CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

As the world moves towards Knowledge-based economy, knowledge is very

important because it is one of the organizational assets that must be given full
concerned by all organizations. In todays dynamic global economy, knowledge
is viewed as a key strategic and competitive resource by organizations, and
effective management of individual knowledge within the work place has
become critical to business success (Ipe, 2003). According to Nonaka (1994),
knowledge can be defined in two categories that are tacit or explicit. Tacit
knowledge is knowledge that is internal to a person, including cognitive
learning, mental models, and technical skills. Explicit knowledge is knowledge
that has been encoded into some media external to a person including paper
documents, electronic databases and les, and the operating procedures of an
enterprise. Instead of that, many organizations have realized the importance of
knowledge management and its benefit towards organizational effectiveness.

Knowledge management involves the creation, sharing, validation, utilization,

and management of tacit and explicit organizational knowledge through
harnessing of people, processes, and technologies (Thite, 2004). Unlike the
private sector, however, it is hard to find scholarly research on knowledge
management in the public and non-profit sectors (Willem and Buelens, 2007).
Align with current changes, people are more educated in evaluating public
services and public sector have to deal with more complex problems and values
than in the past. Eventually, public sector perhaps needs more knowledge to
address adequately such complex issues occur in the current situation. In other
words, many public organizations need to play roles as knowledge-intensive
organizations (Willem and Buelens, 2007). One of the essential elements of
knowledge management is knowledge sharing that is a crucial process for
employees in many organizations because it is encouraging healthy
organizational culture in order to meet the organizations vision and mission.
1|Page
Knowledge sharing is necessary as it allows more people to communicate and
exchange information in managing their knowledge in order to encourage the
sharing of ideas, skills and expertise throughout the employees in organizations.
When the knowledge is efficiently shared and grows among the people, this
culture will provide added value to the entire organizations in which it helps to
increase individuals performance and productivity. Besides that, it also reduces
the valuable time that people needed to spend on looking for relevant
knowledge. The more people sharing their knowledge with each other will
utilize all the relevant and required skills in every task given.

According to Van den Hoof (2003), when knowledge is shared among the
people in their working culture and environment, it becomes a collective
resource and creates new knowledge. This new knowledge enables the public
sector organizations to respond to the forces of change and transform into the
knowledge-based environment. Moreover, it will develop employees creativty
and becoming more innovative in new capabilities of public services by
increasing the positive perception and expectation in the mind of the public.

This study will report the factors influencing knowledge sharing intention in
education sectors which is Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MRSM).
Specifically this study will be based on examining nine significant factors that
related to local settings of population in MRSM Tun Mustapha Tawau, Sabah.
The framework model proposed in this study is a theory of reason action (TRA)
from Fishben & Ajzen (1975). This chapter will give the foundation for this
study by providing an overview of factors that influencing knowledge sharing
intention among teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha.

1.1.1 Evolution of Knowledge sharing in Malaysia

The knowledge sharing in the public sector is an essential

resource to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of
government service delivery to the public. The need of
transformation from a production-based economy towards a
knowledge-based economy of Malaysia have been highlighted
by the announcement in achieving vision 2020 to develop
competitive and sustainable public sector performance (Yap and

2|Page
Rosmaini, 2008). The former Prime Minister, Dato' Seri Dr.
Mahathir bin Mohamad in his speech at the opening of the
Second Global Knowledge Conference stated that, "...in the
Information Age which we enter, our society must be
information rich.., this country must most seriously enhance the
production and supply of information, knowledge and wisdom
and ensure their accessibility to all our people in every area of
work." (Mahathir, 2000).

The National Information Technology Agenda (NITA) and the

Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) have been established by the
government of Malaysia to emphasis on the importance of
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) which serves
as a competitive advantage to help many organizations nowadays
to stand in the challenge era of 21st century. Besides, the
government has developed several targets and strategies for
increasing knowledge capabilities to create innovative and first
class human capital (Government of Malaysia, 2008).

Furthermore, the understanding of potential advantages of

knowledge sharing practices will help the public sector
organizations to formulate strategies and policies to enhance
internal efficiency of service delivery and improve service
quality as well as customer relationship in serving the public
(Kochikar and Suresh, 2004).

3|Page
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In this information age era, knowledge sharing and job performance have a
strong relationship which influencing the quality and higher of products,
services, and processes. It is helpful in enhancing benefits and also gives value
to the customers. Since the knowledge is a primary resource that might affect
the organizational performance, the public sector organizations must be
prepared with the capability in developing effective learning environment
among the employees. It is important because the adequate knowledge in the
public sector organizations possibly will assist in improving the employees job
performance. In addition, it will contribute to better service delivery by
increasing the quality, productivity, processes, innovations and improved
decision making. Even though there are many benefits in knowledge sharing,
many organizations especially public sector faces the same issue that is a lack of
comprehensive understanding of effective knowledge sharing within the
organization. According to Quigley et al., (2007) in the knowledge-based
economy, knowledge sharing is increasingly viewed as critical to organizational
effectiveness. It is argued that knowledge sharing among employees
signicantly impacts the performance of both public and private sector
organizations (Silvi and Cuganesan, 2006). MARA as educational & corporate
business, involvement of top management is critical to applied knowledge
culture among employees from the senior officer until lower rank. Top
management could enhance knowledge sharing culture within employees by
adding some programs and training to increase the awareness of knowledge
sharing culture. The outcome of knowledge sharing also has to be documented
to avoid the loss of data and information.

However in real working environments there are certain barriers in

implementing knowledge sharing such as lack of ability and reluctant to share
knowledge and expertise with others in organizations. It was agreed by Ali et al,
2014) that individuals do not always share their knowledge and they may not be
willing to share as much as the organization would like them to.
This attitude then will leads employees to the insecurity of job performance and
also gives bad impact to organizations in delivering services to the public.

4|Page
 Besides that, organizations only can manage and utilize knowledge resources
more efficiently if each employee is willing to share their knowledge with
colleagues. In the real world of education, teachers are not ready and interested
to share their knowledge because of the competition among them. For example,
teachers has to maintain reputation which actually allow them to gain benefits
from organization such as being promoted to Guru Cemerlang Leader of the
department and so on and somehow can gain respected and recognition from
students, community that can give them extra advantage.
Consequently, in order to increase employee's efficiencies and performance in
the public sector especially MARA, organizations have to support and
overcome bariers in creating knowledge sharing. The organizational support is
crucial to developing strenght and skills among employees to be more proactive
in delivering a quality services to the public.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions of this research are:

1. What are the factors influencing knowledge sharing intention among

teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha?
2. Is there any relationship between attitude and subjective norm with
knowledge sharing intention?
3. Is there any relationship between factors, i.e., self-efficacy, knowledge
technology, social network, perceive extrinsic reward and social trust with
attitude towards knowledge sharing intention?
4. Is there any relationship between organizational structure and subjective
norm towards knowledge sharing intention?

5|Page
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research objectives of this research are:

1. To analyze the factors influencing knowledge sharing intention among

teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha.

2. To examine the relationship between attitude and subjective norm with

knowledge sharing intention.

3. To examine the relationship among factors, i.e., self-efficacy, knowledge

technology, social network, perceives extrinsic reward and social trust with
attitude towards knowledge sharing intention.
4. To examine the relationship between organzational structure and subjective
norm towards knowledge sharing intention.

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This research study will explores public sectors which involve teachers in
MRSM Tun Mustapha as a targeted organization. The location of MRSM Tun
Mustapha is at Tawau, Sabah. This educational organization also have to deal
with educated people which very demanding in education services. The main
purpose of this study to identify the critical success factors affecting knowledge
sharing practices among the teacher in MRSM Tun Mustapha. Hence, the
management of intelligence and knowledge is a critical part of the work in
teaching and learning, techers have to be proactive and practical in managing
both explicit and implicit knowledge, and in increasing their capabilities in
knowledge management and in encouraging and facilitatng knowledge sharing
in organization. Sample in the study has selected which focussed numbers of
the respondents are five department in MRSM Tun Mustapha in order to get the
teachers perspective through questionnaire survey. The survey will include eight
factors such as attitude, subjective norm, self- efficacy, social network,
knowledge technology, extrinsic reward, social trust, and organizational culture
that will influence the willingness of knowledge sharing intention in MRSM.

6|Page
1.6 SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION

Knowledge sharing provides some advantages such as improving the faster

feedback and quality which are likely to be related and pertinent to public
services. This study will report the clear overview of the critical success factors
of knowledge sharing that will provide a better understanding of knowledge
sharing in service delivery mostly in MRSM. The proposed theoretical
framework has been highlighted in which individual, organizational and
technological aspects have taken into consideration which might affect the
implementing of knowledge sharing practices in MRSM. In addition, specific
recommendations are given through the investigation of knowledge sharing in
emphasizing the efficiency and effectiveness of job performance and service
delivery in MRSM. Other than that, this study would contribute to enhancing
the knowledge sharing awareness among teachers in MARA.

1.6.1 Theoretical Contribution

In developing a theoretical framework for this study, model
from the previous study has been reviewed. This study
theoretically will help to contribute towards the establishment
of an empirical based framework which be used as a support or
disapproval evidence for the previous theories and framework
that has been used as reference or directly adopted. The
significant impact of this study is to produce the finding through
investigating the relationship between the knowledge sharing
activities with eight independent variables. The variables consist
of attitude, subjective norm, self- efficacy, social network,
knowledge technology, extrinsic reward, social trust, and
organizational culture.

7|Page
1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

For chapter summary, it has been highlighted the general idea of the title of the
study through introduction section that was mentioned in the evolution of
knowledge sharing. Then, it also represents the problem statement, research
question and research objective which need to be achieved in this study. In
addition, scope of this study will also be discussed to provide a clear view of this
study and significant contribution to this study towards MRSM, researchers,
public sector organizations and academician.

8|Page
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The second chapter will give a review of the literature to gives a better
understanding that relates to the study. The literature review for this study
reflects academic research regarding factors that influencing knowledge
sharing. This chapter is divided into seven main sections which are the first
section representing the outline of the chapter. Then, the second section will be
covering the related definition of terms that related in this study. Next section
discusses the models and framework that related to the knowledge sharing from
a previous study to derive the variable that have been used and will lead to the
formulation of research instrument for data gathering and data analysis. There
are six different research articles that have been revised in developing and
proposing the research framework for this study. Fifth section highlights on the
types of methodology approach that has been used by the previous researcher to
see which method regularly used in collecting and analysing data. Final section
is highlights on the theoretical framework description for each variable with the
hypothesis and the lastly final section will summarize the chapter.

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

This section describes several terms that are related to this research that would
give a better explanation and clear view about the study. These terms and
concepts form the functioning definitions for the current study. The definitions
of the term regarding this study are knowledge and knowledge sharing.

9|Page
2.2.1 Knowledge

Knowledge is often seen as a rich form of information. Knowledge is a

crucial resource that should be well managed by top management of
organization for effective outcome and bring good performance in both
profit and non-profit oriented organizations. According to (Walczak,
2005) defined knowledge as any data, skill, context, or information that
enables high quality decision making and problem solving to occur.
According to Saint-Onge (1996), there are two types of knowledge:

(1) Explicit knowledge. Known as hard knowledge that can be

expressed in numbers and words and shared formally and
systematically in the form of data,specications, manuals, and so
on. It is part of everyday professional life, exemplied by
manuals, books, and articles, and thus this type of knowledge can
be easily captured and then shared with others either through
taught courses or through books for self-reading.

(2) Tacit knowledge. Known as soft knowledge that includes

insights, intuitions, and hunches. Tacit knowledge is difficult to
express and formalize, and is therefore difficult to share. It
includes skills and know-how that we have inside each of us
and cannot be shared easily. It is embedded in the practices of
the employees in an organization. This kind of knowledge is
acquired over several years. It also has a taken-for-granted
dimension. This dimension consists of schemata, mental
models, beliefs, and perceptions deeply ingrained into our
psyche (Nonaka et al., 1995). In fact, the nature of knowledge is
regarded as a variable that inuences knowledge sharing. As a
result, this study adopts the nature of knowledge as one of the
factors that affects knowledge sharing among organizations.

10 | P a g e
 2.2.2 Data, Information and Knowledge

Data represents raw numbers, objective facts and observations.

Information is the result of placing data within a meaningful context. It
can be conceived as processed data with relevant and purpose
(Chennamaneni, 2006). Meanwhile knowledge is something more than
information (Greiner et al., 2007). It is validated and authenticated
information that is ready to apply to decisions and actions (Alavi and
Leidener, 2001).

2.2.3 Knowledge Sharing

The simple concept of knowledge sharing is a process of individual and

groups that communicate about their knowledge which can gives
benefits to them. Refer to the scholar, basically knowledge sharing refers
to the provision of task information and know-how to help others and to
collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas, or
implement policies or procedures (Wang and Noe, 2010, p. 117). While
knowledge is shared through face-to-face interactions, it can also be
shared through such channels as telephones or e-mail (Truran, 1998).
According to Von Krogh et al. (2000), knowledge is shared informally
even in highly structured organizations. Employees often share
knowledge unconsciously through informal interactions (Swap et al.,
2001). All this statement shows that knowledge can be shared easily
with each other without any specific intention to do so. Examples of
knowledge sharing are conversations in restaurants and helping
colleagues in solving their problem in proper manner by using
knowledge that we know.

2.3 CONTEXTUAL REVIEW

Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MRSM) is a part of educational organization in

Malaysia. It is a centralised organisation that comes with responsibilities to
educate, transmitting ideas, creating knowledge and enhancing teaching and
learning proces. The organization is led by an Principal and assist by Deputy
Principal of Academic, Deputy Principal of Student Affairs and Deputy
Principal of Cocurriculum.
11 | P a g e
The objective of MRSM Tun Mustapha is to:

a) Develop students to be success in academic, physical, morality,

competitive , scientific and global
b) Create condusive school environment and encourage for learning
c) Creating effective and efficient of system management
d) Develop students with knowledge and skills in information technology
e) Develop students communication skills in dual language Bahasa
Melayu and English.
f) Develop students in thinking critically, creative and innovative.
g) Ensure MRSM culture being implemented by all MRSM Tun Mustapha
community.

MRSM have 3 level of organizational structures, namely: -

1. Top Management
Stands by Principal, deputy priciples and members of management. It is the
administrative centre of the organization. Decision regarding to college
matters was made and pass to the colleagues through this board of
management. Any information or orders from MARA headquarters usually
will be shared through this board before disseminating to others level of
management.

2. Executive Level
This stage has four departments that consist of nineteen units. Teachers
were divided according to their degree of studies. Teachers not only involve
in teachings and learnings but also be parts of any events or activities held
in college. The most important stage to drive the activities to meet its
objectives.

3. Supporting Level
Stage where supporting staff were helping in providing data, information
and documentation of knowledge. Staff also assist excecutive level in
handling activities when it is needed.

12 | P a g e
2.4 PREVIOUS STUDY

Review of the previous literature has been made further to explore the factors
influencing of knowledge sharing in organizations in order to promote this area
and the importance of effective knowledge sharing in the public sector
organizations. Furthermore, by creating awareness on the importance of
knowledge sharing and how knowledge can be used in the public sector
organizations will lead to increase the capability of service delivery in achieving
the business objectives.

Ibrahim, Rowley & Delbridge (2011) construct a study of knowledge sharing in

the Dubai Police Force. The aims of the research are to contribute to
understanding of knowledge management, and specifically knowledge sharing
in the public sector in the Middle East. The study also investigates the
knowledge management initiatives, the challenges and associated with
knowledge sharing and the development of a knowledge culture. The authors
have stated in this research that the Dubai Police Force has made a strategic
commitment to the development of knowledge management to enhance
performance. It established a Skills Investment Programme in 2003, a
Knowledge Management Department in 2005, and more recently, in 2009, a
Curriculum Department. But, all the initiatives were not fully successful
embedded and understand by all the police force in all levels. The results from
interviews suggest four critical factors were frequently identied as possible
barriers to knowledge sharing which are organizational structure, leadership,
time allocation, and trust.

Research by Amayah (2012) was investigating the factors that affect knowledge
sharing in a public sector organization. The study also examines the negative
influence of employees willingness to share knowledge in a public sector
organization. The authors have been tested empirically the following factors
proposed by Ardichvili (2008) affect individuals willingness to share
knowledge which are motivation factors (personal benefits, community-related
considerations and normative considerations), barriers (interpersonal,
procedural, technological, cultural) and enablers (supportive corporate culture,
trust, tools).

13 | P a g e
Through this study, community-related considerations, normative
considerations and personal benets were three motivators found to have a
unique contribution to the variance in knowledge sharing. The following
enablers had a signicant main effect on knowledge sharing: social interaction,
rewards, and organizational support. Two barriers, degree of courage and degree
of empathy, which measured organizational climate, were found to have a
signicant main effect on knowledge sharing. Then, the interaction of normative
consideration with social interaction, personal benet with organizational
support, and normative considerations with degree of courage, had a moderating
effect on the relationship between motivating factors and knowledge sharing.

A study by Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) intends to examine factors that
influence knowledge sharing intentions among academic staff of social sciences
faculties at one Malaysian university. More specifically, based on the theory of
reasoned action (TRA), and social capital theory (SCT), they examine the role
of influential factors that form the intention of academic staff to share their
knowledge. First, they examine the relationship between attitude, subjective
norm, and trust with knowledge sharing intention. Second, was to examine the
relationship among factors, i.e., self-efficacy, social networks and extrinsic
rewards with attitude toward knowledge sharing intention and the third
objective was to find out the relationship between organizational support and
subjective norm. For the findings, the results showed that of the two
components of the TRA, only attitude was positively and significantly related to
knowledge sharing intention. Moreover, the findings also show that social
network and self-efficacy significantly affect attitude and organizational support
showed a strong influence on subjective norms toward knowledge sharing
intention.

Another research by Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010) aims to seeks a better
understanding of the factors impacting the intent to share knowledge within the
Vietnamese organizational context. This paper uses a well-known theoretical
framework social psychology, the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) to support
the viability of this framework to explain organizational, it attempts to isolate
the unique characteristics of Vietnamese business culture and to provide some
insight into how these factors impact the proclivity to share knowledge.

14 | P a g e
The six variables in TRA are subjective norm, extrinsic reward, social trust,
sense of self-worth, expected associations and attitude toward knowledge
sharing behaviour. The findings shows that the two elements, sense of self-
worth and social trust, do inuence attitude towards knowledge sharing
behaviour while the extrinsic rewards did not impact knowledge sharing
intention is consistent with the study by Bock et al. (2005) who suggested that
such incentives may only provide temporary compliance rather than true
acceptance of organizational initiatives. Other than that, subjective norms were
also shown to be significant predictor of knowledge sharing behaviour.

A study by Goh, Choon & Teoh (2013), examines the factors that inuence
knowledge sharing activities among SMEs in Malaysia. This paper is aims to
determine the factors (trust, formalization, knowledge technology, empowering
leadership, effective reward systems and motivation) that inuence knowledge
sharing among the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Malaysia, in
order to meet the challenges of todays dynamic business environment. The
results of finding indicate that knowledge technology, motivation, effective
reward systems, trust and empowering leadership explain up to 60.2 percent of
the variance observed in attitude towards knowledge sharing. The ndings in
this study suggest that knowledge sharing in SMEs, sometimes, could be a
challenging process that requires a delicate balancing act of the technological
and social factors including other elements within these rms.

Lastly, research by Fatemeh & Leila (2012) aims to review determinant factors
influencing inter and intra-organizational knowledge sharing in order to offer a
framework. This framework accommodates two types of functionality which are
knowledge creation and application within individual organizations; and
knowledge sharing and application among two or more organizations. The study
found that based on the literature, the authors have developed a framework for
understanding factors which inuence inter-organizational knowledge sharing.
Knowledge sharing among organizations appears theoretically sound, but it is a
difcult task due to some complexities. They also found that all factors
including individual, organizational, and technological directly or indirectly
influence knowledge sharing through motivational factors.

15 | P a g e
 These three dimensions build on and interact with each other, and create optimal
conditions for knowledge sharing.

Refer to this section, it can be concluded that the review of the previous study
has shown us some of the identified factor which would influence of knowledge
sharing in public and private sector such as organizational factor, technological
and individual attitudes. A summary of six selected previous studies focusing on
the aim, research methods and main finding is illustrated and presented in table
1.

Table 2.1: Summary of selected previous studies

Author Aim of study Method Main findings

Ibrahim, To contribute to Qualitative The result from

Rowley & understanding of knowledge
Delbridge management, and
(2011) specifically knowledge
sharing in the public sector
in the Middle East through
an investigation of
knowledge management
initiatives, and the
challenges and associated
with knowledge sharing and
the development of a
knowledge culture.
(semi- interviews suggests four
structured key factors were
interviews identied repeatedly as
among 15 potential barriers to
police officers knowledge sharing:
in Dubai Police organizational structure,
Force) leadership, time
allocation, and trust.

Amayah To investigating the factors Quantitative The following enablers

(2012) that affect knowledge
sharing in a public sector
organization.
(1,738 civil had a signicant main
service effect on knowledge
employees at a sharing: social
mid-size public interaction, rewards, and
academic organizational support.
institution in Two barriers, degree of
the Midwest) courage and degree of
empathy, which
measured organizational
climate, were found to
have a signicant main
effect on knowledge
sharing. The interaction
of normative

16 | P a g e

Ali, To intends to examine
Khalil, factors that influence
Naser & knowledge sharing intentions
Rosman among academic staff of
(2013) social sciences faculties at
one Malaysian university.
Dong, Aims to seek a better
Liem & understanding of the factors
Grossma impacting the intent to share
n (2010) knowledge within the
Vietnamese organizational
context.
Fatemeh Aims to review determinant
& Leila factors influencing inter and
(2012). intra-organizational
knowledge sharing in order
to offer a framework
Goh, To examines the factors that
Choon & inuence knowledge sharing
Teoh activities among SMEs in
(2013) Malaysia.
consideration with social
interaction, personal
benet with
organizational support,
and normative
considerations with
degree of courage, had a
moderating effect on the
relationship between
motivating factors and
knowledge sharing.
Quantitative The results showed that
(200 of the two components
questionnaires of the TRA, only
distributed attitude was positively
among and significantly related
academic staff to knowledge sharing
in public intention.
universities)
Quantitative The findings shows that
(124 employees the two elements, sense
in six of self-worth and social
multinational trust, do inuence
companies in attitude towards
Ho Chi Minh knowledge sharing
City, Vietnam) behaviour while the
extrinsic rewards did not
impact knowledge
sharing intention.
Qualitative The authors have
(literature developed a framework
review from for understanding factors
previous study) which inuence inter-
organizational
knowledge sharing.
Quantitative The results indicate that
(680 knowledge technology,
manufacturing motivation, effective
Sector reward systems,
participants trust and empowering
from the SME leadership explain up to
Corporation 60.2 percent of the
Malaysia variance observed in
attitude
towards knowledge
sharing.
17 | P a g e
2.5 THEORETICAL REVIEW

As guidance in this research, a theoretical or conceptual model has been drawn

based on five previous studies so that it can afford the direction for this
research. There are five models that have been selected and will be discussed in
this section. All these models are important because it will give some overview
and ideas on the decision factors influencing in knowledge sharing in
organizations.

2.5.1 Amayah (2013) model

The author of this study proposed a model from Ardichvili (2008) that
suggested motivational factors, barriers and enablers influence
knowledge sharing. The conceptual model is shown in figure 1. There
are three motivating factors have impact on individuals willingness to
share knowledge with others employees which are personal benefits,
community-related considerations and normative considerations.
Individuals may be motivated to share knowledge with others because
they expect knowledge sharing to be advantageous to them (Hall, 2001).
According to the author, another motivator, community-related
considerations, refers to the moral obligation that individuals feel to
advance or benet others in their network. Next, normative
considerations, which refer to organizational norms to which employees
are expected to adhere, take into account values and cultural norms that
may lead an individual to share his or her knowledge. For second
variables, enablers of knowledge sharing include organizational culture,
social capital, and trust. Organizational climate determines values,
beliefs, and work systems that encourage or hinder both learning and
knowledge sharing (Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). Another factor is
trust leads to greater openness between individuals (Garavan et al.,
2007), encourages sharing of knowledge and willingness to collaborate
with others (Liao, 2006). Amayah (2013) also define another two
dimensions of social capital relevant to knowledge sharing are structural
capital and social interaction. The structural dimension of social capital
manifests itself in several ways, including through the norm of
reciprocity. For the third variable is barriers that may prevent employees
18 | P a g e
from sharing knowledge with colleagues include organizational climate
and organizational structure. The first factor is climate in which
individuals work has an impact on knowledge sharing (Zarraga and
Bonache, 2003). For instance, in organizations where individual
competition is emphasized, employees will not be likely to share
knowledge with others at work (e.g. Schepers and van den Berg, 2007).
Refer to Sharratt and Usoro (2003), found that organizations with a
centralized, bureaucratic management style can stie the creation of new
knowledge, whereas a exible decentralized organizational structure
encourages knowledge-sharing, particularly of knowledge that is more
tacit in nature.

Figure 2.1: Conceptual model for determinants of knowledge sharing.

Source: Amayah, A. T. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a

public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge
Management. 17 (3) (454-471).

19 | P a g e
2.5.2 Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013)
Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) have proposed a theory of reason
action (TRA) from Fishben & Ajzen (1975), TPB (theory of plan
behaviour) and SCT (social capital). This study was developed based on
TRA in which attitude and subjective norm were influential factors
of the intention to share knowledge (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
According to the TRA and TPB, a persons action is determined by the
intention to perform, which is a function of attitude and subjective
norms, with the latter traced back to a persons behavioral and
normative beliefs. Self-efficacy, social network, and perceived extrinsic
rewards which are considered as determinant of attitude and
organizational support as antecedent of subjective norm were added to
the research model. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) believe that attitude has
an influence on behavioural intentions. The findings show that
individuals feelings regarding knowledge sharing reflect their readiness
to be involved in the process of knowledge sharing. Subjective norm is
defined as a persons perception of whether people important to the
person think the behavior should be performed (Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980). The common definition of trust that most researchers are
agreeing on is the willingness to be vulnerable based on positive
expectations about the actions of others (Riegelsberger et al., 2003;
Gambetta, 2000). Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in ones
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to
manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1997,). For social network the
author define people directly and indirectly connect to each other
through common association. For extrinsic reward, employees like tasks
and activities when they see the rewards on successful achievement of
the activity or task (Cameron and Pierce, 1997). The authors then stated
concept of organizational support explains the relationship between
employees attitude and behaviour toward their organizations and jobs.

20 | P a g e
Figure 2.2: The TRA AND TPB model of knowledge sharing intention

Source: Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing
intention among academic staff. International Journal of Educational
Management. 28(4), 413-431.

2.5.3 Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010)

The authors proposed a model from theory of reasoned action (TRA)

developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) dene the relationship between
beliefs, attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviours of individuals.
Essentially, TRA theorizes that a persons behaviour is determined by
the intention to perform that behavior. Six variables were tested to
determine their impact on the intention to share knowledge in an
organizational context. The intention itself determined by the persons
attitudes and the subjective norms towards the behavior, dened as the
persons perception that most people who are important to him think he
should or should not perform the behavior in question (Fishbein and
Ajzen, 1975). The other five variables are subjective norm, extrinsic
reward, social trust, sense of self-worth and expected associations. This
study has cited from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) that subjective norm is a
combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or
21 | P a g e
 groups along with intentions to comply with these expectations. In their
words, it means that the persons perception that most people who are
important to him or her think he should or should not perform the
behavior in question. A next variable is extrinsic reward that authors
refer to a positive outcome which is not inherent to the work itself,
examples being pay, promotions and benets. Social trust is dened as
the degree of ones willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of other
people (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). While sense of self-worth is the
concept refers to an individuals degree of liking oneself, based largely
on competence, power, or efficacy regarding conduct (Gecas, 1971).
The last variable which is expected associations is defined by authors
refers to the degree to which one believes one can improve mutual
relationship through ones knowledge sharing. The TRA model
proposed by Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010) is shown in figure 3.

Figure 2.3: The TRA model of knowledge sharing intention

Source: Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010). Knowledge-sharing

intention in Vietnamese organizations. The Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management System. 40 (3/4) (262-276).

22 | P a g e
2.5.4 Nurliza, Uchenna & Goh (2011) model

The authors have proposed the conceptual framework as shown in figure

4 for their paper and illustrate the independent and the dependent
variables including the outcome variable (intention to share knowledge).
They have developed this conceptual framework based on prior
literature and theory in the subject area. From the framework, they
developed nine hypotheses, which are individualism, collectivism, social
network, social trust, shared goal, incentive systems, kiasuism, self-
efficacy and attitude. First variable which is individualism describes the
tendency of people to place personal goals ahead of the goals of a larger
social group such as the organization (Ardichivili et al., 2006). The
authors mentioned that individuals in such cultures are encouraged to
become independent from others, and to discover and express ones
unique attributes. For second variable, collectivism has been seen as the
subordination of personal goals to those of the group with signicance
on sharing and harmony (Shin et al., 2007). These groups would consist
of family members, friends, or even work colleagues (Nurliza, Uchenna
& Goh, 2011) . A social network can be dened as a patterned
organization of a collection of actors and their relationships (Jones et al.,
1997). For next variable which is social network also encourages
collaboration among co-workers and tends to create a suitable
surrounding or atmosphere to share knowledge. Authors then mentioned
that social trust in a rm is where the development of interaction
between colleagues improves by sharing their knowledge. For shared
goal variables, it could be considered as the strength to hold people
together and to let them share what they know to achieve specic rm
goals. Next variable is incentive systems, it is assumed that an individual
actor will choose the course of action, which maximizes the utilities in a
given and stable set of preferences (Smelser and Swedberg,1994). While
Kiasuism is a cultural trait that is claimed to be present among the
individuals of Chinese-descent, particularly Singaporeans (Chaudhry,
2005). The authors then have cited that self-efficacy entails self-
evaluation that inuence the decisions on what behaviours to take.

23 | P a g e
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), it is said that variables such as
self-efficacy acts as an intermediary between two other variables such as
training and job performance (Orpen, 1999). At this point, the attitude
towards knowledge sharing is dened as the degree of ones positive
feelings about sharing ones knowledge (Bock et al., 2005). Employees
tend to believe that they could improve their relationship with co-
workers by offering their knowledge and skills (Nurliza, Uchenna &
Goh, 2011).

Figure 2.4: Conceptual model for knowledge sharing attitude and

intention

Source: Nurliza, Uchenna & Goh (2011). Key determinants of

knowledge sharing in an electronics manufacturing
firm in Malaysia. Library Review. 60(1), 53-67.

24 | P a g e
2.5.5 Goh, Choon & Teoh (2013)

The authors have proposed conceptual framework as in figure 5, six

independent variables are hypothesized to affect the dependent variable,
attitude towards knowledge sharing. The gure also shows that attitude
towards knowledge sharing will inuence the intention to share
knowledge in perspective of SMEs in Malaysia. The independent
variables are trust, formalization, knowledge technology, empowering
leadership, effective reward system and motivation. Interpersonal trust is
dened as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable (Mayer et al.,
1995). According to Goh, Choon & Teoh (2013) stated that employees
in SMEs may be able to share their knowledge and ideas if they trust
one another and are ready to enable the rm grow and become
competitive in the industry. For second variable, the authors have cited
formalization is described as the degree to which organizational
activities are apparent and clearly stipulated in written documents such
as standard operating procedures, job descriptions, regulations and
policy manuals (Rainey, 2003). For third variable, Knowledge
technology or better known as information and communication
technology (ICT) is an important enabler of knowledge sharing
initiatives in rms (Goh, Choon & Teoh, 2013) . While empowering
leadership, according to Srivastava et al. (2006), employees will be
inspired and motivated to share knowledge among themselves if and
when they receive equitable recognition from their empowering leaders.
The authors also have cited from Robbins (1993) described motivation
as the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward rms goals,
conditioned by the efforts ability to satisfy some individual needs. For
effective reward system, they cited rewards come in many forms and
include both monetary (annual increments, bonuses, prot sharing etc)
and non-monetary incentives (recognition, praise etc) (Srivastava et
al.,2006). The seventh variable is attitudes towards knowledge sharing
which is the degree of ones favourable or positive feeling about sharing
ones knowledge (Alam et al., 2009).

25 | P a g e
 Figure 2.5: Conceptual framework of intention to share knowledge

Source: Goh, G.G.G., Choon C.Y., Tiong,L.T. (2013). Perspectives of

SMEs on knowledge sharing. VINE: The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 43(2)(210-
236).

2.6 METHODOLOGICAL REVIEW

In this section, methods from the previous study will be reviewed for better
understanding and can be used as a guideline for methodological chapter.
According to Collis and Hussey (2009), a methodology is an approach to the
process of the research, encompassing a body of methods and a method is a
technique for collecting and/or analyzing data which are guided by the research
paradigm selected and relies on various issues and consideration such on data
collection and analysis.

The first study which is from Ibrahim, Rowley & Delbridge (2011) conducted a
study of knowledge sharing in the public sector in the Middle East which is
Dubai Police Force and they are using quantitative method for their study. For
the data collection, they took the form of semi-structured interviews with 15
police officers in various ranks of the police force. Interviews were conducted
with 15 managers.

26 | P a g e
Interviewees were located either in administration departments, (such as the
General Department of Total Quality, the General Department of Human
Resources, and the Department of Knowledge Management)or in eld
departments (such as the General Department of Criminal Investigations, the
General Department of Anti-Narcotics, the General Department of Airports
Security, and the General Department of Operations). Five interviewees held
the top rank (typically heads of department), 6 the middle rank (typically heads
of section), and 4 the normal rank (typically police ofcers with no management
responsibilities).

Amayah (2012) conducted a study in determinants factors of knowledge sharing

in public sector organization. This study which is using quantitative method
used questionnaire to collect data from the employees. The questionnaires were
e-mailed to 1,738 civil service employees at a mid-size public academic
institution in the Midwest. . Of the 1,738 individuals who were e-mailed the
questionnaire, 461 returned completed questionnaires, resulting in a 26.5
percent response rate. However, 22 returned questionnaires were only half
complete and, therefore, were discarded leaving 439 questionnaires to be
analyzed. As a result, the response rate for usable questionnaires was reduced to
25.3 percent.

Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) have conducted a study factors affecting
knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. They have chosen
qualitative method in their study. They have tested the research model with data
collected through a cross-sectional survey of academic staff of three social
science faculties at one university in Malaysia. The researcher distributed 200
questionnaires from which 117 questionnaires returned giving the survey a
response rate of 58.5 percent.

Another quantitative method from Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010) have
explored knowledge sharing intention among Vietnamese organizations.
Primary data were obtained from a survey administered to 124 employees in six
multinational companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Of the 420
questionnaires that were distributed, 124 were completed.

27 | P a g e
The majority of respondents to the survey were female, ranging in age between
21 and 30, possessing at least with bachelors degrees, and working for three to
ve years.

The study from Fatemeh and Leila (2014) conducted a research by proposed
new framework success factors in inter-organizational knowledge sharing. The
present paper proceeds in three phases. In the rst phase, the published
literature on knowledge sharing has been reviewed extensively with
consideration of their empirical applications. Next, based on the understanding
gained from the previous stage, a conceptual framework of successful factors
for effective inter-organizational knowledge sharing has been proposed. In the
third phase, the proposed framework has been developed and nalized towards
its maturity.

Furthermore a study from Goh, Choon & Teoh (2013) conducted a research in
examining factors that inuence knowledge sharing activities among SMEs in
Malaysia. This study which is quantitative method used systematic sampling
was selected 680 manufacturing sector participants from the SME Corporation
Malaysia business directory to participate in the survey, out of which 250 valid
responses were returned, yielding a response rate of 36.75 percent. Factor
analysis and reliability analysis were conducted before testing the seven
hypotheses formulated for this study using regression analysis.

Based on the previous study and theoretical review conduct, it was identified
that most of the studies of this subject is performed through a quantitative
method of survey via questionnaire as an instrument (table 2.).

28 | P a g e
 Table 2.2: Summary of methodology applied in previous studies

Author Methodology
Ibrahim, Rowley & Delbridge Qualitative (Interview)
(2011)
Amayah (2012) Quantitative
Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) Quantitative
Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010) Quantitative
Fatemeh and Leila (2014) Qualitative (empirical research
paradigm)
Goh, Choon & Teoh (2013) Quantitative

2.6 THEORETICAL / CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Based on the five previous researches model / theory / framework discussed in

the previous section, this research is going to adopt the Theory Reasoned Action
(TRA) framework approach. Based the previous studies, it is decided because
the TRA framework offer better perspective on the factors influencing on the
user intention of knowledge sharing in organizations. These theories have been
used by many researchers to explain knowledge sharing behaviour. The TRA
was introduced by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) which attitude and subjective
norm were influential factors of the intention to share knowledge. TRA
assumes that individuals to be rationale and suggests that their behavior is being
influenced by three elements namely attitude toward the behavior, subjective
norms, and behavioral intention (Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman, 2013).
According to Miller (2005), attitude accounts for the sum of a persons beliefs
about a behavior, with specific weights given to each aspect of that behavior,
the subjective norm consists of the opinions of people in a persons
environment, and behavior intention is a function of both attitudes and the
subjective norm. In this study the relationship between the independent
variables and dependent variable will be examined and hypotheses are proposed
in this section. Figure 6 represent the proposed TRA framework for research on
factors influencing the knowledge sharing intention.

Refer to figure 6, there are seven variables have been proposed for this study
which are self-efficacy, knowledge technology, social networks, perceived

29 | P a g e
extrinsic rewards, organizational support, attitude, subjective norm and trust.
The variables were based on the study from (Goh, Choon & Teoh, 2013 and
Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman, 2013) which also adopts TRA.

Self Efficacy

Knowledge
Technology
Attitude
Social
Networks

Perceived
Extrinsic Intention to
Reward Share
Knowledge
Social Trust

Organizational Subjective
Support Norm

Figure 2.6: Proposed TRA Framework for this research

30 | P a g e
2.6.1 Attitude

Attitude is one of the important aspects of knowledge sharing intention.

Chow and Chan (2008) had claimed that personal attitudes towards
behaviour are a signicant predictor of intention to engage in that
behaviour. It is also argued that the behavioural intention to share
knowledge is determined by a persons attitude towards knowledge
sharing. At this point, the attitude towards knowledge sharing is dened
as the degree of ones positive feelings about sharing ones knowledge
(Bock et al., 2005). Employees have to believe that they could increase
their relationship with another worker by contribute their knowledge and
skills. They also believe that by so, they would improve a more positive
attitude to knowledge sharing. The first working hypothesis is stated in
the following way:

H1: Supportive attitude towards knowledge sharing will have

positive inuence on the intention to share knowledge.

2.6.2 Subjective Norm

According to Evaristo and Karahanna (1998), subjective norms, may

through normative and informational influences, decrease uncertainty
with respect to whether use of the system is appropriate. Generally,
subjective norm is defined as a persons perception of whether people
important to the person think the behavior should be performed (Ajzen
and Fishbein, 1980). They also proposed that subjective norm is a
combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or
group along with intentions to comply with these expectations. The
second working hypothesis is stated in the following way:

H2: Subjective norm has a positive effect on the intention to share

knowledge.

31 | P a g e
2.6.3 Self Efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in ones capabilities to organize

and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective
situations (Bandura, 1997). He also explained these beliefs as
determinants of how people think, behave, and feel. Otherwise, in
different words, self-efficacy is a persons belief in their ability to be
successful in a certain situation and condition. Hsu and Chiu (2004)
believe that the desire to share knowledge is not adequate to perform
knowledge sharing behaviour, and a knowledge producer must also have
the perceived abilities to complete it. Additionally, by sharing useful
expertise or skills will lead to opportunities in enhancing sense of self-
efficacy. Bock and Kim (2002) also proposed that self-efficacy could be
treated as a major factor of self-motivational source for knowledge
sharing. Their ndings reveal that the individuals judgment of his
contribution to rm performance has positive inuence on knowledge
sharing. The third working hypothesis is proposed in the following way:

H3: Self efficacy has a positive effect on knowledge sharing

attitudes.

2.6.4 Knowledge Technology

Knowledge technology or better known as information and

communication technology (ICT) is an important enabler of knowledge
sharing initiatives in rms. Research indicates that effective information
technology infrastructure is a crucial element in building and integrating
rms operations, which provides linkages of information and
knowledge in rms (Argyris and Schon, 1978). According to Alavi and
Leidner (2001), information technology increases knowledge transfer by
extending an individuals information access reach beyond formal lines
of communication. Meanwhile, in other words, ICT applications and
tools such as intranets and extranets, discussion forum boards, shared
workspaces, mobile device technology, blogs and groupware are useful
to encourage employees to communicate and share knowledge required

32 | P a g e
 in getting specic tasks accomplished and problem solving. Instead of
that, the proposed hypothesis as followed:

H4: Knowledge technology has a positive effect on knowledge

sharing attitudes.

2.6.5 Social Networks

A social network can be dened as a patterned organization of a

collection of actors and their relationships (Jones et al., 1997). In the
organizations, it is common for people or employees to create their
contacts and links with others. Networks of informal relationships have
a critical inuence on work and innovation. Moreover, social network is
a contact network that creates relationship, mutual recognition, and
understanding, which is similar to institutionalized relationship (Ali,
Khalil, Naser & Rosman). The social network will gives positive impact
to organizations which provides increased opportunities for
interpersonal contact that also will affect their attitude about sharing
ideas and knowledge. The proposed hypothesis as followed:

H5: Social network has a positive effect on the attitude toward

knowledge sharing.

2.6.6 Perceived Extrinsic Reward

Researchers argue that the rewards motivate employees. Employees like

tasks and activities when they see the rewards on successful
achievement of the activity or task (Cameron and Pierce, 1997). This is
not just monetary reward but the results that will make an individual feel
that he or she achieving his or her intrinsic or extrinsic needs (Mullins,
2002). Typically, extrinsic rewards might be immediately successful and
easy to use, but are not effective over the long term (Bock and Kim,
2002). Instead of that, extrinsic rewards are effective factors which will
make a positive attitude about sharing knowledge with others. The
examples of extrinsic reward are monetary reward, recognition,
additional points for promotions and so on. The existence of incentive

33 | P a g e
 systems will encourage higher motivation level among employees in
sharing their knowledge. Thus, the hypothesis proposed as below:

H6: Extrinsic rewards have a positive effect on the attitude toward

knowledge sharing.

2.6.7 Social Trust

One of the factors which could inuence the success of knowledge

sharing is the social trust or mutual trust among members or employees
(Chow and Chan, 2008). The social trust in a rm is where the
development of interaction between colleagues improves by sharing
their knowledge. The common definition of trust that most researchers
are agreeing on is the willingness to be vulnerable based on positive
expectations about the actions of others (Riegelsberger et al., 2003).
Trust can supports the formal and informal network associations (Miles
and Snow, 1992), decreases damaging conflicts and costs of transaction
and increases the development of informal groups (Meyerson et al.,
1996). For this reason, it can be concluded that there is a relationship
between trust and knowledge sharings intention (Kalantzis and Cope,
2003). As a result, the seventh hypothesis is proposed:

H7: Social trust has a positive effect on the intention to share

knowledge.

2.6.8 Organizational Support

Concept of organizational support explains the relationship between

employees attitude and behaviour toward their organizations and jobs.
According to the study of Igbaria et al. (1996), organizational support is
positively related to subjective norm. They believed that if the
organization provides available resources, relevant training, meaningful
incentives, and remove barriers in the way of knowledge sharing, the
quality of knowledge sharing would be better. Moreover, the power of
organizational support may influence employees perception regarding
knowledge sharing (Cabrera et al., 2006), and as the result, the quality of

34 | P a g e
 knowledge sharing will be improved. As a result, the last hypothesis is
proposed:

H8: The organizational support has a positive effect with subjective

norms.

Table 2.6: Summary of the Operational Definition of Variable in the Proposed

TRA framework

Variable Operational Definitions

Attitude The degree of ones favourable or positive feeling about

sharing ones knowledge (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
Subjective Norm A persons perception of whether people important to the
person think the behavior should be performed (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980).
Self Efficacy To the degree of self-evaluation that inuences decisions
about what behaviours to undertake, the amount of effort
and persistence to put forth when faced with obstacles, and
nally, the mastery of the behaviour (Hsu et al., 2007)

Social Networks
Knowledge Technology
Perceived Extrinsic
Reward
The degree of contact and accessibility of one with other
people Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)
Emphasizes information technology infrastructure as an
element crucial to the linkage of information and
knowledge integration in organizations (Argyris and Schon,
1978).
The extent to align the individual benets of certain
behaviour with corporate goals (Andriessen, 2002).

Social Trust The degree of ones willingness to be vulnerable to the

actions of other people (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

Organizational Support User evaluation of the convenience of applying and using a

specific technology ( Lederer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang,
2000)

Intention to Share The extent to which people are willing to share knowledge
Knowledge with others ( Alam et al., 2009)

35 | P a g e
2.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter has presented all the components in the theoretical framework
which resulting from the literature and previous studies review. This chapter
also provides a better understanding on knowledge sharing and factors
influencing of user intention. Besides, review of the theoretical framework of
this research study and review on the methodology has been completed in this
chapter. Then, definition of related terms also has been defined through this
chapter. At the end of this chapter theoretical framework used in this study has
been presented in figure 2.6. In conclusion, all this review very useful for in
depth understanding of the topic and assist in the development of a research
framework.

36 | P a g e
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Through this chapter, detail information on this research methodology and

design was presented. This chapter will deliver an overview on how this
research will be directed. It includes description of the research paradigm, the
research process, research instrument, data analysis and
reliability/trustworthiness. It is to focus on emphasizing the way the research is
made and identified.

3.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM

Research paradigm is very vital to help in determining research direction. In this

study, the quantitative has been chosen as the method in gathering data. The
methodology involves selecting subjects, data collection techniques, procedures
for collecting data, and data analysis techniques. Research paradigm can be
defined as the broad framework, which comprises perception, beliefs and
understanding of several theories and practices that are used to conduct a
research. It can also be characterized as a precise procedure, which involves
various steps through which a researcher creates a relationship between the
research objectives and questions. Having an identified paradigm will certainly
help in choosing a methodology, especially in the data collection and data
analysis method.

Positivism has recognized as research paradigm. It is because of the nature

reality of measuring this study which explained the researcher view.
Quantitative research examines relationship between variables, which are
measured numerically and analysed using a range of statistical technique. Thus,
in quantitative research a survey research strategy is normally conducted
through the use of questionnaire or structured interviews or, possibly structured
observation. There are two major types of surveys such as cross-sectional
survey and a longitudinal survey. A cross-sectional survey collects information

37 | P a g e
 from a pre-determined population. Furthermore, the information is collected at
just one point in time, although the time it takes to collect all of the data may
take anywhere from a day to a few weeks or more. In longitudinal survey, on
the other hand, information is collected from a sample at different points in time
in order to study changes over time. However for this study, the cross-sectional
survey will be conducted in gathering the data.

In term of the ontology, the researcher views the nature of this study as
objectively. It is assumed that it will go through the nature of reality from the
developed framework to test the open source software adoption. Furthermore,
the phenomena of this study will be studied through the variables created from
the previous chapter which is literature review.

3.3 RESEARCH PROCESS

The research process can be considered as a series of step taken in conducting

and finishing this research study. According to Page, C., and Meyer, D. (2000),
the researcher is requiring understanding the basic research process to clearly
follow the steps to complete research project. Although there are various
models of research process, the basic process is the same and includes eight
steps (see figure 3.1. This research process based on Fraenkel and Wallen
(2009) has identified the activities which actual process conducted during this
period.

Figure 3.1: Research process

Source: Fraenkel , J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate
Research in Education (7th ed., pp. 19-20). New York, USA:
McGraw- Hill.

38 | P a g e
3.3.1 Identify the Problem

Firstly, the first step in the research process is to recognize a problem

and then develop a research question based on the phenomenon of the
study. Based on this study, problem that is being study is factors
influencing of knowledge sharing intention among teachers in MRSM.

3.3.2 Review the Literature

After the problem has recognized, the researcher must learn more about
the topic under study. The researcher must review and evaluate the
literature related to the research problem to give better undrstanding on
the topic. The review of literature also helps the researcher about area of
studies in the past, how these studies conducted, and the findings in the
problem area. For this study, six previous studies have been review
where the content and framework become the primary focus in
developing framework and study structure.

3.3.3 Clarify the Problem

During this process, the researcher clarify the problem and narrows
down the scope of the study after completing a literature review. The
knowledge that gained from the review of the literature will guides the
researcher in narrowing and clarifying the research project.

3.3.4 Define Terms and Concepts

Terms and concepts are words that are used in the purpose statement of
the study or the description of the research. These items need to be
specifically defined as they apply to the study. Terms or concepts often
have different definitions depending on who is reading the study. Instead
of that, the researcher must accurately define the words for the study to
avoid any confusion. Five operational terms were defined to provide
thorough understanding of this research. Based on the previous studies,
the terms and concepts were clearly defined. There are four operational
terms were defined to provide thorough understanding of this research.
By referring to the previous studies, the terms and concepts were clearly
defined.
39 | P a g e
3.3.5 Define the Population

Research projects can focus on a specific group of people, facilities,

park development, employee evaluations, programs, financial status,
marketing efforts, or the integration of technology into the operations.
The research problem and the purpose of the study assist the researcher
in identifying the group to involve in the study. In this study, population
that have been selected is teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha which
enrolled in different four departments which consists of nineteen units
that represent employees. To define the accurate number of sample size
involve, the Survey System table provided by Krejcie & Morgan (1970)
and Cohen et al. (2001) been referred. The sample size that has been
recommended is not less than 44 teachers.

3.3.6 Develop the Instrumentation Plan

The plan for the study is referred to as the instrumentation plan. The
instrumentation plan serves as the road map for the entire study,
specifying who will participate in the study; how, when, and where data
will be collected; and the content of the program. For this study, the
sampling technique that will be used is the simple random sampling
which is probability sampling that ensures each case in the population
has an equal chance of being included in the sample.

3.3.7 Collect Data

The real study starts with the collection of data after the instrumentation
plan is finished. Besides, collection of data is a crucial step in giving the
information needed to researcher to answer research question. The
questionnaire will be conducted through self-distribution in MRSM Tun
Mustapha.

3.3.8 Analyze the Data

All the time, effort, and resources dedicated to steps 1 through 7 of the
research process culminate in this final step. The researcher finally has
data to analyze so that the research question can be answered. In the
instrumentation plan, the researcher specified how the data will be
40 | P a g e
 analyzed. After receiving the questionnaire, the result will be analysed
using SPSS 16.0 in determining the relationship between each item
through few descriptive and statistical tests.

3.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

According to Singh, Parmjit, Chan Yuen Fook and Gurnam Kaur Sindhu
(2006), the most common types of instruments that used in the research are
questionnaire, observation checklist, and the interview schedule. For this study,
conducted survey will apply which is the questionnaire being developed as the
research instrument and will be answered by the respondents. Survey methods
involve gathering information about the current status of some target variable
within a particular collectivity, then reporting a summary of the findings
(Thomas, 2003). The reseach questionnaire is designed to answer the research
objective and research questions as well to examine the relationship between the
variables

3.5 POPULATION AND SAMPLING

Population refers to the entire group of people, events, or things of interest that
the researcher wishes to investigate while the sample is a subgroup or a subset
of the population (Sekaran, 2003). While sampling is the process of selecting a
sufficient number of elements from the population so that the sample
characteristic can be generalized to the population (Sekaran,2003). For this
study a group of 50 teachers at MRSM Tun Mustapha has been chosen as they
are supposed to be more exploratory when it comes to their willingness and
intention to use knowledge sharing. In order to define the correct number of
sample size, Survey System (sample size calculator) software is used whereby
the sample size that has been recommended is 44 teachers.

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

After data collections were completed, process of data analysis will be started.
The purpose of analyzing the data is to interpret the data into a more defined
form so that relationship problem of the study may be explored. Later, the data
will be keyed in and examined using software application SPSS 1.6 for
41 | P a g e
 windows. SPSS which is known as Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
The SPSS will be applied to analyse each variable to transform raw data into a
significant figure form that would make the data easy to understand and
descriptive information while correlation analysis would be used to test research
hypotheses. Many research or studies have been used SPSS for analysing their
findings which the results that are produces in SPSS is the most accurate which
the features also contain reliability and validity analysis.

3.7 RELIABILITY / TRUSTWORTHINESS

Reliability refers to the extent to which the data collection techniques or

analysis procedures will yield consistent finding data while validity is
concerned with whether the findings are really about what they appear to be
about (Saunder et al., 2009). According to Sekaran (2003), Cronbachs alpha is
a measure the reliability coefficient which indicates the extent to which the
items in a set are positively correlated to one another. In this study, Cronbachs
alpha will be used because this study uses Likert questions in a questionnaire
that form a scale and in order to determine if the scale is reliable. For the
questionnaire, it also was adopted from previous research for better validity and
has combined few reliable items to enhance the reliability.

3.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY

For the conclusion, this chapter has presented all the components related to
methodological section that can be applied to this research study. This chapter
has highlighted on detail process of this study that provide better understanding
of it. Besides, this chapter also provides detail outline on the population where
good information is being organized. Then it also specifies the sample of
respondents which will contribute in this study with the explanation on data
analysis tools. Furthermore for the reliability and trustworthiness, this chapter
has drawn a standard guideline of testing to measure the study method that will
contribute to the research findings.

42 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will be focusing on the findings throughout this study. For the first
early section in this chapter, the presentation concerning the reliability analysis
for all the variables. Then the demographic information also provided to the
audience that divided into five subcategories includes on the gender, age,
education background, working experience and position of rank. Besides, the
analysis part of this study will explore the aspect of the descriptive statistics of
the nine variables in this study that presented to determine the most selected
options among respondents. After that, the output relating to the correlation
analysis section will be focused to serve for the testing of the hypothesis that
had mentioned earlier in chapter two. Finally, the regression analysis towards
the dependent variable of the intention of knowledge sharing will be evaluated
and determined at the end of the chapter.

4.2 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

It was necessary and essential to test the selected variables are capable of
explaining the associated constructs. Because of that, Cronbachs Alpha test
was being applied and practice in the group of items as included in the model
created. Besides, in order to determine a scales internal consistency grade,
Cronbachs Alpha coefficient analyzes the average correlation of each variable
with the entire variable on the same scale. A commonly accepted rule of thumb
for Cronbachs Alpha is above 0.60 that indicates as acceptable reliability. The
result of reliability analysis of each variable using the Cronbachs Alpha value
represented in table 4.1

43 | P a g e
 Variables No. of Items Cronbach Alpha
Value
Attitude 5 0.141
Subjective Norm 4 0.148
Intention 4 0.307
Self-Efficacy 4 0.290
Knowledge 5 0.116
Technology
Social Network 4 0.290
Perceive Extrinsic 4 -.219
Reward
Social Trust 5 0.031
Organizational 4 -.219
Support

Table 4.1: Cronbach Alpha values from all variables

Based on the table above, Self-Efficacy and Social Network are shown similar
values at 0.290 and 0.290, respectively. For Attitude and Subjective Norm,
both also represented similarly values at 0.141 and 0.148, respectively.
Intention in this table showed the highest value at 0.307 while the variables
value are Perceive Extrinsic Reward and Organizational Support at -.219.
Other variables are Knowlegde Technology that its value at 0.116.

4.3 DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

4.3.1 Gender

Table 4.2 showed the analysis on gender among respondents. Based on

the analysis, 43.2% represent male respondents while 56.8% represent
female respondents.

44 | P a g e
 Cumulative
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 19 43.2 43.2 43.2
Female 25 56.8 56.8 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Table 4.2: Gender

Figure 4.1: Gender

4.3.2 Age

Table 4.3 showed the analysis on age among respondents. Based on the
analysis of age, there are 52.3% are 26-30 years old which is the highest,
47.7 % are 31-35 years old.

45 | P a g e
 Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 26-30 years old 23 52.3 52.3 52.3
31-35 years old 21 47.7 47.7 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Table 4.3: Age

Figure 4.2: Age

4.3.3 Education Background

Table 4.4 described the analysis of education background among

respondents in this research. Based on the analysis, there is a 95.5 %
Degree holder and 4.5 % for master/Ph.D. holder.

46 | P a g e
 Cumulative
Education Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Degree 42 95.5 95.5 95.5
Master/PHD 2 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Table 4.4: Education background

Figure 4.3: Education Background

4.3.4 Working Experience

Table 4.5 showed the analysis on working experience among

respondents. Based on the analysis of working experience, 11.4%
represents less than two years, 50.0 % represent 2-5 years, 27.3%
represent 5-10 years, and 11.4% represents over ten years which is the
highest.

47 | P a g e
 Working Valid Cumulative
Experience Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Less than 2 years 5 11.4 11.4 11.4
2-5 years 22 50.0 50.0 61.4
5-10 years 12 27.3 27.3 88.6
Over 10 years 5 11.4 11.4 100.0
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Table 4.5: Working experience

Figure 4.4: Working experience

4.3.5 Position of Rank

Table 4.6 described the analysis on the position of rank among

respondents in this research. Based on the analysis, 11.4 % represent
DC41 , which is the highest, 70.5 % represent Teacher bachelor with
Diploma Education DG41 , and 13.6% represent DG44 .While the
lowest is, 4.5 % represent DG48 and above.

48 | P a g e
 Valid Cumulative
Rank Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid DC 41 5 11.4 11.4 11.4
DG 41 31 70.5 70.5 81.8
DG 44 6 13.6 13.6 95.95
DG 48 and above 2 4.5 4.5 100
Total 44 100.0 100.0

Table 4.6: Position of rank

Figure 4.5: Position of rank

49 | P a g e
4.4 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF RESEARCH VARIABLES

This section offers the descriptive statistics of all variables involve in this study
as a general finding of the research variables such as mean, standard variation
and deviation that giving general information on data collected. There are nine
main variables in this study which are:

a) Attitude
b) Subjective Norm
c) Intention
d) Self-efficacy
e) Knowledge Technology
f) Social Network
g) Perceived Extrinsic Reward
h) Social Trust
i) Organizational Support

These nine variable categorized into two categories which are Independent
Variable (IV) and Dependant Variable (DV) in Table 4.7.

Independent Variable (IV) Dependent Variable (DV)

Attitude
Subjective Norm
Self- Efficacy
Knowledge Technology Knowledge Sharing Intention
Social Network
Perceived Extrinsic Reward
Social Trust
Organizational Support

Table 4.7: Categories of variables

50 | P a g e
 4.4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Attitude

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.8. It was

found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.97. The highest
mean score was Sharing my knowledge with other MRSM employees is a
wise move and AT3 Sharing my knowledge with other MRSM employees is
enjoyable feeling Both statements are 4.15 and 4.11. While the lowest
mean score was at item AT1 Sharing my knowledge with other MRSM
employees is good idea with at a mean score of 3.68. Based on this
finding, it can be concluded that respondent is tending to agree with the
item defining the factor.

Table 4.8: Attitude

51 | P a g e
 Descriptive Statistics

Item N Range Sum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

AT1 Sharing my
knowledge with
other MRSM 44 4.00 162.00 3.6818 1.09487 1.199
employees is good
idea
AT2 Sharing my
knowledge with
other MRSM 44 2.00 175.00 3.9773 .82091 .674
employees is
beneficial idea
AT3 Sharing my
knowledge with
other MRSM 44 2.00 181.00 4.1136 .61817 .382
employees is
enjoyable feeling
AT4 Sharing my
knowledge with
44 4.00 178.00 4.0455 .91384 .835
other teachers is
enjoyable feeling
AT5 Sharing my
knowledge with
other MRSM
employees is a 44 4.00 183.00 4.1591 .98697 .974
wise move

Valid N (listwise)
44

4.4.2 Descriptive Statistics of Subjective Norm

The descriptive profile of this variable is presented in table 4.9. It was

found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.95. The highest
mean score was SN1 that mentioned about people who influence my
behaviour (senior officer, colleagues, etc.) think that I should share my
knowledge at 3.61. While the lowest mean score was item SN2 People
who are important to me (senior teachers, juniors, members in
departments,etc) think that I should share my knowledge with at a mean
score of 3.38 . Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent
is tending to agree with the item defining the factor.
52 | P a g e
Table 4.9: Subjective Norm

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance

Std.
Item Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic
SN1 People who influence
my behavior (senior
teachers, juniors, members
44 4.00 159.00 3.6136 1.24295 1.545
in departments,etc) think
that I should share my
knowledge
SN2 People who are
important to me (senior
teachers, juniors, members
44 4.00 149.00 3.3864 1.38456 1.917
in departments,etc) think
that I should share my
knowledge
SN 3 People whose
opinion I value (senior
teachers, juniors, members
44 3.00 155.00 3.5227 1.10997 1.232
in departments,etc) think
that I should share my
knowledge
SN 4 It is expected (senior
teachers, juniors, members
44 4.00 151.00 3.4318 1.06526 1.135
in departments, etc) of me
that I share my knowledge
Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.3 Descriptive Statistic on Intention

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.10. It was

found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.95 . The highest
mean score was IN 3 I will try to share my expertise from my education
and experience with other teachers in a more effective way at 4.11.
While the lowest mean score was item IN 1 I plan to share my
knowledge with other teachers in the MRSM with at a mean score of
3.68. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent is
tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

53 | P a g e
Table 4.10: Intention

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance

Std.
Item Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic

IN 1 I plan to share my
knowledge with other
teachers in the MRSM 44 4.00 162.00 3.6818 1.09487 1.199

IN 2 I will share my
knowledge with other
44 2.00 175.00 3.9773 .82091 .674
MRSM teachers in the near
future
IN 3 I will try to share my
expertise from my
education and experience 44 2.00 181.00 4.1136 .61817 .382
with other teachers in a
more effective way
IN 4 All things considered,
I will share my knowledge
in the near future 44 4.00 178.00 4.0455 .91384 .835

Valid N (listwise)
44

4.4.4 Descriptive Statistic on Self efficacy

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.11. It was

found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.81. The highest
mean score was Sharing my knowledge would help other teachers in the
MRSM to solve problems at 4.15. While the lowest mean score was
item sharing my knowledge would improve work process in MRSM of
3.38. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent is
tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

54 | P a g e
Table 4.11: Self efficacy

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance
Std.
Item
Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic
Sharing my knowledge
would help other teachers
44 4.00 183.00 4.1591 .98697 .974
in the MRSM to solve
problems
Sharing my knowledge
would create new
44 4.00 159.00 3.6136 1.24295 1.545
opportunities for the
MRSM
Sharing my knowledge
would improve work 44 4.00 149.00 3.3864 1.38456 1.917
process in MRSM
My knowledge sharing
would help MRSM achieve
its performance 44 3.00 155.00 3.5227 1.10997 1.232

Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.5 Descriptive Analysis on Knowledge Technology

Table 4.12 represent the result of descriptive analysis on social

network. It was found that the average mean score for this
variable is 3.62. The highest mean score was Social network
systems enable the search and sharing of ideas and information
within the organization at 4.11 mean values.
While the lowest mean score was item in my organization,
teachers make extensive use of electronic storage (such as
databases) to access knowledge at 3.43. Based on this finding, it
can be concluded that respondent is tending to agree with the
item defining the factor.

55 | P a g e
Table 4.12: KNOWLEDGE TECHNOLOGY

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance
Std.
Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic
In my organization, teachers
make extensive use of electronic
44 4.00 151.00 3.4318 1.06526 1.135
storage (such as databases) to
access knowledge
Our organization has expertise in
the usage and maintenance of
critical information 44 4.00 162.00 3.6818 1.09487 1.199
infrastructure, eg. Intranet,
extranet, groupware
Our information systems
infrastructure is updated
44 2.00 175.00 3.9773 .82091 .674
regularly to facilitate effective
knowledge sharing and creation
Social network systems enable
the search and sharing of ideas
44 2.00 181.00 4.1136 .61817 .382
and information within the
organization
Our organization take advantage
of mobile applications
(whatsapp, we chat, facebook,
44 4.00 178.00 4.0455 .91384 .835
e.t.c) as a platforms that enable
knowledge sharing among
employees
Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.6 Descriptive Statistic on Social Network

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.13. It

was found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.16.
The highest mean score was SN 1 I communicate frequently with
most members of the organization at 4.15 mean values. While
the lowest mean score was item SN 3 I communicate with other
members in the organization through informal meetings sharing
at 3.38. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that
respondent is tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

56 | P a g e
Table 4.13: SOCIAL NETWORK

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance
Std.
Item
Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic
SN 1 I communicate
frequently with most
44 4.00 183.00 4.1591 .98697 .974
members of the
organization
SN 2 I interact and
communicate with other
44 4.00 159.00 3.6136 1.24295 1.545
people or group outside
organization
SN 3 I communicate with
other members in the
44 4.00 149.00 3.3864 1.38456 1.917
organization through
informal meetings
SN 3 I actively participate
in community of practice 44 3.00 155.00 3.5227 1.10997 1.232
(e.g. seminar, LDP)
Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.7 Descriptive Statistic on Perceive Extrinsic Reward

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.14. It

was found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.64.
The highest mean score was I gain recognition from my
colleagues for sharing my experience and knowledge at 4.11
mean values. While the lowest mean score was item I will
receive monetary rewards in return for my knowledge sharing at
3.43. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent
is tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

57 | P a g e
Table 4.14: Perceive Extrinsic Reward

Std.
N Range Mean Deviation Variance

Std.
Item Statistic Statistic Statistic Error Statistic Statistic
I will receive monetary
rewards in return for my 44 4.00 151.00 3.4318 1.06526 1.135
knowledge sharing
I will receive additional
points for promotion in
44 4.00 162.00 3.6818 1.09487 1.199
return for my knowledge
sharing
I receive recognition from
the superior officer for
sharing my ideas and 44 2.00 175.00 3.9773 .82091 .674
knowledge with my
colleagues
I gain recognition from my
colleagues for sharing my 44 2.00 181.00 4.1136 .61817 .382
experience and knowledge
Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.8 Descriptive Statistic on Social Trust

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.15. It

was found that the average mean score for this variable is 3.8.
The highest mean score was I know my organizational members
will always try and help me out if I get into difficulties at 4.15
mean values. While the lowest mean score was item I can always
rely on my organizational members to make my job easier at
3.39. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent
is tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

58 | P a g e
Table 4.15: Social Trust

Std.
Item
N Range Mean Deviation Variance
ST 1 I share my ideas,
experiences and
44 4.00 178.00 4.0455 .91384 .835
information with my close
colleagues
ST 2 I know my
organizational members
will always try and help 44 4.00 183.00 4.1591 .98697 .974
me out if I get into
difficulties
ST 3 I can always trust my
organizational members to 44 4.00 159.00 3.6136 1.24295 1.545
lend me a hand if I need it
ST 4 I can always rely on
my organizational
44 4.00 149.00 3.3864 1.38456 1.917
members to make my job
easier
ST 5 Our work
environment enhances
confidence among teachers 44 3.00 155.00 3.5227 1.10997 1.232
to foster effective
knowledge sharing
Valid N (listwise) 44

4.4.9 Descriptive Statistic on Organizational Support

The descriptive profile of this variable presented in table 4.16. It was

found that the average mean score for this variable is 4.02. The highest
mean score was In my organization, top management clearly supports
the role of knowledge sharing at 4.11 mean values. While the lowest
mean score was item My organization has appropriate technology in
place (e.g. web site, e-mail, portal) to support knowledge sharing at
3.43. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that respondent is
tending to agree with the item defining the factor.

59 | P a g e
Table 4.16: Organizational Support

Item Minimu Maximu Std.

N Range m m Mean Deviation Variance
OS 1 My
organization has
appropriate
technology in place 44 4.00 151.00 3.4318 1.06526 1.135 44 4.00
(e.g. web site, e-mail,
portal) to support
knowledge sharing
OS 2 My
organizational has
process in place (e.g.
44 4.00 162.00 3.6818 1.09487 1.199 44 4.00
meeting, roll call, etc)
for knowledge
sharing
OS 3 My
organization supports
forming informal
networks (e.g.
44 2.00 175.00 3.9773 .82091 .674 44 2.00
community of
practice) where
knowledge sharing
can be shared
OS 4 In my
organization, top
management clearly 44 2.00 181.00 4.1136 .61817 .382 44 2.00
supports the role of
knowledge sharing
Valid N (listwise) 44 44

4.5 CORRELATION ANALYSIS

This section will be presented the correlation analysis between independent and
dependent variables to determine its relationship. According to Franzblau
(1958), the rules of thumb about correlation coefficient are determined by the
strengths of the associate, which is significant level. In this study, researcher
was using bivariate correlation to see a linear relationship. Meanwhile to look
the relationship between those two variables in a linear style, Pearson
correlation test was used. By using these two tests, researcher will be able to
identify the relationship direction, the strength, and a significant relationship
towards this study.

60 | P a g e
 These are ranges for interpreting strengths of correlations:

a) +.70 or higher - Very strong positive relationship

b) +.40 to +.69 - Strong positive relationship
c) +.30 to +.39 - Moderate positive relationship
d) +.20 to +.29 - weak positive relationship
e) +.01 to +.19 - No or negligible relationship
f) -.01 to -.19 - No or negligible relationship
g) -.20 to -.29 - weak negative relationship
h) -.30 to -.39 - Moderate negative relationship
i) -.40 to -.69 - Strong negative relationship
j) -.70 or higher - Very strong negative relationship

4.5.1 Correlation Analysis between Subjective Norm and Intention

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between attitude and intention

is at 0.293. This value then shows that there is a low strength positive
relationship between these factors. Thus, there is an association
between these two factors. For relationship significance, since this is
two-tailed, we have to devide the sig.value, therefore, the p-
value=0.004. Therefore, there is a significant relationship within these
factors. In short, correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.17:

Relationship correlation for Subjective Norm and Intention

Subjective
Norm Intention
Subjective Pearson Correlation
1 -.201
Norm
Sig. (2-tailed) .190

N 44 44

Intention Pearson Correlation

-.201 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .190

N 44 44

61 | P a g e
 Subjective
Norm Intention
Subjective Pearson Correlation
1 -.201
Norm
Sig. (2-tailed) .190

N 44 44

Intention Pearson Correlation

-.201 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .190

N 44 44

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4.5.2 Correlation Analysis between Intention and Knowledge

Technology
The Pearson correlation coefficient value between Intention and
Knowledge Technology is at 0.872**. This value then shows that
there is a moderate strength positive relationship between these
factors. Thus, there is an association between these two factors.
For relationship significance, since this is two-tailed, we have to
divide the sig.value, therefore, the p-value=0.000. Therefore,
there is a significant relationship between these factors. In short,
correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.18 Relationship correlation for Intention and Knowledge Technology

Correlations Intention and Knowledge Technology

KNOWLEDGE
INTENTION TECHNOLOGY
INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 .872**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 44 44
KNOWLEDGE Pearson Correlation .872** 1
TECHNOLOGY Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 44 44

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

62 | P a g e
 Relationship correlation for Intention Social Network

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between Intention and Social

Network is at -.184. This value then shows that there is a low strength
positive relationship between these factors. Thus, there is an association
between these two factors. For relationship significance. Therefore, the
p-value=0.004. Therefore, there is a no significant relationship within
these factors.

Correlations Intention and Social Network

SOCIAL
INTENTION NETWORK
INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 -.184

Sig. (2-tailed) .233

N 44 44
SOCIAL Pearson Correlation -.184 1
NETWORK Sig. (2-tailed) .233

N 44 44

RELATIONSHIP CORRELATION FOR INTENTION AND PERCEIVE

INTRINSIC REWARD

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between attitude and intention is at 0.746**.
This value then shows that there is a low strength positive relationship between these
factors. Thus, there is an association between these two factors. For relationship
significance, since this is two-tailed, we have to devide the sig.value, therefore, the p-
value=0.004. Therefore, there is a significant relationship within these factors. In short,
correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Correlations Intention and Perceive Intrinsic Reward

PERCEIVE
EXTRINSIC
INTENTION REWARD
INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 .746**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 44 44
PERCEIVE Pearson Correlation .746** 1
EXTRINSIC Sig. (2-tailed) .000
REWARD N 44 44

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

63 | P a g e
 Relationship correlation for Intention and Social Trust

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between Intention and Social Trust is at
.044. This value then shows that there is a low strength positive relationship
between these factors. Thus, there is an association between these two
factors. For relationship significance, since this is two-tailed, we have to
devide the sig.value, therefore, the p-value=0.004. Therefore, there is a
significant relationship within these factors. In short, correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Correlations Intention and Social Trust

SOCIAL
INTENTION TRUST
INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 .044

Sig. (2-tailed) .776

N 44 44
SOCIAL Pearson Correlation .044 1
TRUST Sig. (2-tailed) .776

N 44 44

Relationship correlation for Subjective Norm and Intention

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between Intention and

Organizational Support is at 0.746. This value then shows that there is a low
strength positive relationship between these factors. Thus, there is an
association between these two factors. For relationship significance, since
this is two-tailed, we have to devide the sig.value, therefore, the p-
value=0.004.Therefore, there is a significant relationship within these
factors. In short, correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Correlations Intention and Organizational Support

ORGANIZATIONAL

INTENTION SUPPORT

INTENTION Pearson Correlation 1 .746**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 44 44
ORGANIZATIONAL Pearson Correlation .746** 1
SUPPORT Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 44 44

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

64 | P a g e
 4.5.2 Correlation Analysis between Subjective Norm and Intention

The Pearson correlation coefficient value between subjective

norm and intention is at 0.499. This value then shows that there
is a moderate strength positive relationship between these
factors. Thus, there is an association between these two factors.
For relationship significance, since this is two-tailed, we have to
divide the sig.value, therefore, the p-value=0.000. Therefore,
there is a significant relationship between these factors. In short,
correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.5.3 Summary of Correlation Analysis

Figure 4.6 depicts the path coefficients and their significant

along with the R-values for each dependent construct. As
indicated in figure 4.6 and table 4.25 shows the attitude and
subjective norm has a significant impact on knowledge sharing.
For conclusion, two out of eight are successfully supported and
accepted. Meanwhile, the others are rejected.

4.6 REGRESSION ANALYSIS: FINDINGS THE STRONGEST

PREDICTORS

In this section, the researcher aims to describe regression analysis between

independent variables and dependent variable to find the strongest predictors.
The details of the result on regression analysis is presented in the table below:

65 | P a g e
Table 4.26 (i): Regression Coefficient

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.445 .506 2.854 .005
ATTITUDE .134 .076 .164 1.714 .000
SUBJECTIVE_NORM .320 .032 .380 4.011 .155
SELF EFFICACY .040 .125 .044 .452 .041
KNOWLEDGE
.093 .103 .106 .863 .000
TECHNOLOGY

SOCIAL NETWORK -.084 .050 -.104 -1.074 .000

PERCEIVE EXTRINSIC
-.149 .115 -.232 -2.212 .000
REWARD

SOCIAL TRUST .175 .140 .213 2.104 .830

ORGANIZATIONAL
.117 .171 .151 1.207 .000
SUPPORT

a. Dependent Variable: INTENTION

Based on table 4.26 (i), it was found that there are four significant factors that
contribute to influencing knowledge sharing on the MRSM teachers in MRSM
Tun Mustapha. The significant factors that have been bold in the table show the
result of significant value (p-value) is less than 0.05. It means there are three
independent variables which Subjective Norm, Perceive Extrinsic Reward and
Social Trust become the strongest predictors.

The first strongest factor relate to Subjective Norm with the p-value at 0.000,
whereby this indicate that this factor gives a huge impact or strong predictors
for the knowledge sharing intention in MRSM Tun Mustapha. From the other
aspects, it also gives the meaning that the higher subjective norm among
employees, the higher knowledge sharing intention among them. The second
strongest factor is perceived extrinsic reward at the p-value 0.015 involving
with reward of money, recognition, and promotion. This indicates that this
factor gives a huge strong predictor towards knowledge sharing intention which

66 | P a g e
 means that the higher perceive extrinsic reward, the higher of knowledge
sharing intention among MRSM teachers. The third strongest factor is social
trust with p-value at 0.019. This factor involves with trust with organizational
member and working environment to share their knowledge. This indicates that
this factor also give a big impact towards knowledge sharing intention which
means the higher social trust, the higher will be knowledge sharing intention.

All these can be related each other, and when these factors are joined together
they could help produce strong predictors towards knowledge sharing intention
in MRSM. The model summary and the ANOVA test result are the illustrated
on the tables below.

Table 4.26 (ii): Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .619a .384 .327 .45817
a. Predictors: (Constant), OrganizationalSupport, Attitude,
SelfEfficacy, SubjectiveNorm, SocialNetwork, SocialTrust,
PerceiveExtrinsicReward, KnowledgeTechnology

Table 4.26 (iii): Model Summary

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 43.996 30 1.467 4506.420 .000
Residual .004 13 .000
Total 44.000 43
a. Predictors: OrganizationalSupport, Attitude, SelfEfficacy, SubjectiveNorm,
SocialNetwork, SocialTrust, Perceive ExtrinsicReward, KnowledgeTechnology
b. Dependent Variable: Intention

67 | P a g e
4.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

For overall, the result of the analysis is presented from the factor analysis to the
correlation analysis. First analysis was on reliability analysis that all variables are
valid and reliable in this study. Second analysis is descriptive analysis that
involve demographic item and research variables. Based on this analysis, it was
found that respondents intend to agree with all the factors. Third is pearson
correlation analysis that shows two hypothesis (Attitude and Subjective Norm)
accepted while others are rejected. Lastly is regression analysis that has carried
out three strong predictors to the knowledge sharing intention in MRSM Tun
Mustapha. The predictors are Subjective Norm, Perceive Extrinsic Reward, and
Social Trust.

68 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This research was carried out with the purpose of answering the research
questions that have specified in chapter one earlier. This chapter also discusses
the objectives of the study based on the findings and analysis in chapter four.
Then, this chapter will provide discussion, recommendation, and conclusion as
well as suggestions for future research. The research objective are as follows:

To analyze the factors influencing knowledge sharing intention among

teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha.
To examine the relationship between attitude and subjective norm with
knowledge sharing intention.
To examine the relationship among factors, i.e., self-efficacy, knowledge
technology, social network, perceive extrinsic reward and social trust with
attitude towards knowledge sharing intention.
To examine the relationship between organizational structure and
subjective norm towards knowledge sharing intention.

5.2 DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section will discuss on research finding based on research objective as

mention above. The findings also will be support with analysis that
gathered previously and explained further below.

5.2.1 Factors influencing knowledge sharing intention among

teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha.

The result in descriptive analysis shows that Attitude, Subjective

Norm, Self-Efficacy, Knowledge Technology, Social Network,
Perceive Extrinsic Reward, Social Trust and Organizational
Structure are considered as the main factors influencing for

69 | P a g e
knowledge sharing intention among teachers in MRSM Tun
Mustapha. Based on the descriptive analysis, Self-Efficacy is the
highest influence (means 4.06), followed by Attitude (means
3.92), Subjective Norm (3.83), Knowledge Technology (3.81),
Organizational Support (means 3.8), Social Trust (means 3.64),
Social Network (means 3.62) and finally Perceive Extrinsic
Reward (means 3.16). These result analysis describes respondent
intends to agree with all the items of knowledge sharing
intention.

The highest influence which is self-efficacy is very critical

attitude among teachers that can enhance their intention to share
knowledge. This attitude will gain personal beliefs that can gives
benefits to their job performance, opportunities and help other
teachers in problem solving. While for attitude factor, this
behaviour is one of the important aspects that can give impact in
the intention of knowledge sharing. If the teachers have a
positive attitude, it will offer many benefits to them and
organization but if not, it will impact their tasks and other
teachers. Besides, the senior officer and top management should
embed a positive attitude in knowledge sharing among teachers
in order to improve their performance.

The third highest as the factors of knowledge sharing intention in

MRSM is subjective norm. The person perception in subjective
norm will increase employees motivation when they share their
knowledge. Normally in MRSM, good perception from senior
officer will gives enjoyable feeling to teachers to complete their
task rather than just following the order. Next is knowledge
technology which crucial in this information age era. Technology
in MRSM will improve work performance, communication and
importantly giving better services to the public. In order to gain
those benefits, MRSM have made an improvement in ICT tools
such as intranet, new system application and others.

70 | P a g e
 The fifth highest factor for knowledge sharing intention is
organizational support. The organizational support included
technology in place, informal networks, organizational structure
and working environment. This study found that there are less
informal networks in MRSM activities which can improve two
way communication and knowledge sharing. The sixth factor is
social trust. It became one of the factors because teachers trust
that they can always rely on their colleagues by helping them in
problem solving. The next factor influencing knowledge sharing
is social network. This study found that MRSM teachers are
more communicate each other in the workplace rather than
informal meeting outside. The last variables which consider as
factors influencing knowledge sharing intention is perceived
extrinsic reward. This study found that the respondent intends
not to agree with monetary rewards item because, in the public
sector, there is no incentive system for sharing their knowledge.
But it is a norm people will participate in knowledge sharing if
there is an incentive system such as recognition and monetary
reward.

5.2.2 Findings for relationship in Hypothesis

Result of the hypothesis in this study was summarized in table

below.

Hypothesis Result Summary

H1 Supportive attitude towards Supported Correlation analysis shows

knowledge sharing will have positive
inuence on the intention to share
knowledge.
H2 Subjective norm has a positive effect
on the intention to share
knowledge.
H3 Self efficacy has a positive effect on
knowledge sharing attitudes
that there is a significant
relationship between them
Supported Correlation analysis shows
that there is a significant
relationship between them
Not Supported Correlation analysis shows
that they are not related at all

71 | P a g e
H4 Knowledge technology has a
positive effect on knowledge sharing
attitudes
H5 Social network has a positive effect
on the attitude toward knowledge
sharing
H6 Extrinsic rewards have a positive
effect on the attitude toward knowledge
sharing
H7 Social trust has a positive effect on
the attitude toward knowledge sharing
Not Supported Correlation analysis shows
that they are not related at all
Not Supported Correlation analysis shows
that they are not related at all
Not Supported Correlation analysis shows
that they are not related at all
Not Supported Correlation analysis shows
that they are not related at all

H8 The organizational support has a Not Supported Correlation analysis shows

positive effect with subjective norms that they are not related at all

Table 5.1: Summary of Hypothesis Results

The result of the study shows that H1 which attitude has a

positive influence on the knowledge sharing intention. This study
was reliable with other studies (Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman,
2013; Goh, Choon & Teoh, 2013). The results show that a person
with a positive attitude will more likely to share their knowledge
with others for a certain purpose that gives benefits to them. It
was agreed by (Ajzen, 1991), mentioned that whether a person
actually shares knowledge with others primarily depends on his
or her personal, favourable or unfavourable of the attitude in
question.

Another result that supported hypothesis is H2, which subjective

norm has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge.
This study was consistent with the study by (Dong, Liem &
Grossman, 2010). In the context of this study, subjective norm is
very important in forming impression and expression towards
knowledge sharing.

72 | P a g e
Meanwhile, the other six hypotheses were not supported in this
study. The result of H3 is not supported the hypothesis of self-
efficacy has a positive effect on attitude. It was contrary to the
previous study (Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman, 2013; Nurliza,
Uchenna & Goh (2011). In the context of the study, self-efficacy
seems to be not important factor in knowledge sharing intention.
Based on the finding, it shows that teachers are not interested to
share their knowledge and experience because they think it will
not contribute to the organizational performance. Next is H4,
which also not supported the hypothesis of knowledge technology
has a positive effect on attitude. This hypothesis was contrast
with the study from (Eze,Goh, Choon & Teoh, 2013). Even
knowledge technology is necessary in the information age era
because it gives the fastest information, teachers in MRSM might
prefer to formal lines of communication.

The other result of the hypothesis is H5 that is also not supported

the social network gives positive effect on attitude. This result
was contrary to the previous study from Ali, Khalil, Naser &
Rosman (2013). Same goes to H6 that is also not supported the
hypothesis of extrinsic reward gives positive impact towards
knowledge sharing. It was consistent with studies from Ali,
Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) and Dong, Liem & Grossman
(2010). In the context of this study, MRSM is under public sector
that is not offer extrinsic rewards such as money and an additional
point for their knowledge sharing. Somehow, recognition reward
from the senior officer and top management can be precious to
them to foster knowledge sharing.

The result of H7 shows this hypothesis that the trust has a positive
effect on attitude towards knowledge sharing is rejected. This
outcome is a contrast with Nurliza, Uchenna & Goh (2011) that
show trust as an important factor in knowledge sharing intention.
Even though the trust is always prove as an important factor in
the previous study, it might not be important factors among

73 | P a g e
 MRSM teachers in knowledge sharing. It was also agreed by Ali,
Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013) which the hypothesis result was
consistent with this study. Lastly, H8 also not supported the
hypothesis of organizational support has a positive effect on
knowledge sharing intention. This result shows contrary to the
study from Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2013). In the
perspective of this study, MRSM may not provide appropriate
technology, workplace environment better formal and informal
networks to foster and encouraging knowledge sharing.

5.3 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY

Figure 5.1: Result of Accepted Hypothesis

Attitude

Intention to
Share
Knowledge

Subjective
Norm

Figure 5.1 below depicts the final result of accepted hypothesis that can give
contribution to the study towards knowledge sharing intention in MRSM. Based
on the result, two factors that will influence knowledge knowledge sharing
intention are attitude and subjective norm. An attitude factor is critical
nowadays which can bring the new knowledge culture to the enforcement
agency like MRSM. Thus, organization should develop and embedded positive
attitude in order to improve employee's readiness to share their knowledge.
Meanwhile for subjective norm, people perspective also a crucial factor that will
affect employee's willingness to share their knowledge with others. Positive
perception and perspective from important people will gain employees self
confidence in sharing their knowledge. In order to attain the benefits from
knowledge sharing, the factors of attitude and subjective norm should be
considered by organization.
74 | P a g e
5.4 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The data collection in this study is using small sample and only restricted to
teachers in MRSM Tun Mustapha, Tawau. Consequently, in order to verify and
generalized better research results, the research should be expanded
geographically such as involving every MRSM in Sabah, Borneo or Malaysia.
This study also not necessarily represents the situation in the whole MRSM in
Malaysia because there are major differences between other districts.

The other limitation is data validity can be strengthening in this study through
obtaining additional in-depth data. A long time spent interviewing people,
observing teamwork and task, and attending meeting would have provided
additional data for analysis to probe deeper into the issue of knowledge sharing.
In addition, this research was conducted within a limited time which believe to
perform overall and concise application of knowledge sharing in MRSM.

5.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Theoretical model of this study has been tested with a sample of individuals in
focusing on knowledge sharing intention. Future research could test in other
settings such as employ this model to address the question of how knowledge is
being shared among individuals in MRSM where knowledge is very essential.
Future research could also consider new research area in determining the type of
knowledge shared among teachers or people outside organizations. The findings
will contribute to on how knowledge type interfere the effects on knowledge
sharing. Lastly, future research may also consider investigating further the
potential differences of the knowledge sharing intention between MRSM and
other enforcement teachers in different agencies like Army and Immigration.
Hopefully, it will give impact and increase awareness towards knowledge
sharing in providing better services to the public. Furthermore, future research
should be conducted within longer specific period to enhance the response and
complete data analysis which will contribute to efficient findings in future.

75 | P a g e
5.6 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter provides the discussion of the findings from the previous
chapter that is chapter 4. The discussions of this study were based on
research objective that have been stated in the previous chapter. The study
also explained in detailed on what factors that have contributed to such
findings in which variables are significant with knowledge sharing intention
and also which are not. The results of the findings also provide to
contribution, limitation and directions for future research.

76 | P a g e
References

Alam, S., Abdullah, Z., Ishak, N.A. and Zain, Z.M. (2009). Knowledge sharing
behaviour among employees in SMEs: an empirical study. International
Business Research, 2(2), 115-122.

Ali, Khalil, Naser & Rosman (2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention
among academic staff. International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(4), 413-431.

Amayah, A. T. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector

organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17 (3) (454-471).

Ardichivili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T. and Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural
inuences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
quarterly, 107-136.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social

Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and

Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179-211.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning, Addison-Wesley,

Reading, MA.

Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W. and Kim, Y.-G. (2005). Behavorial intention formation in
knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly. 29 (1), 87-
111.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy, the Exercise of Control, Freeman Publication Co,

New York, NY.

Cameron, C.J. and Pierce, D.W. (1997). Rewards, interest and performance, an
evaluation of experimental findings. American Compensation Association
Journal, 6(4), 21-27.

Chow,W.S.and Chan,L.S.(2008),Social network, social trust and shared goals in

organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management. 45(7), 1-8.

Chennameneni, A. (2006). Determinants of knowledge sharing behaviors: Developing

and testing an integrated model. PhD. Diss., University of Texas.

77 | P a g e
Dong, Liem & Grossman (2010). Knowledge-sharing intention in Vietnamese
organizations. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management System.
40 (3/4), 262-276.

Dean, G., Filsted, C. and Gottschalk, P. (2006). Knowledge sharing in criminal

investigation: an empirical study of Norwegian Police as value shop. Criminal
Justice Studies, 19(4), 423-37.

Goh, G.G.G., Choon C.Y., Tiong,L.T. (2013). Perspectives of SMEs on knowledge

sharing. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management
Systems. 43(2), 210-236.

Fraenkel , J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education (7th ed., pp. 19-20). New York, USA: McGraw- Hill.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior : An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.; Don Mills, Ontario:
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Greiner, M. E. (2002). The Search-Transfer Problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly.
44(1), 182-202.

Hsu, M.H. and Chiu, C.M. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service
acceptance. Decision Support Systems Research and Behavioural Science,
38(3), 369-381.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human

Resource Development Review. 2(4), 337-59.

Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. and Borgatti, S.P. (1997). A general theory of network
governance exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of
Management Review. 22(4), 1-35.

Luen, T.W. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001). Knowledge management in the public

sector: principles and practices in police work. Journal of information Science,
27(5), 311-8.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organisations.
California Management Review, 34(4), 53-72.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K.E. and Kramer, R.M. (1996). Swift Trust and Temporary
Groups. Sage Publications, CA, 166-195.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, (20)(3) (709-734)

Methodology - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology
78 | P a g e
MRSM Tun Mustapha. (n.d.). objective. Retrieved from
http://mrsmtawau.edu.my/index.php/info-mrsm/objektif

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organization Science. 5(1), 14-39.

Nurliza, Uchenna & Goh (2011). Key determinants of knowledge sharing in an

electronics manufacturing firm in Malaysia. Library Review, 60(1), 53-67.

Orpen, C. (1999). The impact of self-efcacy on the effectiveness of employee

training. Journal of Workplace Learning, (11) (4) (1-4).

ONeill, B. S., & Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract :
Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal
of Managerial Psychology.

Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E. and Bartol, K.M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the
motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and
performance. Organization Science, 18(1), 71-88.

Rainey, H.G. (2003), Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 3rd ed.,
Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco, CA.

Robbins, S. (1993). Organizational Behavior, 6th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.

Speech of Dato' Seri Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad in his speech at the opening of the
Second Global Knowledge Conference (2000).

Shin, S.K., Ishman, M. and Sanders, G.L. (2007). An empirical investigation of socio-
cultural factors of information sharing in China. Information & Management,
44(2), 1-10.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006). Empowering leadership in
management teams: effects on knowledge sharing, efcacy, and performance.
Journal of Management, 49 (6),1239-1251.

Silvi, R., & Cuganesan, S. (2006). Investigating the management of knowledge for
competitive advantage : A strategic cost management perspective. Journal of
Intellectual Capital.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skills building approach. 4th ed.
Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M. and Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and
storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 18(1), 95-114.

79 | P a g e
Saint-Onge, H. (1996). Tacit knowledge the key to the strategic alignment of
intellectual capital. Strategy & Leadership.

Truran, W.R. (1998). Pathways for knowledge: how companies learn through
people. Engineering Management Journal, 10(4), 15-20.

Thite, M. (2004). Strategi positioning of HRM in knowledge-based organizations. The

Learning Organization. 11(1), 28-44.

Walczak, S. (2005). Organizational knowledge management structure. The Learning

Organization, 12(4), 330-339.

Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Organizations:
The Effect of Organizational Characteristics on Interdepartmental Knowledge
Sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Wang, S. and Noe, R.A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for
future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.

Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation,
Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, NY.

80 | P a g e