542342

research-article2014
PPMXXX10.1177/0091026014542342Public Personnel ManagementKim and Ko

Article
Public Personnel Management
1­–22
HR Practices and Knowledge © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Sharing Behavior: Focusing on sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091026014542342
the Moderating Effect of Trust ppm.sagepub.com

in Supervisor

Yong Woon Kim1 and Jaekwon Ko1

Abstract
In the era of the knowledge-based economy, knowledge management has increasingly
captured the interest and attention of researchers and practitioners. In addition,
knowledge sharing behavior has been recognized as an important element of
knowledge management. However, few studies have explored knowledge sharing
behavior in the public sector. Using the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey data,
this study investigates the relationship between human resource (HR) practices and
knowledge sharing behavior in the public sector, including the moderating role of trust
in supervisor. The authors find that HR practices and trust in supervisor play pivotal
roles in promoting knowledge sharing behavior. In addition, results show that trust in
supervisor moderates the relationships between HR practices and knowledge sharing
behavior. The implications of these findings are thoroughly discussed in this study.

Keywords
knowledge sharing behavior, HR practices, trust in supervisor, social exchange theory

Introduction
In the era of the knowledge-based economy, knowledge management has increasingly
captured the interest and attention of researchers and practitioners. As knowledge has
become an increasingly important source of an organization’s competitiveness, organi-
zations must make certain that knowledge is managed in the most effective manner pos-
sible. Knowledge management refers to organizational practices for developing, sharing,
and applying knowledge within the organization to gain and sustain a competitive

1Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding Author:
Jaekwon Ko, Adjunct Professor, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-701,
Korea.
Email: jaekwonko711@gmail.com

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

2 Public Personnel Management 

advantage (Edvardsson, 2008). Previous studies, however, have overemphasized the

managerial system that gathers, organizes, and stores existing knowledge (e.g., Markus,
2001), which may have resulted in an underestimation of knowledge sharing in the orga-
nization. The highest hurdle to successful knowledge management is typically making
organizational members share the knowledge that resides in their minds (Desouza, 2003)
though developing and applying knowledge are also important components in keeping
an organization competitive. To make retiring public employees share their knowledge
(e.g., tacit knowledge which is hard for organization to capture) is a particularly impor-
tant issue for both practitioners and researchers preparing to address the coming wave of
retirements in the public sector (Lewis & Cho, 2011). In addition, knowledge sharing
behavior is vital to organizations because it is relevant to the creation of new knowledge
that is an important factor of organizations’ competitiveness as it is a prerequisite for
future strength (Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore,
organizations should find ways by which employees can engage in knowledge sharing
for knowledge creation and its flow (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Previous studies about knowledge sharing behavior revealed that knowledge sharing
behavior is encouraged and facilitated rather than forced (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee,
2005). As a result, there have been two different viewpoints for investigating knowl-
edge sharing behavior. One focuses on an individual’s personality (Matzler, Renzl,
Muller, Herting, & Mooradian, 2008). The other pays attention to specific organiza-
tional interventions that may help organizations encourage knowledge sharing behavior
(Cabrera, Collins, & Salgado, 2006; Levine, Higgins, & Choi, 2000). While many stud-
ies have investigated the influence of individuals’ psychological characteristics on
knowledge sharing behavior, relatively few studies have concerned themselves with
organizational interventions that may help organizations encourage knowledge sharing
behavior among their employees (Bock et al., 2005; Gibbert & Krause, 2002).
From the viewpoint of organizational interventions, human resource (HR) practices
are essential for the promotion of knowledge sharing behavior within organizations
(Currie & Kerrin, 2003). While previous studies have paid attentions to the impacts of
HR practices on organizational outcomes, few explored the impact of HR practices on
knowledge sharing behavior (e.g., Camelo-Ordaz, Garcia-Cruz, Sousa-Ginel, & Valle-
Cabrera, 2011; Chiang, Han, & Chuang, 2011). In particular, there exists little empiri-
cal research on the effect HR practices have on employees’ knowledge sharing
behavior in public sector organizations.
In addition to HR practices, recent research on knowledge sharing has taken an inter-
est in the role of managers in promoting the behavior. Ma, Cheng, Ribbens, and Zhou
(2013) argued that leadership has a significant impact on enhancing employee attitudes
and behaviors including knowledge sharing. Also, Liao (2008) found that social powers
of managers, which means one’s ability to influence a target person by changing or con-
trolling the behavior, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of the target per-
son, have an indirect effect on employees’ knowledge sharing behavior through trust.
Despite the importance of HR practices and the role of managers which has been
argued thoroughly from each perspective (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2011; Chiang et al.,
2011; Liao, 2008; Ma et al., 2013), there have been relatively few studies analyzing

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 3

how these two issues jointly affect knowledge sharing behavior. This study employs
social exchange theory (SET) to develop an integrated understanding about the impacts
of both HR practices and the managers’ role on knowledge sharing behavior. SET
emphasizes the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) and posits that social exchanges
entail unspecified obligations in which a party who receives favorable treatment from
another party tends to return the favor (Blau, 1964; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996).
There has been evidence that HR practices initiate positive exchange relationships
between employees and organizations by satisfying employees’ needs. For example,
Kuvaas (2008) indicated that career development, training opportunities, and perfor-
mance appraisal as investments in employee development facilitate greater employee
obligation toward the organization. Edgar and Geare (2005) pointed out that equal
employment opportunities, training and development, and recruitment and selection
fulfill employee needs and therefore generate favorable attitudes. Likewise, HR prac-
tices foster the perception among employees that they are receiving a high level of
organizational support. Trust is also recognized as an important factor underpinning
social exchanges because the act of initiating social exchange relationships is based on
reciprocal trust (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Thus, to contribute to filling this
gap in the literature, the aim of this study is to explain and empirically test how
employee perception of HR practices and trust in supervisor affect knowledge sharing
behavior and how trust in supervisor moderates the relationship between employee
perception of HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior, using SET.
In terms of the layout of this study, we first review the relevant literature on SET and
the impacts of employee perception of HR practices and trust in supervisor on knowl-
edge sharing behavior. We then present our research model. The third section describes
the research methodology, and the fourth section reports the findings. The fifth section
includes a discussion of the findings and the implications and limitations of our study.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

SET
Blau (1964) defined social exchange as “voluntary actions of individuals that are moti-
vated by the returns they are expected to bring from others” (p. 91). If employees receive
favorable treatment from their organization or managers, they tend to feel obligated to
reciprocate by adopting a more positive attitude toward them. In contrast, employees are
more likely to stop the transaction when the rewards they gain are less than the costs they
incur. According to Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa (1986) and Graen
and Scandura (1987), social exchange is divided into two types of exchange. One is
perceived organizational support (POS), which is relevant to the exchange relationship
between employees and the organization. POS suggests that employees’ attitudes and
behaviors are created by a sense of obligation within individuals to respond to favorable
treatment from organizations (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &
Rhoades, 2002). The other is leader–member exchange (LMX), which focuses on the
quality of exchange between employees and managers. LMX points out that employees’

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

4 Public Personnel Management 

Social exchange Reciprocation

HR practices as POS
- Selection
- Compensation and reward
- Performance appraisal
Knowledge sharing
- Training and development
behavior

Trust in supervisor as LMX

Figure 1.  Research model.

Note. HR = human resource; POS = perceived organizational support; leader–member exchange.

attitudes and behaviors are associated with leader–member relationships based on

employees’ perception about how leaders care about their well-being and value their
contributions (Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002).
Following the logic of SET, this study posits that HR practices tend to make employ-
ees feel truly valued and such a feeling creates an obligation for them to reciprocate.
One of the ways in which employees can fulfill the obligation to reciprocate is to dem-
onstrate their reciprocal gratitude by committing additional resources such as knowl-
edge sharing behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational
commitment that would help contribute to an organization’s competitive advantage
(Bock et al., 2005; Lambert, 2000; Muthusamy & White, 2005; Wayne et al., 2002).
This study focuses on knowledge sharing behavior among a variety of employees’
reciprocal actions. In addition, this study posits trust in supervisor as a proxy of LMX
that moderates the relationship between employee perception of HR practices as a
proxy of POS and knowledge sharing behavior. Maertz, Griffeth, Campbell, and Allen
(2007) argued that though most employees receive favorable support from both the
organization and supervisors, supervisors provide more frequent day-to-day contact
with employees than the organization. Therefore, the relationship between POS and its
outcome is moderated by the strength of LMX. Because supervisors engage in perform-
ing HR practices, this study focuses on the moderating role of trust in supervisor (see
Figure 1). We will discuss the moderating role of trust in supervisor in details later.

Employee Perception of HR Practices as POS

Eisenberger et al. (1986) suggested that POS might be useful in explaining employees’
emotional commitment to their organization. Proposing that “employees develop global
beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and
cares about their wellbeing” (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501), they adopted the recipro-
cal view of this relationship in which high levels of POS will create a feeling of

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 5

obligation in employees, whereby employees will feel obligated to achieve organiza-

tional goals with positive work attitudes. In sum, employees try to balance their atti-
tudes toward the organization based on the support the organization provides them.
Parzefall and Salin (2010) pointed out that POS are influenced by fairness of treatment
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), support from organizational agents of different rank
(Eisenberger et al., 2002), and HR practices that recognize the importance of human capi-
tal (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). There is strong evidence that HR practices impact the
employees’ perceptions of organizational support. Allen et al. (2003) contended that HR
practices recognizing individuals’ contributions and encouraging investments in employ-
ees may be perceived as a signal of organizational support. Pfeffer (1998) found that
appropriate reward strategies could promote feelings of being supported and valued by
the organization. In addition, the investment of managerial time in appraising the perfor-
mance and training and developing employees can be perceived as a signal of support
(Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Tansky & Cohen, 2001). Providing training and develop-
ment tends to signal to employees that they are valued organizational assets. In short,
employees are more likely to feel that they are valued in their organizations as organiza-
tions adopt HR practices that increase employees’ perception of organizational support.
Employees who perceive their organizational environment as supportive tends to feel
obligated to reciprocate with behaviors that are beneficial to their organizations. These
behaviors include knowledge sharing behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and
organizational commitment (Bock et al., 2005; Lambert, 2000; Muthusamy & White,
2005; Wayne et al., 2002). Based on POS, this study assumes that the employees’ percep-
tion of HR practices as positive and beneficial can facilitate knowledge sharing behavior
as obligations for them to reciprocate in positive and beneficial ways.
HR practices are a system of management that uses human capital in achieving the
organization’s strategic objectives (Stone, 2009). However, there has been a question
as to whether HR practices should be considered as universally applicable or contin-
gent on organizational context (Gould-Williams & Mohamed, 2010). Regarding the
controversy surrounding these two approaches, more scholars have supported the uni-
versal or “best practice” approach (Delery & Doty, 1996; Gould-Williams & Mohamed,
2010; Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). The “best practice” approach is often referred to as
either “high performance work systems” (Huselid, 1995), “high commitment” (Guest,
2002), or “high involvement” (Wood, 1999). Despite adopting the best practice
approach, the question remains concerning which HR practices should be incorporated
in the lists of best practice. Paauwe and Boselie (2005) noted that there is not one fixed
list of generally applicable practices that fully encapsulate best practice. While Boselie,
Dietz, and Boon (2005) used an eclectic range of 26 HR practices, some exemplary
practices have been identified and included: selective recruitment and selection, train-
ing and development, performance appraisals, performance-contingent rewards, high
levels of employee involvement, and employment security (Datta, Guthrie, & Wright,
2005; Snape & Redman, 2010; Zacharatos, Barling, & Iverson, 2005). Cabrera and
Cabrera (2005) examined whether some HR practices such as staffing, training and
development, performance appraisal, and compensation foster knowledge sharing. For
this study, we have also chosen these four HR practices which are not exhaustive but

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

6 Public Personnel Management 

exemplary as we anticipate the employees’ perception of the practices would have a

substantial positive impact on employees’ knowledge sharing behavior.
Selection is a critical element of HR practices. Organizations have introduced inno-
vative recruitment and selection strategies to obtain the right employees because they
can achieve superior performance through the workforce (Baptiste, 2008). Sheridan,
Slocum, Buda, and Thompson (1990) found that during personnel selection decisions,
employees observe that there are links between HR decisions and valued rewards, and
they recognize these decisions as meaningful indicators of organizational support.
Therefore, employees tend to perceive that the organization values them as an impor-
tant asset by investing resources in selecting the right person through the right process,
which, in turn, promotes positive attitudes that are beneficial to their organizations.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Employee perception of selection will be positively related to

knowledge sharing behavior.

Compensation and rewards are another aspect of HR practice that may promote
employees’ knowledge sharing behavior. Rainey (2003) argued that compensation
delivers more meaning than just monetary value in the organizational context.
According to POS theory, favorable opportunities for compensation and reward con-
vey a positive valuation of employees’ contributions and thus contribute to employees’
perception about their organizational environment as supportive, which, in turn, are
likely to increase employees’ obligation to reciprocate with behaviors that are benefi-
cial to their organizations (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Empirical studies
found that compensation and reward may play a pivotal role in enhancing employees’
knowledge sharing behavior (Ooi, Teh, & Chong, 2009; Zarraga & Bonache, 2003). In
short, employees are expected to repeat positive work attitudes in anticipation of com-
pensation and reward.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Employee perception of compensation and reward will be

positively related to knowledge sharing behavior.

Performance appraisal is defined as a formal system of review and evaluation of

individual performance. Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) found that when employ-
ees perceived that the performance appraisal is fair and just, employees would have a
positive perspective of the organization, and this would enhance their organizational
commitment. It is reasonable to believe that individuals’ perception of performance
appraisal systems may also be related to their engagement in knowledge sharing.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Employee perception of performance appraisal will be posi-

tively related to knowledge sharing behavior.

According to Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, and Wright (2012), training and develop-
ment are described as a planned effort by the organization to assist its employees in
learning knowledge, skills, or behaviors that are vital for the success of individual’s

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 7

job performances. Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) found that training and develop-
ment are positively associated with employees’ perception of organizational support
because they view these practices as indicating positive evaluation of themselves by
organizations. Therefore, we expect that employees’ perception of training and devel-
opment would be positively related to their knowledge sharing behavior.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Employee perception of training and development will be pos-

itively related to knowledge sharing behavior.

Trust in Supervisors as LMX

LMX can be defined as the quality of exchange between employees and supervisors,
and it reflects the degree of trust, respect, and loyalty in leader–member relationships
(Graen & Scandura, 1987). In particular, although trust captures a single dimension of
leader–member relationships, scholars have found that trust forms the basis for
exchange relationships (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007; Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, &
Barksdale, 2006). Trust can be viewed as an attitude held by a trustor toward a trustee.
This attitude is derived from the trustor’s perceptions, beliefs, and attributions about
the trustee (Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998).
According to LMX literature, the presence of mutual trust in exchange relation-
ships is beneficial for the outcomes of such relationships (Granovetter, 1985). Based
on LMX theory, Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argued that high-quality leader–member
relationships motivate subordinates to internalize the goals of both the group and the
leader. For example, if subordinates perceive that their supervisors treat them fairly
and care about their interests, they will be more likely to help supervisors accomplish
the goals set for the workgroup. Therefore, this study expects that when employees
trust their supervisors, they extend their trust to the organization through transference,
and reciprocate with knowledge sharing behavior.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Trust in supervisor will be positively related to knowledge

sharing behavior.

Moderating Impact of Trust in Supervisor on Knowledge Sharing

Behavior
Organizations have introduced HR practices for employees to promote self-development
and work ability. However, simply implementing HR practices does not necessarily
mean employees feel as if they are valued by the organization and that the organization
is concerned for their well-being (Thompson, Jahn, Kopelman, & Prottas, 2004).
According to Cho and Poister (2013), the effect of HR practices on employees’ atti-
tudes is not uniform because of different employees’ perceptions about HR practices.
For example, if organizations do not fully communicate with employees and employ-
ees have little awareness of them, employees are not likely to feel obligated to recip-
rocate by adopting more positive attitudes. On the other hand, if employees perceive

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

8 Public Personnel Management 

that the organization is endeavoring to provide HR practices that reflect their interests
and well-being, this plays a pivotal role in creating the feelings of employee obligation
and positive work attitudes. In the same vein, Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010) pointed out
that supervisors play an important role in the implementation of HR practices. As they
act as an agent of the organization, they are increasingly involved in the implementa-
tion. For example, the organization may provide training and development opportuni-
ties for employees based on supervisors’ estimation.
Drawing on SET, it is reasonable to expect that employees may be affected by favor-
able HR practices as POS, and they may reciprocate with knowledge sharing behavior
that is beneficial to their organization. Moreover, because supervisors are more proxi-
mal to employees on a day-to-day basis than the organization, high levels of trust in
supervisors as LMX may strengthen the effect of the HR practices. Ko and Hur (2014)
found that potential for reciprocation of POS is moderated by LMX relationships.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Trust in supervisor will moderate the relationship between

employee perception of HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior such that the
effects of the perception on knowledge sharing behavior will be strengthened under
high levels of trust in supervisor.

Method
Data and Analytic Method
This study used data from the 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) con-
ducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to test the hypotheses.
The 2011 FEVS was administered to full-time, permanent employees of Departments
and large agencies and the small/independent agencies in U.S. federal government. In
all, 266,000 employees responded, a response rate of 49.3% (FEVS, 2011).1 To test the
hypotheses outlined earlier, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis.
Missing data were excluded by the listwise deletion function in the analysis process by
SPSS, and the final survey sample size of approximately 222,959 valid responses.

Dependent Variable
Knowledge sharing behavior refers to the extent that organizational members share stra-
tegic knowledge with their co-workers through the process of mutually exchanging
knowledge and jointly creating new knowledge (Chiang et al., 2011; van den Hooff & de
Ridder, 2004). In other words, it refers to the synergistic collaboration of individuals
who pursue a common goal (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). Gagne (2009) pointed out that
knowledge sharing behavior includes many other voluntary behaviors, such as helping
and prosocial behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. In Al-Alawi,
Al-Marzooqi, and Mohammed’s (2007) study, knowledge sharing is measured by direct
assessment of knowledge sharing and teamwork and collaboration required to accom-
plish tasks. In line with the study of Al-Alawi et al. (2007), two items were used to

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 9

measure knowledge sharing behavior in this study: “the people I work with cooperate to
get the job done” and “employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other.”
Responses ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 representing “strongly disagree” and 5 represent-
ing “strongly agree.” The Cronbach’s alpha for these questions was .729. To combine the
two measures into one variable, we averaged their scores (see Appendix).

Independent Variable
In this study, employee perceptions of HR practices and trust in supervisor were mea-
sured as independent variables. In addition, we used a z score to standardize predictors
and moderator variables.2 The measurements of employee perceptions of HR practices
were based on four HR dimensions: selection, training and development, compensation
and reward, and performance appraisal. Employee perception of selection was mea-
sured by a single item: “My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.”
Three items were used to measure employee perception of training and development: “I
am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization,” “my training
needs are assessed,” and “supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee
development.” The Cronbach’s alpha for these questions was .812. We measured
employee perception of compensation and reward using three survey items. Items
included “promotions in my work unit are based on merit,” “awards in my work unit
depend on how well employees perform their jobs,” and “pay raises depend on how
well employees perform their jobs.” The Cronbach’s alpha for these questions was
.835. Finally, employee perception of performance appraisal was measured by a single
item: “My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.” All responses
for items measuring the perceptions of HR practices ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 repre-
senting “strongly disagree” and 5 representing “strongly agree” (see Appendix).
We measured trust in supervisor by combining four survey items through principal
factor analysis and varimax rotation methods. In line with the research of Yang and
Kassekert (2010), the items reflect general measure of trust, supervisors’ ability, and
benevolent behavior: “I have trust and confidence in my supervisor,” “Overall, how
good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly above your immediate
supervisor/team leader?” “My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say,”
and “My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect.” Responses except for the last
survey item ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 reporting “strongly disagree” and 5 reporting
“strongly agree.” The Cronbach’s alpha for these questions was .886. To combine the
four measures into one variable, we averaged their scores (see Appendix).

Control Variable
As previous studies found that age, gender, and tenure have been associated with
knowledge sharing (Bartol, Liu, Zeng, & Wu, 2009; Kuvaas, Buch, & Dysvik, 2012),
this study included three demographic variables—“gender,” “age,” and “tenure”—as
control variables in line with the literature. We intend to rule out the possibilities that
pre-existing differences such as demographics accounted for the observed

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

10 Public Personnel Management 

relationships. We also added “minority status” as a control in our model because

minority employees may be underrepresented in the field of information technology
and have differing views that could impact the independent and moderating variables
in our model. The gender variable was coded 0 when a respondent is a male and 1 for
a female. The minority variable was 1 when a respondent is a White male or a White
female and was 0 when a respondent is neither a White male nor a White female. Age
was represented ordinally, where 0 = 29 and below, 1 = 30 to 39, 2 = 40 to 49, 3 = 50
to 59, and 4 = 60 or older. Tenure was also was represented ordinally, where 0 = up to
3 years, 1 = 4 to 5 years, 2 = 6 to 10 years, 3 = 11 to 20 years, 4 = more than 20 years.

Results
Before moving to the analysis, we conducted a preliminary analysis to test the serious-
ness of the common method bias. When independent and dependent variables are mea-
sured by the same survey data, the regression coefficients can be inflated. All of the
variables in this study were measured based on self-reported responses that came from
the 2011 FEVS, which can lead to common method bias. To examine the seriousness
of common method bias, we used Harman’s single-factor test. In this single-factor test,
common method bias is assumed to exist if (a) a single factor emerges from unrotated
factor solutions or (b) a first factor explains the majority of the variance in the vari-
ables (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). If only one factor is retained and it explains most
covariance, the bias is serious. The results revealed that the biggest factor explains
34.6% of the covariance among the measures. It suggests that there is no systematic
variance common to the measures.
Both the reliability and validity of the measures were examined. Cronbach’s coef-
ficient alpha (α) was used to assess the reliability of the measures. Each scale demon-
strated satisfactory reliability (α exceeding .70). Table 1 provides correlations of
variables. As can be seen in Table 1, knowledge sharing as the dependent variable is
found to be significantly related to the independent variables: selection, compensation
and reward, performance appraisal, training and development, and trust in supervisor.
The relationships of the variables appear to be in the anticipated direction.
To examine the effect of employee perceptions of four HR practices and trust in
supervisor on knowledge sharing behavior, we used OLS regression analyses. Table 2
illustrates the OLS regression results for knowledge sharing behavior. Overall, the
independent variables explained a significant degree of variance in the dependent vari-
able, with the explanatory variables explaining 38.9% of variance in knowledge shar-
ing behavior. From the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) tests on the knowledge sharing
behavior model, the variable with the highest VIF value was the interaction term
between training and development and trust in supervisor (3.077), and the mean VIF
was 1.99 in the model. Thus, multicollinearity did not appear to be a problem. This
study included a sizable number of observations and with such a large number of
observations; meaningless variations within variables may be statistically significant
(Caillier, 2013). Therefore, careful interpretation is needed in this large sample study.
This study proposed that employee perceptions of HR practices are positively asso-
ciated with knowledge sharing behavior of employees. As expected, all employee

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 11

Table 1.  Measures of Correlations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 1. Knowledge  
sharing
 2. Gender −.066**  
 3. Minority .068** −.146**  
 4. Age .013** −.055** .056**  
 5. Tenure .026** .007** .048** .464**  
 6. Selection .459** .006** −.021** −.028** −.059**  
 7. Compensation .517** −.035** .005** −.007** −.020** .537**  
and reward
 8. Performance .375** .003 .035** −.042** −.035** .339** .532**  
appraisal
 9. Training and .527** −.031** .031** −.035** −.024** .488** .646** .557**  
development
10. Trust in .522** −.039** .062** −.046** −.044** .431** .601** .581** .727**
supervisor

*Significant at the .05 level (two-tailed). **Significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

perceptions of HR practices had positive and significant impacts on knowledge sharing

behavior at the .001 level. Thus, H1, H2, H3, and H4 were supported. Among employee
perceptions of four HR practices, the most significant predictor of knowledge sharing
behavior was that of selection (β = .195, p < .001). The next powerful predictor was
employee perception of training and development (β = .159, p < .001). Interestingly,
employee perception of performance appraisal had a relatively low impact on knowl-
edge sharing (β = .012, p < .001).
H5 proposed that trust in supervisor would be positively associated with knowledge
sharing behavior. Not surprisingly, trust in supervisor had a positive and significant
impact on knowledge sharing behavior (β = .209, p < .001) thus, H5 was supported.
H6 proposed that the effect of trust in supervisor would moderate the relationship
between employee perceptions of HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior.
Results indicated that trust in supervisor significantly and positively moderates only
the associations between perception of performance appraisal and knowledge sharing
behavior. Both moderating effects, particularly on the latter association, are minimal
when compared with other key variables (β = .026 and .010, respectively). In Figure 2,
we present the interaction of perception of performance appraisal and trust in supervi-
sor for knowledge sharing behavior. However, the results indicated that higher levels
of trust in supervisor negatively moderate the association between perception of selec-
tion and knowledge sharing behavior although the effect size (β = –.032) is much
smaller than that of selection itself (β = .195). Figure 3 shows the interaction of per-
ception of selection and trust in supervisor for knowledge sharing behavior.
Finally, the results of the control variables show that female employees tend to be
less likely to report sharing their knowledge. On the other hand, minority employees

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

12 Public Personnel Management 

Table 2.  OLS Regression of Knowledge Sharing Behavior.

Coefficient SE β
Gender −.073*** .003 −.042
Minority .081*** .003 .044
Age .008*** .002 .010
Tenure .028*** .001 .048
Selection (z score) .169*** .002 .195
Compensation and reward (z score) .160*** .002 .183
Performance appraisal (z score) .010*** .002 .012
Training and development (z score) .139*** .002 .159
Trust in supervisor (z score) .183*** .002 .209
Selection × TinS −.024*** .002 −.032
Compensation and reward × TinS −.003 .002 −.003
Performance appraisal × TinS .017*** .002 .026
Training and development × TinS .006** .002 .010
Constant 3.709 .009  
N 222,959
R2 .389

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; TinS = Trust in supervisor.

**p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.

show higher intention to share their knowledge. Employees with longer agency expe-
rience and older employees are more likely to share their knowledge.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to elaborate and test a more detailed model for knowledge
sharing behavior, using the social exchange perspective. Little research in public admin-
istration has explored the potentially promising link between social exchanges and knowl-
edge sharing behavior. Our study contributes to addressing this gap in the literature.
We found evidence that certain HR practices, which are perceived as favorable by
employees, foster knowledge sharing behavior. Our findings were consistent with SET,
supporting hypotheses that employee perceptions of HR practices will be positively
associated with knowledge sharing behavior. Wayne et al. (1997) found that HR prac-
tices serve as signals to employees about the extent to which the organization values and
cares about them as individuals (POS), which then contributes to positive work attitudes
as reciprocal individual responses. In our model, we evaluated the impacts of employee
perceptions of four HR practices: selection, compensation and reward, performance
appraisal, and training and development, and the results showed that all employee per-
ceptions of HR practices have positive influences on knowledge sharing behavior. Our
study thus showed that HR practices promote employees’ knowledge sharing behavior
when HR practices make employees feel valued by their organizations.
We then identified the social exchange by which trust in supervisor is related to
knowledge sharing behavior. Although some researchers have explored how a certain

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 13

Knowlege Sharing Behavior











/RZ +LJK
Performance Appraisal
Lowest TinS Highest TinS

Figure 2.  Interactions of performance appraisal and TinS for knowledge sharing behavior.
Note. TinS = Trust in supervisor.

type of leadership such as ethical and transformational leadership affects knowledge

sharing behavior (e.g., Carmeli, Gelbard, & Reiter-Palmon, 2013; Ma et al., 2013;
Walumbwa et al., 2011), few studies have focused on employees’ trust toward their
supervisor as the role of leadership in facilitating knowledge sharing behavior.
According to our findings in this study, trust in supervisor is significantly related to
knowledge sharing behavior. Recent studies have shown that supervisor expectations
and their supportive behaviors play important roles in shaping subordinates’ behav-
ioral context in which they share information, cooperate with each other, and enact
joint decision-making processes (Carmeli & Waldman, 2010). In addition to previous
research, our study suggests that trust in supervisor facilitates knowledge sharing
behavior in organizations.
The moderating effect of trust in supervisor on the relationship between employee
perceptions of HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior constitutes the interesting
findings of this study. Results revealed that trust in supervisor positively moderates the
relationships between perception of performance appraisal and knowledge sharing
behavior and between perception of training and development and knowledge sharing
behavior. Individuals are more willing to engage in cooperative behaviors, such as
knowledge sharing behavior, when a relationship is characterized by a high level of trust
(Choi, 2006; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In light of the social nature of knowledge shar-
ing behavior, trust in supervisor is a major influence on communication and exchanges
among employees. With respect to the implications for HR practice research, these find-
ings are consistent with prior research investigating the contextual role played by the
social exchange relationship. Kuvaas (2008), for instance, found a positive relationship
between employee perception of developmental HR practices and work performance
only under a high level of employee–organization relationship. Under a low level of

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

14 Public Personnel Management 



Knowlege Sharing Behavior












/RZ +LJK
Selection
Lowest TinS Highest TinS

Figure 3.  Interactions of selection and TinS for knowledge sharing behavior.
Note. TinS = Trust in supervisor.

employee–organization relationship, the perception of developmental HR practices was

negatively related to work performance. In addition, Kuvaas et al. (2012) indicated that
a positive relationship between perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing is
strengthened under the condition of high levels of social exchange perception.
However, our finding showed that the relationship between employee perception of
selection and knowledge sharing behavior is negatively moderated. When supervisors
foster high levels of trust, there was not a strong positive relationship between percep-
tion of selection and knowledge sharing behavior. One possible explanation for the
different results of moderating effects is that supervisors are involved in performance
appraisal and training and development, but their involvement in the selection process
is relatively weak in federal agencies. Under high levels of trust in supervisor, while
the impact of trust in supervisor on knowledge sharing behavior remains strong, the
relationship between perception of selection and knowledge sharing behavior could be
relatively weak. It may be because employees conceive that their obligation to recip-
rocate diminishes as the POS decreases under the situation where they recognize that
their trustworthy supervisors are not involved in the selection process. In contrast,
under low levels of trust in supervisor, the impact of trust in supervisor on knowledge
sharing behavior remains weak, but the relationship between perception of selection
and knowledge sharing behavior could be strengthened. It may be because employees
focus attention on perception of selection as POS rather than supervisors. In fact, this
interpretation is consistent with a previous study on employee turnover. Maertz et al.
(2007) explored how POS and perceived supervisor support (PSS) influence employee
turnover and found that low PSS strengthens the impact of POS on turnover whereas
high PSS weakens it. Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate these intriguing relationships. In
Figure 2, the impact of perception of performance appraisal on knowledge sharing

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 15

behavior is relatively weak at low levels of trust in supervisor. However, perception of

performance appraisal was strongly related to knowledge sharing behavior for employ-
ees enjoying high levels of trust in supervisor. In contrast, Figure 3 indicates that trust
in supervisor negatively moderates the relationship between perception of selection
and knowledge sharing behavior.

Theoretical Implications
Our findings offer several theoretical contributions. First, as there is limited research on
knowledge sharing behavior in the public sector, this empirical contribution will enhance
the theoretical knowledge on knowledge sharing behavior in the public sector. Second,
this study sheds some light on how to foster knowledge sharing behavior from the social
exchange perspective. HR practices can be adopted by an organization to make employ-
ees feel that the organization appreciates them and then perceive organizational support.
When employees perceive organizational support through HR practices, they will gener-
ate attachment toward their organization and then perform responsible behavior such as
knowledge sharing behavior that benefits the organization. In addition, trust in supervi-
sor, as LMX, promotes knowledge sharing behavior. Thus, our findings show that SET
is a very useful tool in explaining why employees share their knowledge. Third, this
study is of theoretical relevance to the SET, POS, and LMX literature. As Ko and Hur
(2014) pointed out, previous research has focused on POS and LMX as either an inde-
pendent or dependent variable, but rarely has the interaction between POS and LMX
been explored. Results of this study support the notion that a high level of LMX accentu-
ates the outcome of POS. In light of this result, we argue that LMX serves to enhance the
positive effects of favorable organization’s HR strategies, specifically performance
appraisal and training and development opportunities.

Managerial Implications
This study may hold several important implications for practice. First, this study
assumed that HR practices increase employees’ perception of organizational support,
using SET. The results show that although employee perception of performance
appraisal has a relatively slight impact on knowledge sharing behavior, each of per-
ceptions of the HR practices included in the model was positively related to knowl-
edge sharing behavior. It is consistent with previous research that reciprocity is
positively related to intention to share knowledge (Bock et al., 2005). Therefore, HR
practitioners should pay more attention to making employees feel that the organization
appreciates them and that they perceive organizational support emanating from HR
practices. With regard to the relatively slight impact of performance appraisal, public
sector employees may consider it as a threat when organizations use it for controlling
employees or for downsizing labor force (Kelman, 2006). Therefore, performance
appraisal needs to be recognized as a tool to provide feedback to the employee to show
where improvements are needed and why. Second, previous research found that trans-
formational leadership and ethical leadership encourage employees’

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

16 Public Personnel Management 

knowledge sharing behavior (Carmeli et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2013). Our findings also
demonstrated that trust in supervisor has the greatest impact on knowledge sharing
behavior. For practitioners who intend to foster employees’ knowledge sharing behav-
ior, this finding points to building a trusting relationship between supervisors and
employees as the most important factor for encouraging knowledge sharing. Third, the
results show that when employees have more trust in their supervisor, they are more
likely to reciprocate with knowledge sharing behavior in responding to favorable HR
practices. Because supervisors gain information about employees such as needs of job
training and individual performance and provide it for the organization to establish
appropriate HR strategies, they are important for the successful implementation of HR
practices. Thus, trust in supervisors leads the organization to successful HR practices
and strengthens the impacts of these practices on knowledge sharing behavior.
Therefore, supervisors need to recognize the importance of their role, particularly as it
pertains to building trust with their employees. Supervisors may be able to help
employees perceive the fairness of HR practices and the organization’s concern about
their well-being. Finally, as the percentage of federal workers older than 55 has
increased from 13.4% in 2001 to 19.3% in 2007 (Lewis & Cho, 2011), federal govern-
ments are likely to encounter highly experienced workers’ retirement in the near
future. This could lead to the loss in organizational capacity by failing to capture retir-
ing employees’ implicit knowledge of how their agencies functions. Therefore, orga-
nizations should find a way to foster their knowledge sharing behavior before
retiring.

Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be considered. First, this study used SET to
explore employees’ knowledge sharing behavior. SET includes POS and LMX, and we
employed perceptions of four HR practices as POS and trust in supervisor as LMX.
These variables do not fully capture the concepts of POS and LMX. Therefore, future
studies should consider developing proxies for POS and LMX. Second, we used self-
reported data, which may lead to common method bias. While our tests reported in the
results section suggested that this was not a significant problem in this study, future
research could further alleviate this concern by employing objective measures of
knowledge sharing or at least relevant others’ assessments of this construct. Third, the
contents of HR practices adopted by this study are a general representation of HR prac-
tices, not a comprehensive representation (e.g., Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Edvardsson,
2008; Fong, Ooi, Tan, Lee, & Chong, 2011). Future research could investigate a broader
system of HR practices. Finally, the survey was constructed to help government better
manage human capital, so some variables were not precisely measured by items in the
questionnaire. For example, some items such as “I am given a real opportunity to
improve my skills in my organization” and “Promotions in my work unit are based on
merit” may produce a potential problem with the level of analysis.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 17

Conclusion
Although this study has some limitations, it makes a contribution to the study of knowl-
edge sharing behavior in the public sector. This study introduced a model explaining the
relationship between employee perceptions of HR practices and knowledge sharing behav-
ior, including testing of the moderating role of trust in supervisor. This study demonstrated
that employee perceptions of HR practices are positively and significantly related to their
knowledge sharing behavior. In addition, trust in supervisor strengthens the relationship
between employee perceptions of HR practices and knowledge sharing behavior.

Appendix
Item Components of Measures, Missing Values, and Results of Factor Analyses.

Variables Factor analyses

Knowledge sharing behavior [M = 3.854, SD = 0.875] α = .729

  20. The people I work with cooperate to get the job done. .887
  26. Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other. .887
Selection [M = 3.24, SD = 1.119]
  21. My work unit is able to recruit people with the right skills.  
Training and development [M = 3.585, SD = 0.951] α = .812
  1. I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization. .868
  18. My training needs are assessed. .845
  47. Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development. .846
Compensation and reward [M = 3.008, SD = 1.039] α = .835
  22. Promotions in my work unit are based on merit. .882
  25. Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs. .880
  33. Pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. .839.
Performance appraisal [M = 3.75, SD = 1.121]
  15. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.  
Trust in supervisor [M = 3.878, SD = .943] α = .886
  48. My supervisor/team leader listens to what I have to say. .923
  49. My supervisor/team leader treats me with respect. .920
  51. I have trust and confidence in my supervisor. .922
  60. Overall, how good a job do you feel is being done by the manager directly .701
above your immediate supervisor/team leader?
Gender
  1 = female; 0 = male  
Minority
  1 = minority; 0 = non-minority  
Age
  What is your age group?  
  0 = 29 and under, 1 = 30-39, 2 = 40-49, 3 = 50-59, and 4 = 60 or older.  
Tenure
  How long have you been with your current agency  
  0=U  p to 3 years, 1 = 4 to 5 years, 2 = 6 to 10 years, 3 = 11 to 20 years, 4 =  
More than 20 years

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

18 Public Personnel Management 

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. The 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) was conducted to collect data on
federal employees’ perceptions about how effectively agencies were managing their work-
forces. The sample of the 2011 FEVS was a probability sample; that is, each employee
in the target population had a known, non-zero probability of selection. Employees were
grouped into 1,114 sample subgroups corresponding to agency, subagency, and supervi-
sory status reporting requirements. A total of 560,084 employees were invited to partici-
pate from 83 agencies. These agencies make up 97% of the executive branch workforce
(FEVS, 2011).
2. We used a z score to standardize predictor and moderator variables that are measured on
a continuous scale. The z score is computed by centering, which is defined as subtracting
the mean (a constant) from each score, x, yielding a centered score. Because predictor and
moderator variables generally are highly correlated with the interaction terms, centering or
standardizing continuous variables can reduce multicollinearity problems in the regression
equation (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). In our model, selection, training and development,
compensation and reward, performance appraisal, trust in supervisor, and moderating vari-
ables were all converted into z scores.

References
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and
knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2),
22-42.
Allen, D., Shore, L., & Griffeth, R. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and
supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29,
99-118.
Baptiste, N. R. (2008). Tightening the link between employee wellbeing at work and perfor-
mance: A new dimension for HRM. Management Decision, 46, 284-309.
Bartol, K. M., Liu, W., Zeng, X., & Wu, K. (2009). Social exchange and knowledge sharing
among knowledge workers: The moderating role of perceived job security. Management
and Organization Review, 5, 223-240.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-111.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in communi-
ties of knowing. Organization Science, 6, 350-383.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and per-
formance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 19

Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 245-264.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 720-735.
Caillier, J. G. (2013). Are teleworkers less likely to report leave intentions in the United States
federal government than non-teleworkers are? American Review of Public Administration,
43, 72-88.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011). The influ-
ence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain:
The mediating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 1442-1463.
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem-solving
capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human
Resource Management, 52, 95-121.
Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. A. (2010). Leadership, behavioral context and the performance
of work groups in a knowledge-intensive setting. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35,
384-400.
Chiang, H. H., Han, T. S., & Chuang, J. S. (2011). The relationship between high-commitment
HRM and knowledge-sharing behavior and its mediators. International Journal of
Manpower, 32, 604-622.
Cho, Y. J., & Poister, T. H. (2013). Human resource management practices and trust in public
organizations. Public Management Review, 15, 816-838.
Choi, J. (2006). Multilevel and cross-level effects of workplace attitudes and group member
relations on interpersonal helping behavior. Human Performance, 19, 383-402.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-organization relationship: Where
do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166-179.
Currie, G., & Kerrin, M. (2003). Human resource management and knowledge management:
Enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 1027-1045.
Datta, D. K., Guthrie, J. P., & Wright, P. M. (2005). Human resource management and labor
productivity: Does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 135-145.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource manage-
ment: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 802-835.
Desouza, K. C. (2003). Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Communications of the ACM,
46(6), 85-88.
Edgar, F., & Geare, A. (2005). HRM practice and employee attitudes: Different measures–
different results. Personnel Review, 34, 534-549.
Edvardsson, I. R. (2008). HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 30, 553-561.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and
employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 565-573.
Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey. (2011). Federal Employee View Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.fedview.opm.gov/2011/Published/
Fong, C. Y., Ooi, K. B., Tan, B. I., Lee, V. H., & Chong, A. (2011). HRM practices and knowl-
edge sharing: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 704-723.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

20 Public Personnel Management 

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134.
Gagne, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management,
48, 571-589.
Gibbert, M., & Krause, H. (2002). Practice exchange in a best practice marketplace. In
T. H. Davenport & G. J. Probst (Eds.), Knowledge management case: Siemens best prac-
tices (pp. 89-105). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effect
of HRM practices on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public
Management Review, 7, 1-24.
Gould-Williams, J., & Mohamed, R. B. (2010). A comparative study of the effects of best prac-
tice HRM on worker outcomes in Malaysia and England local government. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 653-675.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L.
Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175-208).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship based approach to leadership: Development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
Guest, D. (2002). Human resource management, corporate performance and employee wellbe-
ing: Building the worker into HRM. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44, 335-358.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
635-672.
Kelman, S. (2006). Downsizing, competition, and organizational change in government: Is
necessity the mother of invention? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 875-
895.
Ko, J., & Hur, S. (2014). The impacts of employee benefits, procedural justice, and manage-
rial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange
theory. Public Administration Review, 74, 176-187.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
698-707.
Krogh, G. V., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the
mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Kuvaas, B. (2008). An exploration of how the employee-organization relationship affects the
linkage between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee out-
comes. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1-25.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., & Dysvik, A. (2012). Perceived training intensity and knowledge sharing:
Sharing for intrinsic prosocial reasons. Human Resource Management, 51, 167-188.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived invest-
ment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes.
Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 138-156.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

Kim and Ko 21

Lambert, S. J. (2000). The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behav-
ior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801-815.
Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H. S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88-101.
Lewis, G. B., & Cho, Y. J. (2011). The aging of the state government workforce: Trends and
implications. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 48-60.
Liao, L. F. (2008). Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: A social power and social
exchange theory perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19,
1881-1895.
Ma, Y., Cheng, W., Ribbens, B. A., & Zhou, J. (2013). Linking ethical leadership to employee
creativity: Knowledge sharing and self-efficacy as mediators. Social Behavior and
Personality, 41, 1409-1420.
Maertz, C. P., Griffeth, R. W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen, D. G. (2007). The effects of perceived
organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 1059-1075.
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situ-
ations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1),
57-93.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Muller, J., Herting, S., & Mooradian, T. A. (2008). Personality traits and
knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301-313.
Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alli-
ances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26, 415-441.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2012). Human resource manage-
ment: Gaining a competitive advantage (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese compa-
nies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ooi, K. B., Teh, P. L., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2009). Developing an integrated model of TQM and
HRM on KM activities. Management Research News, 32, 477-490.
Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: What next? Human Resource
Management Journal, 15(4), 68-83.
Parzefall, M. R., & Salin, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of and reactions to workplace bullying: A
social exchange perspective. Human Relations, 63, 761-780.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the litera-
ture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
825-836.
Settoon, R., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived orga-
nizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015

22 Public Personnel Management 

Sheridan, J. E., Slocum, J. W., Buda, R., & Thompson, R. C. (1990). Effects of corporate spon-
sorship and departmental power on career tournaments. Academy of Management Journal,
33, 578-602.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange:
Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and
performance: A multi-level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1219-1247.
Stone, R. J. (2009). Managing human resources: An Asian perspective. Milton, Australia: John
Wiley.
Tansky, J. W., & Cohen, D. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational support,
employee development, and organizational commitment: An empirical study. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 285-300.
Thompson, C. A., Jahn, E. W., Kopelman, R. E., & Prottas, D. J. (2004). Perceived organiza-
tional family support: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis. Journal of Managerial Issue,
16, 545-565.
van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate, and CMC use on knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader-member
exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 115, 204-213.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. (2002). The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
82-111.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators
of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy
behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513-530.
Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 1, 367-413.
Zacharatos, A., Barling, J., & Iverson, R. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and occu-
pational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 77-93.
Zarraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2003). Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: An
empirical analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 1227-1245.

Author Biographies
Yong Woon Kim is an adjunct professor at Konkuk University. He earned his doctorate from
the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. His research examines a
variety of organization and pubic management issues, including organizational change and
innovation, human resource management, performance management, and contracting out.
Jaekwon Ko is an adjunct professor at Konkuk University. He received his doctoral degree
from the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech. His research interests
include human resource management, organizational theory, public management, and
contracting.

Downloaded from ppm.sagepub.com at University of Otago Library on January 13, 2015