Aslib Proceedings

Emerald Article: The development of a knowledge sharing construct to

predict turnover intentions
Everd Jacobs, Gert Roodt

Article information:
To cite this document: Everd Jacobs, Gert Roodt, (2007),"The development of a knowledge sharing construct to predict turnover
intentions", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 59 Iss: 3 pp. 229 - 248
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530710752034
Downloaded on: 15-05-2012
References: This document contains references to 44 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 3528 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by LINK TO UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG LIBRARY

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. Additional help
for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 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
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0001-253X.htm

Knowledge
The development of a knowledge sharing
sharing construct to predict constructs
turnover intentions
229
Everd Jacobs and Gert Roodt
Department of Human Resource Management, Received 30 October 2006
University of Johannesburg, South Africa Revised 19 January 2007
Accepted 10 March 2007

Abstract
Purpose – The objective of this paper is to discuss the development of a knowledge sharing
questionnaire and the role of knowledge sharing in predicting turnover intentions of registered
professional nurses.
Design/methodology/approach – A literature study was conducted to determine the concepts and
activities linked to knowledge sharing in order to compile a questionnaire. The questionnaire was
factor analysed in order to determine the factor structure of the instrument. Thereafter, the construct of
knowledge sharing was introduced together with organisational culture and various proposed
mediating variables, namely organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour and job
satisfaction, as well as various demographic variables to develop a predictive model of turnover
intentions through applying general linear modelling. A cross-sectional field survey design was used
with a sample of 530 registered professional nurses in South Africa.
Findings – A knowledge-sharing questionnaire was developed that yielded a high reliability
coefficient. A significant negative relationship was found between knowledge sharing behaviour and
turnover intentions. Furthermore, knowledge sharing interacted with organisational culture in a final
model where all the selected mediating and demographic variables were simultaneously entered into
the equation to predict turnover intentions.
Research limitations/implications – More attention should be given to improve the content
validity of the knowledge-sharing questionnaire. The development of more knowledge sharing
measures in different industries is also important.
Practical implications – Employers should know that retention strategies of professional nurses
can be built around opportunities to share knowledge if they manage the organisational culture in such
a way that people are willing to share what they know. This emphasises the importance of the human
being in effective knowledge management.
Originality/value – The development of the knowledge-sharing questionnaire contributes to fill a
gap of existing measures. It also focuses on the importance of tacit knowledge and that knowledge
resides in the human minds of people. The value of a thorough literature overview in compiling
questionnaires and applying general linear modelling in compiling predictive models are highly
recommended.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Questionnaires, Nurses, Factor analysis, Employee turnover,
South Africa
Paper type Research paper

Background Aslib Proceedings: New Information

The South African nursing profession is in a crisis as registered professional nurses Perspectives
Vol. 59 No. 3, 2007
leave the country in search of lucrative work overseas and this exodus will have a pp. 229-248
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
catastrophic effect on the delivery of health care over the next decade. Financial 0001-253X
constraints, exchange rates favouring overseas employers and tax-free salaries, make DOI 10.1108/00012530710752034
AP it sometimes impossible to compete with remuneration offerings from international
59,3 competitors to retain talent. The question was therefore asked whether employers
should not rather focus their retention strategies on things they can control internally
to retain their employees. An alternative approach, to build strategies around the needs
and work circumstances of professional registered nurses, with the focus on knowledge
sharing behaviour, is therefore proposed in this paper. While much knowledge
230 management initiative to date emphasised the technological innovations, this approach
focussed on what experts often referred to as a neglected part of knowledge
management, namely the importance of the human being in the total process.

Objectives
The objectives were the following:
(1) To develop a knowledge sharing construct.
(2) To determine the relationship between knowledge sharing behaviour and
turnover intentions on a bivariate level.
(3) To determine the independent and/or interactive predictive role of knowledge
sharing in turnover intentions on a multivariate level of registered professional
nurses when simultaneously entered with the selected independent variable
(organisational culture) and proposed mediating variables (organisational
commitment, organisational citizenship behaviours and job satisfaction), as
well as various demographic variables (e.g. age, years in the profession,
different units, job level).

Knowledge sharing
Hislop (2003), who reviewed a significant number of studies in knowledge
management, reported that these studies have a limited empirical basis and the
majority can typically be described as “exploratory studies”, which illustrates the lack
of depth in contemporary understanding of how human and social factors affect
knowledge management and sharing initiatives. To date, much of the research of
knowledge sharing has focused on the economic benefits, such as being competitive
(Gupta et al., 2000; Husted and Michailova, 2002). Very little research has focused on
knowledge sharing as a psychological need of people.
A common classification of organisational knowledge (Nonaka, 1991) comprises
explicit knowledge, which can be documented and shared, and implicit or tacit
knowledge, which resides in the minds, cultures, and experiences within the
organisation (Rowley, 2003). Implicit or tacit knowledge includes the competence,
experience and skills of employees. The management of tacit knowledge is primarily
concerned with the management of the process of deriving value from knowledge. This
is tightly coupled with processes such as training, learning, culture creation and
knowledge sharing (Rowley, 2003; Tippins, 2003). Tacit knowledge is usually in the
domain of subjective, cognitive and experiential learning (Gupta et al., 2000). There has
been a growing acknowledgement that much organisational knowledge is tacit in
nature and for employers to benefit from their training and development programmes,
there should be a willingness on the part of those workers who possess it to share and
communicate it (Hislop, 2003; Katsirikou, 2003). Thus, sharing knowledge, whether
explicit or tacit, requires effort on the part of the individual doing the sharing (Bartol Knowledge
and Srivastava, 2002). sharing
In one of only a few quantitative empirical knowledge sharing studies reported in
the literature, Ryu et al. (2003) investigated knowledge sharing attitudes for physicians constructs
within hospitals. This study is of particular relevance as they operate in the same
environment as professional nurses. Professional nurses routinely use highly
developed domain knowledge in combination with experiential knowledge to deliver 231
quality care (Curran, 2004). A limitation of this study was that it only measured
physicians’ readiness to share knowledge, and did not focus on other contextual factors
such as the pre-requisites and expected outcomes to sharing.
In developing a questionnaire to measure knowledge sharing a thorough literature
review was launched to determine the prerequisites and activities linked to knowledge
sharing (Table I). Since an individual’s knowledge sharing tendency is driven by a set
of contextualised concerns (Chua, 2003), it is important to evaluate knowledge sharing
behaviour in the context of the organisational culture. A supportive organisational
culture is regarded by various researchers as a pre-requisite for knowledge sharing
behaviours (Gupta et al., 2000; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Husted and Michailova, 2002;
McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Ryu et al., 2003). However, empirical evidence is lacking
as to how organisational culture contributes to knowledge sharing behaviour. A study
done on some 40 companies that exemplify desirable knowledge sharing practices
revealed that these companies not only integrate knowledge sharing into their business

Selected conditions, methods, outcomes and

importance Author(s)

Trust (questions 12, 19, 22)
Reward, recognition and incentive systems
(questions 1, 2)
The likelihood of others to do likewise
(reciprocity) (questions 13, 20, 23)
Supportive organisational culture (question 15)
Support from and to managers (questions 4, 14)
No fear that career development is in danger if
admitting mistakes and failures (questions 5, 18,
21)
Informal gatherings and social events (questions
7, 8)
Training, workshops, seminars conferences
(questions 3, 6)
Performance appraisal, merit pay, promotions
(question 17)
Create an expert image among peers (question 16)
Improve business performance and successes
(question 9)
To stay competitive and become innovative
(questions 10, 11)
Bartol and Srivastava (2002); Husted and
Michailova(2002); Yang and Wan (2004)
Bartol and Srivastava (2002); Chua (2003); Husted
and Michailova (2002); McDermott and O’Dell
(2001); Yang and Wan (2004)
Chua (2003)
Gupta et al. (2000); Haldin-Herrgard (2000); Husted
and Michailova (2002); McDermott and O’Dell
(2001); Ryu et al. (2003); Yang and Wan (2004)
McDermott and O’Dell (2001)
Husted and Michailova (2002)
Yang and Wan (2004)
Gupta et al. (2000); Husted and Michailova (2002);
Yang and Wan (2004)
Bartol and Srivastava (2002)
Jarvenpaa and Staples (in Chua, 2003)
Gupta et al. (2000) Table I.
Literature overview for
Chua (2003); Gupta et al. (2000); Husted and compiling the knowledge
Michailova (2002); Haldin-Herrgard (2000) sharing questionnaire
AP strategy, they develop approaches and styles that match their prevailing
59,3 organisational culture to minimise resistance (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). Often,
organisational culture itself prevents people from sharing and disseminating their
know-how in an effort to hold on to their individual powerbase and viability. Since
social factors are precipitated by a bilateral relationship between the one who shares
and the one who receives knowledge, knowledge sharing behaviour can only be
232 sustained through reciprocity.
Knowledge (expertise) is a source of power, the disclosure of which might lead to
erosion of individual power, thereby partly explaining an individual’s reluctance to
share it with others (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). The key for employers and
employees alike to internalise knowledge sharing behaviour is to build and maintain
trust across the organisation, due to the fact that it depends entirely on people (Husted
and Michailova, 2002). Reward, recognition and incentive systems must support
knowledge sharing (Chua, 2003; Husted and Michailova, 2002; McDermott and O’Dell,
2001). It is also important that employees do not fear that their career development is in
danger if knowledge sharing leads to mistakes and failures. An individual’s market
value and bargaining power is related to the quality and value of the knowledge he or
she possesses. For example, one’s incentive for spending years on educating oneself is
justified through a belief that this will result in a higher market value compared with
others without a high level of education. Much of this value is usually “hard won”,
sometimes through failures and frustration. It is therefore important that organisations
guarantee that sharing knowledge will not impede on career development (Husted and
Michailova, 2002).
Strong group affiliation and teamwork is also critical for knowledge sharing
(Husted and Michailova, 2002). Knowledge sharing is subject to the desire of others
wanting to do likewise (Chua, 2003). When there is an absence of a strong personal tie
that warrants listening to or helping each other, knowledge sharing is hampered (Wiig,
1999). The impact of globalisation, technology, diversity and other environmental
trends calls for a paradigm shift in management thinking (Wagner et al., 2002). It is
therefore important that knowledge sharing must be integrated into a business
strategy to reach goals such as competitiveness, effectiveness and innovation (Chua,
2003; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). According to Wagner et al. (2002, p. 52) it is vital
for the organisation to innovate and build environments that will enable the creation of
new knowledge. They found that for respondents in a software company, the idea of
efficiency in knowledge sharing means that information has to be shared regularly “for
the right people, the right information, and at the right time” (p. 52). This means that
employers must openly declare knowledge sharing as a core instrumental value of the
organisation. Thereafter, it is important for managers to support knowledge sharing
initiatives, activities and behaviour. Lastly, sufficient time is a pre-requisite for
knowledge sharing (Husted and Michailova, 2002; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Yang and
Wan, 2004). One of the problems many organisations experience is time constraints.
This makes it very difficult for employers to create knowledge sharing activities. Staff
shortages will lead to work overload that makes it difficult to have time to share
knowledge.
The following are examples of how knowledge sharing can take place:
.
workshops, seminars, conferences, teambuilding exercises (Gupta et al., 2000);
.
written reports (Gupta et al., 2000);
 .
through face-to-face interactions (Dixon in Chua, 2003); Knowledge
.
informal gatherings, dialogues, social events, collective reflections (Yang and sharing
Wan, 2004);
constructs
. training (Husted and Michailova, 2002; Yang and Wan, 2004);
.
conventional employee suggestion programmes (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002);
.
periodic meetings across teams/work units (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002); 233
.
best practices (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; McDermott and O’Dell, 2001);
.
performance appraisal, merit pay, promotions (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002;
McDermott and O’Dell, 2001); and
.
mentoring programmes (Gupta et al., 2000; Yang and Wan, 2004).
All of these methods have merit, but it is suggested that a holistic approach must be
followed by using a combination of them.

Turnover intentions
Turnover intentions is seen by Sager et al. (1998) as a mental decision intervening
between an individual’s attitude regarding a job and the stay or leave decision and that
can be regarded as an immediate antecedent to stay, or leave (Fox and Fallon, 2003;
Sager et al., 1998). It has been successfully demonstrated in previous studies that
behavioural intention to leave is consistently correlated with turnover (Fox and Fallon,
2003; Mobley, 1982). There is considerable support for the notion that intention to quit
is probably the most important and immediate antecedent of turnover decisions (Chiu
and Francesco, 2003; Fox and Fallon, 2003).

The relationship between knowledge sharing and turnover intentions

There is no empirical evidence of the relationship between knowledge sharing and
turnover intentions. The reason for this is mainly because knowledge sharing as an
empirical construct is not well developed (Hislop, 2003).

Organisational culture, organisational commitment, organisational

citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction
Only a short description of each concept is provided as the emphasis of this paper is on
knowledge sharing and turnover intentions. Organisational culture can be referred to
as a set of values, beliefs and behaviour patterns that form the core identity of
organisations, and help in shaping the employees’ behaviour (Erwee et al., 2001; Van
der Post et al., 1997). According to Van der Post et al. (1997) the study of organisational
culture can be approached by identifying certain dimensions that shape behaviour and
eventually can be regarded as the culture of the organisation. This falls firmly within
the classical positivist approach of culture that researchers have identified (Denison,
1996). The dimensions are the following: conflict resolution, culture management,
customer orientation, disposition towards change, employee participation, goal clarity,
human resource orientation, identification with the organisation, locus of authority,
management style, organisational focus, organisational integration, performance
orientation, reward orientation and task structure.
Mowday (1999) described organisational commitment as the attachment that is
formed between employees and their employing organisation. Roodt (1997) proposed
AP measuring commitment by distinguishing between different commitment foci. An
59,3 understanding of the different foci can probably explain the dynamics of employee
commitment in the work context. According to Roodt (2004a) a golden thread running
through all the definitions of commitment is the potential of a particular focus to
satisfy salient needs. Roodt (2004a, p. 85) therefore proposed a motivational approach
to define and measure commitment and describes it as:
234 . . . a cognitive predisposition towards a particular focus, insofar this focus has the potential
to satisfy needs, realise values and achieve goals.
Organisational citizenship behaviours (OCB’s) are employee work behaviours such as
helping others, staying late, or working weekends, performing at levels that exceed
enforceable standards, tolerating impositions or inconveniences on the job, and being
actively involved in company affairs (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organ (1988,
p. 4) defined organisational citizenship behaviour as:
. . . individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognised by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organisation.
By discretionary, it is meant that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of the
role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s
employment contract with the organisation; the behaviour is rather a matter of
personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.
Job satisfaction refers to a worker’s general attitude towards his or her job.
According to Locke (1976), job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job and job experiences. Weiss et al. (1967)
identified various extrinsic factors (e.g. supervision, compensation, company policies
and practices) and intrinsic factors (e.g. activity, variety, responsibility) as potential
sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The intrinsic factors are thought to measure
satisfaction with intrinsic reinforcement factors. The extrinsic factors are external to
the job. Job satisfaction was therefore, for the purpose of this study, defined as:
. . . the degree people achieve and maintain correspondence with the environment satisfying
both extrinsic and intrinsic needs (Weiss et al., 1967, cited in Cook et al., 1981, p. 21).

Method
Research design
The research questions were investigated (tested) by making use of a cross sectional
field survey to obtain primary data. The study can be described as ex-post facto
research, meaning that a researcher does not have full control over the variables (as the
problem has already occurred), but at least medium control can be obtained through
applying inferential statistics (De la Rey, 1978). The conceptualisation or mode for
reasoning to choose a correlational design was first to test hypotheses and secondly to
analyse variables to propose a theoretical model. The study was therefore correlational
and predictive in nature.

Sample
The target population can be described as registered professional nurses working in
hospitals. Staff or assistant nurses were not included in the target population. Various
important challenges and problems had to be addressed to determine the sampling Knowledge
frame and unit of analysis. According to figures by the South African Nursing Council sharing
(in 2004), there were approximately 93,000 registered professional nurses in South
Africa (this figure must not be confused with the estimated 155,400 if staff nurses are constructs
also taken in consideration). Professional nurses are employed in different sectors (e.g.
hospitals, municipalities, academic institutions and other industries). However,
hospitals are the most important employers of professional nurses. It was therefore 235
decided to only include professional hospital nurses.
The next step was to select which hospitals to include in the sampling frame. It was
decided to include five private hospitals and four provincial (government) hospitals in
three different regions (provinces) in the sampling frame. The motivation for this was
based on the assumption that different types of hospitals (private and government) in
different regions and surroundings (urban and rural) will probably have different
organisational cultures that will yield a sample with diverse characteristics. This may
affect the variance of the variables, and therefore a large sample was required (Welman
and Kruger, 1999).
The next step was to decide on the actual composition of the unit of analysis (more or
less than 1,100 professional nurses work in the selected hospitals). Although the target
population was determined to the set criteria as explained, it was decided to make use of a
non-probability (convenience) census-based survey at each of the selected hospitals. A
non-probability sample in this sense could be described as involving all respondents from
a population (professional nurses) who were available to complete the questionnaire at a
specific point in time (normally a two day period) in the hospital.
The respondents were not randomly selected, but all who met the criteria and were
available were included. Such an approach is regarded as unscientific (De la Rey, 1978).
The limitations compared to systematic or stratified sampling methods are
acknowledged. However, Kerlinger (1986) defends the use of non-probability
samples by noting that it may lack the virtues of random sampling, but are often
necessary and unavoidable. Their weakness can to some extent be mitigated by using
knowledge, expertise and care in selecting samples, as was the case in this study. It
seemed practically and ethically correct to utilise a convenience sample as employers
were reluctant to allow time off to complete the questionnaires due to staff shortages
and the complex shift system that determines working hours for registered
professional nurses, as well as the research procedure to personally visit hospitals to
ensure a high response rate of questionnaires.
The final sample consists of 530 respondents in the selected hospitals (more or less
than 50 per cent of the population). This resulted in a sample with diverse
characteristics regarding race, age, home language, number of dependents, level of
seniority, qualifications, tenure in hospital and profession, working in different units
and gender (Table II).
Table II shows that all the different categories of subgroups were well represented.
The only demographic variable discarded for further analysis was gender as nurses
were predominantly female (95 per cent).

Measuring instruments
Apart from the construction of a knowledge sharing questionnaire as a focus of this
study (to be discussed under results) the following questionnaires were also used in
AP
n %
59,3
Type of hospital Private 368 69
Government 162 31
Agea Younger than 30 years 88 17
30-39 years 188 35
236 40-49 years 161 30
50 years and older 92 18
Completed years in unit Less than 1 115 22
1-5 years 241 45
6 years and longer 174 33
Years completed in profession 5 years and less 99 19
6-10 years 97 18
11-20 years 183 35
20 years and more 151 28
Rank Professional nurse 294 56
Senior professional nurse 65 12
Chief/Unit manager 171 32
Racea African 195 37
White 265 50
Coloured 67 13
Unit ICU/Casualties 181 34
Paed/Maternity 94 18
Surgery/Theatre 111 21
General 144 27
Highest qualification Nursing diploma 220 42
Post nursing diploma 193 36
Nursing degree or post qualification 117 22
Dependents under 18 None 163 31
One 105 20
Two 164 31
Three or more 98 18
Marital status Not married 140 26
Married 295 56
Divorced 95 18
Gender Male 26 5
Female 504 95
Tenure in hospital Not a year completed 87 16
1-5 years 173 33
6-10 years 160 30
11 years and more 110 21
Home languagea Afrikaans 308 58
Other (English included) 92 18
African language 129 24
Dependents above 18 None 198 37
One 158 30
Two 84 16
Table II. Three or more 90 17
Demographics of sample
of professional nurses Notes: aMissing responses recorded; n ¼ 530
measuring the different variables entered together with knowledge sharing to Knowledge
determine turnover intentions of registered professional nurses. The Organisational sharing
Culture Survey (OCS) (97 items) was used to measure 15 dimensions of organisational
culture. The OCS is based on a model of organisational analysis that perceives culture constructs
as a feature of the organisation that can be studied and manipulated in isolation (Erwee
et al., 2001). This questionnaire was selected because it seems to contain the
dimensions that can influence the nurse’s perception of the organisation. It was 237
developed in South Africa by Van der Post et al. (1997) and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.989
was obtained in this study indicating high reliability. A Cronbach Alpha of 0.70 or
higher is considered acceptable (Cortina, 1993). It therefore was an appropriate
instrument to measure organisational culture. A deviation from the original
questionnaire was followed as each item was measured on a seven-point intensity
response scale anchored at extreme poles. The items were changed from statements to
questions. An example is: “How aware are employees of the objectives in this
organisation?” (“Not aware at all” 1 – low intensity, to “Always aware” 7 – high
intensity). By using this questionnaire, the individual work unit’s culture, the
individual hospital’s culture and the overall organisational culture could be
determined.
Turnover intentions were measured by a questionnaire developed by Roodt (2004b).
The questionnaire consists of 14 items that were measured on a seven-point intensity
response scale anchored at extreme poles (e.g. “never” 1 – low intensity, to “always” 7
– high intensity). Examples of items included in this questionnaire (Roodt, 2004b)
were: “How often have you recently considered leaving your job?” and “How frequently
have you been scanning news papers for new job opportunities?” A Cronbach alpha of
0.913 was obtained in this study indicating an acceptable reliability. The turnover
literature lacks formally validated scales to represent turnover cognitions (Sager et al.,
1998). The motivation to develop this questionnaire is that most instruments in the
literature measure turnover intentions on only a relatively small number of items.
Various researchers have used only one item (Guimaraes, 1997; Lambert et al., 2001).
The approach to use single-item indicators to measure turnover cognitions is criticized
as construct validity is unknown (Lee et al., 2000; Sager et al., 1998). Only a few studies
could be found where more than three items per instrument were used (Fox and Fallon,
2003; Lum et al., 1998).
The Organisational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Roodt (1997) was
used to measure commitment. The questionnaire was suitable for this investigation as
it can be regarded as a motivational approach to study commitment. The questionnaire
consists of 38 items, each with a five-point intensity response scale anchored at
extreme poles. The foci of the questionnaire consist of work, career, occupation and
organisation. An example of an item is: “How much time and energy do you willingly
devote to work?” (“no time” 1 – low intensity to “all of my time” 5 – high intensity). A
Cronbach alpha of 0.926 was obtained for the organisational commitment
questionnaire.
Organisational citizenship behaviour was assessed by the Van Dyne and LePine
(1998) seven-item “helping” scale. Four additional items of the original altruism scales
from the work of Smith et al. (1983) were also included in the questionnaire. Voice was
measured by a six-item scale as used by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). A deviation from
the original helping questionnaire was followed as each item was measured on a
AP seven-point intensity response scale anchored at extreme poles (“never” 1 – low
59,3 intensity, to “always” 7 – high intensity). An example of an item for the helping
questionnaire was: “How often do you volunteer to do things for this work group?” and
for the voice questionnaire: “How frequently do you make recommendations
concerning issues that affect your work group?” Self ratings were used. A Cronbach
alpha of 0.923 was obtained for the organisational citizenship questionnaire.
238 Job satisfaction was assessed by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss
et al., 1967). The MSQ20 measures 20 different items and can be categorised into
extrinsic and intrinsic satisfaction. The questionnaire measures the following
satisfaction domains: activity, independence, variety, social status, moral values,
security, social service, authority, ability utilisation, responsibility, creativity,
achievement (intrinsic), supervision-human relations, supervision-technical, company
policies and practices, compensation, advancement, working conditions, co-workers
and recognition (extrinsic). Questions were measured on a five-point scale and made
use of an intensity scale with 1 – low intensity (e.g. never) and 5 – high intensity (e.g.
always). An example is: “What are the chances for advancement in your present job?
(1 – no chance; 5 – high chance). A Cronbach alpha of 0.886 was obtained for the MSQ.

Procedure
A letter of content was provided by the Ethics Research Committee of the Faculty
Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa. The completion of
the questionnaires by the respondents was personally administered. Questionnaires
were completed in settings outside the units, such as training centres, to prevent
interruptions. All questionnaires were handled anonymously. A pilot study was
conducted in two rounds and thereafter 570 questionnaires were distributed. A final
number of 530 questionnaires were usable. After this, the data was captured and
processed by STATCON (Statistical Consultation Services at the University of
Johannesburg, South Africa).

Statistical analysis
The first empirical objective was to compile a knowledge sharing construct. A factor
analysis was conducted and the procedure and results will be discussed under the next
heading (see results). The second objective was to determine the relationship between
knowledge sharing and turnover intentions on a bivariate level. This was tested by the
Pearson product-moment correlation (this hypothesis was further analysed by
introducing general linear modelling).
The third objective, namely to determine the amount of variance knowledge sharing
accounted for independently and interactively when entering all the selected variables
in a predictive model of turnover intentions, was tested by applying general linear
modelling. According to Kerlinger (1986) it is unrealistic, even wrong, to study and
learn only an approach that is basically bivariate in conception. Multivariate methods
are like the behavioural reality they try to reflect: complex and difficult to understand.
Kerlinger continues by arguing that from all methods of analysis, multivariate
methods are the most powerful and appropriate for scientific behavioural research. His
argument basically rests on the idea that behavioural problems are almost all
multivariate in nature and cannot be solved with a bivariate (two-variable) approach –
that is, an approach that considers only one independent and one dependent variable at Knowledge
a time. sharing
Broadly stated, the theory driving general linear modelling (GLM) seeks to identify
those quantities in systems of equations that remain unchanged under linear constructs
transformations of the variables in the system. More imaginatively stated the theory
searches for the eternal and unchanging amongst data sets. The general linear model
differs from the multiple regression model in terms of the number of dependent 239
variables that can be analysed. The general linear model goes a step beyond the
multivariate regression model by allowing for linear transformations or linear
combinations of multiple dependent variables. This extension gives the general linear
model important advantages over the multivariate regression models, which are
inherently univariate (single dependent variables) methods. One advantage is that
multivariate tests of significance can be employed when responses on multiple
dependent variables are correlated. Multivariate tests of significance of independent
linear combinations of multiple dependent variables can also give insight into which
dimensions of the response variables are, and are not, related to the predictor variables.
Independent variables can be continuous (e.g. dimensions of organisational culture) or
categorised (e.g. demographic variables).
General linear modelling is also useful to compile predictive models and develop
theories (a focus of this study). A theory is a group of logical, related statements that
are presented as an explanation of a phenomenon. A theory thus encompasses one or
more hypotheses (Welman and Kruger, 1999). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used
to uncover the main and interaction effects of categorical independent variables (called
“factors”) on an interval dependent variable. A “main effect” is the direct effect of an
independent variable on the dependent variable. An “interaction effect” is the joint
effect of two or more independent variables on the dependent variable. In using general
linear modelling (GLM), the most parsimonious model was determined by entering the
independent, mediating variables and all the demographic variables into the equation
with interactions. The technique can be seen as entering various carefully selected
variables into the equation where only the “strongest will ultimately survive” to predict
the outcome variable (turnover intentions in this study). The GLM follows a process by
first entering the demographic variables into the equation, then the independent and
mediating variables and then all the variables simultaneously to determine
independent and interactive effects. From this final model it would be possible to
determine the independent and interactive role of the independent variable
(organisational culture), the demographic variables (categorised variables) and the
mediating variables (knowledge sharing, organisational commitment, OCB’s and job
satisfaction) in determining turnover intentions. Only the results applicable to
knowledge sharing in the final model where all the variables were entered into the
equation will be discussed next.

Results
First, the development of a knowledge sharing construct will be discussed. A literature
study was conducted to determine the concepts and activities linked to knowledge
sharing (Table II). Based on this conceptual model a questionnaire consisting of 23
items was developed. Each item has a five-point intensity response scale anchored at
extreme poles ranging from “to no extent” or “disagree” (low intensity) to “a large
AP extent” or “agree” (high intensity). An example of a question is: “to what extent do you
59,3 share knowledge in this organisation to get recognition?”
The questionnaire (see appendix) consists of six sections representing different
domains of knowledge sharing, namely why knowledge is shared in the organisation
(e.g. to get recognition – five questions), opportunities for knowledge sharing (e.g. to
attend training courses – three questions), the contribution of knowledge sharing to
240 the organisation (e.g. competitiveness – three questions), why others readily share
knowledge (e.g. that trust exists – six questions), why one would not readily share
knowledge (e.g. career would be in danger – three questions (– )), and why others do
not readily share knowledge (e.g. colleagues do not want to do likewise – three
questions ( –)).
Next, a factor analysis was conducted on the knowledge sharing questionnaire. The
purpose of a factor analysis is to cluster the items that measure a specific concept and
to reject those that do not contribute in measuring the concept. The knowledge sharing
questionnaire was factor analysed according to the procedure suggested by Schepers
(2004) in order to determine the factor structure of the instrument. One of the
advantages of this method is to minimise artefactors (Schepers, 2004). This procedure
includes first and second level factor analysis.
The first level factor Analysis was based on the intercorrelation matrix of all items.
The eigenvalues of the unreduced item intercorrelation matrix were calculated and it
was suggested that five factors be extracted based on the eigenvalues greater than
unity (Kaiser, 1970). A principal axis factoring yielded five factors explaining about 66
per cent of the variance in the factor space. This result supported the theoretical
foundation of the construction of the original questionnaire as factor 1 was described
by items 18-23 (the two sections that determine reasons why nurses do not want to
share knowledge). Factor 2 was described by items 12-17 (reasons why others share
knowledge), while factor 3 consists (items 1-5) of the questions that measure reasons
why one should share knowledge. Factor 4 (items 9-11) determined opinions to what
outcomes knowledge sharing can contribute to (e.g. competitiveness), while factor 5
(items 6-8) determined opportunities for knowledge sharing.
For the second level factor analysis the sub-scores of the five factors (referred to
above) was intercorrelated. Again, eigenvalues were calculated and two factors were
postulated. These two factors were extracted by means of principal axis factoring.
Factor one explains about 44 per cent and factor two about 20 per cent of the variance
in the factor space. Factor one consists of items 6-8 and 12-23. This factor can be
renamed as “opportunities and pre-requisites to share/not to share”. Factor 2 consists
of items 1-5 and 9-11 and can be renamed as “expected personal and organisational
outcomes”. The result obtained from the iterative reliability analysis of the knowledge
sharing questionnaire yielded a Cronbach alpha of 0.839 for factor one, and 0.838 for
factor two, indicating an acceptable reliability. No items were rejected in both the first
and second level factor analysis.
The second important result is that a significant negative relationship between
knowledge sharing and turnover intentions was found for factor 1 (r ¼ 20:418;
p , 0.05) and factor 2 (r ¼ 20:234; p , 0.05), meaning that the more positive
professional nurses were about knowledge sharing, the less inclined they were to
turnover intentions. A significant positive correlation also was found between
organisational culture and knowledge sharing, meaning the more positive professional
nurses perceived the organisational culture, the more inclined they were to share Knowledge
knowledge. Significant positive correlations were also found between knowledge sharing
sharing and organisational commitment, job satisfaction and OCB’s. The correlations
between knowledge sharing and all the other variables appear in Table III. constructs
Thirdly, in using general linear modelling (GLM), the most parsimonious model was
chosen including all the variables with interactions, explaining almost 49 per cent of
the variance in turnover intentions. The coefficients are depicted in Table IV. The 241
results of the final (most parsimonious) predictive model for turnover intentions
yielded that the interaction (B ¼ 20:056) between organisational culture and factor 1
of knowledge sharing (“opportunities and pre-requisites to share/not to share”)
decreased turnover intentions. Factor 2 of knowledge sharing was rejected as it did not
conform to normality by applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. As the focus is on
knowledge sharing in this paper, one should keep in mind that the results emerged
from the final model (where all variables had a “chance to be strongest”). A significant
result was that organisational commitment emerged as the only independent predictor
of turnover intentions in the final model (positive B coefficients increase turnover
intentions and negative B coefficients decreases turnover intentions).
The above results will be discussed next.

Discussion
Surprisingly knowledge sharing had not previously being viewed as an important
antecedent of organisational outcomes in South African hospitals and in the nursing
profession alike. This study contributed to a greater understanding of the importance
of knowledge sharing in hospitals and amongst professional nurses. First of all, the
knowledge sharing questionnaire seems to be a valid and reliable construct to measure
knowledge sharing behaviour. It seems that “opportunities” to share and
“pre-requisites” to share clustered as a second-level factor because professional
nurses may see opportunities to share (like attending conferences, seminars and
training) as a pre-requisite to share, almost as a social-exchange process to “give
something because you received something”. Secondly, the significant negative
relationship between knowledge sharing and turnover intentions clearly indicated that
managers can indeed plan strategies and interventions to provide professional nurses
with opportunities to share such as training courses, workshops and sharing in
informal settings. It is, however, clear that employers must create a conducive
organisational culture that meets the pre-requisites to ensure a willingness to share.
Three potential problems may occur if hospitals and nursing employers neglect the
importance of knowledge sharing. Firstly, there is the possibility of losing the
professional nurses’ knowledge. They may not share what they know before they
leave. Secondly, in the worst case scenario, if these professional nurses did not pass on
important knowledge before they left their hospitals, knowledge creation and retention
processes, such as orientation/induction and training programmes, might be
ineffective. Moreover, these departing professional nurses might take their
knowledge to a competing hospital or other company. Thirdly, the shared
knowledge needs to be stored; otherwise the knowledge could be lost when
employees leave the job.
The interaction between organisational culture and knowledge sharing in the final
model to predict turnover intentions clearly indicated the importance of organisational
 AP
59,3

242

Table III.
Intercorrelation matrix

the second order factors

(Pearson correlations) of

of the different constructs

B: organisational C:1 knowledge sharing C:2 knowledge sharing D: organisational F: job G: turnover
culture factor one factor two commitment E: OCB satisfaction intentions

B 1 0.588 * 0.404 * 0.551 * 0.328 * 0.688 * 20.521 *

C1 0.588 * 1 0.387 * 0.445 * 0.310 * 0.549 * 20.418 *
C2 0.404 * 0.387 * 1 0.456 * 0.448 * 0.376 * 20.234 *
D 0.551 * 0.445 * 0.456 * 1 0.549 * 0.605 * 20.402 *
E 0.328 * 0.310 * 0.448 * 0.549 * 1 0.448 * 20.060
F 0.688 * 0.549 * 0.376 * 0.605 * 0.448 * 1 20.516 *
G 2 0.521 * 2 0.418 * 20.234 * 20.402 * 2 0.060 2 0.516 * 1
Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
 Coefficients
Unstandardised
coefficients Standardised coefficients
B Std. Error Beta T Sig.

(Constant) 7.182 0.307 23.429 0.000

Organisational culture *job satisfaction 2 0.145 0.020 20.680 27.122 0.000
Organisational culture *organisational citizen
behaviours 0.102 0.013 0.632 7.811 0.000
Organisational culture *indicator – white 2 0.106 0.024 20.155 24.387 0.000
Organisational commitment 2 0.510 0.103 20.211 24.942 0.000
Indicator – ICU/casualties *50 þ years (age) 2 0.657 0.225 20.096 22.925 0.004
Organisational culture *knowledge sharing 1 2 0.056 0.017 20.256 23.241 0.001
Indicator – 1-5 years (current unit) *chief nurse 0.429 0.127 0.109 3.367 0.001
Indicator – 11 þ years (current hospital) *none
(dependents .18) 0.729 0.199 0.119 3.672 0.000
Indicator married/cohabiting *none (dependents
. 18) 2 0.319 0.115 20.091 22.785 0.006
Indicator – 50 þ years (age)) *none (dependents
, 18) 2 0.491 0.160 20.104 23.078 0.002
Indicator – ICU/casualties *degree 2 0.465 0.156 20.096 22.972 0.003
Note: Dependent variable: turnover intentions the * sign denotes interaction
constructs

(GLM) for predicting

sharing

turnover intentions
Knowledge

General linear modelling

243

Table IV.
AP culture as a pre-requisite to share knowledge. It is recommended that nursing
59,3 employers not only create opportunities to share, but also the incentives to learn and to
study, as well as the time to socialise with fellow colleagues as knowledge sharing is an
interpersonal process where reciprocal expectations and trust certainly plays an
important role.
Suggestions for future research may be to investigate whether knowledge sharing
244 can be regarded as an organisational culture dimension when adopting a positivist
approach in studying the culture of the organisation. More attention can also be given
to improve the content validity of the knowledge sharing questionnaire, as it seems
that the current instrument actually consists of a wide range of concepts such as
pre-requisites, emotions of people and various contextual factors. As most researchers
include a conative (motivational) aspect (“willingness to share”) one may also
investigate the role of personality in predicting sharing behaviour.

Conclusion
Finally, it is clear that professional nurses who have the opportunity to share their
knowledge, have opportunities to gain new knowledge, view their surroundings as
favourable and expect certain positive outcomes to share, will satisfy their social,
esteem and self-actualisation needs and may therefore be less inclined to leave their
hospitals.

References
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
organizational reward systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 64-77.
Chiu, R.D. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), “Dispositional traits and turnover intention: examining
the mediating role of job satisfaction and affective commitment”, International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 284-98.
Chua, A. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: a game people play”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 117-29.
Cook, J.D., Hepworth, S.J., Wall, T.D. and Warr, P.B. (1981), The Experience of Work:
A Compendium and Review of 249 Measures and their Use, Academic Press, London.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefficient Cronbach alpha? An examination of the theory and
applications”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 98-104.
Curran, C.R. (2004), “The informatics nurse: helping to build the knowledge infrastructure for
nursing”, Nurse Leader, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 26-9.
De la Rey, R.P. (1978), Statistiese Metodes in Sielkundige Navorsing, (“Statistical Methods in
Psychological Research”), Universiteit van Pretoria, Pretoria.
Denison, D. (1996), “What’s the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-54.
Erwee, R., Lynch, B., Millet, B., Smith, D. and Roodt, G. (2001), “Cross cultural equivalence of the
organisational culture survey in Australia”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 7-12.
Fox, S.R. and Fallon, B.J. (2003), “Modeling the effect of work/life balance on job satisfaction and
turnover intentions”, paper presented at the 5th Australian Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Conference, Melbourne.
Guimaraes, T. (1997), “Assessing employee turnover intentions before/after TQM”, International Knowledge
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 46-63.
sharing
Gupta, B., Lyer, L.S. and Aronson, J.E. (2000), “Knowledge management: practices and
challenges”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21. constructs
Haldin-Herrgard, T. (2000), “Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations”, Journal
of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 357-65.
Hislop, D. (2003), “Linking human resource management and knowledge management via 245
commitment: a review and research agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 182-202.
Husted, K. and Michailova, S. (2002), “Diagnosing and fighting knowledge sharing hostility”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 60-73.
Kaiser, H.F. (1970), “A second-generation Little Jiffy”, Psychometrika, Vol. 35, pp. 401-15.
Katsirikou, A. (2003), “Consortia and knowledge management: the functional context and an
organizational model”, Library Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 337-47.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986), Foundations of Behavioural Research, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers, Orlando, FL.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Barton, S.M. (2001), “The impact of job satisfaction on turnover
intent: a test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers”,
Social Science Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-50.
Lee, K., Carswell, J.J. and Allen, N.J. (2000), “A meta-analytical review of occupational
commitment: relations with person- and work-related variables”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 799-811.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-350.
Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F. and Sirola, W. (1998), “Explaining nursing turnover intent:
job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organizational commitment”, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 305-20.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Mobley, W.H. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences and Control, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Mowday, R.T. (1999), “Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 387-401.
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 96-114.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviours: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for further research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63.
Roodt, G. (1997), “Theoretical and empirical linkages between work-related commitment foci”,
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 6-13.
Roodt, G. (2004a), “Concept redundancy and contamination in employee commitment research:
current problems and future directions”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 82-90.
Roodt, G. (2004b), “Turnover intentions”, unpublished document, Centre of Work Performance,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
AP Rowley, J. (2003), “Knowledge management: the new librarianship? From custodians of history to
gatekeepers to the future”, Library Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 433-40.
59,3 Ryu, S., Hee Ho, S. and Han, I. (2003), “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-22.
Sager, J.K., Griffeth, R.W. and Hom, P.W. (1998), “A comparison of structural models
representing turnover cognitions”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 254-73.
246 Schepers, J.M. (2004), “Overcoming the effects of differential skewness of test items in scale
construction”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 27-43.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature
and antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-63.
Tippins, M.J. (2003), “Implementing knowledge management in academia: teaching the teachers”,
The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 339-45.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), “Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of
construct and predictive validity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,
pp. 108-20.
Van der Post, W.Z., de Coning, T.J. and Smit, E.V. (1997), “An instrument to measure
organisational culture”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 147-68.
Wagner, C., Cassimjee, N. and Nel, H. (2002), “Some key principles in implementing knowledge
management: the views of employees in a small software company”, SA Journal of
Industrial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 49-54.
Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W. and Lofquist, L.H. (1967), Manual for Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Welman, J.C. and Kruger, S.J. (1999), Research Methodology for the Business and Administrative
Sciences, Thomson International, Johannesburg.
Wiig, K.M. (1999), “What future knowledge management users may expect”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 155-65.
Yang, J.T. and Wan, C.S. (2004), “Advancing organizational effectiveness and knowledge
management implementation”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-76.

Appendix. Knowledge sharing questionnaire

The following questionnaire measures your perceptions about knowledge sharing in your
organisation.
You are requested to cross (x) or circle (o) the number of your choice which most accurately
fits the extent to which you evaluate the organisation in which you work. After you have read
each question, please decide the degree to which your answer accurately describes your own
situation and your feelings, using the following scale (Figure A1).
 Knowledge
sharing
constructs

247

Figure A1.
Knowledge sharing
questionnaire
AP
59,3

248

Figure A1.
Knowledge sharing
questionnaire

Corresponding author
Everd Jacobs can be contacted at: ejacobs@solplaatje.org.za

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints