Knowledge Management Research & Practice (2015) 1–14
© 2015 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved 1477-8238/15
Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing
and integration: the mediating roles of
organizational identification and organization-
based self-esteem
Gongmin Bao1
Bixiang Xu2 and
Zhongyuan Zhang1
1
School of Management, Zhejiang University
(Zijingang Campus), China; 2Hangzhou Subway
Corporation, China
Correspondence: Gongmin Bao,
School of Management,
Zhejiang University (Zijingang Campus),
Hangzhou 310058, China.
Tel: +86-571-88206873
Received: 14 December 2012
Revised: 24 September 2013
2nd Revision: 18 February 2015
Accepted: 20 February 2015
www.palgrave-journals.com/kmrp/
Abstract
We propose that the effect of trust on knowledge sharing (KS) and knowledge
integration (KI) is mediated by organizational identification (OI) and organiza-
tion-based self-esteem (OBSE). We focus on the relationship among different foci
of trust and take into consideration that trust is a culturally dependent variable.
We draw from a large-scale questionnaire survey with 50 Chinese companies
and find support for our hypotheses in general. The study finds that employees’
trust within the organization is a multifaceted construct that includes their trust
in the organization, trust in the supervisor and trust in peers. Trust with these
different foci positively impact KS and KI. However, such effects are largely
indirect and we find support for our expectation that OI and OBSE function as
mediators. We conclude that trust in itself is a precondition but not sufficient
condition for the actualization of KS and KI.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice advance online publication, 27 April
2015; doi:10.1057/kmrp.2015.1
Keywords: trust; knowledge sharing; knowledge integration; organizational identification;
organization-based self-esteem
Introduction
The resource-based view of the firm emphasizes that valuable, rare, durable,
imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable resources are sources of firms’
sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Barney,
1991; Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Peteraf, 1993). In today’s turbulent market
environments, firms are required to update and renew their competitive
advantages, since environmental turbulence often renders fixed competitive
advantage obsolete. Consequently, firms need to develop dynamic resources
in order to generate competitive advantages on a continuous basis. The most
dynamic resource that could be sustainably developed and employed is
knowledge. In view of this, it has become one of the most important
strategic issues for firms to establish and utilize knowledge as the source of
their dynamic competitive advantages (e.g., Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Reed &
DeFillippi, 1990; Nonaka, 1991; Ahmed et al, 1996; Grant, 1996a, b; Teece,
2000a, b; Zack, 2003, 1999a, b; Darroch, 2005; Mitchell, 2006).
Knowledge sharing (KS) and knowledge integration (KI) are two inter-
dependent and interactive processes. They are crucial processes that
determine whether knowledge could become a valuable, rare, durable,
2 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration Gongmin Bao et al

imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable resource for a self-interest and interdependence are properties of social
firm’s dynamic competitive advantage (e.g., Nonaka & exchange (Lawler & Thye, 1999), and their mutual trust is
Takeuchi, 1995; Grant, 1996a, b). Recognizing the impor- a precondition of the exchange, not legal obligations
tance of KS and KI in building a firm’s dynamic competi- (Stafford, 2008). Social exchanges are flexible and rarely
tive advantage, management research is increasingly involve explicit bargaining (Stafford, 2008). Feelings and
investigating the ways that effectively promote KS and KI emotions are internal reinforcements or punishments for
in organizations (e.g., Weiss, 1999; Tsai, 2002). Currently social exchange in addition to money and material
it is recognized that a number of factors affect KS and KI in rewards (Lawler, 2001). We argue that KS/KI is a kind of
organizations, and that trust is one of important factors social exchange, and that the promotion of KS/KI should
that have the impact. Theoretical analyses and empirical raise actors’ corresponding rewards, particularly those
examinations both verify that the mutual trust between intrinsic ones pertaining to emotions and feelings.
knowledge donors and users is the precondition of KS (e.g.,
Chowdhury, 2005), and that trust in management facil-
KS/KI as mutually implicative processes
itates KS in organizations (e.g., Renzl, 2008).
KS refers to the process in which employees contribute,
In this paper, we wish to engage with current literature
collect, share and transfer knowledge and abilities
on trust–KS/KI relations. Taking notice of trust as a cultu-
among peers in order to solve problems that either they
rally dependent variable (e.g., Fukuyama, 1995), and
themselves or peers face. KI refers to the process in which
observing that in certain national cultures (such as China)
shared knowledge becomes integrated to create new
different foci of trust such as employees’ trust in peers,
knowledge and form new abilities (Farrell et al, 2005). The
trust in supervisors and organizations often have different
two processes are vital in enlarging firms’ knowledge base
effects on employees’ behaviour, particularly, trust in
and upgrading firm’s competitive advantages (e.g., Nonaka
organizations might influence their mutual behaviours in
& Takeuchi, 1995; Grant, 1996a; Nickerson & Zenger,
the organizations (e.g., Renzl, 2008), we consider if and
2004).
how the effects of different foci of trust on KS/KI are
KS and KI are closely linked processes. From the perspec-
mediated by organizational intrinsic incentive variables.
tive of organizations, KS could be conceptualized as the
We hypothesize that organizational identification (OI)
necessary condition for KI, since KI is made possible only
and organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) are two such
when employees are willing to share knowledge with
mediating variables from the logic of social exchange
peers. From the perspective of motivation of knowledge
theory (Emerson, 1976; Lawler & Thye, 1999; Lawler,
donators and users, however, the counter logic also
2001). To test our hypotheses, the study draws on a large-
applies, since one would only share knowledge when she
scale questionnaire survey with 50 companies in China.
or he anticipates that such sharing would result in the
The survey measures seven variables including employees’
generation of new knowledge and abilities useful to him or
trust in peers, trust in supervisors, trust in organizations,
her, or to the organization. When we talk about KS and KI,
OI, OBSE, KS and KI. Data analyses suggest that trust (with
it is also important to bear in mind that different kinds of
different foci) have positive effects on KS and KI; however,
knowledge bears different consequences on micro-organi-
these effects are largely indirect in that they are fully or
zational politics. That is to say, the sharing and integration
partially mediated by OI and OBSE. We conclude that trust
of some knowledge would result in changes in the relative
in itself may be a precondition but insufficient condition
influences, social positions, reputations and competitive
for promoting KS and KI in organizations. This study is
advantages among knowledge donators and users, while
specific to Chinese context, and its results will contribute
those of some others would not. This means that there also
to understanding Chinese employees’ KS and KI.
exist processes which hamper the actualization of KS and
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section illus-
KI in organizations, because if organizational members
trates theoretical background and proposes hypotheses;
find KS or KI inimical to their self-interest it is less likely
this is followed by a section that introduces measurement
that they would engage in either activity. In general,
used for this study and the collection of data. The third
however, KS and KI can be conceptualized as mutually
section presents hypothesis testing. We proceed to discuss
implicative processes.
our findings, draw conclusions and implications in the
final section.
Trust as an antecedent of KS/KI
Literature review It has been generally agreed that KS and KI in organiza-
tions are complicated transactions (e.g., Williamson, 1981;
Social exchange theory Osterloh & Frey, 2000; Irmer et al, 2002; Kwok & Gao,
Social exchange theory, which psychologists call contin- 2005; Ke & Wei, 2007; Lin et al, 2012) whose actualization
gent return reinforcement and economists simply term as requires intrinsic incentives on the part of employees
reciprocally contingent flow exchange (Emerson, 1976), because it is too difficult to motivate employees to share
regards self-interested actors who transact with other and integrate knowledge by extrinsic incentives as measur-
self-interested actors to accomplish individual goals that ing the value of KS/KI is impractical (e.g., Moon & Park,
they cannot achieve alone (Lawler & Thye, 1999). Actors’ 2002; Lee & Ahn, 2007; Yang & Chen, 2007; Choi et al,

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
2008; Huang et al, 2008; Lin, 2008). As such, exploring the
intrinsic incentives of KS/KI becomes the focal point of
relevant research. Currently, scholars have explored ele-
ments of culture, loyalty and ethics in order to locate
intrinsic incentives for KS/KI actualization (e.g., Hall,
1992; Zack, 1999a).
From the viewpoint of social exchange theory (Emerson,
1976; Lawler, 2001), trust is a precondition for social
exchange (Stafford, 2008), particularly for the complicated
KS/KI transaction (e.g., Adler, 2001). By definition, trust
refers to the willingness of one party (i.e., trustor) to be
vulnerable to the actions of another (i.e., trustee) based on
the positive expectations that the trustee would perform
actions important to the trustor and regardless of the
trustor’s ability to monitor or control the actions of the
trustee (Rousseau et al, 1998). As a culturally dependent
variable (e.g., Fukuyama, 1995), trust functions beyond
the realm of individual rational calculation and draws its
potency mainly from social or cultural instincts which
describe people’s inclination to share the customs of
others of a group, and to conform to the opinions and
decisions of the group (Weiss, 1973; Ghiselin, 2009; Li &
Zhou, 2010; Waring, 2010). In other words, as a precondi-
tion for KS/KI, trust is largely intrinsic.
Mutual trust between knowledge donors and users
influences their KS/KI (e.g., Chowdhury, 2005). Trust can
be classified as generalized trust and particularized trust
(e.g., Delhey & Newton, 2005). Generalized trust describes
the general orientation of a society or community in
which individuals intend to trust strangers or unfamiliar
people (Delhey & Newton, 2005), while particularized
trust refers to the trust based on all sorts of specific cues or
ties (Wilson & Eckel, 2006; Bohnet & Baytelman, 2007;
Krumhuber et al, 2007). Particularized trust can be categor-
ized as calculus-based trust, identity-based trust and rela-
tional trust (e.g., Rousseau et al, 1998). Generalized trust is
an element of social capital (Knack & Keefer, 1997; Adler &
Kwon, 2002; Reeskens & Hooghe, 2008; Bjørnskov, 2010;
Fisher et al, 2010). If a society is low on generalized trust,
people in the society will have to develop particularized
trust to support their social exchange because trust is a
base of cooperative and exchange behaviour (Jones &
George, 1998). Generalized trust differs from countries to
countries (e.g., Fukuyama, 1995; Knack & Keefer, 1997;
Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006). As Chinese are low on generalized
trust (Fukuyama, 1995; Tan & Tambyah, 2011), Chinese
tend to build particularized trust named as guanxi for their
social exchange (Fukuyama, 1995; Li & Liang, 2002; Wei &
Bo, 2003; Hutchings & Weir, 2006; Shaalan et al, 2013).
Guanxi refers to the ties that facilitate favour exchanges
between individuals connected by the ties (Fukuyama,
1995; Xin & Pearce, 1996; Farh et al, 1998; Park & Luo,
2001; Wong et al, 2003; Lee & Dawes, 2005; Bian, 2006,
p. 312). In Chinese organizations, three types of guanxi are
important: the relations among peers, the relations
between employees and their supervisors, and the rela-
tions between employees and the organization. Therefore,
to investigate how the three types of particular trust affect
Gongmin Bao et al 3
KS/KI in organizations might make sense (e.g., Tan & Lim,
2009).
Existing discussion on trust does not pay sufficient
attentions to the cross effect of different foci of trust on
KS/KI, that is, the effects of trust in supervisors and
organizations on employees’ KS/KI. Existing work has
investigated the effects of trust among employees on their
KS/KI (e.g., Chowdhury, 2005) and the effects of trust
in management on employees’ KS/KI (Renzl, 2008), but it
has not explored the effects of trust in supervisor on
employees’ KS/KI. Trust has direct and indirect benefits
for organizations (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). The effects of
mutual trust between knowledge donators and users on
their KS/KI are direct benefits, and that employees’ trust in
supervisors and organizations affect their peers’ KS/KI is
indirect effect. There are two ways to explain the effect of
employees’ trust in supervisor on their peers’ KS/KI. First,
supervisors have authority and impact on their subordi-
nates (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002), and the trustworthy charac-
teristics of the supervisors might create a halo effect, which
spills over to their subordinates (Lord & Maher, 1993;
Gardner & Avolio, 1998). Halo effect describes the cogni-
tive orientation that the perceived positive features of
individuals are extended to their other characters (e.g.,
Thorndike, 1920; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). One Chinese
proverb that describes the positive halo effect is ‘aiwujiwu’,
which is literally translated as ‘love me and you will also
love my dogs’. That means employees’ trusting their
supervisors may give rise to a positive attitude toward their
peers and make them believe their peers’ KS/KI will be
protected by the supervisors. Second, Dirks & Ferrin (2002)
and Mayer et al (1995) argued that when employees trust
their supervisors, they will be more comfortable engaging
in risky behaviours. That means trust in supervisors can
substitute for employees’ mutual trust to support their
peers’ KS/KI in the organization at some degrees.
Guanxi and in-group are two interwoven concepts:
guanxi refers to interpersonal relationship; in-group
describes a number of individuals who are connected by
the ties or guanxi (Fukuyama, 1995; Xin & Pearce, 1996;
Farh et al, 1998; Park & Luo, 2001; Wong et al, 2003; Lee &
Dawes, 2005). Mayer et al (1995) defines trust as consisting
of three dimensions: ability, benevolence and integrity.
While ability and integrity can be said to be culture-free
dimensions, benevolence is much less so. Benevolence in
the Chinese culture has two rather distinctive (but also
related) characters. On the one hand, benevolence is
guanxi-oriented, that is, the trustee does not show bene-
volence to anyone, but only for those with whom (s)he has
established reciprocal guanxi (Fukuyama 1995; Xin &
Pearce, 1996; Farh et al, 1998; Park & Luo, 2001; Wong
et al, 2003; Lee & Dawes, 2005). On the other hand, guanxi-
oriented benevolence extends beyond interpersonal rela-
tions to in-group members (Delhey et al, 2011; Muethel
& Bond, 2013). An organization is a type of group.
Employees’ trusting the organization might lead to a
positive attitude toward the organizational members and
make them believe that their peers’ KS/KI will be protected
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
4 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
by the organization. Therefore, trust in organization might
be indirectly beneficial to peers’ KS/KI. Then, we argue that
a cross-dimensional examination of three trust foci on peers’
KS/KI contributes to our understandings of trust–KS/KI
relationships.
In current literature on trust–KS/KI relationships there is
a noticeable lack of attention on intrinsic-incentive med-
iators as emotional reward. Since trust is an intrinsic
precondition for KS/KI, and since difference foci of trust
may have cross effects on KS/KI, we have reasons to
speculate that individual trust’s effect on KS/KI is mediated
through intrinsic incentives at the organizational level.
Reviewing extant literature, we find that OI and OBSE
might be two such mediators.
OI and OBSE as mediators
The first mediator is OI. OI roots in social identity theory
and its extension self-categorization theory, both of which
deal with identification with groups (Vora & Kostova,
2007). Social identity and self-categorization refer to how
the self is defined in terms of unique and also is extended
to include social groups (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Hogg,
2003; van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). OI is defined as
organizational members’ perception of being within or
belonging to an organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989); it
describes organizational members’ self-concept-based rela-
tionships with organizations. The self-conception in terms
of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ in which organizational membership
becomes self-referential, is referred to as OI (Tajfel &
Turner, 1986; Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Sleebos,
2006). High OI indicates that employees search for self-
identities consistent with those of organizations, often
resulting in increased organizational effectiveness and
members’ job satisfaction (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Researchers have identified trust as an antecedent of OI.
Empirical studies report that employees’ trust in peers
(Cook & Wall, 1980; Ferres et al, 2004; Morgan et al,
2004), trust in supervisor (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Tan &
Tan, 2000) and trust in organization (Mael & Ashforth,
1992; Aryee et al, 2002) are positively related to OI, either
directly or indirectly (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Deduc-
tively also, OI is an antecedent for KS/KI. On the one hand,
identification, defined as cognitive and/or affective con-
nections among social actors and between actors and
institutions (Riketta, 2005), facilitates and causes social
cooperation (Bonacich & Schneider, 1992; Cabrera &
Cabrera, 2002; Dukerich et al, 2002; Polzer, 2004) of which
KS and KI are two vital forms of cooperation in organiza-
tions. On the other hand, group identification leads to
individuals’ enhanced senses of responsibilities and con-
cerns for group processes and outcomes, which in turn
gives rise to individuals’ attempting to improve job abil-
ities through KS/KI in order to better group performances
(Fleishman, 1980; Bonacich & Schneider, 1992; Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). From the
viewpoint of social exchange theory, the KS/KI can be
exchanged for the defence or maintenance of OI under the
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Gongmin Bao et al
condition of different foci of trust. Inferably, then,
OI mediates the positive relationships between trust and
KS/KI.
The second mediator is OBSE. Self-esteem refers to
individuals’ positive evaluation of themselves (Pierce
et al, 1989; Rosenberg et al, 1995; Cast & Burke, 2002).
OBSE describes employees’ evaluation of their personal
adequacy and worthiness as organizational members
(Gardner & Pierce, 1998) and the self-perceived value that
employees have of themselves as organizational members
acting within the organizational context (Pierce et al,
1989; McAllister & Bigley, 2002).
Trust at all three foci constitutes important antecedents
of OBSE. Research suggests that employees’ trust in peers
(van Dyne et al, 2000; Ferres et al, 2004) and trust in
organization (Mcallister & Bigley, 2002) are positively
related to OBSE, either directly or indirectly. Inferably,
employees’ trust in supervisors also contributes positively
to OBSE, since supervisors with whom employees interact
day-in and day-out have impact on the employees in
organizations. OBSE contributes positively to employees’
organizational citizen behaviours such as those of altruism
and obedience (Tang & Ibrahim, 1998; van Dyne et al,
2000). Although KS and KI have not been empirically
tested as acts of organizational citizenship, we have rea-
sons to believe that OBSE is positively related to KS/KI. All
in all, we postulate that OBSE mediates positively between
trust and KS/KI. According to social exchange theory, the
KS/KI can be exchanged for the defence or maintenance of
OBSE under the condition of different foci of trust.
Individuals identify with an organization and try to
positively differentiate this organization from others in
order to enhance their self-esteem (Vora & Kostova, 2007).
Particularly, employees’ identifying with a prestigious
organization will increase their self-esteem (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992; Vora & Kostova, 2007). In general, OI is
an antecedent of OBSE (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Shamir
& Kark, 2004). The higher the OI, the higher the OBSE
(Tajfel, 1982).
To sum up, we have noticed that current studies on
trust–KS/KI relationships can be further supplemented by
efforts that, first, highlight the cross effect of different foci
of trust (i.e., trust in peers, trust in supervisors and trust in
organizations) on KS/KI, and second, take into account of
OI and OBSE as mediators between trust and KS/KI as the
defence or maintenance of OI and OBSE might be the
feeling or emotional reward at the cost of KS/KI from
the viewpoint of social exchange theory (Lawler, 2001).
The present paper makes an effort to address these concerns.
In what follows we hypothesize a framework on trust–KS/KI
relationships and the mediating roles of OI and OBSE
within.
Hypotheses
KS and KI in organizations require intrinsic incentives.
From the perspective of workplace competition, KS/KI are
likely to change the status quo of competitive advantages
 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration Gongmin Bao et al 5

among knowledge donators and users. Also, from the ETO

perspective of transaction cost (Williamson, 1981), to
share and integrate knowledge can often be costly OI KI
(Szulanski, 1996). In both cases, knowledge donors might
hesitate to share or integrate knowledge with peers if they
are not intrinsically motivated because extrinsic incentives ETS
for KS/KI is impractical as measuring the values of KS/KI is
very difficult. OBSE KS

Trust in peers provides precondition for KS/KI among peers

(Adler, 2001). Trustors are likely to engage in KS/KI with
peers if they expect that through KS/KI trustees will perform ETC

actions important or beneficial to them. One way that links

KS/KI and trustors’ expectations of benefits is through OI. OI
specifies the degree to which employees believe that benefits
to organizations are at the same time benefits to themselves.
Since KS/KI are perceived by employees as important to
organizational performance that is related to the defence or
maintenance of OI, it is logical to infer that OI mediates the
relationships between trust in peers and KS/KI among peers.
Another way that links up KS/KI and trust is OBSE. Employ-
ees’ self-perceived values are closely associated with organiza-
tions’ public images (e.g., Kim & Nam, 1998). High OBSE
motivates employees intrinsically to better organizations’
abilities, reputations and public images. Such bettering can
be achieved through KS/KI since KS/KI adds to organizations’
abilities, performance and reputations. This reasoning, cou-
ples with the fact that OI and OBSE are positively related
processes (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Shamir & Kark, 2004),
establishes OBSE as a second mediator between trust in peers
and KS/KI among peers.
Different foci of trust have cross effect on KS/KI and the
relationships are mediated by OI and OBSE in the Chinese
context. The Chinese national culture has high power
distances and collectivism, which means that individuals
typically appeal to those in senior hierarchical positions
and sometimes institutions for legitimacy of their everyday
social transactions and every member of the firm is respon-
sible to do good for the firm even at the cost of her/his
interests (Hofstede, 1994, 2001). On the one hand, OI and
OBSE reflect the strength of employees’ orientation of
collectivism (van Dyne et al, 2000), while at the other hand,
the defence or maintenance of OI and OBSE could satisfy
their emotional demand at some degree (e.g., Tajfel, 1982;
Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Shamir & Kark, 2004). When
employees’ trust in supervisors and organizations might
provide the condition that it is safe to share and integrate
knowledge with peers as their supervisors and organizations
will protect them from being harmed, KS/KI are very likely
to be exchanged for the defence or maintenance of OI and
OBSE in the organization. Then, we could conclude that OI
and OBSE should mediate employees’ trust in supervisors
and organizations and their KS/KI with peers.
On the basis of these considerations, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H1: Employees’ trust is positively related to their KS/KI.
H1a: Employees’ trust in peers is positively related to their KS/KI.
Figure 1 The conceptual framework of the relationships
between trust and KS and KI.
Note: ETO stands for employees’ trust in organization; ETS stands
for employees’ trust in supervisor; ETC stands for employees’
trust in colleague; OI stands for employees’ organizational identi-
fication; OBSE stands for employees’ organization-based self-
esteem; KI stands for employees’ knowledge integration; KS
stands for employees’ knowledge sharing.
H1b: Employees’ trust in the organization is positively related
to their KS/KI.
H1c: Employees’ trust in supervisors is positively related to
their KS/KI.
H2: OI mediates the relationship between employees’ trust
and their KS/KI.
H2a: OI mediates the relationship between employees’ trust
in peers and their KS/KI.
H2b: OI mediates the relationship between employees’ trust
in the organization and their KS/KI.
H2c: OI mediates the relationship between employees’ trust in
supervisors and their KS/KI.
H3: OBSE mediates the relationship between employees’ trust
and their KS/KI.
H3a: OBSE mediates the relationship between employees’
trust in peers and their KS/KI.
H3b: OBSE mediates the relationship between employees’
trust in the organization and their KS/KI.
H3c: OBSE mediates the relationship between employees’
trust in supervisors and their KS/KI.
Taking into account the relationships among trust, OI,
OBSE and KS/KI, and integrating H1, H2, H3 and their sub-
hypotheses, we get the following conceptual framework
(see Figure 1).
Method, measurement and data
We used questionnaire to measure all variables concerned
in the study. For the complicated framework we propose
which includes many latent variables, questionnaire
survey is a feasible and suitable method (Pedhazur &
Schmelkin, 1991). To raise the validity and reliability of

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

6 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
our questionnaire we proceeded in several steps. First, we
compiled our questionnaire in English, drawing from
scales recognized in existing literature. A pilot study on
five companies was conducted to modify these scales for
the Chinese context. Second, we translated the question-
naire into Chinese. In the translation process, several
professors and Ph.D. students were consulted to make sure
that our translations were accurate and readable. We held
meetings with a number of colleagues and over 30 man-
agement major graduate students to discuss the question-
naire item by item. After revising several times, the
questionnaire is used for the survey. The questionnaire is
Likert 7 scale.
Pilot study
From 19 August to 3 September 2006, we conducted a pilot
study in order to test the validity and reliability of our
questionnaire, to ensure questionnaire return ratio and to
prepare for questionnaire modifications at later stages. We
selected five firms located in Hangzhou, China, for the
pilot study. Of the 120 questionnaires sent out at random,
106 were retrieved (88% return ratio). 51 returned ques-
tionnaires were found to be invalid. The valid response
ratio was 45.8%.
The pilot study generated sufficient data for a corrected-
item total correlation (CITC) analysis that followed. We set
0.5 as the threshold value for reserving questionnaire
items. We delete questionnaire items when such deleting
is found to increase the Cronbach’s α of a latent variable
(factor) (Churchill, 1979). Of remaining questionnaire
items, the Cronbach’s α values of latent variables were
larger than 0.8 (Nunnally, 1978). We also added some new
items to our questionnaires after detailed discussions with
colleagues. Finally, we conducted a large sample survey to
clarify the questionnaire and to test the propositions.
All in all, we revised the first version of our questionnaire
three times in order to produce the final version that we
subsequently used to measure latent variables in this
study.
Questionnaire
Trust in organizations
In this study, we used an 11-item questionnaire to measure
employees’ trust in organizations. These items are devel-
oped with reference to scales in existing literature, con-
siderations of Chinese cultural specificity and the results of
our pilot study. First, following Aryee et al’s (2002) way of
compiling scales, we modified the scale developed by
Gabarro & Athos (1976) and Robinson (1996), which
measured employees’ trust in employer (with seven items
and a Cronbach’s α of 0.87). We replaced ‘employer’ with
‘firm’ in all items and deleted the item ‘I am not sure I fully
trust my employer’ because in the Chinese context where
the general trust level is low, the expression ‘fully trusting
an organization’ is semantically difficult to comprehend.
To these six items we added two more. Considering that
employees tend to trust organizations that care about
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Gongmin Bao et al
them (Ashford et al, 1989), we added the item ‘I believe
my firm to look out for my best interests’ (Q1-8). We also
added the item ‘I believe that my firm is able to assist and
support my work’ (Q1-7) through discussions with collea-
gues. This eight-item questionnaire is used for the pilot
study. Three more items (Q1-9, Q1-10, Q1-11) were subse-
quently added to this initial questionnaire after the pilot
study since we found that in the Chinese context, trust in
organizations also include trust in organizational goals
and top management teams.
When the collected questionnaire data is submitted
to the final Cronbach’s α test, three items (Q1-3, Q1-6,
Q1-10) were deleted. The Cronbach’s α of the final trust
scale is 0.9.
Trust in supervisor and peer
In Mayer et al’s (1995) ability, benevolence and integrity
dimensions of trust, benevolence is largely guanxi-oriented
in the Chinese context. Guanxi is a type of long-term
relationship with mutual obligation, credibility and under-
standing (Zhang & Zhang, 2006). Guanxi is a type of
particularized trust (Kiong & Kee, 1998; Gao, 2012) that
entails the exchange of favors between individuals with
unspecified obligations to reciprocate (Adler & Kwon,
2002; Warren et al, 2004). Guanxi is related to benevolence
because it does not take ability and integrity into account,
but concerns if there is guanxi. If there is guanxi, interests
should be taken care of. In this study, therefore, we
measure ability, integrity and guanxi to account for
employees’ trust in supervisors and peers.
Basically, we refer to Jarvenpaa et al’s questionnaire
(1998) when measuring ability (Q2/3-1-1 to Q 2/3-1-6)
and integrity (Q2/3-2-1 to Q 2/3-2-6), and to the scales
developed by Wong et al (2003) and Lee & Dawes (2005)
when measuring guanxi (Q2/3-3-1 to Q2/3-3-7). In
Jarvenpaa et al’s (1998) questionnaire, the ability trust
scale includes six items (Cronbach’s α 0.90) and the
integrity trust scale, five items (Cronbach’s α 0.92). We
adopt their ability trust scale completely for our study
while make minor changes to their integrity trust scale.
Here, we take workplace ethics into consideration since
Chinese employees care about the ethical intentions and
behaviours (e.g., keeping one’s promises) of supervisors
and peers (Ch’ein, 1973; Yin, 1976). We therefore add two
items to the original scale (Q2/3-2-3: ‘my supervisor (or
‘most of my colleagues’) has good sense of justice’, and Q2/
3-2-5: ‘my supervisor (or “most of my colleagues”) keeps
his/her promises’). We delete an original item (my super-
visor (or ‘most of my colleagues’) did not behave in a
consistent manner) through pilot CITC analysis, thus
arriving at a 6-item scale that we use for measuring trust
integrity. For measuring guanxi, we synthesize the scales
developed by Wong et al’s (2003) and Lee & Dawes (2005)
into a 7-item scale which covers the different dimensions
of guanxi (e.g., face-saving, reciprocal favour and affection)
noticed by these authors. We delete a number of original
items in the process through the pilot CITC analysis and
 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
through extensive discussions with colleagues and gradu-
ate students.
When the collected questionnaire data is submitted to
the final Cronbach’s α test, three items (Q2/3-1-4, Q2/3-3-5,
Q2/3-3-7) were deleted. The Cronbach’s α of the final trust
scales (trust in supervisors and peers) is 0.922 and 0.921,
respectively.
Organizational identification
We adopt Mael & Ashforth’s (1992) 6-item OI scale for
this study. We make a number of minor linguistic
changes to suit Chinese respondents’ reading habits. For
instance, ‘I am very interested in what others think about
our firm’ is changed to ‘I am very interested in what
others think about my firm’. No item is deleted in the
pilot or final CITC analyses, and the Cronbach’s α of the
scale is 0.84.
Organization-based self-esteem
We adopt Pierce et al’s (1989) OBSE scale for this study
with minor linguistic changes to suit Chinese respondents’
reading habits. For instance, ‘I count around here’ is
changed to ‘I count in my firm’. Item Q4-10 is deleted in
the final CITC analysis. The Cronbach’s α of the scale is
0.90.
Knowledge sharing
To measure KS, we refer to Hooff & Ridder’s (2004) scale
which consists of two parts: knowledge donation (6-item
scale with Cronbach’s α 0.85) and knowledge collection
(4-item scale with Cronbach’s α 0.78). Through discussions
with colleagues and graduate students, we find that ‘to
instruct others how to solve problems’ (pertaining to the
transfer of knowledge-based ability to peers) and ‘to help
others solve problems’ (pertaining to the employment of
knowledge-based ability in solving problems without sig-
nificant transfer of such ability among peers) need to be
incorporated as relevant questionnaire items on knowl-
edge donation and collection in the Chinese context. We
therefore add Q6-1-7 (when colleagues within my depart-
ment ask for help, I help them to solve their problems with
my ability if I can), Q6-1-8 ( when colleagues out of my
department ask for help, I help them to solve their
problems with my ability if I can), Q6-2-5 (when I ask for
help, colleagues within my department help me to solve
my problems with their ability if they can), Q6-2-6 (when I
ask for help, colleagues out of my department help me to
solve my problems with their ability if they can) to the
original scale to measure these sub-dimensions.
When the collected questionnaire data is submitted to the
final CITC analysis, three items (Q6-1-1, Q6-1-4, Q6-2-4)
were deleted. The Cronbach’s α of the final KS scale is 0.91.
Knowledge integration
For measuring KI, we refer to Farrell et al’s (2005) ques-
tionnaire. We adopt their 4-item scale for measuring
motivations for combining knowledge and their 3-item
Gongmin Bao et al 7
scale for measuring knowledge combination capability.
We thus use a 7-item scale for measuring KI. No items
were deleted in the pilot or final CITC analyses, and the
Cronbach’s α of the scale is 0.86.
Samples
It has been argued that sample firms should be large
enough to allow for investigations on cross effects among
trust relationships. Following this argument, we chose
firms that generate over 500,000 RMB state-tax revenue
(1 RMB = US$0.12 in 2005) as target firms. In Hangzhou
(China), we referred to the official listing of firms that had
more than 500,000 RMB of state-tax revenue in 2005 and
used the simple stochastic sampling method to select 50
firms. We located 20 employees in each firm as respon-
dents. From 20 September to 8 December 2006, we sent
out 1000 questionnaires to these respondents. We
retrieved 982 questionnaires, and the return rate is 98.2%.
To ensure the validity of our data, we remove the
questionnaires where (a) data are incomplete (such as with
more than five unanswered items), (b) marks of answers of
items show regular shapes on questionnaire sheets (such as
‘Z’ shape), (c) answers are noticeably contradictory, (d) too
many chosen answers are uncertain (such as more than 10
items), or (e) questionnaires collected from a same com-
pany demonstrate high degrees of replication (e.g., Wei &
Zhang, 2009; Yao et al, 2012). We establish these strict
standards for selecting valid returned questionnaires
because in China not all respondents are serious in answer-
ing questionnaires. Finally, 706 returned questionnaires
are selected as valid and the effective return rate is thus
70.6%.
Of those 706 respondents, 57.4% are male and 42.6%
female. 0.3% of respondents are under 20 years of age,
59.9% between 20 and 30, 26.6% between 31 and 40, 8.6%
between 40 and 50, and 4.5% over 50. 11.2% of respon-
dents hold degrees of or below senior high-school level,
39.4% of junior and senior professional school degrees,
44.2% of bachelor’s degrees, and 5.2% of graduate degrees.
16.3% of respondents have monthly salary of or below
1500 RMB, 52.0% between 1500 and 3000 RMB, 18.7%
between 3000 and 4500 RMB, 7.2% between 4500 and
6000 RMB, and 5.8% above 6000 RMB. 21.4% of respon-
dents have less than 1 year of work experience, 31.0% have
1–3 years, 16.9% have 3–5 years, 8.8% have 5–7 years and
22.0% have more than 7 years of work experience. 34.3%
of respondents work in sales and marketing departments,
26.1% in technological departments, 17.1% in administra-
tion, 13.0% in finance and accounting and 9.5% in
production. 60.6% of respondents work in manufacturing
industries, 21.5% in wholesale and retail, 12.9% in infor-
mation technology, and 5.0% in construction and estate.
Since all of the absolute skewness values of the data are
below 3 and the absolute kurtosis values are below 10,
the data is obedient to normal distribution in general
(Kline, 1998). Therefore, we use structural equation model-
ling for data analysis in this study.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
8 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration Gongmin Bao et al

Validity and reliability Although debates on common method variance (CMV)

The Cronbach’s α values of the factors are bigger than 0.8,
which means the internal consistencies of the factors are
good (Nunnally, 1978). The convergent validity of the
data is measured by average variance extracted (AVE)
where an AVE value above 0.5 suggests the convergent
validity of the data is acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981a, b).
As Table 1 shows, all AVE values are above 0.5, which
suggests that the convergent validity of our data is
acceptable.
We test data’s discriminant validity by comparing the
values of the root mean square of the AVEs of latent
variables (factors) and the correspondent correlation coeffi-
cients of latent variables (factors) (Fornell & Larcker, 1981a,
b). We find that our data’s discriminant validity is acceptable
since the values of the root mean square of AVEs (marked
out in parentheses in the diagonal) are bigger than the
correspondent correlation coefficients of latent variables
(see Table 2).
Furthermore, the full variable confirmatory analysis
shows that the discriminant validity and the convergent
validity of the factors are acceptable (e.g., Bollen, 1989;
Bentler & Chou, 1992; Aryee et al, 2002; Bacharach et al,
2002; Hult et al, 2002; Lewis et al, 2002; Subramani &
Venkatraman, 2003). According to Anderson & Gerbing’s
(1992) two-stage approach, the factors are suitable to
conduct path analysis.
Common method bias
The data is susceptible to common method bias as it
adopts questionnaire to measure all concerned variables.
have been going on for the last 50 years (e.g., Campbell &
Fiske, 1959), there has been little consensus among
researchers regarding the conditions under which CMV
actually invalidates empirical results (Siemsen et al, 2010).
At the same time, there are contradictions on how to
control CMV. For instance, on the one hand, it has been
argued that reverse scoring is able to eliminate CMV bias
(Lindell & Whitney, 2001); on the other hand, reverse
scoring has been regarded as a source of CMV bias
(Podsakoff et al, 2003). Conway & Lance (2010) point out
that there are different sources of method bias that need to
be carefully controlled, and the reason why CMV bias has
been singled out as a prominent problem by some scholars
is largely due to misconceptions. Indeed, CMV can either
inflate or deflate bivariate linear relationships depending
on the degree of symmetry with which CMV affect the
observed measures (Siemsen et al, 2010). As to multivariate
linear relationships, common method bias generally
decreases when additional independent variables suffering
from CMV are included in a regression equation (Siemsen
et al, 2010), and interaction effects could not be artifacts of
CMV in interaction regression models (Siemsen et al,
2010). Mathematically, structural equation modelling
with mediators is similar to interaction regression model
since mediate effects and interaction effects have similar
mathematical formula. Following Siemsen et al’s (2010)
argument, if interaction effects cannot be artifacts of CMV
in interaction regression models, neither can mediate
effects in structural equation modelling. This paper
explores the mediate effects of OI and OBSE. Since the

Table 1 Convergent validities of the factors

Scale ETO ETSA ETSI ETSG ETCA ETCI ETCG OI OBSE KSD KSC KIM KIA

AVE 0.54 0.72 0.65 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.55 0.51 0.51 0.56 0.71 0.63 0.62
Note: ETO stands for employees’ trust in organization; ETSA stands for employees’ trust in supervisor’s ability; ETSI stands for employees’ trust in
supervisor’s integrity; ETSG stands for employees’ trust in guanxi with the supervisor; ETCA stands for employees’ trust in colleague’s ability; ETCI stands for
employees’ trust in colleague’s integrity; ETCG stands for employees’ trust in the guanxi with the colleague; OI stands for employees’ organizational
identification; OBSE stands for employees’ organization-based self-esteem; KSD stands for employees’ intention of knowledge donation; KSC stands for
employees’ intention of knowledge collection; KIM stands for employees’ motivation of knowledge integration; KIA stands for employees’ ability of
knowledge integration. AVE is the average variance extracted.

Table 2 Discriminant validity of the variables

Scale Average S.D. ETO ETS ETC OBSE OI KS KI

ETO 5.60 0.70 (0.73)

ETS 5.63 0.65 0.62 (0.80)
ETC 5.57 0.62 0.46 0.59 (0.79)
OBSE 5.45 0.61 0.57 0.53 0.48 (0.72)
OI 5.74 0.63 0.57 0.54 0.48 0.54 (0.71)
KS 5.74 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.52 0.56 0.63 (0.79)
KI 5.60 0.67 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.60 0.61 0.62 (0.79)
Notes: A. All of the correlations are significant at 0.01 levels. B. ETO stands for employees’ trust in organization; ETS stands for employees’ trust in
supervisor; ETC stands for employees’ trust in colleague; OI stands for employees’ OI; OBSE stands for employees’ organization-based self-esteem; KI
stands for employees’ knowledge integration; KS stands for employees’ knowledge sharing. C. The numbers in the brackets on the diagonal are the values
of the root mean square of the average variance extracted.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration Gongmin Bao et al 9

mediate effects are significant in the structural equation
modelling, we think that correspondent results are not
susceptible to common method bias, at least not in
significant ways.
Hypothesis test
We test our hypotheses through structural equation mod-
elling. According to Baron & Kenny (1986), Wu & Zumbo
(2008) and Nadkarni & Narayanan (2007), the path analy-
sis of the mediate effects of OI and OBSE between trust and
KS/KI proceeds in two steps. In step one, the bilateral
relationships between dependent (KS and KI) and mediate
(OI and OBSE) variables, between dependent and indepen-
dent variables (trust in organizations, trust in supervisors
and trust in peers), and between mediate and independent
variables are assessed respectively. In step two, the inte-
grated structural equation modelling is conducted. We use
AMOS 5.0 as analytical software.
In Step 1, we find that all bilateral relationships between
dependent, mediate and independent variables are signifi-
cant at least at P<0.05 level. In Step 2, we find all indices of
fitness are acceptable for the full influence integrative
structural equation model (see Figures 2 and 3), because
our model is complex and few complex models are found
to have higher indices of fitness (Bollen, 1989; Bentler &
Chou, 1992; Aryee et al, 2002; Bacharach et al, 2002; Hult
et al, 2002; Lewis et al, 2002; Subramani & Venkatraman,
2003).
Specifically, our hypothesis test suggests that the direct
effects of trust in peers and trust in supervisors on KS/KI
are insignificant, while that of trust in organizations on KS
is significant at P<0.001 level. At the same time, all four
paths between trust in organizations and trust in peers on
the one hand and OI and OBSE on the other are significant
at P<0.01 or less. Also, the path between trust in super-
visors and OI is significant at P<0.01 level; however, the
path between trust in supervisors and OBSE is insignif-
icant. All paths between OI/OBSE and KS/KI are significant
at P < 0.001 level.
On the basis of the logics of Baron & Kenny (1986) and
Wu & Zumbo (2008), we thus summarize our hypothesis
test. First, H1 is supported. Employees’ trust in peers, trust
in organizations, and trust in supervisors are positively
related to their KS and KI. Second, H2a and H2c are
supported while H2b is partially supported. OI mediates
the relationships between employees’ trust in peers, trust
in supervisors and their KS and KI; it also mediates the
relationship between employees’ trust in organizations
and their KI but does so only partially in terms of the
relationship between employees’ trust in organizations
and their KS. Third, H3a is supported, H3b is partially
supported, and H3c is not supported. OBSE mediates the
relationship between employees’ trust in peers and their KI
and KS; it partially mediates the relationship between
employees’ trust in organizations and their KS and KI.
The mediate effect of OBSE on the relationship between
employees’ trust in supervisors and their KS/KI is not

ETO KIM KIA

0.369*** -0.068
0.880*** 0.682***
0.257***
ETSA OI 0.518*** KI
0.741***
0.087
0.775*** 0.261**
0.112
ETSI 0.518***
ETS 0.191** 0.420***
0.809*** 0.549*** 0.248***
0.276***
ETSG 0.676***
0.178**

0.749*** 0.155 .039

OBSE 0.135* KS
ETCA
0.731*** 0.184**
0.107 0.780*** 0.687***
0.817*** ETC
ETCI
KSD KSC

0.746***
ETCG

note: *p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001

Figure 2 The results of full influence model test.

The indices of goodness of fit：χ2/df = 1.557, GFI = 0.870, AGFI = 0.861, NFI = 0.891, IFI = 0.958, CFI = 0.958, PNFI = 0.855, RMSEA =
0.028
Note: ETO stands for employees’ trust in organization; ETSA stands for employees’ trust in supervisor’s ability; ETSI stands for employees’
trust in supervisor’s integrity; ETSG stands for employees’ trust in guanxi with the supervisor; ETCA stands for employees’ trust in collea-
gue’s ability; ETCI stands for employees’ trust in colleague’s integrity; ETCG stands for employees’ trust in the guanxi with the
colleague; OI stands for employees’ organizational identification; OBSE stands for employees’ organization-based self-esteem; KSD stands
for employees’ intention of knowledge donation; KSC stands for employees’ intention of knowledge collection; KIM stands for employees’
motivation of knowledge integration; KIA stands for employees’ ability of knowledge integration.

Knowledge Management Research & Practice

10 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
ETO
ETSA
0.744***
0.778***
ETSI
ETS
0.810*** 0.553***
ETSG 0.672***
0.755***
ETCA
0.733***
0.813*** ETC
ETCI
0.745***
ETCG
note **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Figure 3 The results of revised model test.
The indices of goodness of fit：χ2/df = 1.563, GFI = 0.870, AGFI = 0.861, NFI = 0.891, IFI = 0.958, CFI = 0.958, PNFI = 0.856,
RMSEA = 0.028
significant. At the same time, our results are consistent
with existing arguments that OI is the antecedent of OBSE
and KI of KS.
Discussion and conclusion
In this study, we build upon and aim to contribute to a body
of literature that establishes trust as an important antecedent
of KS and KI in organizations (e.g., Chowdhury, 2005).
Approaching trust as a culturally dependent variable, we take
notice of the fact that different foci of trust (i.e., trust in
peers, trust in supervisors and trust in organizations) might
have cross effects on KS/KI as preconditions in certain
national cultures such as China. This deduction leads us to
question existing literature that seeks to establish direct effect
relations between different foci of trust and KS/KI. We
hypothesize that employees’ trust in peers, supervisors and
organizations positively affect KS/KI through the mediation
of two organizational intrinsic incentives: OI and OBSE.
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a large-scale question-
naire survey (1000 questionnaires with an effective return
rate of 70.8%) in 50 companies based in Hangzhou, China.
Analyses of data reveal OI and OBSE as two important
mediators between different foci of trust and KS/KI in
organizations. Specifically, we find that OI and OBSE fully
mediate the relationships between trust in peers and
KS/KI; OI fully mediates the relationships between trust in
supervisors and KS/KI, and OI and OBSE fully mediate the
relationships between trust in organizations and KI. We
explain these full mediating roles of OI and OBSE in the
following manner. According to social exchange theory,
when mutual trust (trust in peers) serves as precondition
of transaction, OI and OBSE mediate the relationship
between trust in peers and KS/KI, because the defence or
maintenance of the OI and OBSE, which can be realized
through KS/KI, are employees’ feeling or emotional reward
at the cost of KS/KI in the transaction. Put in another way,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Gongmin Bao et al
KIM KIA
0.343***
0.880*** 0.682***
OI 0.576*** KI
0.279**
0.354***
0.212** 0.432***
0.256*** 0.207***
0.321***
0.320***
OBSE 0.168** KS
0.271*** 0.786*** 0.682***
KSD KSC
OI and OBSE are rooted in employees’ needs: it is because
individuals find certain things (such as money, safety and
social recognition) meaningful and important to the main-
tenance of their biological or social selves that these things
motivate individuals for actions (Maslow, 1943). There
might be a number of reasons why employees find OI and
OBSE meaningful and important to them; one could, for
instance, resort to social identity theories and regard such
identification and esteem as crucially constitutive of
employees’ social selves (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Burkitt,
1991). If we follow this vein of thought, it is logical that
through sharing and integrating knowledge among them-
selves, and further, through recognizing such KS and KI as
beneficial to organizations, employees are able to realize
the meaning and importance that they attach to their OI
and OBSE. In this way, the effects of employees’ mutual
trust on KS/KI are mediated by OI and OBSE because
employees always anticipate gains from their KS/KI activi-
ties that are valuable to the sustenance of their social
selves. In short, our findings generally support existing
literature on the positive effects of mutual trust on KS and KI.
However, going beyond existing literature, our findings
suggest that such effects are indirect in that they are
mediated by such variables as OI and OBSE.
We argue, although trust in supervisors could substitute
for employees’ mutual trust at some degree in the KS/KI
transaction because trust in supervisors might provide per-
ceived safety of in-firm trade, the impact of supervisors on
employees’ OI in high power distance societies such as China
makes OI the sole mediator between trust in supervisors and
employees’ KS/KI, while supervisors have little effects on
employees’ OBSE. This is why only OI mediates the relation-
ship between trust in supervisors and employees’ KS/KI.
The effects of employees’ trust in organization on their
KS/KI are mediated by OI and OBSE, because employees’
trust in organization might take the place of their mutual
 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
trust as precondition of transaction that the organization
would protect them from being harmed in the in-firm
transaction while the roles of OI and OBSE are the same as
discussed above. The reason that employees’ trust in
organization has direct effect on KS at the same time might
be that employees’ trust in organization not only serves as
precondition of KS in firm like employees’ mutual trust,
but also reflect the relationship that the employees believe
that they contribute to the firms’ performance by KS
would be recognized and rewarded by the firms. As to
why trust in organization just has direct effects on KS and
not KI, further investigation is needed.
With these findings our study makes several contribu-
tions to existing literature in trust and knowledge manage-
ment in organizations. The first contribution is to trust–
KS/KI relationship research. Our study provides empirical
evidence that trust is a precondition for employees to share
and integrate knowledge in organizations. Importantly,
the study suggests that in themselves, trust in peers and
trust in supervisors may not be able to make KS/KI happen
without intrinsic incentives such as OI and/or OBSE, that
is, the relationships between trust in peers, trust in super-
visors and KS/KI are fully mediated by such variables as OI
and OBSE. The relationship between trust in organization
and KS partially mediated by OI and OBSE might have
other implication that needs exploring. We do not claim
that OI and OBSE are the only mediators between trust and
KS/KI. We do propose, however, that the complicated
relations between trust and KS/KI merit further empirical
and theoretical investigations.
The second contribution we wish to make is to knowl-
edge management in organizations. Our study suggests that
OI and OBSE play central roles in the management of KS
and KI in organizations. In order to effectively promote KS
and KI in organizations, therefore, managers need to focus
on macroscopic and strategic issues, such as organizational
References
ADLER PS (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: the knowledge economy
and the future of capitalism. Organization Science 12(2), 215–234.
ADLER PS and KWON SW (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept.
Academy of Management Review 27(1), 17–40.
AHMED PK, HARDAKER G and CARPENTER M (1996) Integrated flexibility – key
to competition in a turbulent environment. Long Range Planning 29(4),
562–571.
AMIT R and SCHOEMAKER PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational
rent. Strategic Management Journal 14(1), 33–46.
ANDERSON JC and GERBING DW (1992) Assumptions and comparative
strengths of the two-step approach. Sociological Methods & Research
20(3), 321–334.
ARYEE S, BUDHWAR PS and CHEN ZX (2002) Trust as a mediator of the
relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes:
test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior
23(3), 267–285.
ASHFORD SJ, LEE C and BOBKO P (1989) Content, causes, and consequences
of job insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy
of Management Journal 32(4), 803–829.
ASHFORTH BE and MAEL F (1989) Social identity theory and the organiza-
tion. Academy of Management Review 14(1), 20–39.
BACHARACH SB, BAMBERGER PA and SONNENSTUHL WJ (2002) Driven to drink:
managerial control, work related risk factors, and employee problem
drinking. Academy of Management Journal 45(4), 637–658.
Gongmin Bao et al 11
values, justice, images and reputations, which are able to
raise employees’ OI and OBSE (e.g., Mael & Ashforth, 1992;
Dukerich et al, 2002; Mcallister & Bigley, 2002; Schrodt,
2002), as well as microscopic ones, such as trust relations
among employees, which provide the precondition of KS/
KI (e.g., Adler, 2001). Since trust is intrinsic precondition for
KS and KI, and OI and OBSE are intrinsic incentives for that,
we advise that such double efforts, costly as they may seem,
are worthwhile for today’s management because they are
beneficial to the building of a firm’s sustainable competitive
advantage in the knowledge era.
The third contribution is to our understanding of trust
in organizations and trust in supervisors. First, our study
reveals that different foci of trust affects positively on KS
and KI at the same time. This means it is possible that
researchers include different foci of trust into a more
integrated model than that is currently available in future
investigations; this also suggests that managers need to
orchestrate and balance different trusts in order to effec-
tively promote KS and KI in organizations. Second, our
study calls for further reflections on the mutual implica-
tions among different foci of trust. Admittedly, in this
study the idea that the effects of one kind of trust (e.g.,
trust in peers) can be replaced by that of another (i.e., trust
in organizations) serves largely as a starting assumption.
Our findings suggest that this assumption is not unwar-
ranted, and we speculate that future investigations on the
mutual implications among trust foci will enrich our
understandings of trust in organizations.
Acknowledgements
The paper is a product of project ‘The effects of typical cultural
factors (phenomena) on firms’ knowledge sharing and
integration and their management’ supported by National
Natural Science Foundation of China (serial no. 70971117).
BARNEY JB (1991) Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management 17(1), 99–120.
BARON RM and KENNY DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical con-
siderations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6), 1173–1182.
BENTLER PM and CHOU C (1992) Some new covariance structure model
improvement statistics. Sociological Methods & Research 21(2), 259–282.
BERGAMI M and BAGOZZI RP (2000) Self-categorization, affective commit-
ment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the
organization. British Journal of Social Psychology 39(4), 555–577.
BIAN Y (2006) Guanxi. In International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology
(BECKERT J and ZAFIROVSKI M, Eds), pp 312–314, Routledge, New York.
BJØRNSKOV C (2010) How does social trust lead to better governance? An
attempt to separate electoral and bureaucratic mechanisms. Public
Choice 144(1), 323–346.
BOHNET I and BAYTELMAN Y (2007) Institutions and trust: implications
for preferences, beliefs and behavior. Rationality and Society 19(1),
99–135.
BOLLEN KA (1989) A new incremental fit index for general structural
equation models. Sociological Methods & Research 17(3), 303–316.
BONACICH P and SCHNEIDER S (1992) Communication networks and
collective action. In Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research
Findings (LIEBRAND WBG, MESSICK DM and WILKE HAM, Eds), pp 225–245,
Pergammon, New York.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
12 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
BURKITT I (1991) Social Selves: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality.
Sage, London.
CABRERA A and CABRERA EF (2002) Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organiza-
tion Studies 23(5), 687–710.
CAMPBELL DT and FISKE DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56(2), 81–105.
CAST AD and BURKE PJ (2002) A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces
80(3), 1041–1068.
CH’EIN M (1973) On the systems of academic knowledge. In Higher
Education and University Students (PHILIP S, Ed), pp 15–32, University
Press, Hongkong.
CHOI SY, KANG YK and LEE H (2008) The effects of socio-technical enablers
on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination. Journal of Informa-
tion Science 34(5), 742–754.
CHOWDHURY S (2005) The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in
complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues 17(3), 310–326.
CHURCHILL GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16(2), 64–73.
CONWAY JM and LANCE CE (2010) What reviewers should expect from
authors regarding common method bias in organizational research.
Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3), 325–334.
COOK J and WALL T (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organiza-
tional commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of
Occupational Psychology 53(1), 39–52.
DARROCH J (2005) Knowledge management, innovation and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Knowledge Management 9(3), 101–115.
DELHEY J and NEWTON K (2005) Predicting cross-national levels of social
trust: global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological
Review 21(4), 311–327.
DELHEY J, NEWTON K and WELZEL C (2011) How general is trust in ‘most
people’? Solving the radius of trust problem and deriving a better
measure. American Sociological Review 76(5), 786–807.
DIERICKX I and COOL K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability
of competitive advantage. Management Science 35(12), 1504–1513.
DIRKS KT and FERRIN DL (2001) The role of trust in organizational settings.
Organization science 12(4), 450–467.
DIRKS KT and FERRIN DL (2002) Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings
and implications for research and practice. Journal of applied psychology
87(4), 611–628.
DUKERICH JM, GOLDEN BR and SHORTELL SM (2002) Beauty is in the eye of
the beholder: the impact of organizational identification, identity, and
image on the cooperative behaviors of physician. Administrative Science
Quarterly 47(9), 507–533.
EMERSON RM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology
2, 335–362.
FARH JL, TSUI AS, XIN K and CHENG BS (1998) The influence of relational
demography and guanxi: the Chinese case. Organization Science 9(4),
471–488.
FARRELL JB, FLOOD PC, CURTAIN SM, HANNIGAN A, DAWSON J and WEST M
(2005) CEO leadership, top team trust and the combination and
exchange of information. Irish Journal of Management 26(1), 22–40.
FERRES N, CONNELL J and TRAVAGLIONE A (2004) Co-worker trust as a social
catalyst for constructive employee attitudes. Journal of Managerial
Psychology 19(6), 608–622.
FISHER JE, TILL BD and STANLEY SM (2010) Signaling trust in print advertise-
ments: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing Communications
16(3), 133–147.
FLEISHMAN JA (1980) Collective action as helping behavior: effects of
responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 38(4), 629–637.
FORNELL C and LARCKER DF (1981a) Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics.
Journal of Marketing Research 18(3), 382–388.
FORNELL C and LARCKER DF (1981b) Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-
ing Research 18(1), 39–50.
FUKUYAMA F (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity.
Free Press, New York.
GABARRO JJ and ATHOS J (1976) Interpersonal Relations and Communications.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
GAO H (2012) Guanxi as a gateway in Chinese-Western business relation-
ships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27(6), 456–467.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Gongmin Bao et al
GARDNER DG and PIERCE JL (1998) Self-esteem and self-efficacy within
the organization context. Group & Organization Management 23(1),
48–70.
GARDNER WL and AVOLIO BJ (1998) The charismatic relationship: a drama-
turgical perspective. Academy of Management Review 23(1), 32–58.
GHISELIN MT (2009) Darwin and the evolutionary foundations of society.
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71(1), 4–9.
GRANT RM (1996a) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:
organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization
Science 7(4), 375–387.
GRANT RM (1996b) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal 17(s2), 109–122.
HALL R (1992) The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic
Management Journal 13(2), 135–144.
HOFSTEDE G (1994) Cultural constraints in management theories. Interna-
tional Review of Strategic Management 5, 27–48.
HOFSTEDE G (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,
Institutions Across Nations. Sage, London.
HOGG MA (2003) Social identity. In Handbook of Self and Identity (LEARY MR
and TANGNEY JP, Eds), pp 462–479, The Guilford Press, New York.
HOOFF BVD and RIDDER JAD (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.
HUANG Q, DAVISON R and GU J (2008) Impact of personal and cultural
factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Manage-
ment 25(3), 451–471.
HULT GTM, KETCHEN JR. DJ and NICHOLS JR. EL (2002) An examination of
cultural competitiveness and order fulfillment cycle time within supply
chains. Academy of Management Journal 45(3), 577–586.
HUTCHINGS K and WEIR D (2006) Guanxi and wasta: a comparison.
Thunderbird International Business Review 48(1), 141–156.
IRMER BE, BORDIA P and ABUSAH D (2002) Evaluation apprehension and
perceived benefits in interpersonal and database knowledge sharing.
In Academy of Management Proceedings (Nagao DH, Ed), pp B1–B6,
Denver, Colorado.
JARVENPAA SL, KNOLL K and LEIDNER DE (1998) Is anybody out there?
Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management
Information Systems 14(4), 29–64.
JONES GR and GEORGE JM (1998) The experience and evolution of trust:
implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of management
review 23(3), 531–546.
KE WL and WEI KK (2007) Factors affecting trading partners’ knowledge
sharing: using the lens of transaction cost economics and socio-
political theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 6(3),
297–308.
KIM JY and NAM SH (1998) The concept and dynamics of face: implications
for organizational behavior in Asia. Organization Science 9(4), 522–534.
KIONG TC and KEE YP (1998) Guanxi bases, xinyong and Chinese business
networks. The British Journal of Sociology 49(1), 75–96.
KLINE RB (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The
Guilford Press, New York.
KNACK S and KEEFER P (1997) Does social capital have an economic payoff?
A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4),
1251–1288.
KRUMHUBER E, MANSTEAD ASR, COSKER D, MARSHALL D, ROSIN PL and KAPPAS A
(2007) Facial dynamics as indicators of trustworthiness and cooperative
behavior. Emotion 7(4), 730–735.
KWOK SH and GAO S (2005–2006) Attitude towards knowledge sharing
behavior. Journal of Computer Information Systems 46(2), 45–51.
LAWLER EJ (2001) An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of
Sociology 107(2), 321–335.
LAWLER EJ and THYE SR (1999) Bringing emotions into social exchange
theory. Annual Review of Sociology 25, 217–244.
LEE DJ and AHN JH (2007) Reward systems for intra-organizational knowl-
edge sharing. European Journal of Operational Research 180(2), 938–956.
LEE DY and DAWES PL (2005) Guanxi, trust, and long-term orientation in
Chinese business markets. Journal of International Marketing 13(2), 28–56.
LEWIS CA, FRANCIS LJ and ZIEBERTZ H (2002) The internal consistency
reliability and construction validity of the German translation of the
oxford happiness inventory. North American Journal of Psychology 4(2),
211–220.
 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
LEWICKI RJ and BUNKER BB (1996) Developing and maintaining trust in work
relationships. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research
(KRAMER RM and TYLER TR, Eds), pp 114–139, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
LI J and ZHOU YJ (2010) Experimental analysis of self-organizing team’s
behaviors. Expert Systems with Applications 37(1), 727–732.
LI W and LIANG Y (2002) Particular trust and generalized trust: the structure
of trust of Chinese. Sociological Studies (3), 11–22.
LIN TC, WU S and LU CT (2012) Exploring the affect factors of knowledge
sharing behavior: the relations model theory perspective. Expert Systems
with Applications 39(1), 751–764.
LIN W (2008) The effect of knowledge sharing model. Expert Systems with
Applications 34(2), 1508–1521.
LINDELL MK and WHITNEY DJ (2001) Accounting for common method
variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology
86(1), 114–121.
LORD RG and MAHER KJ (1993) Leadership and Information Processing:
Linking Perceptions and Performance. Routledge, London.
MAEL F and ASHFORTH BE (1992) Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test
of reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior 13(2), 103–123.
MASLOW AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review
50(4), 370–396.
MAYER RC, DAVIS JH and SCHOORMAN FD (1995) An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734.
MCALLISTER DJ and BIGLEY GA (2002) Work context and the definition of
self: how organizational care influences organization-based self-esteem.
Academy of Management Journal 45(5), 894–904.
MITCHELL VL (2006) Knowledge integration and information technology
project performance. MIS Quarterly 30(4), 919–939.
MOON HK and PARK MS (2002) Effective reward systems for knowledge
sharing. Knowledge Management Review 4(6), 22–25.
MORGAN JM, REYNOLDS CM, NELSON TJ, JOHANNINGMEIER AR, GRIFFIN M and
ANDRADE P (2004) Tales from the fields: sources of employee identification
in agribusiness. Management Communication Quarterly 17(3), 360–395.
MUETHEL M and BOND MH (2013) National context and individual
employees’ trust of the out-group: the role of societal trust. Journal of
International Business Studies 44(4), 312–333.
NADKARNI S and NARAYANAN VK (2007) Strategic schemas, strategic
flexibility, and firm performance: the moderating role of industry clock-
speed. Strategic Management Journal 28(3), 243–270.
NAHAPIET J and GHOSHAL S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital
and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review
23(2), 242–266.
NICKERSON JA and ZENGER TR (2004) A knowledge-based theory of the firm:
the problem-solving perspective. Organization Science 15(6), 617–632.
NISBETT RE and WILSON TD (1977) The halo effect: evidence for uncon-
scious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 35(4), 250–256.
NONAKA I (1991) The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business
Review 69(6), 96–104.
NONAKA I and TAKEUCHI H (1995) The Knowledge Creation Company. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
NUNNALLY JC (1978) Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
OSTERLOH M and FREY B (2000) Motivation, knowledge transfer, and
organizational forms. Organization Science 11(5), 538–550.
PARK SH and LUO Y (2001) Guanxi and organizational dynamics:
organizational networking in Chinese firms. Strategic Management
Journal 22(5), 455–477.
PEDHAZUR EJ and SCHMELKIN L (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
PETERAF MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage:
a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14(3), 179–191.
PIERCE JL, GARDNER DG, CUMMINGS LL and DUNHAM RB (1989) Organization-
based self-esteem: construct definition, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal 32(3), 622–648.
PODSAKOFF PM, MACKENZIE SB, LEE JY and PODSAKOFF NP (2003) Com-
mon method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology
88(5), 879–903.
POLZER JT (2004) How subgroup interests and reputations moderate the
effect of organizational identification on cooperation. Journal of Man-
agement 30(1), 71–96.
Gongmin Bao et al 13
REED R and DEFILLIPPI RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and
sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review
15(1), 88–102.
REESKENS T and HOOGHE M (2008) Cross-cultural measurement equiva-
lence of generalized trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey
(2002 and 2004). Social Indicators Research 85(3), 515–32.
RENZL B (2008) Trust in management and knowledge sharing: the mediating
effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega 36(2), 206–220.
RIKETTA M (2005) Organizational identification: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Vocational Behavior 66(2), 358–384.
ROBINSON SL (1996) Trust and breach of the psychological contract.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41(4), 579–599.
ROSENBERG M, SCHOOLER C, SCHOENBACH C and ROSENBERG F (1995) Global
self-esteem and specific self-esteem. American Sociological Review 60(1),
141–156.
ROUSSEAU DM, SITKIN SB, BURT RS and COLIN C (1998) Not so different after
all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review
23(3), 393–404.
SCHRODT P (2002) The relationship between organizational identification and
organizational culture: employee perceptions of culture and identification
in a retail sales organization. Communication Studies 53(2), 189–202.
SHAALAN AS, REAST J, JOHNSON D and TOURKY ME (2013) East meets West:
toward a theoretical model linking guanxi and relationship marketing.
Journal of Business Research 66(12), 2515–2521.
SHAMIR B and KARK R (2004) A single-item graphic scale for the measure-
ment of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 77(1), 115–123.
SIEMSEN E, ROTH A and OLIVEIRA P (2010) Common method bias in
regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Orga-
nizational Research Methods 13(3), 456–476.
STAFFORD L (2008) Social exchange theories. In Engaging Theories in
Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives (BAXTER LA and
BRAITHWAITE DO, Eds), pp 377–389, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
SUBRAMANI MR and VENKATRAMAN N (2003) Safeguarding investments in
asymmetric interorganizational relationships: theory and evidence.
Academy of Management Journal 46(1), 46–62.
SZULANSKI G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of
best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(s2), 27–43.
TAJFEL H (1982) Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
TAJFEL H and TURNER JC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In: Psychology of Intergroup Relations (WORCHEL S and
AUSTIN WG, Eds), pp 7–24, Helson-Hall, Chicago.
TAN HH and LIM AKH (2009) Trust in coworkers and trust in organizations.
Journal of Psychology 143(1), 45–66.
TAN HH and TAN CSF (2000) Toward the differentiation of trust in super-
visor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs 126(2), 241–260.
TAN SJ and TAMBYAH SK (2011) Generalized trust and trust in institutions in
Confucian Asia. Social Indictors Research 103(3), 357–377.
TANG TLP and IBRAHIM AHS (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizen-
ship behavior revisited: public personnel in the United States and in the
Middle East. Public Personnel Management 27(4), 529–550.
TEECE DJ (2000a) Managing Intellectual Capital: Organizational, Strategic
and Policy Dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
TEECE DJ (2000b) Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm
structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning 33(1), 35–54.
THORNDIKE EL (1920) A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of
Applied Psychology 4(1), 25–29.
TSAI W (2002) Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organiza-
tion: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge
sharing. Organization Science 13(2), 179–190.
VAN DYNE L, VANDEWALLE D, KOSTOVA T, LATHAM ME and CUMMINGS LL
(2000) Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of
organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior 21(1), 3–23.
VAN KNIPPENBERG D and SLEEBOS E (2006) Organizational identification
versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and
job attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(5), 571–584.
VORA D and KOSTOVA T (2007) A model of dual organizational identifica-
tion in the context of the multinational enterprise. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior 28(3), 327–350.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
14 Employees’ trust and their knowledge sharing and integration
WARING TM (2010) New evolutionary foundations: theoretical requirements
for a science of sustainability. Ecological Economics 69(4), 718–730.
WARREN DE, DUNFEE TW and LI N (2004) Social exchange in China: the
double-edged sword of guanxi. Journal of Business Ethics 55(4), 355–372.
WEI C and ZHANG J (2009) Knowledge integration and its transferring
mechanism: an empirical investigation of corporate acquisition. Chinese
Industrial Economics (5), 119–128.
WEI X and BO Y (2003) The Crisis of Trust. Chinese Social Sciences
Publication House, Beijing.
WEISS G (1973) A scientific concept of culture. American Anthropologist
75(5), 1376–1413.
WEISS L (1999) Collection and connection: the anatomy of knowledge sharing
in professional service. Organization Development Journal 17(4), 61–72.
WILLIAMSON OE (1981) The economics of organization: the transaction
cost approach. American Journal of Sociology 87(3), 548–577.
WILSON RK and ECKEL CC (2006) Judging a book by its cover: beauty and
expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly 59(2), 189–202.
WONG YT, NGO HY and WONG CS (2003) Antecedents and outcomes of
employees’ trust in Chinese joint ventures. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management 20(4), 481–499.
WU AD and ZUMBO BD (2008) Understanding and using mediators and
moderators. Social Indicators Research 87(3), 367–392.
About the Authors
Gongmin BAO, Ph.D., Professor, Deputy Director of Insti-
tute of Organization and Strategy, School of Management,
Zhejiang University, China, research interests in competitive
advantage, dynamic capability, and knowledge management.
Bixiang XU, Ph.D., junior manager, Hangzhou Subway
Corporation, research interests in knowledge management
and strategic planning.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice
Gongmin Bao et al
XIN KR and PEARCE JL (1996) Guanxi: connections as substitutes for
formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal 39(6),
1641–1658.
YANG C and CHEN L (2007) Can organizational knowledge capabilities
affect knowledge sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science 33(1),
95–109.
YAO S, LI J and LAI Y (2012) After-sales service quality, customer satisfaction
and its behavior intention: an empirical analysis on rural customers
under the policy of ‘appliances to the countryside’. Finance and Trade
Economics 33(1), 108–114.
YIN H (1976) The Future of Chinese Culture. The Art Book Store, Hongkong.
ZACK MH (1999a) Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management
Review 40(4), 45–58.
ZACK MH (1999b) Developing a knowledge strategy. California Manage-
ment Review 41(3), 125–145.
ZACK MH (2003) Rethinking the knowledge-based organization. MIT Sloan
Management Review 44(4), 67–71.
ZAHEER S and ZAHEER A (2006) Trust across borders. Journal of International
Business Studies 37(1), 21–29.
ZHANG Y and ZHANG Z (2006) Guanxi and organizational dynamics in
China: a link between individual and organizational levels. Journal of
Business Ethics 67(4), 375–392.
Zhongyuan ZHANG, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of
Management, Zhejiang University, China, research inter-
ests in exploring how the physical environment of organi-
zations' impacts on workers' creativity.