Knowledge Management Research & Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tkmr20

Refuelling knowledge management processes

towards organisational performance: mediating
role of creative organisational learning

Umar Farooq Sahibzada, Cai Jianfeng, Khawaja Fawad Latif, Syed Asim Shah
& Hassam Farooq Sahibzada

To cite this article: Umar Farooq Sahibzada, Cai Jianfeng, Khawaja Fawad Latif, Syed Asim Shah
& Hassam Farooq Sahibzada (2023) Refuelling knowledge management processes towards
organisational performance: mediating role of creative organisational learning, Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 21:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/14778238.2020.1787802

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1787802

Published online: 03 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1025

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tkmr20
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE
2023, VOL. 21, NO. 1, 1–13
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1787802

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Refuelling knowledge management processes towards organisational

performance: mediating role of creative organisational learning
Umar Farooq Sahibzada a, Cai Jianfenga, Khawaja Fawad Latif b
, Syed Asim Shahb
and Hassam Farooq Sahibzadac
a
School Of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, China; bDepartment of Management Sciences, COMSATS University
Islamabad, Attock, Pakistan; cSchool of Engineering Management, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Constructed upon Knowledge-Based View (KBV), this research investigates the interrelation­ Received 14 February 2020
ship of trust, organisational climate, Knowledge Management (KM) processes, and Accepted 23 June 2020
Organisational Performance (OP). This research further examines the intervening function of KEYWORDS
Creative Organisational Learning (COL) in an association among KM processes and OP. This Trust; organisational climate;
research used a sample frame of 536 academic and administrative staff from research-based KM processes; knowledge-
higher education institutes (HEI’s) of China. The associations were confirmed via Smart PLS based view; creative
3.2.8. The outcomes discovered that trust and organisational climate have a substantial influ­ organisational learning;
ence on KM processes. The outcomes also reveal a direct significant impact of KM processes on organisational performance
OP and indirectly via COL. This unique research not only empirically examines the interface of
KM enablers (trust, organisational climate), KM processes, and performance of HEI’s but also
enlighten visions into the present KBV literature by instantaneous investigation of the mediat­
ing role of COL.

1. Introduction enablers (Gold et al., 2001; Iqbal et al., 2019). KM

Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s) require team­
work, association, and effort which can significantly
impact Knowledge Management (KM) and can fill in
as an impetus for upgraded cooperation and investi­
gation (Iqbal et al., 2019; Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2018)
that ultimately lead to improved Organisational
Performance (OP). HEI’s are encouraged to create,
acquire, store, share, and use knowledge (Ahmad
et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2019). The metamorphic and
reframing move of HEI’s in research and economic
reformation has dominated and surmounted out­
dated, musty, and decayed teaching tradition
(Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2018). At present, HEI’s are
assumed as establishments with enthusiastic, creative
knowledge generation, and proclamation (Bano &
Taylor, 2015). HEI’s are crucial for knowledge crea­
tion, acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilisation, and
in this manner add to the social, financial advance­
ment, and development (Iqbal et al., 2019). Higher
Education Institutions can advance their progressions
and facilities i.e.- instructing, learning, investigation,
syllabus expansion, management, and strategic devel­
opment with efficient knowledge management
(Ahmad et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2019).
Numerous researchers have well-defined and scru­
tinised knowledge management ability of organisa­
tions in the context of KM processes and KM
processes are usually delineated as actions associated
with knowledge creation, acquisition, storage, sharing,
and utilisation that improves HEI’s competitive
advantage (Barley et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019).
Moreover, KM enablers state to all those aspects
which ultimately influence radical growth in KM pro­
cesses (Thani & Mirkamali, 2018) such as trust
(Koohang et al., 2017; Lei et al., 2019) and organisa­
tional climate (Al-Abdullat & Dababneh, 2018) that
enable KM processes (Iqbal et al., 2019). A great num­
ber of previous researches have stated the isolated or
instantaneous constructive influence of KM enablers
and processes on performance or efficiency of organi­
sations (Gold et al., 2001; Iqbal et al., 2019; Sahibzada
et al., 2020). An assessment of existing literature asso­
ciated with KM and educational investigation has
helped scholars recognise significant gaps that need
to be filled.
First, despite the presence of such significant indi­
cation of the role of KM in the existing literature,
inadequate researches have verified facilitating asso­
ciation of KM enablers towards active enactment of
KM processes in HEI’s (Fullwood & Rowley, 2017;
Iqbal et al., 2019), mainly in the setting of nations
with emerging and ambitious higher education sector
(Munir et al., 2019). Consequently, scholars call for
empirical examination of facilitating part of organisa­
tional aspects (i.e. Trust and Organisational Climate)

CONTACT Umar Farooq Sahibzada umar_sahibzada@hotmail.com School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical, University, Chang'an
Campus, Xi’an, 710072, China.
© Operational Research Society 2020.
2 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
in the effective enactment of KM processes in HEI’s
(Iqbal et al., 2019; Muqadas et al., 2017). Trust is
thoroughly associated with KM at an elementary
level, (McNeish & Mann, 2010). Trust is uttered as
both a driver and an outcome of interpersonal asso­
ciations (Yasir & Majid, 2017). Trust improves the
associations among people, and these associations
deliver more details to trust each other, the prelimin­
ary underpinning for refining the KM behaviour of
individuals (Holste & Fields, 2010). Moreover, orga­
nisational climate is defined as the circumstantial con­
dition at a certain theme and its relevancy to the
opinions, emotions, and actions of employees (Bock
et al., 2005), perform a vibrant part in changing KM
behaviour (Jones et al., 2006). Researches on the asso­
ciation among organisational climate on KM pro­
cesses has grabbed intensive consideration in the KM
literature (Jain et al., 2015; Lin & Lee, 2006).
Second, an additional query that demands to be
tackled which is associated to the measurable results
of KM where the influence of KM processes on OP is
yet vague (Iqbal et al., 2019; Latilla et al., 2018; Meher
& Mishra, 2019; Sahibzada et al., 2020). In a similar
arena, inadequate researches have empirically investi­
gated the explicit or implicit effect of KM on the
performance of HEI’s (Ahmad et al., 2017; Iqbal
et al., 2019). Researchers emphasise that KM processes
indirectly impact OP (Abubakar et al., 2019; Iqbal
et al., 2019); several other intervening variables convey
the impact of KM processes to organisational perfor­
mance (Iqbal et al., 2019). Nevertheless, mostly infor­
mation pertinent to intervening variables and
intervening instruments among the linkage between
KM processes and OP is almost silent (Wang et al.,
2016). One stream of investigation postulates that KM
generates a creative learning atmosphere within orga­
nisations (Bagheri et al., 2015) that permits organisa­
tions to attain improved performance (Al-Hakim &
Hassan, 2016). Moreover, based on Bagheri et al.
(2015) discussion KM processes can determine
Creative Organisational Learning (COL) and organi­
sational performance. To fully understand OP sup­
ported by KM processes, COL as an outcome should
be evaluated in the relationship between KM processes
and OP (Bagheri et al., 2015). Thus, assuming the
association among KM processes and organisational
performance, Researchers’s have highlighted that in
forthcoming studies COL should be given thoughtful
attention among the association of KM and OP(Liu,
2018; North & Kumta, 2018).
Third, regardless of the increased status of KM in
HEI’s (Al-Kurdi et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020)
due to the difficulty and enormous presence of knowl­
edge-based possessions (Butt et al., 2018; Yasir &
Majid, 2017), KM policies implemented by HEI’s are
either insufficient or unpredictable (Fullwood &
Rowley, 2017), with a need to further study factors
that contribute to enhanced KM (Iqbal et al., 2019)
specifically in emerging economies such as China
(Peng et al., 2010; Turner & Acker, 2017).
Nevertheless, the significance of knowledge and
knowledge management to the provision of universi­
ties, there has been very diminutive recognition that
universities are knowledge intense institutions
(Schmitz et al., 2014), and having inadequate KM
and exploration (Iqbal et al., 2019). There has been
an inadequate investigation of Chinese HEI’s (Lo,
2016). Likewise, research in developing economies
concerning KM processes in HEI’s is insufficient
(Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2017; Sahibzada et al., 2019).
As is the case with China, which is an emerging econ­
omy (Liu et al., 2018; Munir et al., 2019; Wu & Liu,
2018). To the best of the scholar’s information, this is
the initial research to evaluate trust and organisational
climate as a facilitator of KM processes in Chinese
higher education. Chinese HEI’s are important to
study since HEI’s’ activities in China are at the pre­
liminary phase (Epstein, 2017; Turner & Acker, 2017),
The swift increase of Chinese higher education has
profoundly changed the nation’s HEI’s structure
from privileged to bulk (Sahibzada et al., 2019;
Yuying et al., 2018). Moreover, the rapid growth of
higher education i.e., enhanced student registration in
institutions fosters the rivalry between HEI’s
(Sahibzada et al., 2019). KM in Chinese higher educa­
tion as developing country is still in a developing stage

as compared to other sectors (Sahibzada et al., 2020).
Hence, studying trust and organisational climate
a facilitator of KM processes and its influence on OP
through COL in China is meaningfully significant.
To bridge limitations, this research assumes to fill
the identified knowledge gaps of KM in HEI’s and in
doing so, makes numerous theoretical shares to the
existing literature by assessing the interrelationship
between trust, organisational climate KM processes
(creation, acquisition, storage, sharing, utilisation),
COL and organisational performance. The study
further ascertains whether COL intervenes the asso­
ciation among KM processes and organisational per­
formance. This would help in providing a foundation
for recognising the intervening system through which
KM processes affect the performance of HEI’s. With
a significantly limited study on the role of KM in
Chinese HEI’s, the study would significantly help in
understanding and highlighting the role of KM in
Chinese HEI’s. The research study endeavours to con­
tributes to the field of KM in HEI’s and further under­
standings towards Knowledge-Based View (KBV)
(Grant, 1996) literature that stresses knowledge as
a critical organisational resource leading to improved
organisational performance.
Drawing on the identified loopholes in the existing
research, the following questions are proposed for the
study;
RQ1: Does trust and organisational climate has an
impact on KM processes in HEI’s of China?
RQ2: Is there a direct impact of KM Processes on OP
in HEI’s of China?
RQ3: Does COL mediates the association among KM
processes and OP in HEI’s of China?
Pertinent to research questions; the opted structure
for this study is as follows; First, Hypotheses develop­
ment and research framework are discussed. Second,
research methodology which encircles the research
sample, collection of data, instrumentation, and tech­
niques of data analysis are discussed. Afterwards,
results, discussion, conclusion, and practical implica­
tions are explained. Lastly, future research directions
along with the limitations complete this study.
2. Hypotheses development and research
framework
The theoretical base of this study is inferred from the
KM capability model of Gold et al.’s (2001) and
knowledge-based view (KBV) of Grant’s (1996). KM
capability model is split by Gold et al. (2001) into
knowledge infrastructure capability and knowledge
process capability. Knowledge infrastructure
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 3
capability represents trust and organisational climate
as enabling factors whereas the knowledge process
represents knowledge creation, acquisition, storage,
sharing, and utilisation. KM capability model advo­
cates that organisational effectiveness depends heavily
on knowledge infrastructure capability which makes
sure to facilitate the enabling environment that sup­
ports KM processes, thus, constantly improving OP.
KBV largely depends upon a resource-based view of
the Organisation, incorporates that knowledge assets
that are important, unique, and have scarcity in a trait
(Grant, 1996). Furthermore, KBV carries that knowl­
edge in organisations is considered as a strategic
resource and a prime asset of a sustainable competitive
edge (Grant, 1996; Iqbal et al., 2019; Sahibzada et al.,
2020; Seleim & Khalil, 2007). Therefore, superior per­
formance is destined for only organisations that effi­
ciently manage and apply their knowledge and
intellect (Zack et al., 2009). Based on leading theore­
tical viewpoints, this study recommends an assimi­
lated paradigm to examine the inter-relationship
among trust, organisational climate, KM processes,
COL, and OP.
2.1. Trust and KM processes
Trust can be described as the willingness of a trustor
for the activities of other trustees established on the
expectancy that the trustee will accomplish a certain
action significant to the trustor regardless of the cap­
ability to observe or regulate the other party (Mayer
et al., 1995). The expectancy of a partner’s depend­
ability and behavioural intention to perform on that
expectancy must exist for the trust (Moorman et al.,
1992). Trust is thoroughly associated with KM at an
elementary level, (McNeish & Mann, 2010). Trust is
uttered as both a driver and an outcome of interper­
sonal associations (Ford, 2004; Yasir et al., 2017).
Trust improves the associations among people, and
these associations deliver more details to trust each
other, the preliminary underpinning for refining the
KM behaviour of individuals in HEI’s (Holste &
Fields, 2010; Yasir et al., 2017). Trust stimulates both
the expansion of the quality of associations and
growth knowledge management processes (i-e; crea­
tion, acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilisation)
(Koohang et al., 2017; Whisnant & Khasawneh, 2014).
In the case of HEI’s, the association between trust
and KM processes becomes more obvious and impor­
tant when researchers distinguish the influence of
certain aspects of trust, i-e, trustee, and the trustor.
The study specified that personnel’s trust directly and
positively affect KM activities in an organisation
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). If individuals having trust,
they will be easier and more eager to share their
particular knowledge and skills (P. Lee et al., 2010).
Precisely, trust in leaders and trust between partners
4 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.
have substantial influences on knowledge manage­
ment process (P. Lee et al., 2010; Yasir et al., 2017).
In general management literature, studies confirmed
substantial influences of trust on KM processes like
knowledge sharing in HEI’s (Yasir & Majid, 2017;
Yasir et al., 2017). This is because, trust between per­
sonnel generates emotional attachment (Chowdhury,
2005) and strengthens the baseline to which personnel
endorsed to and absorb knowledge among members
(Levin et al., 2006) and agree to create, acquire, store,
share and utilise knowledge (Zand, 1972). Zand (1972)
also specified that individuals or groups with more
trust between members are fairer and share additional
related knowledge than individuals or groups with less
trust amongst members. Based on the aforementioned
arguments it is proposed that;
H1a: Trust has a significant and positive effect on KM
processes.
2.2. Organisational climate and KM processes
Organisational climate is defined as the common prac­
tices of shared beliefs and value systems that an orga­
nisation follows (Janz et al., 1997). The climate within
the organisation can perform a vibrant part in chan­
ging KM behaviour (Jones et al., 2006). Researches on
the effect of organisational climate on KM processes
has grabbed an intense consideration in the KM lit­
erature (Jain et al., 2015; Lin & Lee, 2006).
Organisations achieving an increased level of organi­
sational climate which thus tends to increase interac­
tion among employees and a high level of knowledge
sharing for creative thoughts (Chen & Huang, 2007;
Edmondson, 1999). When innovative ideas arise to
individuals, cooperation among individuals usually
plays a vital role in improving these ideas (Sveiby &
Simons, 2002). New organisational knowledge primar­
ily produced by the individual is established via the
communities of interaction (Floyd & Lane, 2000).
Organisational climate can enable knowledge man­
agement processes (Jain et al., 2015; Yi, 2009). Since,
Organisations can enhance individuals’ willingness to
interact with others by nurturing an organisational
climate (Chen & Huang, 2007). When there is
a positive organisational climate, members tend to
work together to share and develop knowledge and
attempt to endorse each other’s performance and
learning (Janz & Prasarnphanich, 2003). Conferring
to Davenport and Prusak (1998) and Dixon (2000)
find open communication and apprehension for per­
sonnel as vital factors routing knowledge management
processes (i-e acquisition, sharing, and utilisation).
Moreover, management’s reassurance and risk accep­
tance also textured in the literature as significant fac­
tors of climate within an organisation that enable
knowledge management processes (i.e.- creation,
acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilisation)
(M. K. Lee et al., 2006; Pérez et al., 2004). Based on
the arguments it is proposed that;
H1b: Organisational Climate has a significant and
positive effect on KM processes.
2.3. KM processes and organisational
performance
Knowledge is an inevitable catalyst for sustainable com­
petitive advantage and organisational success in the face
of abrupt variations in business settings (Masa’deh
et al., 2017), likewise, KM in HEI’s contributes towards
their performance through research and developmental
activities (Masa’deh et al., 2017). The value of organisa­
tional knowledge resources can only be assessed when
these resources are employed for product creation, ser­
vice delivery, sold, or traded off for value (Wiig, 1999).
Thus, OP can only be improved with an effective appli­
cation of already created, stored, and transferred knowl­
edge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Likewise, KM attains the
main focus in HEI’s because of its research drive for
enhanced institutional performance (Masa’deh et al.,
2017). However, OP is dependent on efficient manage­
ment and utilisation of available knowledge-based
resources and fruitful implementation of KM processes
(Mahdavi Mazdeh & Hesamamiri, 2014). According to
KBV Grant (1996), Knowledge-based resources have
been firmly acknowledged as a vital strategic resource
that enhances OP through knowledge creation, acquisi­
tion, storage, sharing, and utilisation, hence, improving
the learning, decision making, productivity and profit­
ability (Iqbal et al., 2019; Obeidat et al., 2016).
Moreover, KBV additionally advocates the KM concept
that impacts and stays with the capacity that has to
create, acquire, store, share and utilise knowledge to
enhance OP (Martelo-Landroguez & Cepeda-Carrión,
2016). Primarily, the enactment of knowledge-based
services is mostly reliant on the efficacious implementa­
tion of organisational knowledge (Obeidat et al., 2016;
Sahibzada et al., 2020). Similarly, organisational collec­
tive learning, decision making, likewise, organisational
productivity through innovative ideas, products, and
services are improved to the next level through knowl­
edge acquisition, sharing, and utilisation (Chiu & Chen,
2016; Masa’deh et al., 2017). Knowledge sharing, in
particular, enhances research performance in HEI’s
(Mahamed Ismail et al., 2015). Recent literature, in
bulk, examined and confirmed a significant and positive
relationship between KM processes and OP (Iqbal et al.,
2019). Similarly, Ahmad et al. (2017), Iqbal et al. (2019)
and confirmed a positive and direct relationship
between KM processes and HEI’s’ performance.

H2: KM Processes have a significant positive and
direct effect on OP.
2.4. KM processes, creative organisational
learning and organisational performance
Creative organisational learning (COL) is described as
the level to which the knowledge of current business
methods is altered or refused (Vandenbosch & Higgins,
1996). COL is the extent of change in the understand­
ing of the current techniques or knowing them as
invalid approaches (Vandenbosch & Higgins, 1996).
COL is constructed on extending creativity, improve­
ment of insights, generation of innovative perspectives
on current concepts and productively criticising cur­
rent views on businesses (Bagheri et al., 2015), which
are the basic functions of knowledge-intensive organi­
sations (Chahal & Bakshi, 2015) like HEI’s.
COL is the personnel’s utilisation of new knowl­
edge for promoting and updating their existing knowl­
edge and with an enhancement of their know-how
concerning new environments (Ruggles, 1998). In
the modern age, organisations consider learning as
a strategic asset (Sánchez-Polo et al., 2019).
Furthermore, KM processes (i-e.; creation acquisition,
storage, sharing, and utilisation) and learning are
emphasised and practiced as a hardcore combination
in the research domain (Mason & Wetherbee, 2004).
Barriers to KM processes, if set aside, can enhance the
learning throughout the organisation (Mubeen et al.,
2016; Sánchez-Polo et al., 2019). Moreover, organisa­
tional knowledge-based conception determines OP
and increases COL and thus it supports innovation
in OP (Bagheri et al., 2015; North & Kumta, 2018;
Pfeffer, 2005). Constructed upon KBV, KM processes
utilise knowledge attained from knowledge manage­
ment infrastructure to strengthen COL and OP (See
Figure 1).
Based on the aforementioned literature it is pro­
posed that;
H3: KM processes have a significant and positive effect
on COL
H4: COL has a significant and positive effect on OP.
H5: COL has a mediating effect on the relationship
between KM Process and OP.
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research universities
Knowledge-based economies solely depend on the per­
formance of universities which can ultimately influence
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 5
the societal and economic growth of a country over
researches and novel concepts as observed by estab­
lished nations (Iqbal et al., 2019). Hence, activities
related to researches should be part of universities in
emerging economies like China. Ministry of Education
of the People Republic of China has a stretched empha­
sis on encouraging research environment which leads
towards research activities at HEI’s or universities (Lo,
2016). Nevertheless, the initiatives taken by the Ministry
of Education of the People Republic of China, research
pursuits are still ambiguous in HEI’s for which an active
KM is unavoidable to encounter barriers of the knowl­
edge-based economy (Feiz et al., 2019).
3.2. Population, sample and data collection
This study comprehended the academic and adminis­
tration staff of Chinese public universities as the con­
sidered population that is involved in progressing
multi-disciplinary education and research in natural
and technology, engineering, and social sciences.
A total of 1120 questionnaires were circulated conve­
niently in two major cities of China i-e; eight public
universities from Xi’an and eight public universities
from Chengdu. The time slot of data collection for this
study was December 2018 – April 2019. 609 question­
naires were received from 16 Chinese universities,
which ticked a response rate of 54.3%. 73 incomplete
and invalid questionnaires were discarded. The
remainder of 536 questionnaires were retained having
a response rate of 47.8% for statistical analysis. The
current sample size is fit for the use of structural
equation modelling to investigate the complex path
model (Kline, 2011).
3.3. Instrumentation
The current research includes 47 measurement items
that were borrowed from the existing studies.
Meanwhile, minor changes were made in wordings
on the items to make them parallel with a university
setting (Iqbal et al., 2019; Sahibzada et al., 2020). The
survey opted for a five-point Likert scale that ranges
from “1” meaning “strongly disagree” to “5” meaning
“Strongly Agree”. Details of the constructs are shown
in Table 1.
3.4. Data analysis and procedure
This study used Smart PLS 3.2.8 for analysis (Ringle
et al., 2005). The technique of partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was opted
to examine the quantitative data. PLS-SEM used in
corporate and social sciences researches to handle
sample size and non-normal facts efficiently and it is
an emergent information analysis tool (J. J. F. Hair
et al., 2014). This method is more suitable when the
6 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.

Table 1. Sources of measurement instruments. sample predictive power (Sarstedt et al., 2014) since
No of it is above the required level of .10 (Falk & Miller,
Variable Dimension Items Source
1992). Furthermore, effect sizes are computed to eval­
KM Enablers Trust 04 Huff and Kelley (2003)
Organisational 10 Bock et al. (2005) uate the amount of exogenous variable that contri­
Climate butes to the R2 value of an endogenous variable. In
KM Processes Creation 06 Bryant and Terborg
(2008) this study, COL was predicted by KM processes, the
Acquisition 03 Huang and Li (2009) OP was predicted by COL and KM Processes, KM
Storage 04 Masa’deh et al. (2017)
Sharing 04 Bryant and Terborg
Processes was forecasted by trust and organisational
(2008) climate, respectively. The relative effect sizes (f2) of the
Utilisation 05 K. C. Lee et al. (2005) and exogenous constructs were calculated and showed that
Huang and Li (2009)
Creative 06 Vandenbosch and exogenous variable has a very big effect on our endo­
Organisational Higgins (1996) genous variable (> .35) (Cohen, 1988) except for KM
Learning
Organisational 05 Tseng (2010) processes and COL influence on OP.
Performance Subsequently required evaluation of measurement
model, the examination of the structural model was
completed in another phase. The hypotheses were
confirmed in a sequence of stages. In the primary
study seeks to test current theories and involve com­
stage, the immediate influence of KM enablers on
plicated structural models (Ringle et al., 2018). PLS-
KM processes was established. In the secondary
SEM includes dual examination: Measurement model
stage, the direct influence of KM processes on COL
description and structural model examination (Ringle
and OP was confirmed. Then the direct influence of
et al., 2018; Wong, 2013). Measurement model
COL on OP was confirmed. Bootstrap resampling
description guarantees that those constructs pose
technique with 5,000 resamples was employed to
acceptable indicator loading, convergent validity,
investigate the significance of direct paths and evaluate
composite reliability, and discriminant validity, thus
standard errors (Ringle et al., 2005). Table 4 reflected
will be applied in the structural model. Structural
the assessment outcomes of observations projected for
model assessment entails evaluating path coefficients
direct associations. Lastly, the impact of KM processes
and examining their importance. Moreover, current
on OP, over the intervention of COL was confirmed.
empirical researches in the knowledge management
Table 5 illustrates the outcomes of the intervening
arena have engaged the PLS-SEM tool for data analysis
examination.
(Sahibzada et al., 2020; Shujahat et al., 2018).
Conferring to Table 4, there is a substantial con­
firming influence of trust on KMP’s (β = 0.278,
4. Data analysis and results t = 6.856, p < 0.001) and organisational climate on
KMP’s (β = 0.696, t = 18.509, p < 0.001). Therefore,
4.1. Measurement model assessment
H1a and H1b were substantiated. Likewise, the results
The first phase evaluation of the measurement model substantiate influence of KM processes on OP
was made accordingly to confirm the construct’s relia­ (β = 0.332, t = 5.059, p < 0.001), COL (β = 0.871,
bility and validity (Hair, 2006). Primarily, 47 items t = 38.181, p < 0.001). These outcomes substantiated
were involved in the process. Whereas examining the H2 and H3. The outcomes also accept the substantial
measurement model, no items were removed because direct and positive influence of COL (β = 0.475,
all the factor loadings were above the suggested value t = 6.830, p < 0.001) on OP. Therefore, H4 is substan­
of 0.600 (J. F. Hair et al., 2016). Therefore, all ques­ tiated. (See Figure 2).
tions were involved in the final measurement process
(See Table 2). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
4.3. Mediation analysis
and composite reliability of all the constructs are equal
to or surpass the values of 0.50 and 0.70, correspond­ Lastly, H5 evaluates whether COL mediates the asso­
ingly. Therefore, convergent validity and reliability are ciation among KM processes and OP. The outcomes
confirmed. Furthermore, Table 3 shows the discrimi­ show that with the introduction of the mediator into
nant validity results using Fornell and Larcker (1981). the model, the direct effect was still found positive and
significant (β = .332, t = 5.05, p < .001). while the
indirect effect with the inclusion of the mediator into
4.2. Structural model assessment
the analysis was observed significant (β = 0.414,
The results of the coefficient of determination (R2) t = 6.556, p < .001). Hence, the results reveal a partial
revealed the variance explained in the dependent vari­ mediation. This shows that the influence of KM pro­
able because of the independent variable, R2 values are cesses on OP passes partially via COL. Consequently,
.897, 0.763, and 0.615 for KM Processes, COL, and OP, H5 is accepted. The results of the mediation analysis
respectively. The R2 values support the model’s in- are presented in Table 5.
 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 7

Table 2. Item loadings, reliability and convergent validity. 5. Discussion, conclusion, and implications
Λ α CR AVE
Trust 0.890 0.924 0.752
5.1. Discussion
T1 0.870
T2 0.844 The existing research anticipated examining the impact
T3 0.856 of knowledge management enablers (trust and organi­
T4 0.897
Organisational Climate 0.944 0.952 0.668 sational climate) on KM processes and the indirect
OC1 0.810 impact of KM processes (creation, acquisition, storage,
OC2 0.819
OC3 0.771
sharing, and utilisation) on OP in Chinese research
OC4 0.861 universities with the mediating effect of COL.
OC5 0.787 First, trust has established prominence position to its
OC6 0.881
OC7 0.737 unusual prospective to validate returns to both indivi­
OC8 0.802 duals and institutions (Yasir & Majid, 2017; Yasir et al.,
OC9 0.869
OC10 0.821 2017). This research found a substantial impact of trust
Knowledge Management Processes on KM processes. Trust among members in HEI’s creates
Knowledge Creation 0.913 0.932 0.696
CT1 0.840 an expressive attachment which strengthens the level to
CT2 0.797 which members endorse and grasp knowledge among
CT3 0.833
CT4 0.855
members, thus agree with the sharing of pertinent knowl­
CT5 0.842 edge (Chowdhury, 2005; Levin et al., 2006). The results
CT6 0.839 are consistent with the outcomes of previous research
Knowledge Acquisition 0.856 0.912 0.776
AQ1 0.888 (Yasir & Majid, 2017; Yasir et al., 2017).
AQ2 0.871 Second, organisational climate is used as an enabler
AQ3 0.884
Knowledge Storage 0.868 0.910 0.716 which was hardly explored in HEI’s earlier, focusing on
ST1 0.835 factors that may endorse the building of people’s lin­
ST2 0.855
ST3 0.820 kages (Mehra et al., 2001; Tseng & Jung, 2011). This
ST4 0.873 could be ascribed to that detail that climate within an
Knowledge Sharing 0.872 0.912 0.723
SH1 0.821
organisation plays a vibrant role in providing an atmo­
SH2 0.901 sphere for relational and social exchange (Chen &
SH3 0.839 Huang, 2007; Jaw & Liu, 2003; Tseng & Jung, 2011).
SH4 0.838
Knowledge Utilisation 0.898 0.925 0.711 The indications confirm the claims of earlier studies
UT1 0.852 and similar to Jain et al. (2015) and Rodriguez et al.
UT2 0.865
UT3 0.801 (2016) regarding the importance of climate in an orga­
UT4 0.879 nisation to social communication between individuals.
UT5 0.815
Creative Organisational Learning 0.934 0.948 0.752 Third, the present study established that the actual
COL1 0.816 engagement of KM processes substantially influences
COL2 0.869
COL3 0.878
the performance of research universities. This out­
COL4 0.887 come reveals that in research universities the effective
COL5 0.879 engagement of KM processes can guide towards
COL6 0.871
Organisational Performance 0.918 0.938 0.753 enhanced research efficiency, student satisfaction, cur­
OP1 0.861 riculum improvement, university ranking, educational
OP2 0.841
OP3 0.859 efficiency, and quality development. The results are in
OP4 0.888 line with the KBV theory, which stresses that knowl­
OP5 0.890
edge management can encourage efficient manage­

Table 3. Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker criterion).

Mean AQ CT COL OC OP SH ST T UT
AQ 4.15 0.881
CT 4.15 0.868 0.835
COL 4.25 0.796 0.818 0.867
OC 4.03 0.847 0.815 0.845 0.817
OP 4.11 0.685 0.719 0.767 0.691 0.868
SH 4.11 0.825 0.834 0.822 0.810 0.701 0.850
ST 4.15 0.832 0.813 0.828 0.807 0.715 0.816 0.846
T 4.28 0.808 0.802 0.810 0.814 0.739 0.814 0.836 0.867
UT 4.08 0.788 0.825 0.834 0.809 0.691 0.818 0.805 0.827 0.843
The Data on the diagonal (in bold) is the square root of AVE of the construct while the other values are the correlations with other constructs.
**AQ, Acquisition; CT, Creation; SH, Sharing; ST, Storage; UT, Utilisation; OP, Organisational Performance; COL, Creative Organisational Learning; T, Trust;
OC, Organisational Climate.
8 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.

Table 4. Results of structural model path coefficient (direct relationships).

Hypotheses Relationship β SD t-value Decision
H1a Trust -> KM Processes 0.278 0.04 6.856* Supported
H1b Organisational Climate -> KM Processes 0.696 0.03 18.509* Supported
H2 KM Processes -> OP 0.332 0.06 5.059* Supported
H3 KM Processes -> COL 0.871 0.02 38.181* Supported
H4 COL -> OP 0.475 0.07 6.830* Supported
R2 f2
KM Processes R2 =.897 KM Processes ->OP f2 =.068
COL R2 =.763 COL->OP f2 =.140
OP R2 =.615 KM Processes->COL f2 = 3.211
Trust-> KMP f2 =.190
OC ->KMP f2 = 1.204
KMPs, KM Processes; COL, Creative Organisational Learning; OP, Organisational performance. *P < 0.001.

Table 5. Summary of mediation results.

Total effect (KMPs->OP) Direct effect (KMPs->OP) Indirect Effects of KMPs on OP
Coefficient p-value Coefficient p-value Coefficient SD T value P Values
0.746 0.000 0.332 .000 H5: KMPs->COL->OP 0.414 0.064 6.556 0.000

Figure 2. Structural equation model.

ment of knowledge assets and aid in accomplishing
higher OP (Grant, 1996). As Rowley (2000) sustains
the prominence of KM in HEI’s and consistently, the
findings of the current study also authenticate his
results. Similarly, other studies on HEI’s found
a noteworthy affirmative relation between OP and
KM processes (Abubakar et al., 2019; Ahmad et al.,
2017; Iqbal et al., 2019; Latilla et al., 2018; Meher &
Mishra, 2019). Hence, issuing a provision to the KBV
in HEI’s that effective management of knowledge
resources can have an incremental effect on HEI’s’
performance. Furthermore, present research sub­
5.2. Conclusion
stantiates with Iqbal et al. (2019) that determination
of an institute depends on effective engagement of KM
processes and the OP which can prove a vibrant cause
for the feasible realistic benefit and the superior OP.
Lastly, this study discovers a significant impact of
KM processes on OP via the intervention of COL. The
results of the research validate a constructive and sig­
nificant influence KM processes on COL and can
effectively improve OP. In general, this study con­
cludes by confirming KBV theory that KM processes:
knowledge creation, acquisition, storage, sharing and
utilisation enhance COL by enhancing knowledge lin­
kages, collective acquisition, enhanced structural pro­
cesses, practices, activities, expertise, capabilities and
rational outlooks of people (Gold et al., 2001; Grant,
1996; Shih et al., 2010). While, outcomes of this study
empirically indicate that not only knowledge sharing
but knowledge acquisition, creation, storage, and uti­
lisation can foster COL which thus results in the
improved OP and sustainable competitive advantage
in HEI’s.
The novel outcomes of current research suggest that
along with knowledge sharing other factors of knowl­
edge acquisition, sharing, storage, and utilisation can
advance innovative structural knowledge and it con­
cludes valued and upsurge viable paybacks and OP in
HEI’s. This study holds the view that effective execu­
tion of KM processes depends on trust and organisa­
tional climate which can ultimately increase OP. It is
suggested under the study findings that administration
of research universities and policymakers should

develop a considered strategy to deliver a supportive
climate which can substantially increase trust and
encourage, contour and endure KM processes among
their personnel (Iqbal et al., 2019; Muqadas et al.,
2017). The association among knowledge manage­
ment and OP in research universities were previously
explored (Ahmad et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2019), but
the mediating role of COL in this bond was isolated.
Results of the present study demonstrate that in
research universities knowledge creation, acquisition,
storage, sharing, and utilisation can endorse and
encourage COL capacity towards the improved OP.
5.3. Implications
This study is novel in the sense that it fills the high­
lighted gap with a swift collaboration with KBV theory
literature explaining the KM processes’ contribution
to the HEI’s performance via the intervention of COL.
An additional contribution of this paper is to develop
into the main theory on the relationships between
trust, organisational climate, KM processes, creative
organisation learning, and organisational (University)
performance through an extensive literature review
and anticipate several effects among these constructs.
It is suggested under the study findings that the
administration of research universities and policy­
makers should develop a considered strategy to deliver
an organisational climate which can ultimately create
trust among employees, which can substantially
increase KM processes between their personnel
(Yasir et al., 2017). The association among KM pro­
cesses and organisation performance in research uni­
versities were previously explored (Ahmad et al., 2017;
Iqbal et al., 2019), but the mediating role of creative
organisation learning in this bond was isolated in
research universities. Outcomes of the present
research demonstrate that in HEI’s, knowledge crea­
tion, acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilisation can
endorse and encourage COL capacity towards the
improved OP.
5.4. Limitations and future research directions
This research has certain restrictions, to commence
with, selected convenience sampling from a limited
number of public sector HEI’s of China calls for sam­
ple bias and generalisability of the outcomes to
another public sector or private sector HEI’s. Thus,
random sampling with a larger sample and even
a multi-group analysis and cross-culture study across
countries or public and private HEI’s may enable the
generalisability of outcomes to compare and compre­
hend the KM effectivity. Secondly, it is encouraged to
replicate this study in other cultures to validate the
findings. Thirdly, researchers may consider other KM
enablers like different styles of leadership. Fourthly,
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 9
the indirect relationship among KM processes and OP
should be investigated further through some other
mediators pertinent to the knowledge-intensive indus­
try, as it is still unclear specifically in HEI’s. Lastly,
future studies should focus on other important indi­
cators (publications, social development, teacher
retention) to measure the OP of HEI’s.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Umar Farooq Sahibzada http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
5271-4062
Khawaja Fawad Latif http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6400-
1908
References
Abubakar, A. M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M. A., & Elçi, A.
(2019). Knowledge management, decision-making style
and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation
Knowledge, 4(2), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.
2017.07.003
Ahmad, N., Lodhi, M. S., Zaman, K., & Naseem, I. (2017).
Knowledge management: A gateway for organizational
performance. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(3),
859–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0282-3
Al-Abdullat, B. M., & Dababneh, A. (2018). The mediating
effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between
organizational culture and knowledge management in
Jordanian banking sector. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 25(2), 517–544. https://doi.org/10.
1108/BIJ-06-2016-0081
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management
and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foun­
dations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Al-Hakim, L. A., & Hassan, S. (2016). Core requirements of
knowledge management implementation, innovation and
organizational performance. Journal of Business
Economics Management, 17(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/
10.3846/16111699.2012.720597
Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R., & Eldabi, T. (2018).
Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions:
A systematic review. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 31(2), 226–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-09-2017-0129
Bagheri, R., Hamidizadeh, M. R., & Sabbagh, P. (2015). The
mediator role of KM process for creative organizational
learning case study: Knowledge based companies. Vine, 45
(3), 420–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/VINE-06-2014-0039
Bano, S., & Taylor, J. (2015). Universities and the
knowledge-based economy: Perceptions from
a developing country. Higher Education Research &
Development, 34(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07294360.2014.956696
Barley, W. C., Treem, J. W., & Kuhn, T. (2018). Valuing
multiple trajectories of knowledge: A critical review and
agenda for knowledge management research. Academy of
10 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.
Management Annals, 12(1), 278–317. https://doi.org/10.
5465/annals.2016.0041
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005).
Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,
social-psychological factors, and organizational climate.
MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.2307/
25148669
Bryant, S. E., & Terborg, J. R. (2008). Impact of peer mentor
training on creating and sharing organizational
knowledge. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 11–29.
http://www.jstor.com/stable/40604592
Butt, M. A., Nawaz, F., Hussain, S., Sousa, M. J., Wang, M.,
Sumbal, M. S., & Shujahat, M. (2018). Individual knowl­
edge management engagement, knowledge-worker pro­
ductivity, and innovation performance in
knowledge-based organizations: The implications for
knowledge processes and knowledge-based systems.
Computational Mathematical Organization Theory, 25
(3), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-018-9270-z
Chahal, H., & Bakshi, P. (2015). Examining intellectual
capital and competitive advantage relationship: Role of
innovation and organizational learning. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(3), 376–399. https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2013-0069
Chen, C.-J., & Huang, J.-W. (2007). How organizational
climate and structure affect knowledge management—
The social interaction perspective. International Journal
of Information Management, 27(2), 104–118. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.11.001
Chiu, C.-N., & Chen, -H.-H. (2016). The study of knowledge
management capability and organizational effectiveness
in Taiwanese public utility: The mediator role of organi­
zational commitment. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1520–1554.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3173-6
Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect-and
cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 310–326. http://
www.jstor.com/stable/40604504
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Routledge.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge:
How organizations manage what they know. Harvard
Business Press.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership:
Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and
practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611
Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies
thrive by sharing what they know. Harvard Business
School Press.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning beha­
vior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2),
350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Epstein, I. (2017). Chinese education: Problems, policies, and
prospects. Routledge.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling.
United States of America: University of Akron Press.
Feiz, D., Dehghani Soltani, M., & Farsizadeh, H. (2019). The
effect of knowledge sharing on the psychological empow­
erment in higher education mediated by organizational
memory. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 3–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1328595
Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout
the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic
renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1),
154–177. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791608
Ford, D. P. (2004). Trust and knowledge management: The
seeds of success. In Handbook on knowledge management
(Vol 1) (pp. 553–575). Springer: Queen's School of
Business.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea­
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Fullwood, R., & Rowley, J. (2017). An investigation of fac­
tors affecting knowledge sharing amongst UK academics.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1254–1271.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2016-0274
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001).
Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities
perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.
11045669
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
Hair, J. F. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson
Education.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016).
A primer on partial least squares structural equation mod­
eling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Hair, J. J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., &
Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares struc­
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in
business research. European Business Review, 26(2),
106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge
sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14
(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13673271011015615
Huang, J.-W., & Li, Y.-H. (2009). The mediating effect of
knowledge management on social interaction and inno­
vation performance. International Journal of Manpower,
30(3), 285–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01437720910956772
Huff, L., & Kelley, L. (2003). Levels of organizational trust in
individualist versus collectivist societies: A seven-nation
study. Organization Science, 14(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.14.1.81.12807
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U. F., &
Hussain, S. (2019). From knowledge management to
organizational performance: Modelling the mediating
role of innovation and intellectual capital in higher
education. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 32(1), 36–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-04-2018-0083
Jain, K. K., Sandhu, M. S., & Goh, S. K. (2015).
Organizational climate, trust and knowledge sharing:
Insights from Malaysia. Journal of Asia Business Studies,
9(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2013-0040
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge
worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, inter­
dependence, team development, and contextual support
variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01486.x
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the
antecedents of effective knowledge management: The
importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision
Sciences, 34(2), 351–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-
5915.02328
Jaw, B. S., & Liu, W. (2003). Promoting organizational
learning and self-renewal in Taiwanese companies: The
role of HRM. Human Resource Management: Published in

Cooperation with the School of Business Administration,
the University of Michigan in Alliance with the Society of
Human Resources Management, 42(3), 223–241. https://
doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10082
Jones, M. C., Cline, M., & Ryan, S. (2006). Exploring knowl­
edge sharing in ERP implementation: An organizational
culture framework. Decision Support Systems, 41(2),
411–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.06.017
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural
equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Koohang, A., Paliszkiewicz, J., & Goluchowski, J. (2017).
The impact of leadership on trust, knowledge manage­
ment, and organizational performance: A research model.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 521–537.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-02-2016-0072
Latilla, V. M., Frattini, F., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Berner, M.
(2018). Knowledge management, knowledge transfer and
organizational performance in the arts and crafts indus­
try: A literature review. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 22(6), 1310–1331. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JKM-08-2017-0367
Lee, K. C., Lee, S., & Kang, I. W. (2005). KMPI: Measuring
knowledge management performance. Journal of
Information Management, 42(3), 469–482. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.im.2004.02.003
Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., Lim, K. H., & Ling Sia, C. (2006).
Understanding customer knowledge sharing in
web-based discussion boards: An exploratory study.
Internet Research, 16(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.
1108/10662240610673709
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010).
Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge sharing
and team performance. Management Learning, 41(4),
473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610362036
Lei, H., Nguyen, T. T., & Le, P. B. (2019). How knowledge
sharing connects interpersonal trust and innovation cap­
ability: The moderating effect of leadership support.
Chinese Management Studies, 13(2), 276–298. https://
doi.org/10.1108/CMS-06-2018-0554
Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived
trustworthiness of knowledge sources: The moderating
impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(5), 1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.91.5.1163
Lin, H.-F., & Lee, -G.-G. (2006). Effects of socio-technical
factors on organizational intention to encourage knowl­
edge sharing. Management Decision, 44(1), 74–88.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610641472
Liu, C.-H. S. (2018). Examining social capital, organizational
learning and knowledge transfer in cultural and creative
industries of practice. Tourism Management, 64(3),
258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.001
Liu, Y., Chan, C., Zhao, C., & Liu, C. (2018). Unpacking
knowledge management practices in China: Do institu­
tion, national and organizational culture matter? Journal
of Knowledge Management, 23(4), 619–643. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JKM-07-2017-0260
Lo, W. Y. W. (2016). The concept of greater China in higher
education: Adoptions, dynamics and implications.
Comparative Education, 52(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03050068.2015.1125613
Mahamed Ismail, N. A., Welch, C., & Xu, M. (2015). Towards
a sustainable quality of university research: Knowledge
sharing. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13
(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.39
Mahdavi Mazdeh, M., & Hesamamiri, R. (2014). Knowledge
management reliability and its impact on organizational
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 11
performance: An empirical study. Program, 48(2),
102–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-01-2013-0001
Martelo-Landroguez, S., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2016). How
knowledge management processes can create and capture
value for firms? Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 14(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.
2015.26
Masa’deh, R. E., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M., & Tarhini, A.
(2017). The impact of knowledge management on job
performance in higher education: The case of the
University of Jordan. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 30(2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-09-2015-0087
Mason, F. M., & Wetherbee, L. V. (2004). Learning to lead:
An analysis of current training programs for library leader­
ship. Graduate School of Library and Information
Science. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An
integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McNeish, J., & Mann, I. J. S. (2010). Knowledge sharing and
trust in organizations. IUP Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8(1/2), 18–38. https://www.iupindia.in/
110/IJKM_Knowledge_Sharing_18.html
Meher, J. R., & Mishra, R. K. (2019). Assessing the influence
of knowledge management practices on organizational
performance. VINE Journal of Information Knowledge
Management Systems, 49(3), 440–456. https://doi.org/10.
1108/VJIKMS-04-2019-0050
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social
networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications
for workplace performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2667127
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992).
Relationships between providers and users of market
research: The dynamics of trust within and between
organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3),
314–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379202900303
Mubeen, H., Ashraf, H., & Nisar, Q. A. (2016). Impact of
emotional intelligence and knowledge management on
organizational performance: Mediating role of organiza­
tional learning. Journal of Management Info, 11(2),
35–52. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Qasim_
Nisar/publication/308746145_Impact_of_Emotional_
Intelligence_and_Knowledge_Management_on_
Organizational_Performance_Mediating_Role_of_
Organizational_Learning/links/57ede31d08ae711
da939a1b3.pdf
Munir, H., Jianfeng, C., & Ramzan, S. (2019). Personality
traits and theory of planned behavior comparison of
entrepreneurial intentions between an emerging econ­
omy and a developing country. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 25(3), 554–580.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-05-2018-0336
Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., Aslam, U., & Ur-Rahman, U.
(2017). Exploring the challenges, trends and issues for
knowledge sharing: A study on employees in public sec­
tor universities. VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems, 47(1), 2–15. https://
doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-06-2016-0036
North, K., & Kumta, G. (2018). Knowledge management:
Value creation through organizational learning. Springer.
Obeidat, B. Y., Al-Suradi, M. M., Masa’deh, R. E., &
Tarhini, A. (2016). The impact of knowledge manage­
ment on innovation: An empirical study on Jordanian
12 U. F. SAHIBZADA ET AL.
consultancy firms. Management Research Review, 39(10),
1214–1238. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-09-2015-0214
Peng, J., Moffett, S., & McAdam, R. (2010). Knowledge
management in China: A review. Journal of Technology
Management in China, 5(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.
1108/17468771011053171
Pérez, L. S., Manuel, M. P. J., & José, V. O. C. (2004).
Managing knowledge: The link between culture and orga­
nizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8
(6), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567657
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist?
A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4(1), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amle.2005.16132570
Ramjeawon, P. V., & Rowley, J. (2017). Knowledge manage­
ment in higher education institutions: Enablers and bar­
riers in Mauritius. The Learning Organization, 24(5),
366–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-03-2017-0030
Ramjeawon, P. V., & Rowley, J. (2018). Knowledge manage­
ment in higher education institutions in Mauritius.
International Journal of Educational Management, 32(7),
1319–1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2017-0129
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P.
(2018). Partial least squares structural equation modeling
in HRM research. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 1(1), 1–27. https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2233795
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0
(M3) Beta. Universityof Hamburg.
Rodriguez, I. A., Garcia, A., Morais, S. C., Muniz, J., &
Munyon, T. P. (2016). Workers’ perspective about organiza­
tional climate in knowledge management: Automotive assem­
bly-line case. Paper presented at the IFIP international
conference on advances in production management systems.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-
51133-7_85
Rowley, J. (2000). Is higher education ready for knowledge
management? International Journal of Educational
Management, 14(7), 325–333. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513540010378978
Ruggles, R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge
management in practice. California Management
Review, 40(3), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165944
Sahibzada, U. F., Cai, J., Latif, K. F., & Sahibzada, H. F.
(2020). Knowledge management processes, knowledge
worker satisfaction, and organizational performance.
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 72(1),
112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2019-0276
Sahibzada, U. F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, F., & Shafait, Z. (2019).
Development and validation of a multidimensional
instrument for measuring internal marketing in Chinese
higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 32(3), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-09-2018-0206
Sahibzada, U. F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, K. F., & Sahibzada, H. F.
(2020). Fueling knowledge management processes in
Chinese higher education institutes (HEIs): the neglected
mediating role of knowledge worker satisfaction. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JEIM-07-2019-0197
Sánchez-Polo, M. T., Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Cillo, V., &
Wensley, A. (2019). Overcoming knowledge barriers to
health care through continuous learning. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 23(3), 508–526. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JKM-10-2018-0636
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014).
On the emancipation of PLS-SEM: A commentary on
Rigdon (2012). Long Range Planning, 47(3), 154–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007
Schmitz, C., van Meijl, H., Kyle, P., Nelson, G. C.,
Fujimori, S., Gurgel, A., Heyhoe, E., d’Croz, D. M.,
Popp, A., Sands, R., Tabeau, A., van der
Mensbrugghe, D., von Lampe, M., Wise, M., Blanc, E.,
Hasegawa, T., Kavallari, A., Valin, H., & Havlik, P. (2014).
Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: Insights from
a global agro-economic model comparison. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 45(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.
1111/agec.12090
Seleim, A., & Khalil, O. (2007). Knowledge management and
organizational performance in the Egyptian software
firms. International Journal of Knowledge Management,
3(4), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijkm.2007100103
Shih, K.-H., Chang, C.-J., & Lin, B. (2010). Assessing knowl­
edge creation and intellectual capital in banking industry.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(1), 74–89. https://doi.
org/10.1108/14691931011013343
Shujahat, M., Ali, B., Nawaz, F., Durst, S., & Kianto, A. (2018).
Translating the impact of knowledge management into
knowledge-based innovation: The neglected and mediating
role of knowledge-worker satisfaction. Human Factors
Ergonomics in Manufacturing Service Industries, 28(4),
200–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20735
Sveiby, K.-E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate
and effectiveness of knowledge work–an empirical study.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420–433.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210450388
Thani, F. N., & Mirkamali, S. M. (2018). Factors that enable
knowledge creation in higher education: A structural
model. Data Technologies and Applications, 52(3),
424–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-10-2016-0068
Tseng, & Jung, F. Y. (2011). Exploring the influence of
organizational ethical climate on knowledge
management. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2),
325–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0725-5
Tseng, S.-M. (2010). The correlation between organizational
culture and knowledge conversion on corporate
performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2),
269–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032409
Turner, Y., & Acker, A. (2017). Education in the new China:
Shaping ideas at work. Routledge.
Vandenbosch, B., & Higgins, C. (1996). Information acquisi­
tion and mental models: An investigation into the relation­
ship between behaviour and learning. Information Systems
Research, 7(2), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.2.198
Wang, Z., Sharma, P. N., & Cao, J. (2016). From knowledge
sharing to firm performance: A predictive model
comparison. Journal of Business Research, 69(10),
4650–4658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.055
Whisnant, B., & Khasawneh, O. (2014). The influence of
leadership and trust on the sharing of tacit knowledge:
Exploring a path model. Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, 6(2), 1–15. https://search.proquest.com/doc
view/1640729843?accountid=135034
Wiig, K. M. (1999). Introducing knowledge management into
the enterprise (Vol. 1). CRC Press.
Wong, -K.-K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using
SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32. http://market
ing-bulletin.massey.ac.nz
Wu, H., & Liu, Y. (2018). Balancing local and international
knowledge search for internationalization of emerging
economy multinationals: Evidence from China. Chinese
Management Studies, 12(4), 701–719. https://doi.org/10.
1108/CMS-09-2017-0254

Yasir, M., & Majid, A. (2017). Impact of knowledge manage­
ment enablers on knowledge sharing: Is trust a missing link
in SMEs of emerging economies? World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 13(1), 16–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/
WJEMSD-02-2016-0010
Yasir, M., Majid, A., & Yasir, M. (2017). Nexus of knowledge-
management enablers, trust and knowledge-sharing in
research universities. Journal of Applied Research in Higher
Education, 9(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-
10-2016-0068
Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behavior: Scale
development and validation. Knowledge Management
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT RESEARCH & PRACTICE 13
Research & Practice, 7(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1057/
kmrp.2008.36
Yuying, L., Mishan, F., & Chambers, A. (2018). Investigating
EFL teachers’ perceptions of task-based language teaching in
higher education in China. The Language Learning Journal,
1(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1465110
Zack, M., McKeen, J., & Singh, S. (2009). Knowledge man­
agement and organizational performance: An exploratory
analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6),
392–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910997088
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 229–239. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2393957