The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

Organizational culture, structure, MNCs based

in Malaysia
technology infrastructure and
knowledge sharing
Empirical evidence from MNCs based in 67
Malaysia Received 19 May 2014
Revised 8 September 2014
Md Zahidul Islam Accepted 25 October 2014
Faculty of Business, Economics and Policy Studies,
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei, Brunei Darussalam
Sajjid M. Jasimuddin
Euromed Management, Marseille, France, and
Ikramul Hasan
Faculty of Business, Economics and Policy Studies,
Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei, Brunei Darussalam

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine how organizational culture, structure and technology
infrastructure influence knowledge sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – This study is based on quantitative research, administered on 90
managerial staff in multinational corporations (MNCs) based in Malaysia.
Findings – The paper explains the role of organizational cultural and structure on
knowledge-sharing processes in MNCs, with the moderating effect of technology infrastructure.
Learning and development, top management support and centralization are positively related to
knowledge sharing, using technology infrastructure as a moderator.
Research limitations/implications – The findings will help MNCs to create an appropriate
environment of knowledge sharing. However, the research is limited to MNC’s in Penang, Malaysia,
only. Furthermore, similar research can be extended to MNCs in other Asian countries with a larger
sample which may bring more statistical power and, thereby, increases generalizability.
Practical implications – The outcome of this research provides useful indications of how
organizations can work to ensure knowledge sharing within their work place.
Originality/value – While the links between organizational culture and knowledge sharing and
between organizational structure and knowledge sharing have been examined independently, few
studies have investigated the association between the three concepts. This paper examines the
nature of this relationship and presents empirical evidence, which suggests that the relationship
between organizational culture, organizational structure and knowledge sharing is moderated by
the technology infrastructure.
VINE
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Organisational culture, Applied knowledge management, Vol. 45 No. 1, 2015
pp. 67-88
IT architecture © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
Paper type Research paper DOI 10.1108/VINE-05-2014-0037
VINE 1. Introduction
45,1 In today’s knowledge-driven economy, organizations acknowledge knowledge as a
strategic resource which is shared and created to ensure a sustainable competitive
advantage (Zhang and Jasimuddin, 2008; Howell and Annansingh, 2013;
Jasimuddin, 2007). Knowledge management is an integrated process that collects,
stores and disseminates knowledge in an organization. Although sharing of
68 knowledge among organizational employees is encouraged (Jasimuddin and Zhang,
2011), knowledge sharing is not straightforward. For example, tacit knowledge is
more difficult to share than explicit knowledge which can be easily disseminated to
a large number of people (Ling et al., 2009; Jasimuddin et al., 2005a, 2005b). In this
regard, Gold et al. (2001) identify several key factors (e.g. culture, structure and
technology) that enable smooth and efficient sharing of knowledge.
The topics surrounding organizational culture and structure have attracted
considerable interest among both academics and practitioners within knowledge
management field (Zheng et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2011; Wiewiora et al., 2013; Islam
et al., 2012; Jasimuddin et al., 2005a, 2005b). Zheng et al.’s (2010) study, for example,
examines the mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between
organizational culture, structure, strategy and organizational effectiveness,
suggesting that knowledge management fully mediates the impact of organizational
culture on organizational effectiveness, and partially mediates the impact of
organizational structure and strategy on organizational effectiveness. Similarly, the
use of technological infrastructure within an organization impacts upon the design
of the business, its economic performance and the working conditions of
organizational members (Doherty et al., 2010).
However, the notions of organizational culture and structure have been
frequently discussed independently in the existing literature. But the previous
studies rarely combine them. Liao et al. (2011), for example, examine the relationship
between environment and organization culture with the mediating role of
knowledge management. We know very little about how organization culture and
structure jointly influence knowledge sharing. It is argued that technology can be
moderated to test the relationship of organizational culture and structure with
knowledge sharing. The present paper intends to fill in the gap in the current
literature by adding technological infrastructure as a moderating factor in the
relationship between organizational culture, structure and knowledge sharing and
quantifying the relationship. Most specifically, the paper will focus on the influence
of organizational culture and organizational structure, moderated by technological
infrastructure, on knowledge sharing.
The primary aim of this paper is to present a theoretical model and empirical analysis
of the relationship between organizational culture, organizational structure and
knowledge sharing. It also contributes to our understanding about the mediating effect
of technological infrastructure in this relationship. Hence, the rest of the paper is
organized as follows. In the next section, we review the relevant literature and develop
the hypotheses. We then describe the methodology adopted in this research, followed by
an analysis of the findings. The subsequent section discusses the empirical results.
Finally, we conclude with the directions for future research and theoretical and
managerial implications.
2. Literature review MNCs based
This section rigorously reviews the relevant literature to propose a research model in Malaysia
which posits that the characteristics of organizational culture and structure influence
knowledge sharing in the context of multinational corporations (MNCs) based in
Malaysia. In addition, potential causal relationships between them are explored using
the moderation effect of technological infrastructure.
69
2.1 Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing among employees in an organization is widely regarded as a crucial
component in business (Szulanski, 2000; Jasimuddin et al., 2012). Jasimuddin (2006), for
instance, contends that knowledge sharing is important for enhancing the competitive
advantage of an organization. Jasimuddin’s (2006) argument is developed by Cohen and
Levinthal (1990) who suggest that knowledge transfer is a critical factor for a firm’s
ability to respond to changes, innovate and achieve competitive success.
Drawing on the social capital theory, it can be argued that knowledge sharing
between individuals is contingent upon social interaction which is vital for making
any successful decision (Adler and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Kostova and Roth, 2003). In line with this, Teh and Sun (2012) argue that knowledge
sharing is a process of exchanging knowledge, experiences and skills through social
interaction within a department or organization. Parallel to this, Dyer and Nobeoka
(2000) define knowledge sharing as the activities of how organizational members
exchange their knowledge to improve organizational learning capacity, stimulate
the creation of new knowledge and, eventually, enhance its competitiveness. An
attempt can be made to provide a working definition of knowledge transfer for the
purpose of the present research: knowledge sharing within an organization is an act
of transmission of organizational knowledge among employees so that they can take
purposeful actions and involve in innovation.
However, the motivation of knowledge sharing is not straightforward (Jasimuddin
et al., 2006). Wang et al. (2014) investigate how to motivate knowledge sharing in an
organization, arguing that knowledge sharing will be greater for employees who are
encouraged, evaluated and rewarded. Keong and Al-Hawamdeh (2002) observe that
knowledge is power and no one is willing to give it away freely. In this regard, others
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Liao et al., 2011; Gibbert et al., 2002) contend that
leadership, organizational structure and organizational culture are critical success
factors for knowledge sharing. These issues will be elaborated in turn.

2.2 Organizational culture

A knowledge supporting culture is one of the most important conditions to ensure
efficient knowledge flow among organizational members (Kazi, 2005). From a
constructivist perspective, organizational culture can be viewed as a continuous process
of building/rebuilding identity in and around an organization (Tuan, 2012). This, in turn,
facilitates social integration among members which helps the organization sustain as a
whole, assimilating different subgroups within its environment (Koot, 2004).
Appropriate organizational culture is a prerequisite for knowledge creation and
dissemination. Several authors (Wiewiora et al., 2013; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; De
Long and Fahey, 2000) also comply with these facts that culture establishes an
VINE organizational context for social interaction and creates norms regarding what is “right”
45,1 and “wrong”.
Culture may also act as a barrier to knowledge sharing (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001).
Diverse cultures at the intra-organizational, organizational, trans-organizational and
supra-organizational levels may act simultaneously, and thus result in cultural
complexity (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007). Most specifically, employees’ resistance to
70 change, their motivation to share knowledge and leadership commitment are also
affected by the cultural dimensions (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Therefore, a
pertinent culture should be established to encourage people to share their knowledge
within an organization, as well as among business partners (Rivera-Vazquez et al., 2009).
Innovative organizations create competitive advantages through fostering learning
and development, asking people to collaborate and allowing them to share power by
practicing participative decision-making (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Although there are
various characteristics of culture that affect knowledge sharing, this study focuses on
three characteristics: collaboration, learning and development and top management
support.
2.2.1 Collaboration. The role of collaborative tools to support social construction of
knowledge is evident in organizations around the world (Ryan et al., 2010), and the
inclusion of knowledge management as an organization’s best practice is meant to
ensure that collaboration is institutionalized, and that knowledge sharing occurs
(Rivera-Vazquez et al., 2009). Collaboration refers to how people in an organization
actively assist and support in work-related issues. Several studies (Parker and Price,
1994; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Krogh, 1998; Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998) also find the relationship between collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Hence, we hypothesized that:
H1. Collaboration has positive relationship with knowledge sharing.
2.2.2 Learning and development. Learning and development orientation refers to the
extent to which an organization is willing to encourage its members to learn and develop
themselves for long-term success. This is due to the fact that an organization relies
largely on its employees’ skills and knowledge to produce breakthrough in its products
and services (Tidd et al., 1998). Several authors (Yang, 2007; Jones et al., 2003) contend
that there is a relationship between learning process and knowledge sharing.
Organizations facilitate learning process through sharing knowledge among
organizational member. Therefore, we have formulated the following hypothesis:
H2. Learning and development orientation has positive relationship with
knowledge sharing.
2.2.3 Top management support. Top management support within an organization
through leadership skills acts as a role model in which knowledge sharing occurs
without any coercive influence. Several scholars (Kerr and Clegg, 2007; Jasimuddin et al.,
2006; Islam et al., 2011) contend that leaders play an important role in organizational
knowledge sharing. Others (Bircham-Connolly et al., 2005; Seba et al., 2012) emphasize
on the pivotal role of leadership in knowledge sharing. Leaders, first, contribute to
employees’ learning from their personal experience; second, persuade employees to
transfer their knowledge to generate new knowledge; third, they influence
decision-making process based on valuable knowledge shared between members.
Parallel to this, Kennedy and Mansor (2000) also find that top management support has MNCs based
an impact on knowledge-sharing activities. We, therefore, hypothesize that: in Malaysia
H3. Top management support has positive relationship with knowledge sharing.

2.3 Organizational structure

Organizational structure is defined as the ways in which tasks are formally segregated,
classified and coordinated (Robbins, 1996). Ghani et al. (2000), as cited in Liao et al. 71
(2011), define organizational structure as the formal allocation of work roles and
administrative mechanism to control and integrate work activities. As organizations are
perceived as knowledge integrating institutions, high importance should be placed on
designing the internal structure of a company, especially the hierarchical design to
empower decision-making, standardize rules and procedures and integrate members
and work (Chen et al., 2010). The nature of coordination among employees, which is
largely decided by the control mechanism, influences knowledge sharing. The control
mechanisms are also closely related to other structural dimensions like centralization,
formalization and specialization (Willema and Buelensa, 2009). The real benefit of
knowledge may not be realized if organizational design does not correspond to the
established rules of knowledge sharing. Knowledge, like other resources, may not be
used in its full potential if an appropriate structure is not in place (Claver-Cortés et al.,
2007).
An organizational structure can be classified using various taxonomies, namely,
simple, team structure, bureaucratic, mechanistic, organic and matrix. Mechanistic
(centralized) and organic (flexible) structures are at the two extremes. Mechanistic
organization has relatively low decentralization and complexity in which it operates
under specific norms and regulations with predefined functional roles, whereas organic
structures are characterized by informal control mechanisms, adaptability and open
communication (Burns and Stalker, 1961). The underlying characteristics that
differentiate these two extremes are degrees of formalization and centralization. A
flexible structure (i.e. horizontal organization) with fewer levels, instead of a
bureaucratic one (traditional and hierarchical), is more preferred to make knowledge
transfer (Lie and Slocum, 1992; Kanter, 1994). An informal environment, where
decision-making is decentralized, hierarchies are minimized and instructions are carried
out with few rules, induces employees to work as cohesive groups facilitating
interpersonal communication and, thus, helps the transfer of knowledge (Morand, 1995).
Indicating the relationship between organizational structure and knowledge-sharing
activity, Abouzeedan and Hedner (2012) argue that vertically integrated organizations
are less focused to generate innovation than horizontally integrated ones, which are
more open and fluid. The social aspect of organizations has been viewed as a social
network which is assumed to be composed of hierarchy, density and connectivity that
establishes contact and ease of accessibility between employees in exchanging
knowledge (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005). Organizational structure also governs
communication patterns and interaction, which are based on the social networking
theory. Several authors (Chen et al., 2010) argue that both formalization and
centralization affect knowledge flow. Accordingly, a combination of formal
organizational structure and a non-hierarchical, self-organizing organizational
structure would improve knowledge creation and sharing capabilities (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995).
VINE 2.3.1 Formalization. Formalization is defined as the extent of job codification and rule
45,1 observation that exists in an organization (Sciulli, 1998; Andrews and Kacmar, 2001).
Chen et al. (2010) claim that the obedience of the rules and procedures may constrain the
employees in combining various sources of knowledge for developing new product or
service. Formalization measures the degree to which an organization uses its rules and
procedures to prescribe behavior (Liao et al., 2011). Less formal structure in an
72 organizational boundary exposes fewer formal rules and regulations. As a result,
employees can communicate with each other by sharing their knowledge which creates
greater flexibility and creativity. Previous studies (Islam et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2010;
Willema and Buelensa, 2009; Islam et al., 2008) also observe that less formal structure
allows more transfer of organizational knowledge. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H4. Formalization has negative relationship with knowledge sharing.
2.3.2 Centralization. Centralization refers to the hierarchical level of authority and the
extent that individuals may participate in the decision-making process within an
organization (Andrews and Kacmar, 2001). Liao et al. (2011) describe the extent to which
the right to make decisions and evaluate activities is concentrated. Centralization
generates a non-participatory environment that lessens communication, commitment
and involvement among participants (Damanpour, 1991). Parallel to this, several
scholars (Chen et al., 2010; Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003) argue that centralization
leads to inefficiency in creating and sharing knowledge, as employees have no discretion
in their working environment. A well-defined centralized hierarchical coordination does
not motivate people enough to share their valuable thoughts and suggestions. In
contrast, intrafirm networks with a lower degree of centralization foster
interdependence and encourage cooperation, as partners share control over outcomes
(Chen et al., 2010). It is argued that the degree of centralization within the organization
explains the extent to which knowledge sharing will be hindered (Willema and
Buelensa, 2009; Tsai, 2002). Thus, we hypothesize that:
H5. Centralization has negative relationship with knowledge sharing.

2.4 Technology infrastructure

Technology infrastructure is considered as an essential enabler in the knowledge-based
economy. Such infrastructure plays a vital role in the knowledge management system of
an organization. To create and use new knowledge, the sharing of the existing
knowledge needs to be facilitated by incorporating various technological platforms.
Several scholars (Ho et al., 2012; Abouzeedan and Hedner, 2012; Harrison and Daly,
2009; Ryan et al., 2010; Nishimoto and Matsuda, 2007; Sridharan and Kinshuk, 2002;
Zhang and Jasimuddin, 2012) emphasize on technology infrastructure as an element
crucial to the knowledge sharing in organizations.
Recently, there has been a trend toward the application of advanced technology (e.g.
the Internet, intranets, Web browsers, data warehouses, data mining and software
agents) to facilitate knowledge-sharing activities. Technology infrastructure is an
important variable in the proposed framework. While hardware, networking and
bandwidth are important, they are assumed to be part of any modern organization
landscape. In contrast, knowledge-sharing tools such as social media (FB, Twitter,
Wikis, GoogleDocs, etc.), content repositories, dynamic Web sites, space for project
management, etc. are critically important in knowledge sharing, storing, dissemination MNCs based
and maintenance. in Malaysia
The use of technology in supporting knowledge management opens new capabilities
(Standing and Benson, 2000) in business processes. Therefore, information technology
(IT) is considered as an indispensable tool that supports discovery of useful knowledge
(Ho et al., 2012). Collaborative tools such as intranet-based systems allow people to work
together and collaborate interactively. Individual knowledge is thus converted into 73
organizational knowledge through knowledge sharing with the help of IT (Ryan et al.,
2010; Zhao and Luo, 2005). Mentzas et al. (2001) shed some light on detailed specific
topics of IT-support for knowledge management such as learning and development. The
effective use of IT ensures timely access and exchange of knowledge so as to facilitate
the decision-making process (Harrison and Daly, 2009; Ho et al., 2012).
The fact is that it works as a powerful mechanism for knowledge creation and
distribution within and across organizations through encouraging social interactions
among people from different organizational hierarchies (Ryan et al., 2010). Along with
the infrastructure itself, there is also the need to have IT leaders, as they play important
role in creating vision, attitude and behavior which are critical for employee perceptions
of innovation, and thus, its adoption outcomes (Ke and Wei, 2008). Top management
empowers the content owners and knowledge bearers the responsibility to manage and
share their knowledge. An intranet may be classified as a knowledge management
application, as a part of the technology infrastructure, as it is capable of distributing
knowledge.
For example, Doherty et al. (2010) critically reappraise the impact of IT on
organizational structure. In an organizational structure, intranets are often used to
support knowledge access and exchange within organizations (Ruggles, 1998). Most
specifically, such intranets-based information and communications technologies play a
crucial role in managing knowledge by allowing efficient distribution and access of
knowledge (Ho et al., 2012; Nishimoto and Matsuda, 2007). The technology enactment
framework also emphasizes the influence of organizational structure on the design,
development, implementation and use of technology.
To build knowledge-sharing capabilities, an organization must develop a
comprehensive IT infrastructure. Knowledge is transmitted and created within an
organization with the use of technological infrastructure (Ryan et al., 2010). Technology
refers to the infrastructure of tools, systems, platforms and automated solutions that
enhances the development, application and distribution of knowledge (Chong et al.,
2010). Technology platforms can only assist in stimulating knowledge flow, but their
effect on knowledge sharing is perhaps less visible without a proper cultural and
organizational context in which people are encouraged to develop and share their
knowledge (Clarke and Rollo, 2001). Based on these arguments, the following
hypotheses can be proposed:
H6. Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between collaboration
and knowledge sharing.
H7. Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between learning and
development orientation and knowledge sharing.
H8. Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between top
management support and knowledge sharing.
VINE H9. Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between formalization
45,1 and knowledge sharing.
H10. Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between centralization
and knowledge sharing.
Based on the literature review, this study examines the relationship between
74 organizational culture, structure and knowledge sharing with the use of technology
infrastructure as a moderator. A modest attempt is made to design a model by
considering five independent variables (i.e. collaboration, learning and development, top
management support, formalization and centralization) and a dependent variable (i.e.
knowledge sharing). Figure 1 presents the model with the proposed ten hypotheses
showing the directions of influence. The research model guides the execution of the
study. Overall, the study offers an empirical test for ten hypotheses, which are
developed in the previous paragraphs.
From the existing studies on the determinants of knowledge flows from the MNCs,
we infer that organizational culture and structure are preconditions for knowledge
transfer. The theoretical framework suggested in this study draws the organizational
culture, structure and technology infrastructure, and their relationship to knowledge
transfer. The paper develops ten hypotheses regarding these concepts.

3. Research methodology
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used to test the hypotheses, using
statistical software SPSS version 15. The hierarchical procedure allows us to examine
whether adding predicator variables and interaction terms increased the statistical
power of the model (Kotabe et al., 2011). The source of data collection was MNC which is
an effective vehicle for knowledge transfer (Inkpen, 2008; Hong et al., 2009). A
questionnaire survey was developed using the previous work and utilized for data
collection. The questionnaire consisted of seven sections having measurement scale for
collaboration, learning and development, top management support, formalization,
centralization, technological infrastructure and knowledge sharing (Appendix). A draft
questionnaire was pilot tested on few academics and professionals to validate these
measures prior to finalizing it. The primary means of distributing the survey
questionnaire was via e-mail with a cover letter explaining the objectives of the study.

Culture
Collaboration
Learning and Development orientation
Top management support

H1-H5 Knowledge
Sharing
Structure
Formalization
Centralization
Figure 1. H6-H10
A conceptual model
of knowledge sharing Technology Infrastructure
The 35 global high-tech MNCs operating in Malaysia were selected randomly. It is MNCs based
widely believed that global MNCs apply more knowledge management tools than local in Malaysia
companies. The respondents of this study were managerial staffs who were also selected
randomly from the MNC based in Penang, Malaysia. A total of 150 questionnaires were
distributed, 90 were returned showing a response rate of 60 per cent. The respondents
were appropriate in terms of sharing knowledge, and were associated with mentoring
and leading a team which is essential for knowledge sharing. 75
To ensure content validity, the items of the questionnaire were selected from the
previous research, adopted particularly from the constructs used by other scholars
(Gold et al., 2001; Yang, 2007; Hedlund, 1999; Hurley and Hult, 1998). Cronbach’s alpha
was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the items. All questionnaire items were
assessed on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) to (5) representing (1) as
“strongly disagree” to (5) as “strongly agree”.

4. Results
The profile of the respondents include: university educated (91.1 per cent), male (56.7 per
cent) and in the above 30-years age group (74.4 per cent). The study particularly targeted
the middle- and the top-management personnel. In total, the majority of the companies
were in the electronics/electrical sector (83.3 per cent). In term of years of their operation
in Malaysia, 63.3 per cent of the MNCs under the study were operating in Malaysia for
more than 20 years. Demographic information is demonstrated in Table I.
The internal reliability can be tested using Cronbach’s alpha (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Hence, Cronbach’s alpha (␣) reliability estimates were used to measure the
internal consistency of these multivariate scales (Nunnally, 1978). Table II shows the
reliability assessments for independent variables, moderating variable and dependent
variable to test the internal consistency. The reliability analysis indicates the degree to

Demographic variable Category Frequency (%)

Gender Male 51 56.7

Female 39 43.3
Age (years) 21-30 23 25.6
31-40 57 63.3
Above 41 10 11.1
Education level Post-graduate and above 13 14.4
Degree 69 76.7
Certificate/diploma/secondary 8 8.9
Current position (years) ⬍1 19 21.2
1-2 31 34.4
3-5 30 33.3
Above 6 10 11.1
Type of industry Electronic/electrical 75 83.3
Chemical 2 2.2
Others 13 14.4
Annual revenue, RM (in million) ⬍ 100 5 5.5
101-500 16 17.8 Table I.
501-1,000 14 15.6 Demographic
Above 1,000 55 61.1 information
VINE which items in each set correlate with one another. Cronbach’s alpha (␣) was used to
45,1 establish this inter-item consistency. The Cronbach alpha (␣) should be greater than 0.7
to indicate a strong reliability for a questionnaire content (Nunnally, 1978; Cuieford,
1965). In this study, the Cronbach ␣ of the majority of constructs was greater than 0.7,
except top management support. The smallest Cronbach’s alpha was 0.67 which
indicates a reliability (may not be stronger reliability) for our questionnaire content.
76 Regression analysis was carried out to test the relationship of the dimensions of
organizational culture and structure with knowledge sharing. The first regression
models involve organizational culture and organizational structure as independent
variables and knowledge sharing as the dependent variable. This regression analysis
was conducted to test H1 to H5. The coefficient of determination R2 is 0.578. The R2
indicates the fraction of total variance in the endogenous construct accounted for by
those exogenous constructs (Chin, 1998; Mathieson et al., 2001). Overall, a substantial
amount of variance is explained in the endogenous variable, knowledge sharing. In
Table III, the coefficient of determination R2 (0.578) indicates that organizational culture
and structure variables explain 57.8 per cent of the variance of knowledge sharing. The
finding of the study rejects H1 and H5, while accept hypotheses H2, H3 and H4.
Technology Infrastructure (TECH) was taken into account as a moderating variable.
Table IV describes the result of the hierarchical regression when technology
infrastructure moderate the relationship. The coefficient of determination of R2
significantly increases to 0.71 when technology infrastructure was considered as a
moderating variable. Thus, the bigger the R2, the more predictive power the model
implies (Weinfurt, 1995). Overall, a substantial amount of variance is explained in the
endogenous variable, knowledge acquisition. Its R2 value of 0.71 indicates that a

Variables No. of items No. of items deleted Cronbach’s ␣

Support and collaboration 5 None 0.86

Learning and development orientation 5 None 0.70
Top management support 6 None 0.67
Formalization 5 None 0.73
Table II. Centralization 5 None 0.70
Summary of Technology infrastructure 7 None 0.74
reliability analysis Knowledge sharing 6 None 0.74

Variable ␤ Significance

Collaboration 0.190 0.07

Learning and development orientation 0.373 0.00
Top management support 0.483 0.00
Formalization 0.367 0.00
Centralization 0.141 0.06
R2 ⫽ 0.578
Significance ⫽ 0.000
Table III. Durbin–Watson ⫽ 2.078
Regression summary F-value ⫽ 22.453
Variables ␤ Significance R2 R2 change F change Significance F change Durbin–Watson

Collaboration (COL) 0.19 0.07

Learning and development (LEARN) 0.43 0.00
Top management support (MGT) 0.54 0.00
Formalization (FOR) 0.31 0.00
Centralization (CEN) 0.11 0.06
Technology infrastructure (TECH) 0.22 0.08
COL ⫻ TECH 0.96 0.63
LEARN ⫻ TECH 4.69 0.00
MGT ⫻ TECH 7.58 0.00
FOR ⫻ TECH 0.15 0.86
CEN ⫻ TECH 3.70 0.00
Model
1 0.57 0.57 22.45 0.00
2 0.59 0.01 3.73 0.08
3 0.71 0.12 6.33 0.00 2.038

Table IV.
77
in Malaysia
MNCs based

regression summary
Hierarchical
VINE substantial fraction of total variance of successful knowledge sharing was, indeed,
45,1 predicted by the variables considered.
From the hierarchical regression, it was found that moderator TECH was not
significant enough to be considered as an independent variable. However, as proposed
in the study, TECH plays a role as a moderator. The hypothesized relationship between
centralization and knowledge sharing which was rejected in Model 1 is positively
78 moderated by TECH in Model 3. This indicates that TECH moderates the relationship
between centralization and knowledge sharing (Significance ⫽ 0.00). Therefore, from
the findings of hierarchical regression, we can accept the following hypotheses:
• Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between learning and
development and knowledge sharing (H7).
• Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between leadership
commitment and knowledge sharing (H8).
• Technology infrastructure moderates the relationship between centralization and
knowledge sharing (H10).

5. Discussion
This study attempts to extend our understanding of the relationship between
organizational culture, structure and knowledge sharing by adding technology
infrastructure as a moderator in their relationship. We propose and test an integrated
framework in which organizational culture and structure are treated as the key factors
that influence knowledge sharing, and technology moderates such relationship.
The study reveals that collaboration plays an important role in organizational
knowledge sharing. Collaboration is found to be positive but insignificant among
the factors contributing to knowledge share in this study. This result partially
supports the work of Ryan et al. (2010) and Rivera-Vazquez et al. (2009). The
outcome regarding the relationship between collaboration and knowledge sharing
found in MNCs based in Malaysia could be interpreted from different angle. It is
possible that people within an organization believe in the principle of knowledge
hoarding, what Hansen (1999) identifies the fear of losing power. The notion
explains individuals’ unwillingness to share knowledge with others as they believe
their acquired knowledge is valuable and necessary for their personal benefits (e.g.
job security, career progression). This is quite a normal tendency of individuals and
the opposite may be true when they perceive that their colleagues and managers are
supportive what Jasimuddin et al. (2006) term it as “reciprocity”. The insignificant
moderating role of technology infrastructure, as evidenced in the relationship
between collaboration and knowledge sharing, confirms that employees are
reluctant to share information despite the technological orientation their
organizations have toward knowledge-sharing process.
Learning and development orientation is found to have a significant relationship
with knowledge sharing. This result also confirms the previous studies (Islam et al.,
2008; Yang, 2007). From the organizational perspective, learning and development
orientation is a prerequisite for long-term success in knowledge cultivation. Learning
through sharing knowledge among organizational members can bring in benefits for an
organization (Yang, 2007; Jones et al., 2003). First, it enables employees to reflect on the
consequences of their behaviors and actions. Second, it augments the ability to approach
to organizational problem more accurately by understanding the environment, MNCs based
obtaining insights from the place where they operate. That is why organizations rely in Malaysia
largely on its employee skills and knowledge so as to produce a breakthrough in its
products and services through continued learning (Tidd et al., 1998). Because learning is
vital for knowledge flow, technology helps bridging the gap between knowledge
sharing and learning. In addition, technology infrastructure can be explained as an
enabler to the knowledge-based organization, especially in the area of learning and 79
development. Moreover, technology infrastructure plays a positive and significant role
between learning and development and knowledge sharing.
The research also reveals that leaders as role models play an important role in
organizational knowledge sharing, arguing positive and significant relationship
between top management support and knowledge sharing. The finding of this paper
also supports the previous work (Islam et al., 2011; Kerr and Clegg, 2007). In fact, they
can influence subordinates to involve in knowledge-sharing activities (Islam et al., 2011).
Technology, however, is shown here to play an important positive role in contributing to
the relationship between leadership and knowledge sharing, as leaders’ vision, attitude
and behavior are critical for the employees’ perceptions (Ke and Wei, 2008). A possible
explanation of this finding can be urged that managers of the MNCs operating in
Malaysia are committed toward their effort to promote knowledge-sharing activities as
knowledge bearers, and connecting themselves with other people within the
organization using technological platform.
Formalization has been found to have a significant negative relationship with the
knowledge-sharing process. This finding fully complies with the prior studies (Islam
et al., 2010). The existing literature also supports the notion that formally structured
organizations cannot ensure full flow of knowledge, as these organizations are driven by
set goals which do not create culture for effective knowledge sharing to take place. In
fact, formalization can impede the generation of new ideas. Whereas, informal setting or
structure with fewer rules and regulations makes people feel less stressed, thereby
creating opportunities to knowledge sharing with each other in respect to their work
which creates greater flexibility and creativity. Therefore, for MNC’s based in Malaysia,
it is important to develop an informal environment where employees consider their
organizational members as family, and share knowledge among themselves.
Previous studies (Islam et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2010; Willema and Buelensa, 2009
Islam et al., 2008) support the findings of this study. It is to be noted that technology
infrastructure was not shown to have a favorable moderating effect in establishing the
relationship between formalization and knowledge sharing in MNC’s operations. This
further explains the importance of informal organizational setting for knowledge
sharing irrespective of the working environment that is facilitated with or without good
technological infrastructure. Thus, organizations with insufficient technical platform
cannot escape the need of creating less formal environment, pointing to the idea that it is
perhaps more needed for organizations with appropriate technical infrastructure.
Rigid hierarchical arrangement within the workplace is thought to hinder knowledge
sharing and creation (Tsai, 2002). MNCs operating in Malaysia demonstrate the same trend
in relation to the possible relationship between centralization and knowledge sharing. The
less hierarchical organization structure enhances greater instances of knowledge sharing
(Sharratt and Usoro, 2003). It is possible that people in Asia are more comfortable working
under close supervision and well-defined chain of command. Again, this interpretation could
VINE be further questioned given the fact that, formalization, being as an important aspect of
45,1 organizational structure, is found to have a significant negative impact in the current study.
In general, knowledge sharing through relatively flat hierarchy (horizontal) induces more
flow of knowledge than a hierarchy that incorporates too many layers empowering people at
the top (vertical). This paper confirms others’ work (Chen et al., 2010; Nonaka and Takeuchi,
1995) who argue that centralization affects knowledge sharing. The introduction of
80 technology infrastructure as a moderator in the relationship, however, sheds some new light.
A positive and significant relationship is observed to affect the relationship between
centralization and knowledge sharing in the presence of technology infrastructure. In the
absence of technology infrastructure, no significant relationship has been found. This
prompts us to infer that centralization affects knowledge sharing, and technology plays a
vital role in such relationship.
Interestingly, the paper confirms the previous work (Zheng et al., 2010; Liao et al.,
2011; Wiewiora et al., 2013; Islam et al., 2012) which also shows that organizational
culture and organizational structure as a whole play an active role in knowledge
sharing. Additionally, the results of this study suggest that technology infrastructure
mediates the impact of organizational culture and organizational structure on
knowledge sharing, as they extend the scope of research.
This paper makes several contributions to the literature. The contribution of this paper is
twofold. First, we contribute to the conceptualization of the organizational culture and
organizational structure as the important aspects of knowledge sharing. Prior work has
typically studied the effect of organizational culture and organizational structure on
knowledge sharing, which this study confirms. While many studies have focused isolatedly
on the importance of organizational culture (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007; Rivera-Vazquez
et al., 2009) and organizational culture and organizational structure (Chen et al., 2010;
Willema and Buelensa, 2009) for knowledge transfer, this paper brings them together to
explain their linkage and quantify the relationship.
Second, we extend these studies by exploring technological infrastructure that
moderates the relationship of organizational culture and organizational structure with
knowledge sharing. Hence, the paper goes beyond the conventional finding to provide
new insights. Although the paper does not develop a new theory, it will motivate
scholars and practitioners to engage with the issues in different ways than they have in
the past.

6. Limitations and future work

The results of this research must be interpreted in the context of its limitations, requiring
additional research. First, the data were collected from a sample of organizations within one
country (i.e. Malaysia). It is possible that the results could vary in other organizational
contexts. Future work would also investigate the differences in antecedents of knowledge
sharing in local organizations and in other industry sectors. Further, the findings could vary
in different countries because of the influence of national cultural factors. Cross-cultural
validation would allow the impact of culture on knowledge-sharing behavior to be revealed.
Hence, we believe that the results may be extended to MNCs in other Asian countries with
similar economic and infrastructure conditions.
Second, based on a sample of 90 respondents, several significant results have been
obtained. However, a larger sample that brings more statistical power would have
allowed more sophisticated analysis and, thereby, increases generalizability.
 Third, the MNCs under study deploy technology infrastructure without considering MNCs based
different capabilities of ITs. It is possible that differences in the features of ITs would affect in Malaysia
the results. It might also be fruitful to consider differences in the features of ITs that may
shed further light.
Fourth, this study did not consider all determinants that facilitate knowledge
sharing. Social dimension of knowledge sharing is an important area that may help
understand why employees share what they know and what they are sharing 81
(Widén-Wulff, 2014). Other than those prescribed may also affect knowledge sharing
and the use of technology. For instance, other factors associated with the social capital
theory (e.g. trust) could be examined in future research.
Furthermore, the knowledge characteristics were not taken into account in the
research model. For instance, IT is inherently limited in its capability to transfer tacit
knowledge (Hildreth and Kimble, 2002). Additional research is warranted to incorporate
tacit and explicit knowledge in understanding the notion of knowledge sharing.

7. Conclusion
In today’s business world, knowledge is considered as a vital resource in formulating
appropriate competitive strategies so as to ensure successful performance of MNCs. As
knowledge sharing is thought to be a powerful source of gathering knowledge and
creating competitive advantage, it is desirable for companies to adopt an environment
where proper knowledge flow can be assured. Generally speaking, knowledge-sharing
activities are dependent on organizational culture and structure. The current study
explains the role of organizational cultural and structure on knowledge-sharing process
in MNCs based in Malaysia, with the moderating effect of technology infrastructure.
Given its results, this study provides some useful suggestions for managers. The
outcome of this research provides useful indications of how organizations can work to
ensure knowledge sharing within their work place. This study helps MNCs to be aware
of the issues related to knowledge sharing. Most specifically, the finding will help the
MNCs to create appropriate environment within their surrounding knowledge to share.
As mentioned earlier, the research framework postulated in this study contributes to the
knowledge management practice, particularly knowledge sharing, in several ways. As
mentioned earlier, this study has some contributions towards the literature, as it
examined the relationship between organizational culture, structure and
knowledge-sharing practices in the MNC context. The incorporation of the moderating
variable (i.e. technology infrastructure) is an important addition to the literature because
the current body of knowledge lacks the empirical evidence on the moderation of
technology infrastructure in the knowledge-sharing process within the MNC
environment in an emerging economy (i.e. Malaysia). More specifically, this has been
reflected and evidenced in the study revealing the relationships between learning and
development, top management support, formalization, centralization and
knowledge-sharing behavior with the moderating role of technology infrastructure.
With a set of guidelines on technological infrastructure, organizations can pick up an
appropriate technology to share knowledge more efficiently.
Because various organizations require distinct types of approaches to knowledge
sharing because of the size, people, financial capability, etc., knowledge sharing requires
a major change in organizational culture and commitment at all levels of employees,
especially from the top management (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991). The findings of
VINE this study will help MNCs to better understand the need for creating a better knowledge
45,1 sharing culture. Furthermore, managers may also utilize the findings of this study in
formulating and reviewing knowledge-sharing strategies.

References
Abouzeedan, A. and Hedner, T. (2012), “Organization structure theories and open innovation
82 paradigm”, World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 6-27.
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.-W. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Ajmal, M.M. and Koskinen, KU. (2008), “Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: an
organizational culture perspective”, International Project Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Andrews, M.C. and Kacmar, K.M. (2001), “Impression management by association: construction
and validation of a scale”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 142-161.
Bircham-Connolly, H., Corner, J. and Bowden, S. (2005), “An empirical study of the impact of
question structure on recipient attitude during knowledge sharing”, Electronic Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, 3rd ed., Tavistock
Publications, London.
Chen, C.-J., Huang, J.-W. and Hsiao, Y.-C. (2010), “Knowledge management and innovativeness: the
role of organizational climate and structure”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 848-870.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Markoulides, G.A. (Eds), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chong, C.W., Chong, S.C. and Lin, B. (2010), “Organizational demographic variables and
preliminary KM implementation success”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 10,
pp. 7243-7254.
Clarke, T. and Rollo, C. (2001), “Capitalising knowledge: corporate knowledge management
investments”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 177-188.
Claver-Cortés, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P. and Pertusa-Ortega, E. (2007), “Organizational structure
features supporting knowledge management processes”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 45-57.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Cuieford, J.P. (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed., McGraw, New
York, NY.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
De Long, D. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”, The
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-127.
Doherty, N.F. Champion, D. and Wang, L. (2010), “An holistic approach to understanding the
changing nature of organizational structure”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 116-135.
Dyer, J. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), “Creating and managing a high performance knowledge sharing MNCs based
network: the Toyota case”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
in Malaysia
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-La Mastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50. 83
Ghani, K.A., Jayabalan, V. and Sugumar, M. (2000), “Impact of advanced manufacturing
technology on organizational structure”, Journal of Technology Management Research,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 157-175.
Gibbert, M., Jenzowsky, S., Jonczyk, C., Thiel, M. and Volpel, S. (2002), “ShareNet – the next
generation knowledge management”, in Davenport, T. and Probst, G.J.B. (Eds), Knowledge
Management Case Book, Springer, New York, pp. 42-59.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991), “Knowledge flow and the structure of control within
multinational corporations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 768-782.
Hansen, M. T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Harrison, J. and Daly, M. (2009), “Leveraging health information technology to improve patient
safety”, Public Administration and Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 218-237.
Hedlund, G. (1999), “The intensity and extensity of knowledge and the multinational corporation as a
nearly recomposable system (NRS)”, Management International Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-44.
Hildreth, P.M. and Kimble, C. (2002), “The duality of knowledge”, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1.
Ho, L.-A., Kuo, T.-H. and Lin, B. (2012), “How social identification and trust influence
organizational online knowledge sharing”, Internet Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Hong, J.F.I., Snell, R.S. and Easterby-Smith, M. (2009), “Knowledge flows and boundary crossing
at the periphery of a MNC”, International Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 539-554.
Howell, K.E. and Annansingh, F. (2013), “Knowledge generation and sharing in UK universities:
a tale of two cultures?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 32-39.
Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998), “Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: an integration and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), “Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer”,
Academy of Management Review, 30 (1) 146-165.
Islam, M.Z., Mahtab, H. and Ahmad, Z.A. (2008), “The role of knowledge management practices on
organizational context and organizational effectiveness”, ABAC Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 42-53.
Islam, M.Z., Ahmad, Z.A. and Mahtab, H. (2010), “The mediating effects of socialization on
organizational contexts and knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Globalization, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 31-48.
Islam, M.Z., Ahmed, S.M., Hasan, I. and Ahmed, S.U. (2011), “Organizational culture and
knowledge sharing: empirical evidence from service organizations”, African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 14, pp. 5900-5909.
VINE Islam, M.Z., Hasan, I. and Zain, A.Y.M. (2012), “Organizational culture and structure on
knowledge sharing”, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract⫽2180427
45,1
Janz, B.D. and Prasarnphanich, P. (2003), “Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge
management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 351-384.
Jasimuddin, S.M. (2006), “Knowledge transfer: a review to explore conceptual foundations and
84 research agenda”, in Moutniho, L., Hutcheson, G. and Rita, P. (Eds), Advances in Doctoral
Research in Management, Vol. 1, World Scientific, pp. 3-20.
Jasimuddin, S.M. (2007), “Exploring knowledge transfer mechanisms: the case of a UK-based
group within a high-tech global corporation”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 294-300.
Jasimuddin, S.M. and Zhang, Z. (2011), “Storing transferred knowledge and transferring stored
knowledge”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 84-94.
Jasimuddin, S.M., Connell, C. and Klein, J.H. (2005b), “The challenges of navigating a topic to a
prospective researcher: the case of knowledge management research”, Management
Research News, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-76.
Jasimuddin, S.M., Connell, N.A.D. and Klein, J.H. (2006), “What motivates organizational
knowledge transfer? Some lessons from a UK-based multinational”, Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 165-171.
Jasimuddin, S.M., Connell, C. and Klein, J.H. (2012), “Extending the knowledge transfer
framework: an interactive and dynamic process”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 195-209.
Jasimuddin, S.M., Klein, J.H. and Connell, C. (2005a), “The paradox of using tacit and explicit
knowledge: strategies to face dilemmas”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 102-112.
Jones, N.B., Herschel, R.T. and Moesel, D.D. (2003), “Using ‘knowledge champions’ to facilitate
knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 49-63.
Kanter, R.M. (1994), “Collaborative advantage: successful partnerships manage the relationship,
not just the deal”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 96-108.
Kazi, A.S. (2005), Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry: A Socio-Technical
Perspective, Idea Group, PA.
Ke, W. and Wei, K.K. (2008), “Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 208-218.
Kennedy, J. and Mansor, N. (2000), “Malaysia culture and the leadership of organizations: a globe
study”, Malaysia Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 44-53.
Keong, L.C. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002), “Factors impacting knowledge sharing”, Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 49-56.
Kerr, M. and Clegg, C. (2007), “Sharing knowledge: contextualizing socio – technical thinking and
practice”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 423-435.
Koot, W. (2004), Organizational culture, International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 10934-10938.
Kostova, T. and Roth, K. (2003), “Social capital in multinational corporations and a micro-macro
model of its formation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 297-317.
Kotabe, M., Jiang, C.X. and Murray, J.Y. (2011), “Managerial ties, knowledge acquisition, realized
absorptive capacity and new product market performance of emerging multinational
companies: a case of China”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 166-176.
Krogh, G. (1998), “Care in the knowledge creation”, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 133-153.
Liao, C., Chuang, S.H. and To, P.L. (2011), “How knowledge management. Mediates the MNCs based
relationship between environment and organization culture”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 728-736.
in Malaysia
Lie, D. and Slocum, J.W. (1992), “Global strategy, competence-building and strategic alliances”,
California Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 81-97.
Ling, C.W., Sandhu, M.S. and Jain, K.K. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in an American multinational
company based in Malaysia”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 125-142. 85
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E. and Chin, W.W. (2001), “Extending the technology acceptance model:
the influence of perceived user resources”, ACM SIGMIS Database: Special Issue on
Adoption, Diffusion, and Infusion of IT, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 86-112.
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Young, R. and Abecker, A. (2001), “Knowledge networking: a holistic
solution for leveraging corporate knowledge”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 94-107.
Morand, D. (1995), “The role of behavioral formality and informality in the enactment of
bureaucratic and innovative organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 831-872.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nishimoto, K. and Matsuda, K. (2007), “Informal communication support media for encouraging
knowledge-sharing and creation in a community”, International Journal of Information
Technology and Decision Making, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 411-426.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parker, L.E. and Price, R.H. (1994), “Empowered managers and empowered workers: the effects of
managerial support and managerial perceived control o workers’ sense of control over
decision-making”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 911-928.
Rivera-Vazquez, J.C., Ortiz-Fournier, L.V. and Flores, F.R. (2009), “Overcoming cultural barriers
for innovation and knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 257-270.
Robbins, S.P. (1996), Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 7th ed.,
Practice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-89.
Ryan, S.D., Windsor, J.C., Ibragimova, B. and Prybutok, V.R. (2010), “Organizational practices that
foster knowledge sharing: validation across distinct national cultures”, Informing Science:
the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, Vol. 13.
Sackmann, S.A. and Friesl, M. (2007), “Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge sharing behavior
in project teams – results from a simulation study”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 142-156.
Sciulli, L.M. (1998), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Seba, I., Rowley, J. and Delbridge, R. (2012), “Knowledge sharing in the Dubai Police Force”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 114-128.
Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003), “Understanding knowledge sharing in online communities of
practice”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-196.
VINE Sridharan, B. and Kinshuk (2002), “Knowledge management and reusability in internet based
learning”, In Kinshuk, R., Lewis, K., Akahori, R., Kemp, T., Okamoto, L., Henderson and
45,1 C.-H., Lee (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education,
IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 1398-1399.
Standing, C. and Benson, S. (2000), “Irradiating intranet knowledge: the role of the interface”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 244-251.
86 Szulanski, G. (2000), “The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 3.
Teh, P.-L. and Sun, H. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship
behaviour”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 64-82.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1998), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market
and Organizational Change, Wiley, New York, NY.
Tsai, W. (2002), “Social structure of ‘Coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: coordination,
competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing”, Organization Science, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 179-190.
Tuan, L.T. (2012), “Behind knowledge transfer”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 459-478.
Weinfurt, K.P. (1995), “Multivariate analysis of variance”, in Grimm, L.G. and Yarnold, P.R. (Eds),
Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 245-276.
Widén-Wulff, G. (2014), The Challenges of Knowledge Sharing in Practice: A Social Approach,
Elsevier.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. and Coffey, V. (2013), “Organizational culture and
willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspective in Australian context”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 1163-1174.
Willema, A. and Buelensa, M. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: the
impact of organizational structure dimensions”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 151-160.
Yang, J.T. (2007), “The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and
effectiveness”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Zhang, Z. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2008), “Pricing strategy of online knowledge market: the
analysis of Google answers”, International Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 55-68.
Zhang, Z. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2012), “Knowledge market in organizations: incentive alignment
and IT support”, Industrial Management & Data System, Vol. 112 No. 7, pp. 1101-1122.
Zhao, H. and Luo, Y. (2005), “Antecedents of knowledge sharing with peer subsidiaries in other
countries: a perspective from subsidiary managers in a foreign emerging market”,
Management International Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 71-97.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G.N. (2010), “Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy,
and organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge management”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 763-771.

Further reading
Inkpen, A.C. (1998), “Organization learning acquisition through international strategic alliances”,
Organization Science, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 454-468.
Appendix MNCs based
Please assess each of the following factors in terms of its importance in determining
knowledge-sharing process in organizations:
in Malaysia
I. ORGANIZATION CULTURE
A. Items on collaboration
In my organization […]
1. Employees are supportive and helpful.
2. Adequate organizational resources are available to the employees. 87
3. There is willingness to collaborate across organizational unit.
4. Employees are encouraged by their superiors to express and exchange their opinions and
ideas regarding work-related matters.
5. Employees are encouraged by their work group to express and exchange their opinions and
ideas regarding work.
B. Items on learning and development orientation
In my organization […]
1. Opportunities are provided for individual development, other than formal training (e.g. work
assignments and job rotation).
2. Employee are encouraged to attend formal development activities (e.g. training, professional
seminars, symposium).
3. There are people who provide guidance and counsel regarding one’s career.
4. Employees are rewarded for ideas on improvement.
5. Employees are encouraged to analyze mistakes made and learn from them.
C. Items on top management support
In my organization, management […]
1. Supports the role of knowledge in the firms’ success.
2. Provides adequate budgeting to support knowledge exchange or knowledge management
projects.
3. Reformulates any rules (e.g. personnel policies) that obstruct the knowledge sharing.
4. Encourages team members to experiment to improve work processes.
5. Rewards innovative ideas that work.
6. Does not treat new ideas from employees seriously.
II. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A. Items on formalization
In my organization […]
1. The employee feels that “I am my own boss” in most matters.
2. How things are done is left to the person doing the work.
3. Most people make their own rules on the job.
4. The employees are constantly being checked for rule violations.
B. Items on centralization
Using the scale above, which level of management is usually responsible for APPROVING the
following decisions?
1. Commitment of resources into new products.
2. Commitment of resources into new markets.
3. Initiating changes in the strategic direction of the firm.
4. Approving entry into new markets/businesses.
5. Strategic planning.
III. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE
Items on technology
My organization uses technology that allows […]
1. It to monitor its competition and business partners.
2. Employees to collaborate with other persons inside the organization.
3. Employees to collaborate with other persons outside the organization.
VINE 4. People in multiple locations to learn as a group from a single source.
5. People in multiple locations to learn as a group from multiple sources.
45,1 6. It to retrieve and use knowledge about its markets and competition.
7. Generate new opportunities in conjunction with its partners.
IV. KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Items on knowledge-sharing process
In my organization […]
88 1. There are processes for exchanging knowledge between individuals.
2. There are processes for distributing knowledge throughout the organization.
3. There are processes for exchanging knowledge with my business partners.
4. Knowledge is made accessible to all who need it.
5. Interdepartmental knowledge sharing occurs as a matter of course.
6. Employees fear that sharing their knowledge with others might reduce their influence within
the firm.
Notes: Organization Culture, Structure (Formalization), Technology and Knowledge Sharing
scale item: 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree. Centralization scale item: 1 Top Executive, 2
Senior or corporate management, 3 Division managers or functional managers if there is no
divisional structure, 4 Functional managers if there is divisional structure and 5 ⫽ Middle-level
manager.

Corresponding author
Sajjid M. Jasimuddin can be contacted at: sajjad.jasimuddin@kedgebs.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com