledge shar-
ing antecedents of employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing
intentions.
The major knowledge sharing antecedents to be re-examined
fall into two categories: individual and social. Within the individual

0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009
 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
category, employees’ extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are the
basis of the growth of their knowledge sharing intentions (Hung,
Durcikova, Lai, & Lin, 2011; Hung, Lai, & Chang, 2011; Kankanhalli,
Tan, & Wei, 2005; Lin, 2007a). Prior KM studies have pointed out
organizational rewards and reciprocity as salient extrinsic motiva-
tion (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005; Chennamaneni, Teng, & Raja,
2012; Lin, 2007b) and enjoyment as critical intrinsic motivation
(Chennamaneni et al., 2012; Hung et al., 2011b; Lin, 2007a; Wasko
& Faraj, 2000). Regarding the social category, since knowledge
sharing consists of social interactions between employees (Chow
& Chan, 2008; Lin, 2007a) and such interactions are influenced
by the relationships between individuals (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998), employee social capital has been known to play a major role
in forming their knowledge sharing intentions (Chang & Chuang,
2011; Chow & Chan, 2008; He, Qiao, & Wei, 2009). Since the impact
of these knowledge sharing antecedents on tacit or explicit knowl-
edge sharing has not been yet verified in the literature, this study
tries to answer the following three research questions:
(i) What are the effects of individual motivation factors such as
organization rewards, reciprocity, and enjoyment on employ-
ees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions?
(ii) What are the effects of social capital on employees’ tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing intentions?
(iii) How do individual motivation factors and social capital dif-
fer in their respective impacts on employees’ tacit and explicit
knowledge sharing intentions?
This remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
presents the study’s theoretical background. Section 3 describes the
research model and hypotheses. Section 4 explains the research
methodology. Section 5 examines the research results. Section 6
discusses the implications of the results. Section 7 provides the
conclusion and limitations of this research.
2. Theoretical background
This section casts light on the theoretical background for our
study’s major constructs: tacit and explicit knowledge sharing
intentions, individual motivations, and social capital.
2.1. Tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions
Von Hippel (1994, p. 430) defined the concept of information
“stickiness” as “the incremental expenditure required to transfer a
given unit of information to a specified locus in a form usable by
a given information seeker.” Tacit knowledge, by nature, is stickier
than explicit knowledge (Von Hippel, 1994). Accordingly, it is nat-
ural for employees to adjust their willingness to share knowledge
according to the stickiness of the knowledge to be shared, request-
ing adequate extrinsic or intrinsic benefits in exchange. Moreover,
some researchers have suggested that explicit and tacit knowl-
edge have different economic values (Reychav & Weisberg, 2010).
Explicit knowledge is regarded as relatively less expensive because
it is easy to transfer to others. By contrast, tacit knowledge carries a
higher value since it is concerned with direct contact and the obser-
vation of employee behaviours and related to more complex ways
of acquiring knowledge from other employees. Thus, by nature,
tacit knowledge is more difficult to share than explicit knowledge,
which makes tacit knowledge costlier to share.
Osterloh and Frey (2000) also distinguished between tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing and argued that the different types
of motivations (extrinsic and intrinsic) are important in sharing
the two kinds of knowledge. Smith (2001) compared the distinc-
tive roles of the two types of knowledge sharing and indicated a
357
supportive and interactive learning environment as the major fac-
tor in the success of both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing.
Becerra, Lunnan, and Huemer (2008) also found that the transfers
of tacit and explicit knowledge, respectively, have distinct trust and
risk profiles. Reychav and Weisberg (2009) showed that employ-
ees who are willing to share their tacit knowledge are likely to be
willing to share their explicit knowledge in order to earn mone-
tary and non-monetary benefits. Huang, Davison, and Gu (2011)
explored the impact of trust and guanxi orientation on the intention
to share explicit and tacit knowledge in Chinese firms and argued
that the two have different levels of impact, depending on the type
of knowledge.
In summary, the existing literature shows that the classification
of knowledge is worth applying to deepen our understand-
ing of employees’ knowledge sharing intentions. To the extent
that explicit knowledge sharing and tacit knowledge sharing are
inherently different, they are likely related to different levels of
organizational rewards, enjoyment, and social capital. However,
no prior study has empirically verified the relative effects of orga-
nizational rewards, enjoyment, or social capital on employees’
intentions to share different types of knowledge. In our study,
tacit knowledge sharing intention refers to the degree to which
one believes that one will engage in a tacit knowledge sharing act,
while explicit knowledge sharing intention is defined as the degree
to which one believes one will engage in an explicit knowledge
sharing act (Bock et al., 2005).
2.2. Individual motivations
Many KM studies have demonstrated the value of studying
intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Since employee motivation is a
main concern of any manager, it has been one of the most stud-
ied factors in KM (Bock et al., 2005; Hung et al., 2011a; Wasko
& Faraj, 2005). According to Stenmark (2001), knowledge sharing
seldom occurs without strong individual motivation. Motivation
is one of the most important factors influencing employees’ inten-
tions to share their knowledge, regardless of the type of knowledge
to be transferred (Vera-Muñoz, Ho, & Chow, 2006). Especially,
rational action theory regards social interaction, such as knowl-
edge sharing, as social exchange (Scott, 2000). The benefits of
social exchange include various forms, either monetary (e.g., bonus,
promotion) or non-monetary (e.g., enjoyment, reciprocity) (Scott,
2000). The salient benefits an individual employee can receive
from knowledge sharing are organizational rewards, reciprocity,
and enjoyment (Lin, 2007a). Such categories are useful because the
effects of individual motivations on knowledge sharing intentions
can be analysed in depth based on different exchange relationships.
Previous studies on individual motivations have identified two
categories: extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (Kankanhalli et al.,
2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsically motivated employees are
driven by the benefits and rewards derived from sharing their
knowledge (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Extrinsic motivation can be cap-
tured by organizational rewards and reciprocity (Hung et al., 2011a;
Kankanhalli et al., 2005). However, there have been mixed argu-
ments over the effects of extrinsic motivation. Organizational
rewards are usually given to a knowledge provider by organiza-
tional compensation systems as a kind of external stimulus based
on the exchange relationship between employers and employees
(Seba, Rowley, & Lambert, 2012). Some studies have suggested that
extrinsic incentives motivate knowledge sharing (Bonner, Hastie,
Sprinkle, & Young, 2000; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kwok & Gao,
2005; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Severinov, 2001), but others have
insisted that such incentives can have negative effects (Bock &
Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005; Hau & Kim, 2011). Still other stud-
ies have reported that organizational rewards have no effect on
employees’ knowledge sharing intentions (Hung et al., 2011b; Lin,
358 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
2007a; Seba et al., 2012). These mixed results suggest that a more
in-depth empirical study is needed, with a large sample size and
various industries, to draw a general conclusion about the effects
of extrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing.
Reciprocity results from reciprocal exchange relations between
employees in a firm. Reciprocity differs from organizational
rewards in that it is based on the exchange relationship between
knowledge providers and receivers. Prior researchers have iden-
tified reciprocity as effective extrinsic motivation in promoting
knowledge sharing (Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Hall, 2001; Kankanhalli
et al., 2005; Schultz, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Bock et al.
(2005) provided empirical evidence that anticipated reciprocal
relationships positively influence employee intentions to engage in
knowledge sharing through their attitude towards knowledge shar-
ing. Lin (2007a) also empirically showed that reciprocal benefits
positively affect employee intentions and attitudes towards knowl-
edge sharing. Chennamaneni et al. (2012) noted that reciprocity is
a salient motivator of employee willingness to share knowledge.
Intrinsically motivated employees are affected by the pleasure
and fun in being involved in knowledge sharing. Enjoyment ori-
ginates from within a knowledge provider, as a kind of internal
stimulus based on the exchange relationship between a knowl-
edge provider and his or her own ego. Thus, intrinsic motivation
usually indicates a psychological motivational driver such as enjoy-
ment in knowledge sharing. Previous research has insisted that
intrinsic motivation has positive impacts on knowledge sharing
(Cynthia & Sage, 2006; Kim & Han, 2009; Vera-Muñoz et al., 2006;
Wasko & Faraj, 2000). Lin (2007a) showed that employees’ enjoy-
ment in helping others significantly influences their attitudes and
behavioural intentions towards knowledge sharing. Lin (2007b)
also indicated that intrinsic motivation is positively related to
employees’ knowledge donating and collecting activities. Hung
et al. (2011a) found that intrinsic motivation plays an important
role in explaining employees’ knowledge sharing intentions.
This study focuses on the effects of organizational rewards,
enjoyment, and reciprocity on employees’ tacit and explicit knowl-
edge sharing intentions. Rational action theory assumes that the
more benefits a person perceives from a behaviour, the more inten-
tions the person has to participate in the behaviour. In line with
this reasoning, the more organizational rewards, reciprocity, and
enjoyment, employees perceive to be associated with their knowl-
edge sharing, the more inclined they will be to participate in such
activities (Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006; Lin, 2007a). Therefore,
employees’ intentions to share their tacit and explicit knowledge
can depend on such individual motivations.
2.3. Social capital
Social capital is defined as “the sum of the actual and poten-
tial resources embedded within, available through, and derived
from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or
social unit” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 243). The concept of
social capital is used in organization and community research
to explain the role of relational resources embedded in dyadic
or network relationships involving resource exchange and KM
activities. Recent KM studies have addressed social capital as the
key facilitator of organizational knowledge creation and sharing
(Chang & Chuang, 2011; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Wasko & Faraj,
2005; Yang & Farn, 2009). To capture the role of social capi-
tal in an organizational sharing environment, Chow and Chan
(2008) examined the impacts of social capital factors on employ-
ees’ knowledge sharing intentions. Yang and Farn (2009) employed
perspectives of social capital to investigate employees’ tacit knowl-
edge sharing behaviour within a work group. Wei, Zheng, and
Zhang (2011) investigated the impact of the multi-level nature
of social capital on knowledge transfer. They suggested that
employees’ network positions, such as distance and structural
equivalence, affect their knowledge transfer.
Social capital consists of structural, cognitive, and relational
dimensions (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Prior KM studies (e.g.,
Chow & Chan, 2008; He et al., 2009; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
have posited social ties, shared goals, and social trust as the major
constructs representing the structural, cognitive, and relational
dimensions of social capital, respectively. Moreover, employees’
social ties, shared goals, and social trust have a combined effect
on their knowledge sharing (He et al., 2009). They are indepen-
dent variables representing the three dimensions and forming
social capital (Chow & Chan, 2008), the change of which does
not necessarily go with the same changes in the three dimen-
sions. Therefore, this study’s research model adopts social capital
as a second–order–formative variable comprising social ties, shared
goals, and social trust.
3. Research model and hypotheses
Individual motivations and social capital are regarded as promi-
nent antecedents of knowledge sharing. Therefore, the antecedents
in this research model consist of individual motivations and social
capital dimensions, as shown in Fig. 1. This study adopts ratio-
nal action and social capital theory as the theoretical basis of
the research model. This section presents the research model and
related hypotheses for our study based on these two theories.
3.1. Rational action theory
Rational action theory is one of the most important theoretical
frameworks in microeconomics and sociology, as well as politics.
In terms of rational action theory, based on the assumption of indi-
vidual rational choice, employee knowledge sharing can take place
when its benefits exceed its accompanying cost. From this perspec-
tive, employee willingness to share knowledge is a function of the
benefits and costs resulting from knowledge sharing.
Concerning costs, explicit knowledge requires less effort for
an employee to share than tacit knowledge, because explicit
knowledge is less sticky (Von Hippel, 1994). In other words, tacit
knowledge sharing is, by nature, more effort intensive. So, all else
being equal, an employee with the intention to share tacit knowl-
edge such as know-how through teaching or interactive learning
has no reason to be reluctant to share explicit knowledge, such as
files or written documents. A skilful senior chef, for example, who
has a high intention to share know-how with other junior cooks
in a restaurant will be more willing to share his or her recipe’s
secret ingredients. Dhanaraj et al. (2004) showed a significant
effect of tacit knowledge sharing on explicit knowledge shar-
ing. From the employee’s perspective, tacit knowledge provides
him or her with a competitive advantage within the organization
(Reychav & Weisberg, 2009). The intentions of employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing are perceived as if they were sharing a more
valuable resource, which may influence their explicit knowledge
sharing intentions. Therefore, this study expects employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing intentions to positively influence their explicit
knowledge sharing intentions, which leads to the first hypothesis.
H1. Employees’ tacit knowledge sharing intentions positively
influence their explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
3.2. Extrinsic motivation
3.2.1. Organizational rewards
Organizational rewards are extrinsic if employees perceive that
they can satisfy their needs mainly with monetary rewards for shar-
ing knowledge (Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Osterloh & Frey, 2000).
 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
Fig. 1. Research model.
These rewards come in various forms, such as bonuses, paid vaca-
tions, and promotions, which are usually accompanied by material
benefits (Wei, Liu, & Francesco, 2009). Organizational rewards are
found to be effective in encouraging employees to perform vari-
ous work behaviours and employees who perceive more extrinsic
rewards for knowledge sharing are more willing to perform knowl-
edge sharing (Cabrera et al., 2006; Hung et al., 2011a). When
employees receive an economic reward for their knowledge shar-
ing, they feel more motivated to share knowledge. Hence, this leads
to the hypotheses H2a and H2b.
The stickiness of tacit knowledge makes tacit knowledge shar-
ing take more time and effort than explicit knowledge sharing (Von
Hippel, 1994). Therefore, tacit knowledge sharing seems to require
more robust, lasting kind of intention. However, extrinsic rewards
such as organizational rewards are found to be effective in secur-
ing temporary rather than continuous compliance (Kelman, 1958).
Thus, organization rewards are hypothesized to have a more posi-
tive impact on explicit knowledge sharing intentions than on tacit
knowledge sharing intentions, leading to the hypothesis H2c.
H2a. Organizational rewards positively influence employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing intentions.
H2b. Organizational rewards positively influence employees’
explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
H2c. Organizational rewards have a more positive effect on
employees’ explicit knowledge sharing intentions than on their
tacit knowledge sharing intentions.
359
3.2.2. Reciprocity
Knowledge sharing is also facilitated by a strong sense of reci-
procity (Chang & Chuang, 2011). Several studies have revealed that
reciprocal knowledge exchange relationships increase employees’
knowledge sharing intentions (Lin, 2007a; Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Once an employee provides valuable knowledge for others, the
knowledge receivers are indebted to transfer equivalent knowledge
to the knowledge provider. Such reciprocity based on a knowledge
exchange relationship has been pointed out as a major antecedent
to encouraging employees to share their knowledge. For example,
Weiss (1999) has insisted that the mutual give and take of knowl-
edge can increase knowledge sharing. In addition, Schultz (2001)
found that obtaining knowledge from others incites the receiver to
share reciprocal knowledge with the provider. In a team environ-
ment, employees who are more willing to share their high-quality
ideas expect others to respond to their ideas and generate new ones
(Hung et al., 2011b). Thus, these generate the hypotheses H3a and
H3b.
Reciprocity is rooted in the mutual give and take of knowledge.
Reciprocity as an influential factor to knowledge sharing implies
that employees must be able to expect their knowledge sharing to
prove worthwhile through the mutual give and take of knowledge
(Schultz, 2001). In this knowledge exchange relationship, tacit and
explicit knowledge are perceived to have different economic val-
ues (Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). Tacit knowledge is relatively more
expensive because it is not easy to acquire or share (Von Hippel,
1994) and because it is perceived to be more useful in creating
360 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
power (Taylor, 2006) or competitive advantage to its recipients
(Reychav & Weisberg, 2009). Therefore, reciprocity is hypothesized
to have a more positive effect on tacit knowledge sharing inten-
tions than on explicit knowledge sharing intentions, leading to the
hypothesis H3c.
H3a. Reciprocity positively influences employees’ tacit knowl-
edge sharing intentions.
H3b. Reciprocity positively influences employees’ explicit knowl-
edge sharing intentions.
H3c. Reciprocity has a more positive effect on employees’ tacit
knowledge than on their explicit sharing intentions.
3.3. Intrinsic motivation
3.3.1. Enjoyment
Intrinsic motivation refers to the motivation to perform an
activity for immaterial benefits, such as the enjoyment of the pro-
cess of performing the activity itself (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002;
Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003). Prior studies have reported intrin-
sic motivation as an important factor in knowledge sharing. Tissen,
Andriesson, and Deprez (1998) argued that intrinsic rewards from
the work itself induce professionals to share their knowledge.
In addition, Wasko and Faraj (2005) empirically showed that
enjoyment is positively correlated to knowledge contribution in
electronic networks of practice. Enjoyment has been recognized
as a salient factor in promoting employee knowledge sharing
(Lin, 2007a, 2007b). According to Cabrera et al. (2006), employees
who perceive greater intrinsic rewards for knowledge sharing are
more inclined to participate in knowledge sharing. Chennamaneni
et al. (2012) found that individuals contribute to their knowledge
because they feel good about helping others. Hence, the hypotheses
H4a and H4b are proposed.
Tacit knowledge sharing typically requires intensive exchange
process such as highly intimate conversations on and off the work,
sharing experiences and transferring expertise through years of
apprenticeship (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) while
explicit knowledge is transferred through simpler communication
modes such as passing documents or files to co-workers or enter-
ing and accessing corporate knowledge repository (Vera-Muñoz
et al., 2006). Therefore, tacit knowledge sharing seems to take
more interactions and longer time than explicit knowledge shar-
ing. Since enjoyment in knowledge sharing can be more crucial
in the intimate and intense conversational processes among co-
workers, enjoyment is hypothesized to have a more positive effect
on employees’ tacit knowledge sharing intentions than on explicit
knowledge sharing intentions, leading to the hypothesis H4c.
H4a. Enjoyment positively influences employees’ tacit knowledge
sharing intentions.
H4b. Enjoyment positively influences employees’ explicit knowl-
edge sharing intentions.
H4c. Enjoyment has a more positive effect on employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing intentions than on their explicit knowledge
sharing intentions.
3.4. Social capital theory
According to social capital theory, employee willingness to share
knowledge is influenced by social capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
1998). This is because employees tend to share their in-depth and
broad knowledge when social interactions are close and friendly.
This study considers three dimensions of social capital as the key
drivers of forming employees’ knowledge sharing intentions: social
ties (the structural dimension), social trust (the relational dimen-
sion), and shared goals (the cognitive dimension).
Previous KM studies identified social capital as a salient factor
in facilitating knowledge sharing (e.g., He et al., 2009; Inkpen &
Tsang, 2005; Wasko & Faraj, 2005; Wei et al., 2011). Chiu, Hau,
and Wang (2006) provided empirical evidence about the positive
impacts of social capital on knowledge sharing in virtual commu-
nities. In addition, Chow and Chan (2008) concluded that social
capital (social networks and shared goals) has positive impacts on
employees’ intentions to share knowledge through their attitudes
and subjective norms about knowledge sharing. Yang and Farn
(2009) indicated that social capital positively affects tacit knowl-
edge sharing intentions. Chang and Chuang (2011) investigated
the key antecedents to influencing knowledge sharing behaviour
in a virtual community by integrating the theories of social cap-
ital and individual motivation. Thus, this study’s research model
considers social capital an important antecedent to employees’
knowledge sharing intentions, generating hypotheses H5a and
H5b.
Social interactions are deemed necessary for successful tacit
knowledge sharing (Nonaka, 1994). In the process of knowledge
conversion and creation in companies, tacit knowledge is shared
through ‘socialization’ which requires extensive social interac-
tions among employees (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995;
Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). On the other hand, explicit
knowledge is transferred or shared through ‘combination’ which
depends more on transactional, rather than social interactions.
Therefore, social capital is hypothesized to have a more positive
effect on employees’ tacit knowledge sharing intentions than on
explicit knowledge sharing intentions, generating the hypothesis
H5c.
H5a. Social capital positively influences employees’ tacit knowl-
edge sharing intentions.
H5b. Social capital positively influences employees’ explicit
knowledge sharing intentions.
H5c. Social capital has a more positive effect on employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing intentions than on their explicit knowledge
sharing intentions.
4. Research methodology
This section describes item measurement and data collection in
our research.
4.1. Measurement
The instruments for testing the research model were developed
by modifying existing validated scales to fit the knowledge sharing
context. Before the survey, the instruments were reviewed by five
KM researchers to check for problems with wording, format, con-
tent, and question ambiguity and the survey items were modified
based on their feedback. Items of tacit and explicit knowledge shar-
ing intentions were developed and adapted according to Bock et al.
(2005). Items of enjoyment and reciprocity were based on the work
of Wasko and Faraj (2005). Items of organizational rewards were
based on the work of Bock et al. (2005). Items concerning social tie,
social trust, and shared goals were adapted from Chow and Chan
(2008). The survey items and sources are listed in Appendix A. A
seven-point Likert scale was used for all survey items except for
tenure, ranging from “strongly disagree” (one point) to “strongly
agree” (seven points).
 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366 361

Table 1 distributions by using SPSS Version 13.0 and show that the sample
Profile of companies and respondents.
distributions from our data do not obey the normal distribution.
Items Frequency (N = 2010) Percentage PLS is useful in analysing such data to demonstrate non-normality
Industry Government affairs 1008 50 because it places minimal restrictions on the sample distributions
Financial 95 5 due to resampling by bootstrapping (Chin, 1998; Marcoulides, Chin,
Medical 130 6 & Saunders, 2009).
Construction 161 8
Gas 60 3
IT 556 28 5.1. Measurement model
Gender Male 1591 79.2
Female 419 20.8 We checked the internal reliability of our measurement items
Position Employee 363 18.1
by using Cronbach’s ␣. The smallest value of Cronbach’s ␣ was
Chief 414 20.6
Manager 740 36.8 0.877, indicating satisfactory levels of reliability. Confirmatory fac-
Director 326 16.2 tor analysis was then conducted to test the measurement model,
Others 167 8.3 checking for the convergent validity as well as discriminant validity
of the instrument items. First, convergent validity is acceptable if
item loadings are 0.60 or greater (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1998).
4.2. Sample and data collection The smallest loading in this study was 0.841, satisfying convergent
validity conditions. Second, to check the reliability of the latent vari-
The data for this study were collected from seven firms ables, composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted
through the Knowledge Management Research Centre (KMRC; see (AVE) are assessed using the procedure outlined by Fornell and
http://kmrc.kaist.ac.kr) at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science Larcker (1981). The reliability for CR and the AVE is acceptable if CR
and Technology (KAIST). The KMRC has conducted various stud- is 0.70 or greater and the AVE is 0.50 or greater. As shown in Table 2,
ies on KM through industrial–academic cooperation since 1999. the CR and AVE values of the items in this study exceed acceptable
The corporate members of KMRC were invited to participate in values. Third, for discriminant validity, the AVE from the construct
our research and seven companies took part in the study’s online should be greater than the variance shared by that construct and
survey. With the full support of their KM teams, we e-mailed the the other constructs in the model (Chin, Gopal, & Salisbury, 1997).
employees of these companies a direct link to the electronic ques- Table 3 shows the interconstruct correlations, with the square roots
tionnaire, soliciting their participation in our survey. The KM teams of the AVE of each construct in the diagonal elements. Tacit and
of each company sent their employees several formal notifications explicit knowledge sharing intentions have high intercorrelations,
to encourage them to answer our electronic questionnaire. The a sign of their strong causal relationships, but the square roots
survey was conducted from January 5, 2009 to January 30, 2009, of the AVE exceed the interconstruct correlations, satisfying dis-
obtaining 2010 valid responses with a 29.95% valid response rate. criminant validity. Lastly, to overcome the concern of the common
Table 1 shows the respondents’ characteristics according to indus- method bias in self-reported survey research, this study evaluates
try type and demographics. the variances of the indicator of eight constructs (Liang, Saraf, Hu,
& Xue, 2007). The results in Table 4 show that the average sub-
5. Research results stantively explained variance of the constructs’ indicators is 0.885
while the average method based variance is 0.003. The ratio of
The research model was analysed using partial least squares substantive variance to method variance is 295.00:1. Given the
(PLS) via PLS-Graph Version 3.0, based on the results from our small magnitude and insignificance of method variance, that com-
data’s normality tests. We performed Kolmogorov–Smirnov and mon method bias does not seem to pose a serious threat for this
Shapiro–Wilk tests to examine the normality of our sample study.

Table 2
Scale reliabilities and convergent validity.

Construct Cronbach’s ␣ CR AVE Item Factor loading Mean SD

OrRew1 0.95 2.79 1.45

Organizational rewards 0.891 0.948 0.902
OrRew2 0.95 2.89 1.46
Reci1 0.95 4.98 1.28
Reciprocity 0.880 0.943 0.893
Reci2 0.95 5.07 1.23
Enjoy1 0.95 5.06 1.21
Enjoyment 0.951 0.968 0.911 Enjoy2 0.97 5.19 1.23
Enjoy3 0.94 5.38 1.21
STie1 0.91 5.40 1.05
Social tie 0.877 0.926 0.807 STie2 0.94 5.45 1.04
STie3 0.84 5.29 1.12
STru1 0.95 5.16 1.07
Social trust 0.938 0.960 0.889 STru2 0.96 5.16 1.08
STru3 0.92 5.24 1.06
SGoals1 0.91 4.87 1.06
Shared goals 0.910 0.944 0.848 SGoals2 0.94 4.86 1.11
SGoals3 0.92 5.08 1.09
TKSI1 0.96 5.37 1.14
Tacit knowledge
0.956 0.971 0.919 TKSI2 0.96 5.46 1.13
sharing intention
TKSI3 0.96 5.40 1.14
Explicit knowledge EKSI1 0.96 5.17 1.16
0.919 0.961 0.925
sharing intention EKSI2 0.96 5.20 1.14

Notes: CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; SD: standard deviation; OrRew: organizational rewards; Enjoy: enjoyment; Reci: reciprocity; STie: social
tie; STru: social trust; SGoals: shared goals; TKSI: tacit knowledge sharing intention; EKSI: explicit knowledge sharing intention.
362 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366

Table 3
Correlation matrix and discriminant assessment.

OrRew Reci Enjoy STie TKSI EKSI STru SGoals

OrRew 0.950
Reci −0.048 0.945
Enjoy −0.008 0.689 0.954
STie −0.063 0.466 0.484 0.898
TKSI −0.147 0.620 0.681 0.568 0.959
EKSI −0.081 0.626 0.652 0.554 0.843 0.963
STru −0.070 0.500 0.472 0.803 0.569 0.547 0.943
SGoals 0.009 0.477 0.459 0.730 0.538 0.548 0.762 0.921

Notes: OrRew: organizational rewards; Reci: reciprocity; Enjoy: enjoyment; STie: social tie; STru: social trust; SGoals: shared goals; TKSI: tacit knowledge sharing intention;
EKSI: explicit knowledge sharing intention; diagonal bold letters are the square roots of AVE.

Table 4
Common method bias analysis.

Construct Item Substantive factor loading (R1) R12 Method factor loading (R2) R22

OrRew1 0.941*** 0.885 −0.034* 0.001

Organizational rewards
OrRew2 0.946*** 0.895 0.034* 0.001
Reci1 0.979*** 0.958 −0.045 0.002
Reciprocity
Reci2 0.914*** 0.835 0.045 0.002
Enjoy1 0.980*** 0.960 −0.034 0.001
Enjoyment Enjoy2 0.974*** 0.949 0.001 0.000
Enjoy3 0.923*** 0.852 0.033 0.001
STie1 0.801*** 0.642 0.099 0.010
Social tie STie2 0.945*** 0.893 −0.007 0.000
STie3 0.914*** 0.835 −0.098 0.010
STru1 0.989*** 0.978 −0.043 0.002
Social trust STru2 1.029*** 1.059 −0.083* 0.007
STru3 0.815*** 0.664 0.130* 0.017
SGoals1 0.953*** 0.908 −0.041 0.002
Shared goals SGoals2 0.957*** 0.916 −0.015 0.000
SGoals3 0.886*** 0.785 0.056 0.003
TKSI1 0.922*** 0.850 0.039 0.002
Tacit knowledge
TKSI2 0.984*** 0.968 −0.035 0.001
sharing intention
TKSI3 0.961*** 0.924 −0.004 0.000
Explicit knowledge EKSI1 0.997*** 0.994 −0.050 0.003
sharing intention EKSI2 0.913*** 0.834 0.050 0.003
Average 0.939 0.885 0.000 0.003
*
p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.

5.2. Structural model
The bootstrap resampling method (with 500 resamples) was
used for the analysis to determine the significance of the path
coefficients. The structural equation model results are shown in
Fig. 2. Analysis reveals that tacit knowledge sharing intentions
have a significant positive effect on explicit knowledge sharing
intentions (ˇ = 0.67; t = 30.79). However, contrary to our expec-
tations, organizational rewards have a significant negative effect
on tacit knowledge intentions (ˇ = −0.10; t = 7.52), whereas they
have a significant positive effect on explicit knowledge sharing
intentions (ˇ = 0.03; t = 2.56). Furthermore, organizational rewards
have a large negative impact on tacit knowledge sharing intentions
(ˇ = −0.10), compared to their small positive impact on explicit
knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.03).
Reciprocity is significantly associated with both tacit knowl-
edge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.19; t = 8.51) and explicit knowledge
sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.12; t = 5.24). Reciprocity has a more posi-
tive effect on tacit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.19) than on
explicit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.12).
Consistent with our expectations, enjoyment plays an important
role in enhancing both tacit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.37;
t = 13.95) and explicit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.07;
t = 3.05). The positive impact of enjoyment on tacit knowledge
sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.37) is greater than on explicit knowledge
sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.07).
Similarly, analysis reveals that social capital has a significant
positive effect on both tacit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.33;
t = 12.71) and explicit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.09;
t = 5.52). Social capital also has a more positive impact on tacit
knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.33) than on explicit knowledge
sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.09).
Social capital is a second-formative construct formed by social
ties (ˇ = 0.34; t = 116.19), social trust (ˇ = 0.39; t = 115.24), and
shared goals (ˇ = 0.36; t = 125.17).
6. Discussion and implications
This section summarizes the new findings of this study and dis-
cusses the implications of them.
6.1. Summary of new findings
This study aims to reexamine the effect of organizational
rewards, reciprocity, enjoyment, and social capital on employees’
tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. It is interesting
to discover that the effects of the same organizational knowledge
sharing drivers can differ depending on the type of knowledge to
be shared, whether tacit or explicit. For example, organizational
rewards are found to have a negative effect on employees’ tacit
knowledge sharing intentions but a positive impact on their explicit
knowledge sharing intentions. Furthermore, this study empirically
 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
Fig. 2. Analysis results.
reveals that organizational rewards have a very small positive effect
(ˇ = 0.03) on explicit knowledge sharing intentions but they have a
much stronger negative effect (ˇ = −0.10) on tacit knowledge shar-
ing intentions.
While reciprocity, enjoyment, and social capital positively affect
both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions, their levels of
impact clearly differ between the two types, with more positive
effects on tacit than on explicit knowledge sharing intentions. The
positive impact of reciprocity on tacit knowledge sharing intentions
(ˇ = 0.19) is stronger than on explicit knowledge sharing inten-
tions (ˇ = 0.12) and enjoyment shows a much larger positive impact
on tacit knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.37) than on explicit
knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.07) and, finally, social capital
is also shown to have a significantly greater positive effect on tacit
knowledge sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.33) than on explicit knowledge
sharing intentions (ˇ = 0.09).
6.2. Implications of the findings
Determining the different impact levels of organizational
rewards can bring about a new theoretical perspective to resolve
the inconsistent arguments of past studies over the effect of orga-
nizational rewards. The first group supported a positive impact
363
(Bonner et al., 2000; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kwok & Gao, 2005;
O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; Severinov, 2001) and the second group a
negative effect (Bock & Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005; Hau & Kim,
2011), while the third group found no significant influence (Hung
et al., 2011b; Lin, 2007b; Seba et al., 2012). Our study empirically
shows that these inconsistent arguments of prior studies may have
resulted from the fact that they did not distinguish between tacit
and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. In other words, discern-
ing the type of knowledge involved can significantly deepen our
understanding of the contingent effect of various organizational
knowledge sharing drivers such as organizational rewards. More-
over, this study reveals that it may not be very wise to provide
organizational rewards in order to increase employees’ tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing intentions, considering their very small
positive impact on explicit knowledge sharing intentions but much
stronger negative impact on tacit knowledge sharing intentions.
Such difference in the direction and the impact levels of organi-
zational rewards may stem from the inherent role and purpose of
organizational rewards. Organizational rewards may play a signif-
icant role in securing only temporary compliance (Kelman, 1958)
but tacit knowledge sharing in nature demands employees’ lasting,
more durable intentions. Therefore, organizational rewards may
have a positive effect not on tacit but on explicit knowledge sharing
364 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
intentions. The marginal utilities of extrinsic benefits eventually
decrease as the amounts of extrinsic benefits increase (Blau, 1967),
which means that organizational rewards can trigger employees’
knowledge sharing but they may not prove to be an essential driv-
ing force for it. Hence, organizational rewards may have a small
positive effect on explicit knowledge sharing intentions. The much
stronger negative effect levels of organization rewards on tacit
knowledge sharing intentions may arise due to the fact the very
nature of organizational rewards rubs against the ‘voluntary giv-
ing’ nature of tacit knowledge sharing whose intention frequently
forms based on trust and collegiality (Bock & Kim, 2002).
The stronger positive effects of reciprocity, enjoyment, social
capital on tacit than on explicit knowledge sharing intentions not
only deepen our understanding of the contingent nature of knowl-
edge sharing intention depending upon the type of the knowledge
to be shared but also suggest useful implications for the KM
practitioners. First, organizations can strengthen the perceived
reciprocity of their knowledge workers by emphasizing and pro-
moting the reciprocal nature of knowledge exchange within their
organizations by activating the question and answer function of
the KM system at the individual level and inter-unit collaborative
knowledge creation initiatives such as cross-functional process
innovation projects at the team or unit level. Second, firms can
elevate the perceived enjoyment of their employees’ knowledge
sharing through linking knowledge sharing initiatives with various
corporate social responsibility missions and community activities
where giving knowledge to each other can lead to the same or
greater level of self-esteem and satisfaction. They can also identify
and recognize the individuals or teams for their knowledge shar-
ing contribution through enterprise-wide KM festivals. Lastly, KM
or HRM units can reinforce and grow the social capital of their firms
by diagnosing the diverse social relationships within their organi-
zation through social network analysis and nurturing the collegial
relationships among their employees through initiatives such as
mentor-mentee programmes or community of practice activities.
7. Conclusion and limitations
The purpose of this study was to re-examine the effects of
individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and
explicit knowledge sharing intentions. By discerning employees’
knowledge sharing intentions according to the type of knowledge
to be shared, whether tacit or explicit, this study has empirically
provided new findings of the respective impacts of organizational
rewards, reciprocity, enjoyment and social capital on employees’
knowledge sharing intentions, which prior research has ignored so
far. The new findings will be very useful to deepening and widening
our understanding of the respective role of individual motivations
and social capital in employees’ knowledge sharing intentions.
Despite its new findings, this study has the following limita-
tions, which may be addressed and overcome by future research.
Although this study concentrates on individual motivations and
social capital as major antecedents to employees’ tacit and explicit
knowledge sharing intentions, many other factors may also be
involved. For instance, this study did not address or analyse the
potential moderating effects such as the type of industry sector
(e.g., the government sector versus the private sector) or knowledge
sharing context of the participating organizations (whether they
are online system-driven or off-line community-driven, etc.). Since
this study adopted a cross-sectional survey method of data collec-
tion, it may not have fully captured the dynamism of the formation
of employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
Because our results represent only a snapshot thereof, further
researchers may consider adopting a longitudinal data collection
method which will enable them to investigate the effects of the
antecedents of employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing
intentions from a dynamic perspective.
Appendix A.. Measurement items
Organizational rewards: The degree to which an employee
believes that he or she receives organizational incentives for knowl-
edge sharing (Bock et al., 2005)
OrRew1: I receive monetary rewards in return for my knowledge
sharing.
OrRew2: I receive additional points for promotion in return for my
knowledge sharing.
Enjoyment: The degree to which an employee believes that he
or she enjoys the knowledge sharing behaviour itself (Wasko &
Faraj, 2005)
Enjoy1: I enjoy sharing my knowledge with my organizational
members.
Enjoy2: It feels good to help my organizational members through
my knowledge sharing.
Enjoy3: I enjoy helping my organizational members through my
knowledge sharing.
Reciprocity: The degree to which an employee believes that he
or she keeps good reciprocity by sharing knowledge (Wasko & Faraj,
2005)
Reci1: I know that my organizational members will help me, so it
is fair to help them through sharing my knowledge.
Reci2: I trust that my organizational members would help me if I
were in a similar situation in which I would need their knowledge.
Social tie: The degree of contact and accessibility of an employee
with his or her organizational members (Chow & Chan, 2008)
STie1: I have a very good relationship with my organizational
members.
STie2: I am very close to my organizational members.
STie3: I always hold lengthy discussions with my organizational
members.
Social trust: The degree of an employee’s willingness to be vul-
nerable to the actions of other organizational members (Chow &
Chan, 2008)
STru1: I know my organizational members will always try and help
me out if I get into difficulties.
STru2: I can always trust my organizational members to lend me
a hand if I need it.
STru3: I can always rely on my organizational members to make
my job easier.
Shared goals: The degree to which an employee shares col-
lective goals, missions, and visions with the other organizational
members (Chow & Chan, 2008)
SGoals1: My organizational members and I always agree on what
is important at work.
SGoals2: My organizational members and I always share the same
ambitions and vision at work.
SGoals3: My organizational members and I are always enthusias-
tic about pursing the collective goals and missions of the whole
organization.
 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
Tacit knowledge sharing intention: The degree to which an
employee believes that he or she will engage in tacit knowledge
sharing behaviour (Bock et al., 2005)
TKSI1: I intend to share my experience or know-how from work
with my organizational members more frequently in the future.
TKSI2: I will always provide my know-where or know-whom at
the request of my organizational members.
TKSI3: I will try to share my expertise from my education or train-
ing with my organizational members in a more effective way.
Explicit knowledge sharing intention: The degree to which an
employee believes that he or she will engage in explicit knowledge
sharing behaviour (Bock et al., 2005)
EKSI1: I will share my work reports and official documents with
members of my organization more frequently in the future.
EKSI2: I will always provide my manuals, methodologies, and
models for members of my organization.
References
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 50, 179–211.
Barney, J. (1991). Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, 99–120.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 64–76.
Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., & Huemer, L. (2008). Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of
tacit and explicit knowledge between alliance partners. Journal of Management
Studies, 45, 691–731.
Blau, P. (1967). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An explorative
study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management
Journal, 15, 14–21.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioural intention
formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motiva-
tors, social psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29,
87–111.
Bonner, S. E., Hastie, R., Sprinkle, G. B., & Young, S. M. (2000). A review of the effects
of financial incentives on performance in laboratory task: Implications for man-
agement accounting. Journal of Management Accounting, 12, 19–64.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual
engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 17, 245–264.
Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on
knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information and
Management, 48, 9–18.
Chennamaneni, A., Teng, J. T. C., & Raja, M. K. (2012). A unified model of knowledge
sharing behaviours: Theoretical development and empirical test. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 31(11), 1097–1115.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quar-
terly, 22, vii–xvi.
Chin, W. W., Gopal, A., & Salisbury, W. D. (1997). Advancing the theory of adaptive
structuration: The development of a scale to measure faithfulness of appropri-
ation. Information Systems Research, 8, 342–367.
Chiu, C. M., Hau, M. H., & Wang, E. T. C. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in
virtual communities: An integration of social capital cognitive theories. Decision
Support Systems, 42, 1872–1888.
Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and
transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team per-
formance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34, 855–870.
Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust, and shared
goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information and Management, 45,
458–465.
Cynthia, T. S., & Sage, A. P. (2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing:
A review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 153–169.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 39–80.
Dhanaraj, C., Lyles, R. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and
explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the
impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 428–442.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance
knowledge sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21,
345–367.
365
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unob-
servable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39–50.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 17(7), 109–122.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River.
Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: Motivating knowledge sharing across intranets.
Journal of Information Science, 27, 139–146.
Hau, Y. S., & Kim, Y. G. (2011). Why would online gamers share their innovation-
conducive knowledge in the online game user community? Integrating
individual motivations and social capital perspectives. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 956–970.
He, W., Qiao, Q., & Wei, K. K. (2009). Social relationship and its role in knowledge
management system usage. Information and Management, 46, 175–180.
Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Gu, J. (2011). The impact of trust, guanxi orientation and
face on the intention of Chinese employees and managers to engage in peer-
to-peer tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Information Systems Journal, 21,
557–577.
Hung, S. Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. N., & Lin, W. M. (2011). The influence of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. International
Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 69, 415–427.
Hung, S. Y., Lai, H. M., & Chang, W. W. (2011). Knowledge-sharing motivations affect-
ing R&D employees’ acceptance of electronic knowledge repository. Behaviour
and Information Technology, 30, 213–230.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge
transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–165.
Ipe, M. (1998). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework.
Human Resource Development Review, 2, 337–359.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to elec-
tronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29,
113–143.
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three pro-
cesses of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.
Kim, B., & Han, I. (2009). The role of trust belief and its antecedents in a community-
driven knowledge environment. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 60, 1012–1026.
Kwok, S. H., & Gao, S. (2005). Attitude toward knowledge sharing behaviour. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 46, 45–51.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The
effects of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS
Quarterly, 31, 59–88.
Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Chen, C. C. (2007). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity,
and innovation capacity: An empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge intensive
industries. Journal of Information Science, 33, 340–359.
Lin, H. F. (2007a). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowl-
edge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, 135–149.
Lin, H. F. (2007b). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capacity: An empirical
study. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 315–332.
Liu, Y., & Phillips, J. S. (2011). Examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing
in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspective. International
Journal of Information Management, 31, 44–52.
Marcoulides, G. A., Chin, W. W., & Saunders, C. (2009). A critical look at partial least
squares modeling. MIS Quarterly, 31, 171–175.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organi-
zational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266.
Nonaka, I. (1994). The dynamics theory of organizational knowledge creation. Orga-
nization Science, 5, 14–37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create and the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model
of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5–34.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew: Identification and transfer of
internal best practices. California Management Review, 40, 154–174.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational
forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550.
Porter, L. W., Bigley, G. A., & Steers, R. M. (2003). Motivation and work behaviour. New
York: McGraw-hill.
Schultz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and
knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 661–681.
Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. In G. Browning, A. Halcli, & F. Webster (Eds.),
Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present (pp. 126–138). Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Seba, I., Rowley, J., & Lambert, S. (2012). Factors affecting attitudes and intentions
towards knowledge sharing in the Dubai Police Force. International Journal of
information Management, 32, 372–380.
Severinov, S. (2001). On information sharing and incentives in R&D. The RAND Journal
of Economics, 32, 542–564.
Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the work place. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 5, 311–321.
Stenmark, D. (2001). Levering tacit organizational knowledge. Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems, 17, 9–24.
Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2009). Going beyond technology: Knowledge sharing as
a tool for enhancing customer-oriented attitudes. International Journal of Infor-
mation Management, 29, 353–361.
366 Y.S. Hau et al. / International Journal of Information Management 33 (2013) 356–366
Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J. (2010). Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 285–300.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68–78.
Taylor, E. Z. (2006). The effects of incentives on knowledge sharing in computer-
mediated communication: An experimental investigation. Journal of Information
Systems, 20, 103–116.
Tissen, R., Andriesson, D., & Deprez, L. F. (1998). Value-based knowledge management.
Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Vera-Muñoz, S. C., Ho, J. L., & Chow, C. W. (2006). Enhancing knowledge sharing in
public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 20, 133–155.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: Impli-
cations for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429–439.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2000). It is what one does: why people participate and
help others in electronic communities of practice. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 9, 155–173.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practices. MIS Quarterly, 29,
35–57.
Wei, L., Liu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2009). A cognitive model of intra-organizational
knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Jour-
nal of information Management, 29, 321–325.
Wei, J., Zheng, W., & Zhang, M. (2011). Social capital and knowledge transfer: A
multi-level analysis. Human Relation, 64, 1401–1423.
Weiss, L. (1999). Collection and connection: The anatomy of knowledge sharing in
professional service. Organizational Development Journal, 17, 61–72.
Yang, S. C., & Farn, C. K. (2009). Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowl-
edge sharing-A multi-informant design. International Journal of Information
Management, 29, 210–218.
Yong Sauk Hau is a research fellow at the Industry & Strategy Department I in Sam-
sung Economic Research Institute. He received his Ph.D. in management information
systems from KAIST Business School. His main research areas are information tech-
nology management, knowledge management, and open innovation. His research
has been published in Computers in Human Behavior and International Journal of
Mobile Communications.
Byoungsoo Kim is an assistant professor at the department of business adminis-
tration in Seoul Women’s University. He received his doctorate from the Business
School, KAIST. His research interests include mobile data services, social network
services, knowledge management and community driven knowledge services. He
has published papers in the Journal of Information Technology, Journal of the Amer-
ican Society for Information Science and Technology, Telecommunications Policy, and
International Journal of Mobile Communications and so on.
Heeseok Lee is a professor of Strategy and IT at KAIST Business School. Professor
Lee received his Ph.D. from the University of Arizona and taught for the Univer-
sity of Nebraska at Omaha before coming to KAIST. He also directs the Knowledge
Management Research Center at KAIST. His research has been published in MIS Quar-
terly, Journal of Management Information Systems, Information and Management, and
International Journal of Human Computer Studies.
Young-Gul Kim is a professor at KAIST Business School. He received his Ph.D. in man-
agement information systems from the University of Minnesota. His main research
areas include knowledge management and customer relationship management. His
research has appeared in MIS Quarterly, Communications of the ACM, Journal of Man-
agement Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, Information and Management
and so on.