Partage de La Connaissance Emerald

Journal of Knowledge Management
Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors

Adel Ismail Al‐Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al‐Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Adel Ismail Al‐Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al‐Marzooqi, Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed, (2007) "Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
critical success factors", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 Issue: 2, pp.22-42, https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
Downloaded on: 21 March 2018, At: 14:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21821 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Queen Mary University of London At 14:09 21 March 2018 (PT)
(2013),"Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp.
454-471 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0369">https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0369</a>
(2012),"Knowledge sharing: influences of trust, commitment and cost", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 Iss 5 pp. 740-753 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781">https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:122143 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Organizational culture and knowledge
sharing: critical success factors
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi and Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed
Abstract
Purpose – This research aims at investigating the role of certain factors in organizational culture in the
success of knowledge sharing. Such factors as interpersonal trust, communication between staff,
information systems, rewards and organization structure play an important role in defining the
relationships between staff and in turn, providing possibilities to break obstacles to knowledge sharing.
This research is intended to contribute in helping businesses understand the essential role of
organizational culture in nourishing knowledge and spreading it in order to become leaders in utilizing
their know-how and enjoying prosperity thereafter.
Design/methodology/approach – The conclusions of this study are based on interpreting the results of
a survey and a number of interviews with staff from various organizations in Bahrain from the public and
private sectors.
Findings – The research findings indicate that trust, communication, information systems, rewards and
organization structure are positively related to knowledge sharing in organizations.
Adel Ismail Al-Alawi is Research limitations/implications – The authors believe that further research is required to address
based at the Department of governmental sector institutions, where organizational politics dominate a role in hoarding knowledge,
Management Information through such methods as case studies and observation.
Systems, University of Originality/value – Previous research indicated that the Bahraini society is influenced by traditions of
Bahrain, College of household, tribe, and especially religion of the Arab and Islamic world. These factors define people’s
Information Technology, beliefs and behaviours, and thus exercise strong influence in the performance of business
organizations. This study is motivated by the desire to explore the role of the national organizational
Kingdom of Bahrain.
culture on knowledge sharing, which may be different from previous studies conducted abroad.
Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi is
based at the United Gulf Keywords Knowledge sharing, Trust, Communications, Organizational structures,
Organizational culture
Bank, Adliya-Manama,
Paper type Research paper
Kingdom of Bahrain.
Yasmeen Fraidoon
Mohammed is based at JP
Morgan Chase Bank, East Introduction
Riffa, Kingdom of Bahrain.
Background
Knowledge can be defined as a combination of experience, values, contextual information
and expert insight that help evaluate and incorporate new experience and information
(Gammelgaard and Ritter, 2000). Knowledge not only exists in documents and repositories,
but it becomes embedded in people’s minds overtime and it is demonstrated through their
actions and behaviours.
The growing use of knowledge in businesses contributed to the emergence of the theory of
knowledge management (Aranda and Fernandez, 2002), which is currently one of the
hottest topics in information technology and management literature.
The authors wish to
acknowledge the assistance of The process of knowledge management involves several activities. The most commonly
Ms Aisha Jalal from EDS Gulf
States in completing this
discussed activity in the process of knowledge management nowadays is knowledge
research. transfer (knowledge sharing) (Ford, 2001).
PAGE 22 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 11 NO. 2 2007, pp. 22-42, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270710738898
Knowledge sharing is critical to a firm’s success (Davenport and Prusak, 1998) as it leads to
faster knowledge deployment to portions of the organization that can greatly benefit from it
(Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004).
Scope of the study

According to Gupta and Govindarajan (2000), organizational culture involves six major
categories: information systems, people, process, leadership, reward system and
organization structure. Each of these categories includes factors that descend from it.
The work of Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) can better be understood through Figure 1.
As depicted in Figure 1, the researchers chose the factors that received strong emphasis
from the literature in influencing the success of knowledge sharing. These factors are: trust,
communication between staff, information systems, reward system and organization
structure.
A study of the impact of all cultural categories and descending factors on the success of
knowledge sharing is beyond the scope of this study due to time and resource constraints.
Research hypothesis
The following hypotheses will be tested:
H1. There is a positive relationship between trust among coworkers and knowledge
sharing in organizations.
H2. There is a positive relationship between communication (interaction between staff)
and knowledge sharing in organizations.
Figure 1 Organizational culture framework based on the work of Gupta and Govindarajan
(2000)
j j
VOL. 11 NO. 2 2007 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 23
H3. There is a positive relationship between the existence of knowledge sharing
information systems/technology and knowledge sharing in organizations.
H4. There is a positive relationship between the existence of a reward system aligned
with sharing knowledge and knowledge sharing in organizations.
H5. There is a positive relationship between certain aspects of organization structure
(participative decision making, ease of information flow, teams and communities of
practice) and knowledge sharing in organizations.
Review of the literature
Knowledge
According to Gammelgaard and Ritter (2000), knowledge can be defined as:
A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provide a
framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. Knowledge
originates and prospers in the minds of experts. In organizations, it often becomes embedded
not only in documents of repositories but also in organizational routine, process, practices, and
norms.
Iske and Boersma (2005) articulated that knowledge results from the interaction of
someone’s insights (past experience, intuition and attitude), information and imagination
(generating ideas and visualizing futures).
Knowledge must not be confused with data; data are raw facts, measurements and
statistics. Moreover, knowledge is more complicated than information, information results
from organizing data into meaningful forms. Knowledge is the result of interpreting
information based on one’s understanding, it is influenced by the personality of its holder
since it is based on judgment and intuition; knowledge incorporates beliefs, attitude and
behavior (Lee and Yang, 2000).
Knowledge as an organizational asset

While traditional economies used to rely on tangible assets such as land and capital, today’s
economy has evolved to treat knowledge as the primary production factor on which
competitive advantage rests (Beijerse, 1999).
The most important characteristics of knowledge are uniqueness and originality. Once
created, knowledge cannot be imitated or substituted, which makes it a key strategic asset
resource to all businesses (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002).
The importance of knowledge sharing for the success of knowledge management

While traditional knowledge management emphasis was placed on technology or the ability
to build systems that efficiently process and leverage knowledge, the new model of
knowledge management involves people and actions. It aims at creating an environment
where power equals sharing knowledge rather than keeping it.
Knowledge transfer requires that an individual or a group cooperate with others to share
knowledge and achieve mutual benefits (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). Al-Alawi (2005)
further emphasized:
Knowledge management initiatives are weak in Bahraini organizations because they deployed
technology and ignored cultural and organizational development issues that are seminal to any
successful knowledge management project or system.
Organizational culture
Organizational culture can be defined as the shared, basic assumptions that an organization
learnt while coping with the environment and solving problems of external adaptation and
internal integration that are taught to new members as the correct way to solve those
problems (Park et al., 2004).
j j
PAGE 24 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 11 NO. 2 2007
Each organization has its unique culture, which develops overtime to reflect the
organization’s identity in two dimensions: visible and invisible. The visible dimension of
culture is reflected in the espoused values, philosophy and mission of the firm while the
invisible dimension lies in the unspoken set of values that guide employees’ actions and
perceptions in the organization (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001).
Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors

Trust. Interpersonal trust or trust between co-workers is an extremely essential attribute in
organizational culture, which is believed to have a strong influence over knowledge sharing.
Interpersonal trust is known as an individual or a group’s expectancy in the reliability of the
promise or actions of other individuals or groups (Politis, 2003). Team members require the
existence of trust in order to respond openly and share their knowledge (Gruenfeld et al., 1996).
Communication between staff. Communication here refers to human interaction through oral
conversations and the use of body language while communicating. Human interaction is
greatly enhanced by the existence of social networking in the workplace. This form of
communication is fundamental in encouraging knowledge transfer (Smith and Rupp, 2002).
Information systems. The term information systems is used to refer to an arrangement of
people, data and processes that interact to support daily operations, problem solving and
decision making in organizations (Whitten et al., 2001).

Organizations use different information systems to facilitate knowledge sharing through
creating or acquiring knowledge repositories, where employees share expertise
electronically and access to shared experience becomes possible to other staff (Connelly
and Kelloway, 2003).
Reward system. According to Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004), employees need a strong
motivator in order to share knowledge. It is unrealistic to assume that all employees are
willing to easily offer knowledge without considering what may be gained or lost as a result of
this action.
Managers must consider the importance of collaboration and sharing best practices when
designing reward systems. The idea is to introduce processes in which sharing information
and horizontal communication are encouraged and indeed rewarded. Such rewards must
be based on group rather than individual performance (Goh, 2002).
Organization structure. Traditional organization structures are usually characterized by
complicated layers and lines of responsibility with certain details of information reporting
procedures. Nowadays, most managers realize the disadvantages of bureaucratic
structures in slowing the processes and raising constraints on information flow. In
addition, such procedures often consume great amount of time in order for knowledge to
filter through every level.
Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004) argued that knowledge sharing prospers with structures
that support ease of information flow with fewer boundaries between divisions.
Methodology
Procedure
The researchers chose to combine the quantitative research approach (through quantitative
surveys) and the qualitative approach (through semi-structured interviews) in order to
benefit from methodological triangulation and to develop a richer understanding of the
research topic.
Operationalization of variables
The factors under study are classified into two main categories: independent and
dependent variables. For each variable, indicators of existence in the work environment,
which were extracted from the literature, will serve as the base for measuring its existence
(see Table I).
j j
Table I Indicators of the dependent and independent variables
No. Variable type Variable Indicators of existence
1 Dependent Knowledge sharing 1. Direct assessment of knowledge sharing

2. Knowledge sharing techniques (reliability measure) (Davenport and Prusak, 1998;
Griffen, 2002; Sayed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004)
3. Teamwork and collaboration required to accomplish tasks (reliability measure) (Goh,
2002)
4. Willingness to share knowledge freely (reliability measure) (Davenport and Prusak,
1998)
2 Independent Trust 1. Sharing feelings and perceptions (Mishra and Morrisay, 1990)
2. Sharing personal information (Mishra and Morrisay, 1990)
3. The existence of protective rules and procedures (institution-based trust) (Ford,
2001)
4. Strong knowledge of coworkers’ personalities (knowledge-based trust) (Ford, 2001)
5. Previous experience with trust (Reyes et al., 2004)
6. Belief in others’ good intentions (Bromiley and Cummings, 1996; in Roberts et al.,
2004)
3 Independent Communication 1. High level of face-to-face interaction (Smith and Rupp, 2002)
between staff 2. Use of common language (Levin et al., 2002)
3. Teamwork discussion and collaboration (Goh, 2002)

4 Independent Information systems 1. Existence of knowledge sharing technologies (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003)
2. Effectiveness (usefulness) of knowledge sharing tools (Smith and McKeen, 2003)
3. Comfort while using knowledge sharing technologies (Smith and McKeen, 2003)
5 Independent Reward system 1. Existence of rewards for knowledge sharing (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004; Goh,
(aligned with 2002)
knowledge sharing) 2. Effectiveness of knowledge sharing rewards (Goh, 2002)
3. Existence of team-based rewards (Goh, 2002)
6 Independent Organization structure 1. Participative decision-making (Griffen and Moorhead, 2001)
(supporting 2. Ease of information flow (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004)
knowledge sharing) 3. Cross-functional teams (Goh, 2002)
Independent and dependent variables

For the purpose of this research, the independent variables are the organizational culture
factors that influence the success of knowledge sharing. Consequently, knowledge sharing
is the dependent variable to be measured.
Table I illustrates the independent and dependent variables as well as their corresponding
indicators of existence.
Design of the survey

The survey questions were designed to assess knowledge sharing according to
respondents’ opinions and perceptions regarding each of the studied cultural factors.
Knowledge sharing was measured by asking respondents to assess its level in their
organizations into one of three categories: excellent, good or poor. Other questions
concerning indicators of knowledge sharing were also included as a reliability measure.
Independent variables were measured by obtaining the respondents’ extent of agreement
with the existence of corresponding indicators in the work environment. The extent of
agreement was measured through Likert scale assessment ranging from 5 ¼ strongly agree
to 1 ¼ strongly disagree. Finally, an open-ended question was included to enable
participants to express opinions regarding other significant cultural factors.
Measurement models
The results of the study were computed and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 12. The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure with one factor
j j
(one-way ANOVA) test was used to compare the means of the five factors between
respondents who assessed knowledge sharing as excellent, good or poor.
Distribution of the survey

The researchers intended to cover organizations from the public and private sectors in the
Kingdom of Bahrain. Not all ministries were chosen due to lack of English skills between
some of its staff and due to lack of time.
A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed and 231 were returned, giving a response rate
of 77 percent.
Public sector respondents were from Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of
Information, Ministry of Finance, University of Bahrain, Arabian Gulf University, The Crown
Prince Office and Central Informatics Organization.
Private sector participants were from Investcorp, Ahli United Bank, Bahrain National
Holding, Arab Company for Financial Services, BNP Paribas Bank, United Gulf Bank, Kuwait
Finance House, Khaleej Finance & Investment, Zayani Motors, Advanced Bahrain
Technology, Al Shamil Bank, BATELCO, Bahrain Islamic Bank, BAPCO, BALAXICO, BAAS
and Bahrain Credit.
Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were used as a supporting tool to emphasize the basic data
collected through surveys.
Several interviews were conducted with employees from different organizational levels with
disregard to their job categories. In order to preserve anonymity, the responses are
mentioned without reference to the names or organizations of the interviewees.
Research credibility
Validity. The validity of a measurement instrument can be measured by the degree to which
the instrument measures accurately what it is supposed to measure (Leedy and Ormrod,
2001). In this study, the validity of the instruments was preserved as follows:
B Designing the survey. In order to preserve the accuracy of the measurement, each
variable’s indicators of existence were extracted solely from the literature from the work of
previous researchers such as Davenport and Prusak (1998), Nonaka and Takeuchi
(1995), Al-Alawi (2005) and others. Moreover, wherever necessary, the variables were
measured through direct questions. Comparing the direct-questions’ responses with the
average responses helped verify the accuracy of the findings.
B Pilot study. Prior to administering the surveys, fourteen sample questionnaires were
distributed to a group with the same characteristics of the target sample to ensure that
suggested amendments were suitable. Additionally, the survey was tested by two experts
in the field of research from University of Bahrain.
Reliability. Several checkpoints were included in the survey through replicating certain
questions in alternative means. Examples to such check points can be seen in Table I.
Further, the survey included a combination of positive and negative statements in order to
encourage concentration and care while answering.
Although the interviews were semi-structured, using open-ended questions helped avoid
bias.
Results
Demographic characteristics of the research sample

This section reports the demographic characteristics of the participants in the survey.
The largest group of the respondents was between the age of 25 and 35 (45 percent), nearly
22 percent were under 25 years and a share of 23 percent was between 36 and 45 years of
j j
age. About 6 percent of the respondents were above 50 and only 4 percent were between
the age of 46 and 50.
Approximately 34 percent of the respondents had a work experience ranging from one to
five years. Nearly 22 percent had 11 to 20 years of experience, 17 percent had experience
ranging from six to ten years, 16 percent have been working for over 20 years while 11
percent of the respondents started working less than a year ago.
About 42 percent of the participants were operational staff, 33 percent were middle level
managers and 22 percent had other job categories (e.g. consultants, auditors, analysts and
others). Nearly 3 percent of the respondents were senior/executive managers. Please refer
to Table II.
Responses to knowledge sharing questions

Table III reveals the results of respondents’ assessment of knowledge sharing in their
respective organizations. Around 66 percent thought that the level of knowledge sharing
was good, 20 percent thought it was excellent while 14 percent believed knowledge sharing
in their organizations was poor.
Techniques used to facilitate knowledge sharing

Table IV provides a summery of the responses to the techniques that most likely emphasize
knowledge sharing in organizations (respondents were allowed to choose more than one
option). Nearly 66 percent noted that collaboration and teamwork enhance knowledge
Table II Respondents’ demographic characteristics

Results (%)
Sector
Public 38
Private 62
Gender
Males 58
Females 42
Age
Less than 25 22
25-35 45
36-45 23
46-50 4
Above 50 6
Education
High school 9
Diploma 27
Bachelors 50
Masters 13
PhD 0.50
Position
Operational Staff 42
Middle-level managers 33
Executive managers 3
Other 22
Work experience
Less than one year 11
1-5 years 34
6-10 years 17
11-20 years 22
More than 20 years 16
j j
Table III Respondents’ evaluation for the level of knowledge sharing in their organizations
Knowledge sharing Results (%)
Excellent 20
Good 66
Poor 14
Table IV Techniques that emphasize knowledge sharing in organizations

No. Knowledge sharing technique %
1 Collaboration and teamwork 66.2

2 Training (either new or existing staff) 49.8
3 Formal and informal discussion 47.8
4 Utilizing knowledge sharing tools (e.g. e-mails, document management systems,
groupware, intranet . . .) 45.3
5 Communication networks (internet, intranet and extranet) 44.3
6 Chatting during break time 38.8
7 Brainstorming 36.3
8 Workshops 34.8
9 Seminars 25.4
10 Conferences 21.9
11 Focus groups 18.9
12 Quality circles 17.4
sharing. Training as well as formal and informal discussion scored almost similar results at
about 50 percent and 48 percent respectively.
Focus groups and quality circles scored the lowest support at about 19 percent and 17
percent respectively.
Respondents’ extent of agreement to the research related statements

Table V provides a summery of the responses to questions relating to the variables under
study.
The results and discussion of this research are presented in sub-sections each
corresponding to one of the studied variables.
Knowledge sharing. Most of the respondents (81 percent) agreed that, by nature, they
exchange experience and share knowledge with their peers while working, only 6 percent
disagreed and about 13 percent were neutral.
Approximately 50 percent of the respondents agreed that the problem of hoarding
knowledge does not exist and employees are willing to freely share their knowledge with
their colleagues, about 32 percent disagreed and 18 percent were neutral.
Trust. Nearly 84 percent of the respondents agreed that they normally share their feelings
and perceptions with their coworkers, 7 percent disagreed and about 9 percent abstained.
On the other hand, respondents had varying opinions regarding sharing personal
information with their peers at work. Generally, around 47 percent agreed they should not
share personal information; almost 29 percent disagreed while nearly 24 percent were
indifferent.
Respondents were also asked whether knowledge-based trust (trust based on knowing
coworkers personally) exists between employees. Approximately 65 percent agreed,
around 20 percent disagreed and nearly 15 percent were apathetic. An interviewee further
stressed:
j j
Table V Summery of responses to survey questions
No. Statement Agree (%) Neither (%) Disagree (%)
1 Certain tasks are accomplished through teamwork and collaboration between

employees 88.3 5.7 6.1
2 Coworkers commonly exchange their knowledge and experience while working 81.3 12.6 6.1
3 The problem of people hoarding (keeping) knowledge does not exist and most staff
members are willing to share their knowledge freely 49.8 17.9 32.3
4 I do not hesitate to share my feelings and perceptions with my fellow colleagues 84.3 8.7 7
5 I believe coworkers should not share personal information 47.1 24.2 28.6
6 Certain rules and procedures exist to protect the person sharing his/her knowledge
against harmful intentions of others 58.7 21.3 20
7 Most of my colleagues are people whom I know well and thus are considered trustworthy 65.4 14.5 20.2
8 I have not been previously harmed as a result of sharing my knowledge with my
coworkers 59 16.7 24.2
9 I believe people will not hesitate to take advantage of others’ knowledge and experience
for personal gains 71.2 12.7 16.2
10 A considerable level of trust exists between coworkers in this organization 72.1 17.3 10.6
11 There is a high level of face-to-face interaction among colleagues in the workplace 79.5 10.9 9.6
12 Language is not a problem when communicating with other staff 72.6 7.4 20
13 Teamwork discussion and collaboration enhance communication between colleagues 87.4 9.1 3.5
14 The organization provides various tools and technologies to facilitate knowledge sharing
and exchange (e.g. groupware, e-mail, intranet) 78.2 11.8 10

15 The technological tools available at the organization for sharing knowledge are effective 70.7 17 12.2
16 I feel comfortable using the knowledge sharing technologies available 81.3 12.2 6.5
17 Employees are rewarded for sharing their knowledge and experience with their
colleagues 31.2 27.3 41.5
18 The knowledge sharing rewards available are effective in motivating staff to spread their
knowledge 89.7 10.3 0
19 Employees are more likely rewarded on teamwork and collaboration rather than merely
on individual performance 51.6 18.1 30.2
20 Workers actively participate in the process of decision-making 53.5 24.8 21.7
21 Information flows easily throughout the organization regardless of employee roles or
other boundaries 52.6 20.9 26.5
22 Certain tasks require the formation of teams with members from different departments in
order to be accomplished 84.7 8.3 7
The main cause of lack of trust in my organization is the shallow relationship between peers. If you
don’t know people, you can’t trust them. However, rules to protect knowledge sharing exist and at
least this improves the situation.
Respondents were also asked to directly assess trust in their organizations. Approximately
72 percent believed that a considerable level of trust exists; roughly 11 percent had an
opposite opinion and 17 percent were indifferent.
In addition, one of the interviewees commented as follows:
It is hard to say that there is a high level of trust in my workplace. This is mainly because our
organization hires many expatriates, who have a very low level of trust in citizens. As a result, they
wouldn’t share the knowledge they have mainly from fear of losing their positions to Bahrainis.
Communication. The majority of the respondents (80 percent) agreed that they experience
high level of face-to-face communication in the work environment. Only 10 percent
disagreed and 10 percent were neutral.
Approximately 87 percent agreed that teamwork discussions and collaboration enhance
communication, about 4 percent disagreed and 9 percent abstained.
Information systems. Respondents were asked whether their organizations provide
information systems that facilitate knowledge sharing. Around 78 percent of the
respondents agreed, 10 percent disagreed and about 12 percent were neutral.
j j
When participants were asked if they felt comfortable while using knowledge sharing tools,
nearly 81 percent agreed, close to 7 percent disagreed and about 12 percent were
indifferent.
Reward system. Nearly 31 percent of the respondents agreed that their organizations
reward employees who share their experience with colleagues. On the other hand, close to
42 percent disagreed and about 27 percent were neutral.
Those that agreed to the previous question were further asked to specify whether the
knowledge sharing rewards were effective in reinforcing such behaviors. Almost 90 percent
agreed and about 10 percent abstained.
Organization structure. Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, around 53 percent
agreed that employees actively participate in the process of decision-making.
Approximately 22 percent disagreed and 25 percent were neutral.
Further, nearly 53 percent agreed that information flows easily throughout organizational
levels, 26 percent disagreed and 21 percent abstained.
Finally, 85 percent of the respondents agreed that certain tasks are accomplished through
cross-functional teams. Only 7 percent disagreed and about 8 percent were neutral.
Testing the hypotheses: one way ANOVA

According to their knowledge sharing assessment, respondents were divided into three
categories: excellent, good and poor. For each of the cultural factors, the mean scores for
the three knowledge sharing categories were compared to observe whether the pattern of
growth or decline in the means’ values, moving from the poor to the excellent knowledge
sharing category, corresponds to a positive or negative relationship between each of the
factors and knowledge sharing.
As Table VI depicts, the mean of trust for those who assessed knowledge sharing in their
organizations as poor is the lowest (2.97). This value increases to 3.24 for those who
Table VI ANOVA descriptives

95%
confidence
interval for
mean
Std. Std. Upper Lower
Organizational culture factor Level of knowledge sharing n Mean deviation error bound bound Minimum Maximum
Trust Excellent 44 3.43 0.429 0.065 3.56 3.30 2 4

Good 140 3.24 0.482 0.041 3.32 3.16 2 4
Poor 32 2.97 0.589 0.104 3.18 2.76 2 4
Total 216 3.24 0.505 0.034 3.30 3.17 2 4
Communication Excellent 45 4.19 0.553 0.082 4.36 4.03 3 5
Good 149 4.03 0.584 0.048 4.13 3.94 2 5
Poor 32 3.55 0.910 0.161 3.88 3.22 2 5
Total 226 4.00 0.660 0.044 4.08 3.91 2 5
Information Excellent
systmes 44 4.12 0.730 0.110 4.34 3.90 2 5
Good 150 4.01 0.692 0.057 4.12 3.90 2 5
Poor 31 3.35 0.989 0.178 3.72 2.99 1 5
Total 225 3.94 0.781 0.052 4.04 3.84 1 5
Reward Excellent
system 43 2.66 1.426 0.217 3.10 2.22 1 5
Good 141 2.23 1.256 0.106 2.44 2.02 0 5
Poor 31 1.43 0.969 0.174 1.78 1.07 1 5
Total 215 2.20 1.300 0.089 2.37 2.02 0 5
Organization structure Excellent 43 3.91 0.488 0.074 4.07 3.76 2 5
Good 148 3.52 0.675 0.055 3.63 3.41 1 5
Poor 30 3.03 0.992 0.181 3.40 2.66 1 5
Total 221 3.53 0.736 0.050 3.63 3.43 1 5
j j
‘‘ Knowledge must not be confused with data: data are raw
facts, measurement and statistics. ’’
believed knowledge sharing was good while it reaches its highest value at 3.43 for those who
assessed knowledge sharing as excellent.
Apparently, the mean for trust increases among the categories of respondents as their
knowledge sharing assessment improves. In other words, knowledge sharing is positively
related to trust.
Therefore, the data confirm the first hypothesis:
H1. There is a positive relationship between trust among coworkers and knowledge
sharing in organizations.
With respect to communication, the mean for those who fell in the poor knowledge sharing
category is the lowest (3.55). As respondents’ knowledge sharing assessment improves, the
mean increases to reach its highest level at 4.19 for those who thought knowledge sharing
was excellent.
Hence, it is clear that as knowledge sharing improves communication between staff
increases, which implies that communication and knowledge sharing are positively related.
Therefore, according to the results, the second hypothesis is also confirmed:
H2. Tthere is a positive relationship between communication (interaction between staff)
and knowledge sharing in organizations.
This pattern can also be seen when exploring the mean for the rest of the factors.
With regards to information systems, the mean is 3.35 for the poor knowledge sharing
category, 4.01 for the good category and 4.12 for the excellent category.
Consequently, the results show that as knowledge sharing increases, the existence of
information systems also increases. In other words, information systems and knowledge
sharing are positively related. The third hypothesis is confirmed:
H3. There is a positive relationship between the existence of knowledge sharing
information systems/technology and knowledge sharing in organizations.
Similarly, the lowest mean for the reward system is correspondent to the poor knowledge
sharing category (1.43) while the highest mean corresponds to the excellent group (2.66).
This implies that respondents’ knowledge sharing increases with the existence of reward
systems aligned with knowledge sharing. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is confirmed:
H4. There is a positive relationship between the existence of a reward system aligned
with sharing and knowledge sharing in organizations.
Finally, in exploring the mean for organization structure, the poor knowledge sharing
category scored the lowest value at 3.03. It increases slightly to reach 3.52 for the good
category and it equals 3.91 for those who believed knowledge sharing in their organizations
was excellent. Thus, one can conclude that knowledge sharing prospers with the presence
of certain positive features in organization structure, which confirms the final hypothesis:
H5. There is a positive relationship between certain aspects of organization structure
(participative decision making, ease of information flow, teams and communities of
practice) and knowledge sharing in organizations.
The fifth column in Table VI reveals the standard deviation, which measures how well the
mean represents the data. According to the table, the total standard deviation is 0.505 for
j j
trust, 0.660 for communication, 0.781 for technology, 1.3 for the reward system and 0.736 for
organization structure.
The sixth column illustrates the standard error, which is a measure of how representative a
sample is likely to be of the population. According to the table, the total standard error scores
are relatively small ranging from 0.034 for trust and 0.089 for the reward system.
Table VII illustrates the results of the ANOVA test. The fifth column depicts the F ratio, which
measures the ratio between the variation explained by the model and the variation explained
by unsystematic factors. According to Table VII, the results are significantly above one
varying from 8.171 for trust to 14.244 for organization structure.
The final column labeled Sig. indicates the likelihood that the F ratio was obtained by
chance. The sig. values appear below 0.001 for all the factors.
Discussion
The results of the study are discussed in two sections. The first section discusses generally
the results of the frequency tests, while the second explains the results of the ANOVA test
and hypotheses testing.
Frequency analysis
To begin with, a quick glance at the results of the study reveals generally positive results.
With few exceptions, responses appeared to indicate the existence of the studied cultural
factors at an acceptable level. Perhaps this finding is consistent with respondents’ overall
knowledge sharing assessment, according to which 20 percent was excellent and 66
percent was at a good level (86 percent between excellent and good).
The overall trend in the results may be due to the nature of the research sample. That is, more
than 50 percent of the participant organizations were from the private sector. Private sector
organizations are known to be modernized and are characterized by flexible structures and
advanced organizational cultures when compared to governmental sector organizations.
Furthermore, participant governmental sector institutions were those generally known to
have adopted modern managerial styles and undergone cultural transformations to become
more flexible. Traditional governmental institutions known for excessive formality and
bureaucracy in procedures were not included mainly due to the language barrier (lack of
English skills between staff). Hence, these factors may have contributed in causing
sampling bias.
Table VII The ANOVA test

Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
Trust Between groups 3.908 2 1.954 8.171 0.000

Within groups 50.934 213 0.239
Total 54.842 215
Communication Between groups 8.231 2 4.116 10.237 0.000
Within groups 89.653 223 0.402
Total 97.884 225
Information system Between groups 12.817 2 6.409 11.505 0.000
Within groups 123.654 222 0.557
Total 136.471 224
Structure Between groups 13.786 2 6.893 14.244 0.000
Within groups 105.495 218 0.484
Total 119.281 220
Reward system Between groups 27.599 2 13.799 8.750 0.000
Within groups 334.338 212 1.577
Total 361.937 214
j j
Knowledge sharing. The majority of the respondents seemed to agree that in their respective
organizations, certain tasks are accomplished through teamwork (88 percent) and that
coworkers exchange knowledge commonly while working (81 percent). However, when
asked whether the problem of hoarding or keeping knowledge does not exist, only 50
percent agreed while the disagreement rate rose from 6 percent in the previous two
questions to about 32 percent. Prior to distributing the survey, the researchers predicted that
the three questions would yield comparable results as the three statements were believed to
be indicators to the same variable (knowledge sharing). The disparity between the
distributions of the responses to these three questions may be attributed to respondents’
inability to accurately assess their habits or acknowledge their own mistakes. Alternatively, it
may be due to respondents’ belief that in spite of the fact that they normally share
knowledge, lack of sharing still exists not in them personally, but rather in their coworkers or
the organizational culture or due to other causes.
Trust. When respondents were asked if they share their feelings and perceptions with their
colleagues, the majority (84 percent) agreed. On the other hand, only 29 percent believed
that coworkers should share personal information with their colleagues. As explained earlier
in the literature review, sharing feelings and perceptions and sharing personal information
are both indicators of interpersonal trust. That is, generally when an average person trusts
his/her colleagues and feels free to express feelings and perceptions, this person is also
likely to express information relating to his/her life outside work. However, the disparity
between the responses may signify that staff in organizations could be experiencing some
form of conflict between freely expressing perceptions and being somewhat conservative.
Another plausible explanation could be that respondents perceive a distinction between
sharing general feelings and perceptions on work-related matters and sharing personal
information. According to the latter explanation, respondents’ avoidance to share personal
information should not negatively impact the knowledge sharing environment. This is
because the type of knowledge desired to be shared between staff is work-related
knowledge rather than personal knowledge.
In addition, past experience with trust was believed to have a strong impact on one’s ability
to trust in the future. Bearing in mind that the majority of the respondents provided positive
answers to knowledge sharing questions, only 59 percent of them agreed they have not
been previously harmed as a result of sharing their knowledge. This might indicate that some
individuals continue to share their knowledge even after having their trust betrayed.
However, this attitude indeed varies from a person to another. For instance, one of the
interviewees commented as follows:
. . . I used to be very transparent about everything I know. I learned now that information must take
the official channel-flow for people to learn about it. This is because I lost my confidence in people
around me when I knew they tend to misuse the information before it reaches the intended
parties.
The above response clearly indicates that after being harmed as a result of sharing
knowledge, this respondent lost trust in his/her coworkers, which reflected negatively on
future knowledge sharing attitudes.
Further, the overall positive results of knowledge sharing were not disturbed by the fact that a
large portion of the respondents (71 percent) believed that others will not hesitate to take
advantage of their knowledge for personal gains.
The findings of the two questions above clearly indicate that some employees continue to
share knowledge in spite of their unpleasant experience with trust and their belief that they
might be taken advantage of.
Given the complexity of human beings’ nature, providing a valid explanation to certain
behaviors can sometimes be difficult. While it may be possible to predict people’s reaction to
certain situations, it is unrealistic to assume that all individuals will behave similarly in those
situations. According to one of the participants:
j j
Although organizational culture is very important to encourage smooth knowledge transfer, it
[knowledge sharing] ultimately depends on employees’ personalities and their ethics. That is, if
someone is objective and acknowledges that knowledge sharing is fundamental to the success
of the business, this person will continue to share his/her knowledge even with the absence of
proper rewards, technology or the other factors and vice versa.
It is also possible to argue that the interference of other factors such as the characteristics of
employees’ personalities such as confidence, openness and sociability may cause them to
share their knowledge more often as opposed to their conservative and quite colleagues in
spite of the absence of important organizational culture factors. However, more research is
required to clarify this phenomenon.
Communication. The majority of the respondents acknowledged high level of face-to-face
interaction with their colleagues. Perhaps the best way to enhance communication is
through emphasizing open-disk design in the workplace. According to one of the
interviewees:
It [open-disk policy] facilitates communication and eases it. Especially when you can turn your
head or stand up to see a colleague behind his disk to tell him about something instead of picking
up the phone trying to reach him or take the hassle to drop by at his office to tell him about
anything. It also eases up communication from a person to a mass, like from the head of a
department to the staff.
Another participant highlighted an additional advantage of open-disks design:
Open disks raise a sense of equality between staff. Separate offices sometimes encourage
sensitivity, especially as some of them [staff] start comparing their own offices to their peers’
offices in terms of the size and other features. This situation often increases competition between
colleagues and can ultimately impair knowledge sharing.
Nevertheless, emphasis on open disks should not be on the expense of employees’ need for
sufficient privacy and quietness in order to concentrate while working, especially when
handling sensitive tasks that require confidentiality.
Also, despite the important role of communication between colleagues, excessive
interaction may cause some staff to waist time socializing with others instead of
completing their tasks, which can sometimes harm professionalism and ethics. The
following response further emphasizes this point:
Forming strong bonds with your colleagues at work complicates situations sometimes and makes
it difficult to act professionally. For instance, one gets confused when he/she must make an
important decision that is likely to harm his/her colleague.
This is especially true in certain professions such as human resources and internal audit,
whereas such staff sometimes prefer to maintain a certain distance from other employees to
avoid embarrassing situations.
Information systems. The fact that 78 percent of the participants agreed that their respective
organizations provide various knowledge sharing tools implies reasonable awareness by
management of the importance of spreading knowledge.
However, one of the respondents introduced an interesting point:
. . . my communication of information via e-mail or circulars is usually not taken very appreciatively
by my coworkers because they think it is my personal initiative due to lack of management
support and praise to that initiative.
‘‘ The most important characteristics of knowledge are

uniqueness and originality. ’’
j j
According to this response, introducing knowledge sharing information systems merely is
not enough to insure effective knowledge transfer. It is indeed vital that such initiative be
properly supported and continuously reinforced by top management in order to convey the
importance of such tools to the success of knowledge transfer.
Reward system. Unfortunately, when employees were asked whether knowledge sharing
was rewarded, only 31 percent agreed. The disagreement was higher at about 42 percent
with a high abstention rate of 27 percent. Although abstention indicates neutrality, it logically
tends to be closer to disagreement than to agreement. Hence, the results of this question
appear to be rather negative.
Generally, employees in any organization tend to perceive rewards as measures for
behaviors preferred and appreciated by top management. As expounded earlier,
knowledge sharing can be an internal characteristic related to one’s personality. However,
it is not sufficient to rely on the good intentions of staff to spread their knowledge without
reinforcing such behaviors because unrewarded behaviors usually end up fading away due
to lack of praise and appreciation.
The following statement by a participant further demonstrates the importance of rewards:
. . . if that [knowledge sharing] was connected to any sort of reward, I will make sure I do it
[knowledge sharing] with the highest level of professionalism and I will insure that this
communication concludes successfully.
Furthermore, in order for rewards to be successful in motivating staff to share their

knowledge, these rewards must be properly designed to fit employees’ needs and
perceptions. This is because, as highlighted earlier, ineffective or insufficient rewards can
fail to reinforce knowledge sharing behaviors.
When asked whether financial or non-financial rewards are likely to encourage knowledge
sharing, one of the interviewees answered as follows:
Non-financial, recognition would be the strongest motivational force for me to share my
knowledge with my colleagues.
Conversely, another participant explained:

Financial rewards are more effective as they impact one’s life outside work. Although it feels nice
to be recognized and appreciated by others, our pay check is what we ultimately seek. Also,
financial rewards are more visible and imply a stronger sense of appreciation to staff.
Obviously, employees’ perceptions to rewards vary according to their backgrounds,

previous experiences and objectives. Consequently, the best solution would be customizing
the reward system to fit employees’ needs and suit their objectives.
Testing the research hypotheses

As highlighted in the findings section, the mean scores for trust, communication, information
systems, rewards and organization structure exhibited an increase as respondents’
assessment for knowledge sharing improved. Therefore, one can imply that all of these
factors are directly proportional to knowledge sharing in the sense that when each
increases, knowledge sharing also increases.
Large values of standard deviation compared to the mean imply inaccurate representation
of the data because the data points are distant from the mean and vice versa (Field, 2000).
The descriptives table of the ANOVA test revealed small standard deviation values ranging
from 0.505 for trust and 0.781 for information systems. An exception would be the reward
system, for which the standard deviation reached 1.3. Therefore, it is possible to rely
generally on the mean as an accurate representation of the data.
Small standard error values compared to the sample mean indicate that most sample means
are similar to the population mean and hence, the sample is likely to be an accurate
reflection of the population and the opposite is true (Field, 2000). The results revealed small
j j
standard error values (ranging from 0.034 for trust and 0.089 for reward system). Thus, the
sample can be considered representative of the whole population.
Furthermore, the F ratio is calculated by dividing the variance of the data explained through
the model (the hypotheses) by the variance of the data unexplained through the model
(Field, 2000). Thus, if the F ratio is more than one, this is an indication that the variance
explained by the model is greater than that of the unexplained variance. The F ratio results
were high ranging from 8.171 to 14.244 for trust and organization structure respectively. This
indicates that the variance explained by the model is significantly higher than the
unexplained variance, which further enhances the reliability of the results.
In addition, since the sig. results are all 0.000, the probability of obtaining the F ratio by
chance is minimized.
As explained earlier, the results overwhelmingly confirmed all the hypotheses with the ability
to draw valid conclusions on the whole population. The outstanding results may be justified
by the following reasons:
B The cultural factors (independent variables) were carefully chosen after reading the
literature and according to the results of previous studies.
B The probability of sampling bias in spite of the standard error results, as previously
mentioned.
B Neglecting the impact of subcultures, which means that, by coincidence, the
questionnaires might have been distributed to staff from departments characterized by
high morale and motivation, unlike other departments in the same organizations.
B The interference of such factors as the reactivity or the Howthorne effect; when
respondents change their opinions and actions while participating in an experiment due
to excitement or as a result of receiving attention (Leedy and Ormrod, 2001).
Respondents might have had a tendency to provide positive answers due to their
enthusiasm for the research and possibly because they internally believed that such
factors must be present in order to improve knowledge sharing.
Recommendations
The results of this study have many implications for staff and managers in organizations. The
relationship that proved to exist between knowledge sharing and trust, communication,
information systems, reward system and organization structure indicates the importance of
such factors as prerequisites for the success of knowledge sharing. Such factors must be
strongly emphasized in organizational cultures. The survey respondents suggested several
ways to achieve this.
B Reinforcing trust between coworkers through arranging social events and outdoor
discussions occasionally. Such events could play an important role in helping staff
overcome work stress through building informal friendships.
B Improving office design in some organizations to allow for higher interaction and
communication between staff. According to an interviewee: ‘‘Open disk policy is effective
in simplifying communication between staff, especially because generally people in
Bahrain don’t prefer to move a lot [between separate offices] while working.’’
B Practicing job rotation to facilitate knowledge transfer and movement throughout the
organization and increase motivation.
B Accomplishing a strong relationship between top management and employees along
with expressing the importance of knowledge sharing for the success of the organization
as a whole.
B Providing sufficient information systems to share knowledge in order to facilitate
knowledge diffusion among departments.
B Providing effective rewards to reinforce knowledge sharing behaviors bearing in mind the
variations in employees’ needs and objectives.
j j
‘‘ Each organization has its unique culture, which develops over
time to reflect the organization’s identity in two dimensions:
visible and invisible. ’’
B Increasing the level of participation in decision making and reducing the boundaries
between organizational levels to enable easier information flow vertically. According to an
interviewee: ‘‘Hierarchal structures hinder timely communication and decelerate
knowledge sharing. Flat structure is the best facility for knowledge sharing’’
Managers must not limit their attention to the above factors only. It is highly recommended
that managers bear in mind the existence of factors outside the scope of this study such as
ethics and loyalty, which may impact knowledge sharing.
Also, it is important to recognize the uniqueness of every organization’s culture in removing
obstacles to knowledge sharing. Hence, the best option for a given organization would be to
investigate potential problems that may exist in its own culture and accordingly suggest the
proper solution.
Limitations and further research

Future researchers must benefit from the limitations of this research. The following is
recommended:
B Testing the role of other organizational culture factors (dimensions).
B Incorporating qualitative research methods to a deeper extent; methods such as
qualitative observations and longitudinal studies are highly recommended.
B Addressing a more representative sample; further research must address more
governmental sector institutions where organizational politics dominates a role in
hoarding knowledge. As explained in the methods and discussion sections, the language
barrier in such organizations could be overcome through presenting a translated version
of the survey. Unfortunately, this solution was not feasible in this research due to the time
constraint. Alternatively, future researchers could dedicate a separate study to highly
politicized institutions to allow deeper investigation of knowledge transfer barriers and to
arrive at effective recommendations to solve this problem.
B Examining in depth more aspects of organization structure and rewards to arrive at a richer
understanding of the role of organizational culture in the success of knowledge sharing.
Generalization
Even though this paper’s focus was on Bahraini organizations, the results could be easily
generalized to other Gulf States (Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and
Oman). In spite of physical borders, such countries share with Bahrain the same culture,
religion and traditions. The results may also be generalized to other countries in the Arab
world, which are also known to share similar beliefs and traditions.
Indeed, many studies previously conducted examined the impact of national culture in the
Arab world in general on certain organizational issues such as effective organizational
change, management and leadership (Wilikins, 2001; Yusuf, 1998; Ali, 1996). Such studies
focused on countries in the Arab world in general based on the fact that such countries share
the same culture, beliefs and traditions.
Overall, since the results of the study confirmed many of the assumptions and findings of
previous research conducted abroad, this study can be replicated on countries outside the
Arab world to yield comparable results. This is especially true since nowadays, globalization
plays a vital role in enforcing global professional standards that help gradually eliminate
disparities between organizational cultures in different countries.
j j
Conclusion
This research focused on the role of certain factors in organizational culture in the success of
knowledge sharing between staff.
The study was conducted in three different phases: the first phase was concerned with
identifying the major aspects of knowledge sharing in organizations and the fundamental
organizational culture factors that impacted knowledge sharing.
During the second phase, the researchers used the knowledge extracted from the literature
to formulate the research instruments: surveys and semi-structured interviews. The
instruments were exploited to gather necessary data, which was analyzed to reach the
research findings.
In the third phase, the findings were discussed to arrive at relevant implications concerning
knowledge sharing in organizations. A final confirmatory test was conducted by presenting
the data to an expert in the field of statistics and quantity management.
In order to enhance the validity and reliability of the research, two different research methods
were used to collect data. Quantitative survey was used to gather basic data while
qualitative approach was also used in the form of semi-structured interpretive interviews and
a confirmatory interview to collect supporting data.
Trust, communication, reward system and organization structure all received strong
literature support. However, information systems/technology received mixed support.
Therefore obviously further research is required in order to validate the findings of this
study.
References
Al-Alawi, A.I. (2005), ‘‘The practice and challenges of knowledge management in financial sectors in
Bahrain’’, Asian Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 101-7.
Ali, A. (1996), ‘‘Organizational development in the Arab world’’, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 4-21.
Aranda, D. and Fernandez, L. (2002), ‘‘Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory

lens’’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 102 No. 5, pp. 289-96.
Beijerse, R. (1999), ‘‘Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a

phenomenon’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-110.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), ‘‘Knowledge sharing dilemmas’’, Organization Studies, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 687-710.
Connelly, C. and Kelloway, E. (2003), ‘‘Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing

cultures’’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How organizations Manage What They Know,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Field, A. (2000), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows, SAGE Publications, London.
Ford, D. (2001), ‘‘Trust and knowledge management: the seeds of success’’, Queen’s KBE Center for
Knowledge-Based Enterprises, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada, available at: http://business.
queensu.ca/knowledge/workingpapers/working/working_01-08.pdf (accessed 26 August 2004).
Gammelgaard, J. and Ritter, T. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge retrieval process in multinational consulting firms’’,
Danish Social Sciences Research Council, Frederiksberg, Denmark, available at: http://web.cbs.dk/
departments/int/seminarpapers/JG-Knowledge.pdf (accessed 4 September 2004).
Goh, S. (2002), ‘‘Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice
implications’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Griffen, R. (2002), Management, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Griffen, R. and Moorhead, G. (2001), Organizational Behavior, Houghton Middlin Company, New York, NY.
j j
Gruenfeld, D.H., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y. and Neale, M.A. (1996), ‘‘Group composition and decision
making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance’’,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management social dimension: lessons from
Nucor Steel’’, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Iske, P. and Boersma, W. (2005), ‘‘Connected brains-question and answer systems for knowledge
sharing: concepts, implementation and return on investment’’, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 126-45.
Lee, C. and Yang, J. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge value chain’’, The Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 783-94.
Leedy, P. and Ormrod, J. (2001), Practical Research: Planning and Design, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Levin, D., Lesser, E., Cross, R. and Abrams, L. (2002), ‘‘Trust and knowledge sharing: a critical
combination’’, IBM Institute for knowledge-based organizations white paper.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), ‘‘Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company: How the Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Park, H., Ribiere, V. and Schulte, W. (2004), ‘‘Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote
knowledge management implementation success’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 106-17.
Politis, J. (2003), ‘‘The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its implications
for team performance’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 55-66.
Reyes, L., Cresswell, A. and Richardson, G. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge and the development of interpersonal
trust: a dynamic model’’, Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Universidad de las Americas, Center for Technology in Government, Rockefeller College of Public
Affairs and Policy.
Roberts, T., Sweeney, P., McFarlin, D. and Cheney, P. (2004), ‘‘Assessing trust among IS personnel: a
view of general trust, trust of management and inter-organizational trust’’, Proceedings of the 37th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, University of Kansas, University of Dayton,
University of Dayton, University of Florida.
Smith, A. and Rupp, W. (2002), ‘‘Communication and loyalty among knowledge workers: a resource of
the firm theory view’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 250-61.
Smith, H. and McKeen, J. (2003), ‘‘Instilling a knowledge sharing culture’’, Queen’s KBE Centre for
Knowledge-based Enterprise, available at: http://business.queensu.ca/kbe/docs/Smith-McKeen
%2003-11.pdf (accessed 26 August 2004).
Syed-Ikhsan, S. and Rowland, F. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management in public organizations: a study on

the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer’’, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Whitten, J., Bentley, L. and Dittman, K. (2001), System Analysis and Design Methods, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Wilikins, S. (2001), ‘‘Management development in the Arab Gulf States: the influence of language and
culture’’, Industrial & Commercial Training, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 260-6.
Yusuf, D.A. (1998), ‘‘Correlates of perceived leadership style in a culturally mixed environment’’,
Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 275-84.
Further reading
Arizmendi, R., Naranjo, G. and Soriano, G. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge management systems at consulting
firms’’, Georgia Tech, Georgia, available at: www.isye.gatech.edu/faculty/T-Govlndavsj/wires/6219/
assign/fall2003 (accessed 21 September 2004).
j j
Bahar, A., Peterson, S.E. and Taylor, W.G.K. (1996), ‘‘Managing training and development in Bahrain:
the influence of culture’’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 26-32.
Bixier, C. (2002), ‘‘Practical critical success factors for KM implementation’’, KMworld Magazine,
available at: www.kmworld.com/publications/magazine/index.cfm?action ¼ readarticle& Article_ID ¼
1366&Publication_ID ¼ 78 (accessed 2 August 2004).
Civi, E. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management as a competitive asset: a review’’, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 166-74.
Clarke, T. and Rollo, C. (2001), ‘‘Corporate initiatives in knowledge management’’, Education þ Training,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 206-14.
Dunford, R. (2000), ‘‘Key challenges in the search for effective management of knowledge in
management consulting firms’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 295-302.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. and Aronson, J. (2000), ‘‘Knowledge management: practices and challenges’’,
Industrial & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 17-21.
Hsieh, C. and Chen, K. (2003), ‘‘Critical success factors for implementing corporate knowledge
management system’’, available at: www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/swdsi/2003/Papers/050.pdf
(accessed 2 August 2004).
Jasinski, D. (2003), ‘‘Building knowledge creating environment in a global, high-tech milieu’’,
proceedings of the Motorola S3 2003 Symposium, Itasca, IL.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F. (1995), ‘‘An integrative model of organizational trust’’,
The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-34.
Mishra, J. and Morrissey, M. (1990), ‘‘Trust in employee/employer relationships: a survey of west
Michigan firms’’, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 443-63.
Sounders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2000), Research Methods for Business Students,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Hislop, D. (1999), ‘‘Knowledge management and innovation:
networks and networking’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 262-75.
Turban, E. and Aronson, T. (2001), Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
About the authors

Adel Ismael Al-Alawi is an Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems at the
University of Bahrain. He received the degree of PhD in Management Information Systems in
1991 from University of Leeds, UK. Dr Al-Alawi founded the Management Information
Systems Department in University of Bahrain, where he played a leading role in the
establishment of the information systems curriculum for this department in both College of
Information Technology in which the department is currently a part and College of Business,
where the department was formerly located. Dr Al-Alawi also played a key role in the
migration of this department from the College of Business to the College of Information
Technology. He served six years as chairman of this department in both colleges and a
chairman of Office Management Department in the College of Business. He is also one of the
founders and board members for Bahrain Information Technology Society (BITS); Bahrain
Academic Society and Information Systems Audit & Control Society and is considered as an
MIS Authority in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Dr Al-Alawi has to his credit more than 20 years of
experience involving research and teaching MIS to undergraduate and postgraduate level.
Dr Al-Alawi intensively participated in the board form by a degree from HH the Prime Minster
for the development of Bahrain Internet Exchange (BIX) and substantially contributed in the
Committee founded by HH the Prime Minster for the Preparation of the Government Program
for Parliament. Dr Al-Alawi’s research has been published in Review of Business Information
Systems, The International Review of Economics and Business, Journal of Computer
Science, Information Technology Journal, Asian Journal of Information Systems, Issues in
Information Systems, and others. He has also presented papers in a number of regional,
national, and international conferences. Adel Al-Alawi is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: alalawi@itc.uob.bh
Nayla Yousif Al-Marzooqi was awarded the degree of BSc. in Business Information Systems
from University of Bahrain. Graduated in January 2004 with an outstanding GPA, she
currently works in United Gulf Bank, Credit and Risk Management as a Financial Analyst.
j j
Prior to completing her academic studies, Nayla was a sole representative of her school in
significant events organized by different authorities. She was awarded as one of the best ten
readers among public school students in 1998. Her outstanding communication and speech
skills qualified her to participate in the National Millennium Speech Contest, in which
participation was restricted to outstanding speech deliverers or previous winners. She also
won the award of effective participation and presentation in solving the problem of the
millennium bug (Y2K) in 1999. Nayla also played a key role in founding the IT Society in
University of Bahrain and effectively participated in boosting the performance of the newly
established Society. Due to her outstanding academic performance, Nayla was chosen to
deliver the speech of excellent students to HH the Prime Minister and was awarded his
certificate of excellence in 2000.
Yasmeen Fraidoon Mohammed holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Information
Systems from the University of Bahrain. She is currently working as a researcher in the field of
Information Systems. Prior to graduation, Yasmeen contributed in the founding of the IT
Society in the University of Bahrain, in which she was a board member for two years. She is
also a founding member of The Bahrain Youth Society, where she participated actively in
number of social and volunteer events and conferences, among which are The Regional
Arab Youth Workshop in preparation for World Conference against Racism and University of
Bahrain’s Information Technology Exhibition 2004.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
j j
This article has been cited by:
1. RenXu, Xu Ren, DengXiaofang, Xiaofang Deng, LiangLihua, Lihua Liang. Knowledge transfer between projects within
project-based organizations: the project nature perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead of print. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
2. Al-KurdiOsama, Osama Al-Kurdi, El-HaddadehRamzi, Ramzi El-Haddadeh, EldabiTillal, Tillal Eldabi. 2018. Knowledge
sharing in higher education institutions: a systematic review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 31:2, 226-246.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Guodong Ni, Qingbin Cui, Linhua Sang, Wenshun Wang, Dongchun Xia. 2018. Knowledge-Sharing Culture, Project-Team
Interaction, and Knowledge-Sharing Performance among Project Members. Journal of Management in Engineering 34:2,
04017065. [Crossref]
4. AlShamsiOmran, Omran AlShamsi, AjmalMian, Mian Ajmal. Critical factors for knowledge sharing in technology-intensive
organizations: evidence from UAE service sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
5. DangChau Ngoc, Chau Ngoc Dang, Le-HoaiLong, Long Le-Hoai, KimSoo-Yong, Soo-Yong Kim. Impact of knowledge
enabling factors on organizational effectiveness in construction companies. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead of print.

6. AkhavanPeyman, Peyman Akhavan, ShahabipourAli, Ali Shahabipour, HosnaviReza, Reza Hosnavi. A model for assessment
of uncertainty in tacit knowledge acquisition. Journal of Knowledge Management, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Jagadeesh Gopal, Arun Kumar Sangaiah, Anirban Basu, Xiao Zhi Gao. 2018. Integration of fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM
approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. International Journal of
Machine Learning and Cybernetics 9:2, 225-241. [Crossref]
8. Alistair J. Hobday, Veronica A. J. Doerr, Nadine A. Marshall, Christopher Cvitanovic, Lilly Lim-Camacho. 2018. Adapting
to climate change: the role of organisational personalities in natural resource management. Regional Environmental Change
18:2, 561-571. [Crossref]
9. Omar Rabeea Mahdi, Islam A. Nassar, Mahmoud Khalid Almsafir. 2018. Knowledge management processes and sustainable
competitive advantage: An empirical examination in private universities. Journal of Business Research . [Crossref]
10. Abdul Kadir Othman, Muhammad Iskandar Hamzah, Arina Mohd Nor. The Influence of Team Characteristics on Team
Performance Among Employees at Selected Telecommunication Companies 271-288. [Crossref]
11. Fabrizio Maimone. Toward an Integrated and Inclusive Approach to Inter-cultural Knowledge Sharing 103-156. [Crossref]
12. Ghasem Rezaei, Abbas Mardani, Aslan Amat Senin, Kuan Yew Wong, Laleh Sadeghi, Manoochehr Najmi, Awaluddin
Mohamed Shaharoun. 2018. Relationship between culture of excellence and organisational performance in Iranian
manufacturing companies. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 29:1-2, 94. [Crossref]
13. Mohammad Habibur Rahman, Immanuel Azaad Moonesar, Md Munir Hossain, Md Zahidul Islam. 2018. Influence of
organizational culture on knowledge transfer: Evidence from the Government of Dubai. Journal of Public Affairs 18:1, e1696.
[Crossref]
14. Srinivasan Vaidyanathan, Sudarsanam S. Kidambi. 2018. An Empirical Evaluation of Adoption and Diffusion of New ICTs
for Knowledge Sharing in IT Organizations. International Journal of Web Portals 10:1, 1-14. [Crossref]
15. Sang Kim Tran. 2017. GOOGLE: a reflection of culture, leader, and management. International Journal of Corporate Social
Responsibility 2:1. . [Crossref]
16. Ming-Huei Chen, Somya Agrawal. 2017. Do communication barriers in student teams impede creative behavior in the long
run?—A time-lagged perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity 26, 154-167. [Crossref]
17. Ali Rezaeian, Rouhollah Bagheri. 2017. Modelling the factors affecting the implementation of knowledge networks. Business
Information Review 34:4, 178-186. [Crossref]
18. Osvaldo Cairó Battistutti, Dominik Bork. 2017. Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion. Cognitive Processing 18:4, 461-477.
[Crossref]
19. BibiSadia, Sadia Bibi, AliAmjad, Amjad Ali. 2017. Knowledge sharing behavior of academics in higher education. Journal of
Applied Research in Higher Education 9:4, 550-564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. TrussonClive, Clive Trusson, HislopDonald, Donald Hislop, DohertyNeil F., Neil F. Doherty. 2017. The rhetoric of
“knowledge hoarding”: a research-based critique. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:6, 1540-1558. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
21. Jeanette Black, Kelly La Venture. 2017. The Human Factor to Profitability: Leveraging People-Centered Cultures as
Meaningful Organizations. Public Integrity 35, 1-15. [Crossref]
22. FullwoodRoger, Roger Fullwood, RowleyJennifer, Jennifer Rowley. 2017. An investigation of factors affecting knowledge
sharing amongst UK academics. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:5, 1254-1271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. . Chapter 3: Critical Success Factors for E‒Business in Developing Countries 65-94. [Crossref]
24. Yan Feng, Xi Lu, H. Al-Hazmi, Jacek Mąkinia. 2017. An overview of the strategies for the deammonification process start-
up and recovery after accidental operational failures. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 16:3, 541-568.
[Crossref]
25. Ricardo Rodrigues Barbosa, Christine Conceição Gonçalves. 2017. Comportamentos e valores informacionais em uma empresa
do setor de transporte aéreo brasileiro. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação 22:3, 56-74. [Crossref]
26. Wen-Jung Chang, Shu-Hsien Liao, Tai-Te Wu. 2017. Relationships among organizational culture, knowledge sharing, and
innovation capability: a case of the automobile industry in Taiwan. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 15:3, 471-490.
[Crossref]
27. PodrugNajla, Najla Podrug, FilipovićDavor, Davor Filipović, KovačMatea, Matea Kovač. 2017. Knowledge sharing and firm
innovation capability in Croatian ICT companies. International Journal of Manpower 38:4, 632-644. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
28. YasirMuhammad, Muhammad Yasir, MajidAbdul, Abdul Majid, YasirMuhammad, Muhammad Yasir. 2017. Nexus of
knowledge-management enablers, trust and knowledge-sharing in research universities. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education 9:3, 424-438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. WibowoSantoso, Santoso Wibowo, GrandhiSrimannarayana, Srimannarayana Grandhi. 2017. Benchmarking knowledge
management practices in small and medium enterprises. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:5, 1215-1233. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
30. Rabiah Eladwiah Abdul Rahim, Nor'ashikin Ali, Juraifa Jais. Cultural determinants of research community participation
1-4. [Crossref]
31. Namdar Rabiee. 2017. Study on Barriers to Knowledge Management Implementation in Iranian Companies; Case Study:
PDSCO (Projects Development and Solution Company). Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 16:02, 1750013.
[Crossref]
32. AnsariAmirul Hasan, Amirul Hasan Ansari, MalikShehla, Shehla Malik. 2017. Ability-based emotional intelligence and
knowledge sharing. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 47:2, 211-227. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
33. Mona A. Mohamed, Joyram Chakraborty, Josh Dehlinger. 2017. Trading off usability and security in user interface design
through mental models. Behaviour & Information Technology 36:5, 493-516. [Crossref]
34. Jacob Kruger, Stephan Dassow, Karl-Albert Bebber, Thomas Leich. Daedalus or Icarus? Experiences on Follow-the-Sun
31-35. [Crossref]
35. Asma I. Magaireah, Hidayah Sulaiman, Nor'ashikin Ali. Theoretical framework of critical success factors (CSFs) for Business
Intelligence (BI) System 455-463. [Crossref]
36. IntezariAli, Ali Intezari, TaskinNazim, Nazim Taskin, PauleenDavid J., David J. Pauleen. 2017. Looking beyond knowledge
sharing: an integrative approach to knowledge management culture. Journal of Knowledge Management 21:2, 492-515.
37. LasradoFlevy, Flevy Lasrado, GomiseckBostjan, Bostjan Gomiseck, UzbeckChristopher, Christopher Uzbeck. 2017.
Effectiveness of employee suggestion schemes – from critical success factors to outcomes. International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences 9:1, 120-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. PresbiteroAlfred, Alfred Presbitero, RoxasBanjo, Banjo Roxas, ChadeeDoren, Doren Chadee. 2017. Sustaining innovation
of information technology service providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47:2/3,
156-174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Ghasem Rezaei, Hamed Gholami, Awaluddin Bin Mohamed Shaharou, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman, Laleh Sadeghi,
Norhayati Zakuan. 2017. Shared knowledge mediated correlation between cultural excellence and organisational performance.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28:3-4, 427-458. [Crossref]
40. Ryan Sinclair Cotter. 2017. Police intelligence: connecting-the-dots in a network society. Policing and Society 27:2, 173-187.
[Crossref]
41. Al-BusaidiKamla Ali, Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi, OlfmanLorne, Lorne Olfman. 2017. Knowledge sharing through inter-
organizational knowledge sharing systems. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 47:1, 110-136.
42. Michał Chmielecki. Knowledge Sharing in MNCs 283-295. [Crossref]
43. Denise A. D. Bedford, Jennifer Weil Arns, Karen Miller. 349. [Crossref]
44. Saleh Almuayqil, Anthony S. Atkins, Bernadette Sharp. 2017. Application of the SECI Model Using Web Tools to Support
Diabetes Self-Management and Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Intelligent Information Management 09:05, 156.
[Crossref]
45. Dr. Gilbert E. Jones. 2017. Knowledge sharing and technological innovation: The effectiveness of trust, training, and good
communication. Cogent Business & Management 4:1. . [Crossref]
46. Vivian Doherty, Kathryn Cormican. 2017. Analysis of knowledge transfer practices: Insights from a medical device
manufacturing organization. Procedia Computer Science 121, 186-193. [Crossref]

47. Fahad Al. Othman, Osama Sohaib. 2016. Enhancing Innovative Capability and Sustainability of Saudi Firms. Sustainability
8:12, 1229. [Crossref]
48. MahonJohn F., John F. Mahon, JonesNory B., Nory B. Jones. 2016. The challenge of knowledge corruption in high velocity,
turbulent environments. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 46:4, 508-523. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
49. Mohammad Mozammel Haque, Abd. Rahman Ahlan, Mohamed Jalaldeen Mohamed Razi, Aang Subiyakto. Investigating
Factors Affecting Knowledge Management and Sharing on Innovation in Universities: Pilot Study 64-69. [Crossref]
50. Hao-Fan Chumg, Jonathan Seaton, Louise Cooke, Wen-Yu Ding. 2016. Factors affecting employees' knowledge-sharing
behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour. Computers in Human
Behavior 64, 432-448. [Crossref]
51. Abdulrahman A. Gharamah, Mohamad Fauzan Noordin. Impacts of Organizational Culture, Support and IT Infrastructure
on Knowledge Management Success: An Imperial Study in Islamic Country, Saudi Arabia 19-23. [Crossref]
52. Lokman Mohd Tahir, Muhamad Berhanddin Musah, Abdul Halim Abdullah, Aede Hatib Musta’amal, Mohd Hazim Asran
Abdullah. 2016. Technical college teachers sharing their knowledge: does leadership, institutional factors or barriers predict
their practices?. Educational Studies 42:5, 465-492. [Crossref]
53. HusseinAlShaima Taleb Taleb, AlShaima Taleb Taleb Hussein, SinghSanjay Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Singh, FaroukSherine,
Sherine Farouk, SohalAmrik S., Amrik S. Sohal. 2016. Knowledge sharing enablers, processes and firm innovation capability.
Journal of Workplace Learning 28:8, 484-495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. RazmeritaLiana, Liana Razmerita, KirchnerKathrin, Kathrin Kirchner, NielsenPia, Pia Nielsen. 2016. What factors influence
knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of Knowledge
Management 20:6, 1225-1246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. de AlmeidaFernando Carvalho, Fernando Carvalho de Almeida, LescaHumbert, Humbert Lesca, CantonAdolpho W.P.,
Adolpho W.P. Canton. 2016. Intrinsic motivation for knowledge sharing – competitive intelligence process in a telecom
company. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6, 1282-1301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
56. SerenkoAlexander, Alexander Serenko, BontisNick, Nick Bontis. 2016. Understanding counterproductive knowledge
behavior: antecedents and consequences of intra-organizational knowledge hiding. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:6,
1199-1224. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. R. Darby, C. Kirke. 2016. The Development of a KIM Behavioural Framework to Support Science and Technology Knowledge
Transfer in the UK Defence Sector. A Case Study Approach. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 15:03, 1650025.
[Crossref]
58. Taekyung Song, Jeong Rok Oh. 2016. A Study on Factors Related to Knowledge Management and Organizational
Performance: A Conceptual Model and Implications. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 16:7, 1-18. [Crossref]
59. TangarajaGangeswari, Gangeswari Tangaraja, Mohd RasdiRoziah, Roziah Mohd Rasdi, Abu SamahBahaman, Bahaman
Abu Samah, IsmailMaimunah, Maimunah Ismail. 2016. Knowledge sharing is knowledge transfer: a misconception in the
literature. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:4, 653-670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. . References 255-274. [Crossref]
61. Ra'ed Masa'deh, Bader Yousef Obeidat, Ali Tarhini. 2016. A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among
transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance. Journal of
Management Development 35:5, 681-705. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
62. LasradoFlevy, Flevy Lasrado, ArifMohammed, Mohammed Arif, RizviAftab, Aftab Rizvi, UrdzikChris, Chris Urdzik. 2016.
Critical success factors for employee suggestion schemes: a literature review. International Journal of Organizational Analysis
24:2, 315-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. HoltenAnn-Louise, Ann-Louise Holten, Robert HancockGregory, Gregory Robert Hancock, PerssonRoger, Roger Persson,
Marie HansenÅse, Åse Marie Hansen, HøghAnnie, Annie Høgh. 2016. Knowledge hoarding: antecedent or consequent of
negative acts? The mediating role of trust and justice. Journal of Knowledge Management 20:2, 215-229. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
64. Christine Nya-Ling Tan. 2016. Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: the role of
knowledge management. Higher Education 71:4, 525-556. [Crossref]
65. Alberto Felice De Toni, Giovanni De Zan, Cinzia Battistella. 2016. Organisational capabilities for internal complexity: an
exploration in the Coop stores. Business Process Management Journal 22:1, 196-230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Muhammad Sabbir Rahman, Aahad M Osmangani, Nuraihan Mat Daud, Fadi Abdel Muniem AbdelFattah. 2016. Knowledge
sharing behaviors among non academic staff of higher learning institutions. Library Review 65:1/2, 65-83. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
67. Luu Trong Tuan. 2016. The chain effect from human resource-based clinical governance through emotional intelligence and
CSR to knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 14:1, 126-143. [Crossref]
68. Patrycja Klimas. 2016. Organizational culture and coopetition: An exploratory study of the features, models and role in the
Polish Aviation Industry. Industrial Marketing Management 53, 91-102. [Crossref]
69. Henry Boateng, Franklin Gyamfi Agyemang. 2016. A qualitative insight into key determinants of knowledge sharing in a
public sector institution in Ghana. Information Development 32:1, 35-43. [Crossref]
70. Aleksander Jenko, Matjaž Roblek. 2016. A Primary Human Critical Success Factors Model for the ERP System
Implementation. Organizacija 49:3. . [Crossref]
71. Tereza Raquel Merlo. 2016. Factors Influencing Knowledge Management Use in Technology Enterprises in Southern United
States. Procedia Computer Science 99, 15-35. [Crossref]
72. P.D. Persadha, A.A. Waskita, M.I. Fadhila, A. Kamal, S. Yazid. How inter-organizational knowledge sharing drives national
cyber security awareness?: A case study in Indonesia 550-555. [Crossref]
73. Stacey Peterson, Lisa Steelman. 2015. Repatriate Knowledge Sharing Environment: Scale Development and Validation. Journal
of Information & Knowledge Management 14:04, 1550031. [Crossref]
74. Flevy Lasrado. 2015. Assessing sustainability of employee suggestion schemes: a framework. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences 7:4, 350-372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Mei-Ling Wang. 2015. Learning climate and customer-oriented behaviors: the mediation of customer knowledge. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 30:8, 955-969. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Osama Kurdi, Ahmad Ghoneim, Amer Roubaie. Knowledge sharing culture in higher education: Critical literature review
75-87. [Crossref]
77. Yaser Hassan Al-Qadhi, Khalil Md Nor, Andrew C. Ologbo, Michael B. Knight. 2015. Knowledge sharing in a multi-
nationality workforce: Examining the factors that influence knowledge sharing among employees of diverse nationalities.
Human Systems Management 34:3, 149-165. [Crossref]
78. Razieh Dehghani, Raman Ramsin. 2015. Methodologies for developing knowledge management systems: an evaluation
framework. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:4, 682-710. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Mohammed Arif, Al-Zubi Mohammed, Aman Deep Gupta. 2015. Understanding knowledge sharing in the Jordanian
construction industry. Construction Innovation 15:3, 333-354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
80. Flevy Lasrado, M. Arif, Aftab Rizvi. 2015. Employee suggestion scheme sustainability excellence model and linking
organizational learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 23:3, 425-455. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
81. Athar Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi, Nina Evans. 2015. Deterrents to knowledge-sharing in the pharmaceutical industry: a case
study. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:2, 296-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Alexander Serenko, John Dumay. 2015. Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part I: articles and
their characteristics. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:2, 401-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Vincenzo Cavaliere, Sara Lombardi. 2015. Exploring different cultural configurations: how do they affect subsidiaries’
knowledge sharing behaviors?. Journal of Knowledge Management 19:2, 141-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Flevy Lasrado, Mohammed Arif, Aftab Rizvi. 2015. The determinants for sustainability of an employee suggestion system.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 32:2, 182-210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Julia Mueller. 2015. Formal and Informal Practices of Knowledge Sharing Between Project Teams and Enacted Cultural
Characteristics. Project Management Journal 46:1, 53-68. [Crossref]
86. Sawsan Taha H. Dulayami, Lyn Robinson. 2015. The individual and the collective. Journal of Documentation 71:1, 198-209.
87. Kamal Kishore Jain, Manjit Singh Sandhu, See Kwong Goh. 2015. Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing:
insights from Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies 9:1, 54-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Delio Ignacio Castañeda. 2015. Condiciones para el aprendizaje organizacional. Estudios Gerenciales 31:134, 62-67. [Crossref]
89. Ross Power, Kathryn Cormican. 2015. Towards Effective Knowledge Transfer in High-tech Project Environments:
Preliminary Development of Key Determinants. Procedia Computer Science 64, 17-23. [Crossref]
90. Yong Woon Kim, Jaekwon Ko. 2014. HR Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behavior. Public Personnel Management 43:4,
586-607. [Crossref]
91. Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi. 2014. Knowledge workers’ perceptions of potential benefits and challenges of inter-organizational
knowledge sharing systems: a Delphi study in the health sector. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12:4, 398-408.
[Crossref]
92. Luu Trong Tuan. 2014. Clinical governance initiative: a case of an obstetrics hospital. Health Systems 3:3, 173-184. [Crossref]
93. Svetlana Šajeva. 2014. Encouraging Knowledge Sharing among Employees: How Reward Matters. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 156, 130-134. [Crossref]
94. Hsiu-Fen Lin. 2014. Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 114:9, 1415-1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Arbaiah Abdul Razak, Peter A. Murray, David Roberts. 2014. Open Innovation in Universities: The Relationship Between
Innovation and Commercialisation. Knowledge and Process Management 21:4, 260-269. [Crossref]
96. T. M. A. Ari Samadhi, Heriyono Lalu. Agents-based model of knowledge sharing among personnel with varying learning
rate in products cross-selling: Case of Indonesia national bank 93-98. [Crossref]
97. Nurul Izyan Ghazali, Choi San Long, Norfazlina Ghazali. Knowledge sharing factors and innovation capability 315-320.
[Crossref]
98. Ingi Runar Edvardsson, Susanne Durst. 2014. Outsourcing of knowledge processes: a literature review. Journal of Knowledge
99. M.M. Haris Aslam, Ahmed F. Siddiqi, Khuram Shahzad, Sami Ullah Bajwa. 2014. Predicting Student Academic Performance.
International Journal of Knowledge Management 10:3, 18-35. [Crossref]
100. Huda Alami Skaik, Roslina Othman. 2014. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour among Academics in United Arab
Emirates. International Journal of Knowledge and Systems Science 5:3, 54-70. [Crossref]
101. Toan Nguyen, Stephen Burgess. 2014. A case analysis of ICT for knowledge transfer in small businesses in Vietnam.
International Journal of Information Management 34:3, 416-421. [Crossref]
102. Saeed Khodabakhshzadeh, Taghi Khodabakhshzadeh, Soodeh Khodabakhshzadeh, Iman Tahamtan. 2014. Knowledge
Management in the Petroleum Industry of Iran. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 13:02, 1450016. [Crossref]
103. Jill MacBryde, Steve Paton, Margaret Bayliss, Neil Grant. 2014. Transformation in the defence sector: The critical role of
performance measurement. Management Accounting Research 25:2, 157-172. [Crossref]
104. Dae Hong Min, Seung Ryul Jeong. 2014. Examining the Influence of Fit between Project Radicalness and Organizational
Innovativeness on the Supply Chain Integration. Journal of Internet Computing and Services 15:2, 95-107. [Crossref]
105. Tuan Luu. 2014. Knowledge sharing and competitive intelligence. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:3, 269-292. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
106. Silvia Martelo-Landroguez, Juan-Gabriel Cegarra-Navarro. 2014. Linking knowledge corridors to customer value through
knowledge processes. Journal of Knowledge Management 18:2, 342-365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Elaheh Hooshmand, Sogand Tourani, Hamid Ravaghi, Hossein Ibrahimipour. 2014. Challenges in Evaluating Clinical
Governance Systems in Iran: A Qualitative Study. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal 16:4. . [Crossref]
108. Nooshinfard Fatemeh, Nemati-Anaraki Leila. 2014. Success factors of inter-organizational knowledge sharing: a proposed
framework. The Electronic Library 32:2, 239-261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. T. Ramayah, Jasmine A. L. Yeap, Joshua Ignatius. 2014. Assessing Knowledge Sharing Among Academics. Evaluation Review
38:2, 160-187. [Crossref]
110. Ahmad Vazehi Ashtiani, Sharmila Jayasingam. 2014. A Conceptual Proposition. International Journal of Technology Diffusion
5:2, 15-27. [Crossref]
111. Julia Mueller. 2014. A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams.
European Management Journal 32:2, 190-202. [Crossref]
112. Serdar Durmusoglu, Mark Jacobs, Dilek Zamantili Nayir, Shaista Khilji, Xiaoyun Wang. 2014. The quasi-moderating
role of organizational culture in the relationship between rewards and knowledge shared and gained. Journal of Knowledge

113. Luu Trong Tuan. 2014. From corporate governance to balanced performance measurement. Knowledge Management Research
& Practice 12:1, 12-28. [Crossref]
114. Suwatana Charoensuk, Winai Wongsurawat, Do Ba Khang. 2014. Business-IT Alignment: A practical research approach.
The Journal of High Technology Management Research 25:2, 132-147. [Crossref]
115. Eli Hustad, Thomas Vikstøl. 2014. Implementing Intranet 2.0: A Study of Knowledge Requirements for External Consultants
in Enterprise Systems. Procedia Technology 16, 694-703. [Crossref]
116. Mohamed Buheji, Said Al-Hasan, Brychan Thomas, Denis Melle. 2014. The Influence of Knowledge Management on
Learning in Government Organisations. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 04:11, 657-670. [Crossref]
117. Hyun-Sook Lee. 2013. The Relationship between Workers' Knowledge Sharing Intention and Innovation Behavior in General
Hospitals. The Korean Journal of Health Service Management 7:4, 233-241. [Crossref]
118. Christine Nya-Ling Tan, Shuhaida Md. Noor. 2013. Knowledge management enablers, knowledge sharing and research
collaboration: a study of knowledge management at research universities in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation
21:2, 251-276. [Crossref]
119. Sharmila Jayasingam, Jing Ren Yong. 2013. Affective commitment among knowledge workers: the role of pay satisfaction and
organization career management. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24:20, 3903-3920. [Crossref]
120. Mohamed A.F. Ragab, Amr Arisha. 2013. Knowledge management and measurement: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge
121. Peyman Akhavan, Akbar Rahimi, Gholamhossein Mehralian. 2013. Developing a model for knowledge sharing in research
centers. VINE 43:3, 357-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Angela Titi Amayah. 2013. Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge
123. Uchenna Cyril Eze, Gerald Guan Gan Goh, Choon Yih Goh, Tiong Ling Tan. 2013. Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge
sharing. VINE 43:2, 210-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
124. Tsung‐Hsien Kuo. 2013. How expected benefit and trust influence knowledge sharing. Industrial Management & Data Systems
125. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. The role of CSR in clinical governance and its influence on knowledge sharing. Clinical Governance:
An International Journal 18:2, 90-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
126. S. C. Kumaresan, B. S. Swrooprani. 2013. Knowledge Sharing and Factors Influencing Sharing in Libraries — A Pilot Study
on the Knowledge Sharing Attributes of the Education City Library Community in Qatar. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management 12:01, 1350007. [Crossref]
127. Soon-Ki Jeong, Jong-Chang Ahn, Byung-Ho Rhee. 2013. Knowledge Transfer Activation Analysis: Knowledge Trade
Perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems 53:3, 47-55. [Crossref]
128. Luu Trong Tuan. 2013. Underneath organizational health and knowledge sharing. Journal of Organizational Change
129. Peter E. Swift, Alvin Hwang. 2013. The impact of affective and cognitive trust on knowledge sharing and organizational
learning. The Learning Organization 20:1, 20-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
130. Mohammad Essawi, Oleg Tilchin. 2013. A Model of Knowledge Management Culture Change. American Journal of Industrial
and Business Management 03:05, 467-471. [Crossref]
131. Roghayeh Ghorbani Bousari, Mohammad Hassanzadeh. 2012. Factors that affect scientists’ behavior to share scientific
knowledge. Collnet Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 6:2, 215-227. [Crossref]
132. Anitha Chennamaneni, James T.C. Teng, M.K. Raja. 2012. A unified model of knowledge sharing behaviours: theoretical
development and empirical test. Behaviour & Information Technology 31:11, 1097-1115. [Crossref]
133. Tim Jacks, Steve Wallace, Hamid Nemati. 2012. Impact of Culture on Knowledge Management: A Meta-Analysis and
Framework. Journal of Global Information Technology Management 15:4, 8-42. [Crossref]
134. C. Muhammad Siddique. 2012. Knowledge management initiatives in the United Arab Emirates: a baseline study. Journal of
Knowledge Management 16:5, 702-723. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
135. Sayed Ali Siadat, Reza Hoveida, Mohammad Abbaszadeh, Leila Moghtadaie. 2012. Knowledge creation in universities and
some related factors. Journal of Management Development 31:8, 845-872. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. Ibrahim Seba, Jennifer Rowley, Sian Lambert. 2012. Factors affecting attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing in
the Dubai Police Force. International Journal of Information Management 32:4, 372-380. [Crossref]
137. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Clinical governance: a lever for change in Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital in Vietnam. Clinical
Governance: An International Journal 17:3, 223-247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
138. Chun-Pin Tseng, Min-Li Chang, Cheng-Wu Chen. 2012. Retracted: Human factors of knowledge sharing intention among
taiwanese enterprises: a preliminary study. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 22:4, 328-339.
[Crossref]
139. Anne Christine Deverell, Simon Burnett. 2012. Need-to-know Cultures: an Investigation into Intra-organisational and Extra-
organisational Knowledge Sharing Cultures in Local Government in the UK. Knowledge and Process Management 19:3,
131-141. [Crossref]
140. Jill MacBryde, Steve Paton, Neil Grant, Margaret Bayliss. 2012. Performance measurement driving change: a case from the
defence sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 61:5, 462-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Peyman Akhavan, Somayeh Ghojavand, Roghayeh Abdali. 2012. Knowledge Sharing and its Impact on Knowledge Creation.
Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 11:02, 1250012. [Crossref]
142. Julia Mueller. 2012. Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management
143. Vathsala Wickramasinghe, Ruvini Widyaratne. 2012. Effects of interpersonal trust, team leader support, rewards, and
knowledge sharing mechanisms on knowledge sharing in project teams. VINE 42:2, 214-236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
144. Shu Hui Wee. Important enabler in the knowledge sharing process: Top management support 657-662. [Crossref]
145. Isabel Pinho, Arménio Rego, Miguel Pina e Cunha. 2012. Improving knowledge management processes: a hybrid positive
approach. Journal of Knowledge Management 16:2, 215-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. Luu Trong Tuan. 2012. Behind knowledge transfer. Management Decision 50:3, 459-478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
147. Keng-Boon Ooi, Weng-Choong Cheah, Binshan Lin, Pei-Lee Teh. 2012. TQM practices and knowledge sharing: An
empirical study of Malaysia’s manufacturing organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29:1, 59-78. [Crossref]
148. Julia Mueller. 2012. The interactive relationship of corporate culture and knowledge management: a review. Review of
Managerial Science 6:2, 183-201. [Crossref]
149. Susana Lima, Celeste Eusébio, Maria Rosário Partidário, Cecilia S. García Gómez. Knowledge and Development for Tourism
95-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
150. Lina Girdauskienė, Asta Savanevičienė. 2012. Leadership role implementing knowledge transfer in creative organization: how
does it work?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 41, 15-22. [Crossref]
151. Siti Hajjar Mohd Amin, Azlyn Ahmad Zawawi, Hazila Timan. To share or not to share knowledge: Observing the factors
860-864. [Crossref]
152. Mohamed Jalaldeen Mohamed Razi, Nor Shahriza Abdul Karim, Norshidah Mohamed. Knowledge management readiness
measurement: Case study at institution of higher learning in Malaysia 1-5. [Crossref]
153. Mohamad Fauzan Noordin, Roslina Othman, Noor Azura Zakaria. Peopleware & heartware - The philosophy of
knowledge management 1-6. [Crossref]
154. Anirban Ganguly, Ali Mostashari, Mo Mansouri. 2011. Measuring Knowledge Management/Knowledge Sharing (KM/KS)
Efficiency and Effectiveness in Enterprise Networks. International Journal of Knowledge Management 7:4, 37-54. [Crossref]
155. MATTHEW J. XERRI, YVONNE BRUNETTO. 2011. THE IMPACT OF THE PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF
WORKPLACE SOCIAL NETWORKS UPON THE INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF SME EMPLOYEES: A SOCIAL
CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE. International Journal of Innovation Management 15:05, 959-987. [Crossref]
156. Visvalingam Suppiah, Manjit Singh Sandhu. 2011. Organisational culture's influence on tacit knowledge‐sharing behaviour.
Journal of Knowledge Management 15:3, 462-477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
157. Sabbir Rahman, Bashir Hussain, Ahasanul Haque. 2011. Organizational politics on employee performance: an exploratory
study on readymade garments employees in Bangladesh. Business Strategy Series 12:3, 146-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. Josune Sáenz, Nekane Aramburu. 2011. Organizational Conditions as Catalysts for Successful People-Focused Knowledge
Sharing Initiatives. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations 1:2, 39-56. [Crossref]
159. Hway-Boon Ong, Peik-Foong Yeap, Siow-Hooi Tan, Lee-Lee Chong. 2011. Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing among
Undergraduate Students. Industry and Higher Education 25:2, 133-140. [Crossref]

160. M. Birasnav, S. Rangnekar, A. Dalpati. 2011. Transformational leadership and human capital benefits: the role of knowledge
management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32:2, 106-126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
161. Hsiu‐Fen Lin. 2011. Antecedents of the stage‐based knowledge management evolution. Journal of Knowledge Management
162. Abel Usoro, Imran U. Khan. 2011. Trust as an Aspect of Organisational Culture. International Journal of Human Capital
and Information Technology Professionals 2:1, 1-17. [Crossref]
163. Gowming Dong, Chau Gia Liem, Martin Grossman. 2010. Knowledge‐sharing intention in Vietnamese organizations. VINE
40:3/4, 262-276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
164. Raphaella Prugsamatz. 2010. Factors that influence organization learning sustainability in non‐profit organizations. The
Learning Organization 17:3, 243-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
165. Birasnav M, Rangnekar S. 2010. Knowledge management structure and human capital development in Indian manufacturing
industries. Business Process Management Journal 16:1, 57-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
166. Julia Mueller. The Influence of Cultural Values on Knowledge Sharing across Organizational Boundaries 1-10. [Crossref]
167. Carina Antonia Hallin, Torvald Øgaard, Einar Marnburg. 2009. Exploring Qualitative Differences in Knowledge Sources.
International Journal of Knowledge Management 5:4, 1-25. [Crossref]
168. Kerri Anne Crowne. 2009. Enhancing knowledge transfer during and after international assignments. Journal of Knowledge
169. Arménio Rego, Isabel Pinho, Júlio Pedrosa, Miguel Pina E. Cunha. 2009. Barriers and Facilitators to Knowledge Management
in University Research Centers: An Exploratory Study. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of
Management 7:1, 33-47. [Abstract] [PDF]
170. R. Kant, M. D. Singh. ICT enablement of knowledge sharing: Modeling the enablers 951-956. [Crossref]
171. Alexander Serenko, Nick Bontis, Timothy Hardie. 2007. Organizational size and knowledge flow: a proposed theoretical link.
Journal of Intellectual Capital 8:4, 610-627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
172. Mahmood Ghaznavi, Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson. Employing Individuals’ Social Capital to Create Value in the Public Sector
Organisations 272-293. [Crossref]
173. Mohammadbashir Sedighi, Sander van Splunter, Fardad Zand, Frances Brazier. Evaluating Critical Success Factors Model of
Knowledge Management 308-326. [Crossref]
174. Josune Sáenz, Nekane Aramburu. Organizational Conditions as Catalysts for Successful People-Focused Knowledge Sharing
Initiatives 263-280. [Crossref]
175. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Utilizing Communities of Practice to Facilitate Knowledge Sharing in the Digital Age 198-224. [Crossref]
176. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Roles of Organizational Justice, Social Justice, and Organizational Culture in Global Higher
Education 1427-1459. [Crossref]
177. Damini Saini. Ethics in Knowledge Dissemination 317-334. [Crossref]
178. Ömer Faruk Gürcan, Çiğdem Altın Gümüşsoy. Factors Influencing Effective Knowledge Transfer in Organizations 271-292.
[Crossref]
179. Anirban Ganguly, Ali Mostashari, Mo Mansouri. Measuring Knowledge Management/Knowledge Sharing (KM/KS)
Efficiency and Effectiveness in Enterprise Networks 318-336. [Crossref]
180. Carina Antonia Hallin, Torvald Øgaard, Einar Marnburg. Exploring Qualitative Differences in Knowledge Sources 286-310.
[Crossref]
181. Simon Cleveland, Timothy J. Ellis. Rethinking Knowledge Sharing Barriers 1857-1880. [Crossref]
182. Ahmad Vazehi Ashtiani, Sharmila Jayasingam. A Conceptual Proposition 1921-1934. [Crossref]
183. Mahmood Ghaznavi, Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson. Employing Individuals' Social Capital to Create Value in the Public Sector
Organisations 1340-1361. [Crossref]
184. Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson, David Tweed. HRM Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour 167-183. [Crossref]
185. Salman Iqbal, Hayati Abdul Jalal, Paul Toulson, David Tweed. Knowledge Management 64-81. [Crossref]
186. Hung-Chun Huang, Frederick Leslie Davy, Hsin-Yu Shih, Chwei-Jen Fan. Accelerating Knowledge Adoption 253-266.
[Crossref]
187. Huda Alami Skaik, Roslina Othman. Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour among Academics in United Arab
Emirates 1402-1418. [Crossref]
188. Moria Levy. Change Management Serving Knowledge Management and Organizational Development 256-270. [Crossref]
189. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Roles of Organizational Justice, Social Justice, and Organizational Culture in Global Higher
Education 82-114. [Crossref]
190. Korhan Arun. Knowledge Sharing in Business Organizations 886-906. [Crossref]
191. Abel Usoro, Imran U. Khan. Trust as an Aspect of Organisational Culture 182-199. [Crossref]
192. Korhan Arun. Knowledge Sharing in Business Organizations 44-65. [Crossref]
193. Salman Iqbal, Paul Toulson, David Tweed. HRM Practices and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour 1507-1523. [Crossref]
194. Temtim Assefa, Monica Garfield, Million Meshesha. Enabling Factors for Knowledge Sharing among Employees in the
Workplace 978-1003. [Crossref]
195. Sepani Senaratne, Michele Florencia Victoria. Building a Supportive Culture for Sustained Organisational Learning in Public
Sectors 118-134. [Crossref]
196. M.M. Haris Aslam, Ahmed F. Siddiqi, Khuram Shahzad, Sami Ullah Bajwa. Predicting Student Academic Performance
1445-1462. [Crossref]
197. Alina Mihaela Dima. Knowledge Transfer 88-107. [Crossref]
198. Temtim Assefa, Monica Garfield, Million Meshesha. Enabling Factors for Knowledge Sharing among Employees in the
Workplace 246-271. [Crossref]
199. Huda Skaik, Roslina Othman. Exploring the Determinants Affecting Academics' Knowledge-Sharing Behavior in United
Arab Emirates Public Universities 151-191. [Crossref]
200. Kerstin Viola Siakas, Elli Georgiadou, Dimitrios Siakas. Knowledge Sharing in Distributed Teams 221-242. [Crossref]

Partage de La Connaissance Emerald

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Partage de La Connaissance Emerald

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Knowledge Management

Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors

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

Scope of the study

Review of the literature

Knowledge as an organizational asset

The importance of knowledge sharing for the success of knowledge management

Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors

decision making in organizations (Whitten et al., 2001).

1 Dependent Knowledge sharing 1. Direct assessment of knowledge sharing

3. Teamwork discussion and collaboration (Goh, 2002)

Independent and dependent variables

Design of the survey

Distribution of the survey

Demographic characteristics of the research sample

Responses to knowledge sharing questions

Techniques used to facilitate knowledge sharing

Table II Respondents’ demographic characteristics

Table IV Techniques that emphasize knowledge sharing in organizations

1 Collaboration and teamwork 66.2

Respondents’ extent of agreement to the research related statements

1 Certain tasks are accomplished through teamwork and collaboration between

and exchange (e.g. groupware, e-mail, intranet) 78.2 11.8 10

Testing the hypotheses: one way ANOVA

Table VI ANOVA descriptives

Trust Excellent 44 3.43 0.429 0.065 3.56 3.30 2 4

Table VII The ANOVA test

Trust Between groups 3.908 2 1.954 8.171 0.000

department to the staff.

Another participant highlighted an additional advantage of open-disks design:

‘‘ The most important characteristics of knowledge are

Furthermore, in order for rewards to be successful in motivating staff to share their

Conversely, another participant explained:

Obviously, employees’ perceptions to rewards vary according to their backgrounds,

Testing the research hypotheses

Limitations and further research

Aranda, D. and Fernandez, L. (2002), ‘‘Determinants of innovation through a knowledge-based theory

Beijerse, R. (1999), ‘‘Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a

Connelly, C. and Kelloway, E. (2003), ‘‘Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing

Griffen, R. (2002), Management, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Syed-Ikhsan, S. and Rowland, F. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management in public organizations: a study on

proceedings of the Motorola S3 2003 Symposium, Itasca, IL.

About the authors

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

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

manufacturing organization. Procedia Computer Science 121, 186-193. [Crossref]

Management 18:1, 19-37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Undergraduate Students. Industry and Higher Education 25:2, 133-140. [Crossref]

You might also like