The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

Knowledge-
Knowledge-sharing behaviour sharing
of bank employees in Greece behaviour
Prodromos D. Chatzoglou and Eftichia Vraimaki
Production and Management Engineering Department, 245
Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to develop an understanding of the factors that influence
knowledge-sharing behaviour within an organisational framework, using widely accepted social
psychology theories.
Design/methodology/approach – Knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees in Greece is
examined using an aggregate model, which is based on the theory of planned behaviour. The
suggested research model was tested using structural equation modelling.
Findings – The results indicate that intention to share knowledge is mainly influenced by employees’
attitude toward knowledge sharing, followed by subjective norms.
Research limitations/implications – Knowledge-sharing behaviour was examined solely
focusing on salient beliefs. Findings should be confirmed using a larger sample, as well as through
cross-sectional studies.
Practical implications – The results highlight the necessity of creating a climate that would help
individuals develop a more favourable attitude toward knowledge sharing as well as the important
role of the perceived social pressure by organisational members (peers, supervisors, senior
management) on the intention of individuals to share knowledge.
Originality/value – The main contributions of this study are the following: examination of the
knowledge sharing in the banking sector; testing of a specific well-known research model in the
South-Eastern European environment; examination of the actual knowledge-sharing behaviour and
not only of the behavioural intention to share knowledge and, finally, examination of the direct effect
of the perceived behavioural control on knowledge-sharing behaviour, which, although suggested by
theory, has been neglected by previous studies.
Keywords Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing, Employee behaviour, Banks, Greece
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Knowledge management (KM) has attracted much attention by the business world since
the introduction of the concept by Davenport and Prusak about 12 years ago. Although the
essence of managing knowledge is not a newfangled issue (Davenport and Prusak, 2000),
the changing contemporary business environment, calls for an active engagement into
KM initiatives. Whatever, the KM strategy followed by an organisation is, it targets for the
promotion of sharing knowledge, ideas, and experience among individuals and groups
(Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002). In this paper, emphasis is placed on knowledge-sharing
behaviour, since the success of KM initiatives largely depends on the willingness of
organisational members to share their knowledge. And this has been proved as Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2009
The authors would like to thank Dr Bock Gee-Woo, University of Singapore, and Dr Ryu Seewon, pp. 245-266
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Korean Institute of Health and Social Affairs, for providing us with some valuable suggestions 1463-7154
on the research instrument used by this research. DOI 10.1108/14637150910949470
BPMJ “a promising yet elusive goal for many organizations” (Koulopoulos and Frappaolo, 1999).
15,2 To support this claim, Davenport and Prusak (2000) explain that organisations do not
usually lack knowledge; however, its existence does not guarantee its use.
Having realised the importance of knowledge sharing for successful KM initiatives,
this research attempts to examine the factors that influence knowledge-sharing
behaviour in an organisational framework. Research has examined several different
246 variables believed to influence sharing behaviour, such as incentive systems and
culture, or top management and senior leadership (Bock and Kim, 2002). However, only
a few researchers (Bock and Kim, 2002; Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004; Bock et al.,
2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005) attempted to empirically test such factors in the
knowledge-sharing context on a solid theoretical background.
The basic aim of this research is to investigate the knowledge-sharing behaviour of
bank employees in Greece. This is important because it is still crucial to accurately
explain the knowledge-sharing behaviour of individual professional groups (Ryu et al.,
2003). Understanding the factors that influence individuals’ behaviour toward
knowledge sharing in the organisational context is essential, in order to implement
successful KM initiatives. Nevertheless, very limited number of studies investigating
the knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees can be found. While most studies
in the literature, relating to all aspects of KM, are concerned with the manufacturing
industry, the service industry, and banking in particular, has not received much
attention (Kubo et al., 2001). The research model for this study is based mainly on the
theory of planned behaviour (TPB), an extension of the theory of reasoned action
(TRA), a social psychology theory, and other similar research models. Findings of
previous studies using similar models suggest that the TPB is superior in
explaining intention to share knowledge and the model has a reasonable overall fit
(Ryu et al., 2003).
Therefore, the main contributions of this study are the following:
.
examination of the knowledge sharing in the banking sector;
.
use of data concerning employees working for the private sector, as opposed to
other studies in the literature (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005; Kankanhalli
et al., 2005);
. testing of a specific well-known research model in the South-Eastern European
environment;
.
examination of the actual knowledge-sharing behaviour and not only of the
behavioural intention to share knowledge (Bock et al., 2005); and
.
finally, examination of the direct effect of the perceived behavioural control
(PBC) on knowledge-sharing behaviour, which, although suggested by theory,
has been neglected by previous studies.

2. Literature review
2.1 Knowledge sharing
“Knowledge is one of the few assets that grows – also usually exponentially – when
shared” (Quinn, 1996). Knowledge sharing is believed to be one of the most important
processes for KM (Bock and Kim, 2002; Lahti and Beyerlein, 2000). Davenport and Prusak
(2000) and Chua (2003), however, indicate that knowledge is shared in organisations
whether the process is deliberately managed or not. Junnarkar (1997) also supports this
view of readily established knowledge communities within the organisational framework, Knowledge-
even before management makes any kind of effort towards establishing them. Companies sharing
are seeking to implement special KM projects, which aim to establish an environment
within organisations that will support the effective knowledge creation, transfer and use behaviour
(Davenport et al., 1998). All “[. . .] knowledge management initiatives try to foster the
sharing of knowledge, ideas, and experiences, in whatever form, among individuals or
groups”, as Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) point out. 247
Nevertheless, it is accepted that “willing to share participants” is the key factor for a
successful implementation of any KM process (Koulopoulos and Frappaolo, 1999).
Since the introduction of the KM discipline, researchers have tried to study many
variables that are related to individual’s knowledge-sharing behaviour. Robertson
(2002) explains why understanding human behaviour is critical for knowledge-sharing
initiatives to work: “[. . .] knowledge sharing is a human activity, and understanding
the human who will do it is the first step in successfully supporting that activity”.

2.2 Knowledge sharing in financial institutions

“It’s accepted wisdom that banking is a business of information, not just a business of
money” (Lamb, 2001). The change in the global business environment has led banks to
rationalise their products and services and have also looked into KM in order to
improve their competitiveness (Dzinkowski, 2001). Managing knowledge is as
important to banking institutions as it is for any other kind of organisation. Hubert
Saint-Onge (quoted in Lamb, 2001) points out that: “the last open frontier for banks to
create competitive advantage may very well reside in their ability to leverage
knowledge”. Supporting this suggestion, Craig Kaylor (quoted in Lamb, 2001) of the
Hampden Savings Bank, claims that banks do not sell goods, but rather services and
more specifically knowledge.
Ramona Dzinkowski (2001) explains the two basic categories of KM initiatives in
financial services companies:
First, knowledge management is seen as an integral part of the overall corporate strategy,
and aims to grow, extract and exploit the company’s knowledge to increase shareholder
value. The second focuses on improving upon the knowledge necessary to carry out specific
business processes and thereby improving efficiency.
Despite the significance of implementing a KM initiative, there are very few banking
institutions formally engaged in a fully integrated KM program. Dzinkowski (2001)
points out that the most sophisticated strategies in the field, however, can be
encountered in the insurance field, as a partial result of the long-term focus of that
industry to costumers. Financial success and growth depend heavily on how well
managers understand customer needs and subsequently diffuse and exploit that
knowledge to the benefit of the organisation. Having this in mind, it is obvious that
dismissing KM in an interrelated field, i.e. banking, can lead to perilous results (Lamb,
2001). Practically, it is certain that even bankers without a clear approach to KM are
readily engaged in some informal implementation of it. However, Dzinkowski (2001)
stresses on the necessity to manage knowledge systematically:
Little quantitative data exist on how managing something intangible as knowledge directly
impacts on the bottom line. However, a large number of anecdotal evidence suggests that
managing knowledge systematically matters.
BPMJ The World Bank however, breaking new ground in the field, launched a knowledge
15,2 sharing initiative in 1997 (Egan and Kim, 2000). The bank was determined to
transform itself into a knowledge bank, while until that time thought itself mainly in
traditional banking terms (Cummings, 2003; Cohen and Laporte, 2004). Laporte (2004)
reports that by 2000, The World Bank had:
[. . .] a range of knowledge-sharing programmes in place: communities of practices, helpdesk
248 and advisory services, extensive knowledge collections on the web, tacit knowledge
debriefings, indigenous knowledge programmes, and a platform to share knowledge with the
development community through the Development Gateway web site.
Learning from the benefits these financial institutions have realised from
implementing knowledge KM initiatives, financial institutions should recognise the
importance of systematic management of knowledge.

3. Theoretical background
3.1 The theory of planned behaviour
The basic notion of the TRA and the TPB is that:
[. . .] behavioral intentions, which are immediate antecedents to behavior, are a function of
salient information and beliefs about the likelihood that performing a particular behavior will
lead to a specific outcome (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Madden et al., 1992).
There are three conceptually independent determinants to intention. The first predictor
is the “attitude toward the behaviour” and “[. . .] refers to the degree to which a person
has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question”, while
the second, “subjective norm”, as a social factor, refers to the perceived social pressure to
perform or not to perform the behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Finally, the third predictor of
intention is “perceived behavioural control”, which “[. . .] refers to the perceived ease or
difficulty of performing the behavior and it is assumed to reflect past experience as well
as anticipated impediments or obstacles” (Ajzen, 1991). This additional construct, which
was not incorporated in the TRA, poses significant psychological interest, in relation to
actual control; Ajzen (1991) explains that PBC is similar to Bandura’s concept of
perceived self-efficacy. The TPB proposes that PBC along with behavioural intention can
be used directly to predict behavioural achievement.
Ajzen (1991) explains that, as a general rule, “[. . .] the more favourable the attitude
and subjective norm, and the greater the perceived behavioral control, the stronger
should be an individual’s intention to perform the behavior under consideration”.
However, the relative importance of the three predictors of intention is expected to vary
across different behaviours and situations. This means, as the author explains, that
there are situations where attitudes alone can have a significant impact on intentions,
whereas in others attitudes along with PBC are enough to account for intention; there
are also situations where all of the three predictors make independent contributions
regarding behavioural intention.
Both theories, TRA and TPB, have received a certain amount of criticism, regarding
their applicability and predictive power. There have also been suggestions for
modifications of the original models. Chang (1998) modified the TPB, using a causal path
linking subjective norm to attitude, and he reported a significant improvement on model
fit. The findings of Ryu et al. (2003) research seem to validate Chang’s findings. In
addition, Sheeran and Orbell (1999), claim that, findings of past research suggest that
many people with positive intentions do not succeed in establishing a new behaviour. Knowledge-
Millar and Shevlin (2003) integrated the TPB model by adding the “past behaviour” sharing
variable, and they found that future behaviour is best explained by past behaviour.
To conclude, despite the criticism, the TPB “[. . .] provides a useful conceptual behaviour
framework for dealing with the complexities of human social behavior” (Ajzen, 1991).
The model’s applicability, in quite diverse behaviours, has been indicated by past
research (Chang, 1998; Sheeran and Orbell, 1999; Millar and Shevlin, 2003; Ryu et al., 249
2003; Lin and Lee, 2004). According to Ajzen (1991) the TPB incorporates some of the
central concepts in the social and behaviour sciences; the three predictors of intention
are defined in a way that permits the highly accurate prediction and understanding of
particular behaviours in specific contexts. In the knowledge sharing area, Bock and
Kim (2002) and Bock et al. (2005) conducted a research using the TRA. Ryu et al. (2003),
on the other hand, investigated knowledge-sharing behaviour of physicians in
hospitals and Lin and Lee (2004) investigated the perceptions of senior managers
regarding knowledge-sharing behaviour, both using the TPB.

4. Research model and hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to investigate the behaviour of bank employees in Greece
toward knowledge sharing, applying the TPB model. Past studies, have indicated that
there is a strong causal link between intention and targeted behaviour (Ryu et al., 2003),
as the theory also suggests. According to the TPB, the stronger the intention to
practice a behaviour, the higher the likelihood that the individual will actually end up
in engaging in that behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Intention, on the other hand, is determined
by three conceptually independent factors: attitude toward behaviour, subjective
norms about the behaviour, and PBC over the behaviour.
Based on the theoretical framework of the TPB and past research models, the
following research model and hypotheses are proposed (Figure 1). The following
research model is an aggregate model incorporating the basic TPB model (Ajzen, 1991),
including also another variable (level of information technology usage (ITU))

Level of IT
Attitudes toward
Usage
knowledge sharing
H1(+)
H5(+)

Subjective Norms H2(+) H4(+)

Intention to share Knowledge
about knowledge
knowledge sharing Behaviour
sharing

H3(+)

H6(+)
Perceived Figure 1.
Behavioural Control The research model and
to knowledge sharing hypotheses
BPMJ suggested by Bock and Kim (2002). Table I lists the model constructs and their
15,2 operational definitions, as well as the related literature.
Since attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC are proposed to determine intention to
engage in a behaviour, the following three hypotheses are formulated:
H1. Individual’s attitude toward knowledge sharing has a positive effect on the
intention to share knowledge.
250
H2. Individual’s subjective norms, related to knowledge sharing, have a positive
affect on the intention to share knowledge.
H3. Individual’s PBC over sharing knowledge has a positive affect on the
intention to share knowledge.
H1 examines the relationship between attitude and intention regarding knowledge
sharing in the organisational context. H2 and H3 investigate the relationship between
subjective norms and intention toward knowledge sharing, as well as between PBC
and intention, respectively. For H1, H2, and H3, intention is the dependent variable.
The next hypothesis (H4) examines the relationship between intention to engage in
a knowledge sharing act and the actual behaviour of sharing knowledge. For this
hypothesis, knowledge-sharing behaviour is the dependent variable. Therefore, H4
proposes that:
H4. Individuals intention to share knowledge has a positive affect on the
individual’s knowledge-sharing behaviour.
H5 refers to the individual’s level of information technology usage (ITU). Information
technology (IT) is believed to be an important enabler in KM (Bock and Kim, 2002);

Constructs Operational definition Items References

Knowledge-sharing The degree to which an 5 Ajzen (1991, 2002), Bock and

behaviour employee actually shares
knowledge with other
organisational members
Level of ITU The degree of one’s frequency
of using IT
Intention to share The degree to which one
knowledge believes that he or she will
engage in a knowledge-sharing
act
Attitude toward The degree of one’s positive
knowledge sharing feelings regarding sharing his
or her knowledge
Subjective norms about Perceived social pressure in
knowledge sharing order to perform or not the
knowledge-sharing behaviour
PBC of knowledge sharing Perception of the ease or
Table I. difficulty related to performing
The model constructs and the knowledge-sharing
operational definitions behaviour
Kim (2000, 2002), Bock and Pan
(n.d.), Lee (2001) and Lin and
Lee (2004)
6 Bock and Kim (2000, 2002),
Bock and Pan (n.d.)
5 Ajzen (1991, 2002), Bock and
Kim (2000, 2002), Bock and Pan
(n.d.), Ryu et al. (2003) and Lin
and Lee (2004)
5 Ajzen (1991, 2002), Bock and
Kim (2000, 2002), Bock and Pan
(n.d.), Ryu et al. (2003) and Lin
and Lee (2004)
4 Ajzen (1991, 2002), Bock and
Pan (n.d.), Ryu et al. (2003), Lin
and Lee (2004)
4 Ajzen (1991, 2002), Ryu et al.
(2003) and Lin and Lee (2004)
therefore, the effect of the level of ITU on knowledge-sharing behaviour is also Knowledge-
examined. The addition of this variable is based on the TRA. For H5 sharing
knowledge-sharing behaviour is also the dependent variable:
behaviour
H5. The level of ITU of the individual will have a positive affect on the
individual’s knowledge-sharing behaviour.
As it was previously mentioned, Ajzen’s (1991) theory proposes that PBC, in 251
conjunction with behavioural intention, can be used directly for the prediction of
behavioural achievement. Ajzen (1991) presented two rationales for establishing the
direct link from PBC to actual behavioural performance. First, “holding intention
constant, the effort expended to bring a course of behavior to a successful conclusion is
likely to increase with perceived behavioral control” and second, “[. . .] perceived
behavioural control can often be used as a measure of actual control” (Ajzen, 1991). As
it was previously explained, “actual control” over a behaviour summarises all
non-motivational factors as availability of the requisite opportunities and resources.
Based on this proposal, the direct link between PBC to knowledge sharing and sharing
behaviour is examined through the following H6:
H6. Individual’s PBC over sharing knowledge has a positive affect on the
individual’s knowledge-sharing behaviour.
For H6, knowledge-sharing behaviour is the dependent variable. The direct link
between PBC and behaviour has not been examined by any relative research on
knowledge-sharing behaviour.

5. Research methodology
5.1 Sampling and data collection
The population for this study consisted of bank employees in Greece, including both
state-owned as well as private bank branches. The choice of branches included in
the survey was random. Contact information, when necessary, was retrieved from the
banks’ official web sites.
A total of 600 questionnaires were administered using mainly the “in-person
drop-off” method (Zikmund, 2003), whereas, for geographically dispersed branches,
questionnaires were sent either through e-mail or post, depending on the participants’
preferences. For questionnaires sent by post, an envelope with pre-paid postal
expenses was included. For questionnaires that were personally delivered, a pick-up
date was arranged, usually after one or two weeks. There were cases, however, where
respondents preferred to answer the questionnaires immediately. In other cases, the
questionnaires had not been completed within the agreed upon period, so they had to
be collected at a later time, which in some occasions exceeded the period of one month.
The survey questionnaires were distributed and collected between October 2004 and
June 2005.
The questionnaire was seven pages long, including a cover letter on the first page,
and necessary general (demographic) questions on the last. The cover letter briefly
explained the aim and purpose of the study and assured confidentiality. It also
included a short introductory note, describing the meaning of “knowledge” and
“knowledge sharing”, so that participants could more easily understand the nature of
the questions that followed. The main section of the questionnaire was constructed
BPMJ using “structured questionnaire format” (Armitage and Conner, 1999). This section
15,2 was divided into five parts, in order to reflect the thematic components of the model
used. Each individual part also included an epigrammatic introduction, preceding each
set of questions, which elucidated the nature of the questions in the specific part. Main
questionnaire items can be found in the Appendix. Questionnaire layout was based on
Bock and Pan (n.d.)
252 A total of 1,276 usable questionnaires were collected, for a response rate of 46 per
cent. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table II. Tests
have shown that there is no significant difference in the characteristics of the
respondents who answered the questionnaire in time or late, who come from private or
public banks, and finally, between people who received the questionnaire through the
post (or e-mail) and those who received them in person.

5.2 Measurement development

The measures developed in order to operationalise the constructs of the research model
were adopted mainly from past studies on knowledge-sharing behaviour (Bock and
Kim, 2002; Lee, 2001; Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004). These measures were based
on the guidelines for structuring a TPB questionnaire offered by Ajzen (2002).
Content validity was established through questionnaire pre-testing (Zikmund,
2003). Initially, an internal testing process was carried out with the participation of five
academics, who mainly commended on questionnaire wording and ease of
understanding. Some wording modifications were made in order to ensure that the
original text was clearly interpreted in the target language, i.e. Greek. Then, the
translated questionnaires were validated using the “back-translation” method,
i.e. “translating back into the original language to establish equivalence with the

Measure Items Frequency Percentage

Ownership State-owned 108 39.1

Private 168 60.9
Gender Male 130 47.1
Female 146 52.9
Age 22-29 years 140 50.7
30-39 years 84 30.5
40-60 years 52 18.8
Education High school or below 64 23.2
Undergraduate studies 182 65.9
Post graduate studies 30 10.9
Designation Manager 26 9.4
Deputy Manager 14 5.1
Head of Department 26 9.4
Deputy Head of Department 16 5.8
Employee/Clerk 186 67.4
Other 8 2.9
Work experience 0.5-4.5 years 122 44.2
5.0-9.5 years 66 23.9
10.00 ! years 88 31.9
Table II.
Profile of respondents Notes: Less experienced: 0.5 years; most experienced: 35 years
original version” (Francis et al., 2004), with the original version being that of Ryu et al. Knowledge-
(2003) and Bock and Pan (n.d.). The wording of some of the questions was slightly sharing
modified three times before the final format was established, based on remarks and
suggestions offered by the pre-testing participants. Questionnaire items appeared in behaviour
Appendix, reflect, to the extent this is possible, the actual Greek wording used in the
final version of the questionnaire.
The study measured six constructs: 253
(1) knowledge-sharing behaviour (B);
(2) intentions to share knowledge (IN);
(3) attitudes toward knowledge sharing (AT);
(4) subjective norms about knowledge sharing (SN);
(5) PBC to knowledge sharing; and
(6) level of ITU.

All constructs were measured using multiple items and all items were measured using
five-point Likert-type scale (Lin and Lee, 2004), as suggested by previous studies
(Table I). At this point, it should be noted that actual knowledge-sharing behaviour
was also measured using self-report scales. This method was selected in an attempt to
capture, to the extend this is possible, all kinds of knowledge sharing, including
every-day, informal and non-IT mediated exchanges, for which to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, on objective measures have been yet developed.

5.3 Statistical analysis

The descriptive characteristics of the sample (Table I) were assessed using SPSS 11.0
statistical package, based on the guidelines provided by Dimitriadis (2003). The
research model (Figure 1) was tested using structural equation modelling (SEM) with
latent variables (LISREL 8.7), as suggested by other researchers who studied the TRA
or TPB models (Chang, 1998; Blue et al., 2001; Millar and Shevlin, 2003; Ryu et al., 2003;
Lin and Lee, 2004; Bock et al., 2005). As it has been suggested, the structural equation
approach has several advantages over traditional analyses (Bagozzi and Yi, 1989).
Data were analysed using the two-step approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing
(1998) and applied to prior research in the field (Chang, 1998; Blue et al., 2001; Millar
and Shevlin, 2003; Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004). In the first step, a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was performed, which helps assess the adequacy of the
measurement model (Chang, 1998), or in other words, “[. . .] the measurement models
(or confirmatory factor models) specify how hypothetical constructs are measured in
terms of the observed variables” (Lin and Lee, 2004). In the second step of the data
analysis, the structural model is tested using SEM; structural equation models specify
causal relationships among latent variables (Lin and Lee, 2004).

6. Data analysis and results

6.1 Measurement model
6.1.1 Content validity. An instrument can be valid on the grounds of the content of the
measurement items (Straub, 1989). As Bock and Kim (2002) explain, content validity is
related to how representative and comprehensive are the items that are used to create a
scale. For this research, content validity was established through rigorous pre-testing.
BPMJ The definition of the constructs was based on the TPB and on past research using
15,2 similar models.
6.1.2 Construct validity. Construct validity is actually an operational issue: “[. . .] it
asks whether the measures chosen are true constructs describing the event or merely
artifacts of the methodology itself” (Straub, 1989). There is a large number of aspects
regarding construct validity offered by the psychometric theory (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
254 Construct validity of an instrument can be tested in terms of convergent and
discriminant validity (Straub, 1989). In this study, construct validity is assessed
through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), following a similar approach as other past
studies (Bock and Kim, 2002; Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004).
Convergent validity was tested by examining the factor loading of each construct
(item), as well as composite reliability and variance extracted of the latent constructs,
using CFA. The results of the measurement model fit are summarised in the following
(Table III). In more detail, factor loadings ranged from 0.59 (SN4) to 0.94 (SN2), all of
them exceeding the recommended cut-off value of 0.5, suggested by Straub (1989), for a
sample of 276 observations at a 0.05 level of significance ( p , 0.05). It should also be
noted that, there are suggestions in the literature of accepting a threshold of 0.35 for
factor loadings (Hair et al., 1998, cited in Ryu et al., 2003).

Factor Composite Variance

Latent construct Item loading reliability extracted

Attitude toward knowledge sharing (AT) AT1 0.80 0.8599 0.5518

AT2 0.76
AT3 0.71
AT4 0.70
AT5 0.74
Subjective norms about knowledge sharing (SN) SN1 0.75 0.8462 0.5857
SN2 0.94
SN3 0.72
SN4 0.59
PBC of knowledge sharing (PBC) PBC1 0.75 0.7901 0.4869
PBC2 0.76
PBC3 0.66
PBC4 0.61
Intention to share knowledge (IN) IN1 0.85 0.8961 0.6360
IN2 0.88
IN3 0.79
IN4 0.83
IN5 0.61
Knowledge-sharing behaviour (B) B1 0.71 0.8315 0.4978
B2 0.76
B3 0.75
B4 0.65
B5 0.65
Table III.
Measurement model fit Note: Factor loadings are from CFA
Composite reliability helps assess the internal consistency of the measurement Knowledge-
model: sharing
[. . .] the resultant coefficient is similar to that of Cronbach’s alpha, except that it also takes behaviour
into account the actual factor loadings rather than assuming that each item is equally
weighted in the composite load determination (Lin and Lee, 2004).
There are many propositions in the relative literature regarding the reliability measures. 255
Chin (1998, cited in Bock et al., 2005) suggests that 0.7 should be the recommended value
for a reliable construct, whereas Ryu et al. (2003) suggest a 0.8 cut-off value, while
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) recommend the benchmark of 0.6. In this study, the composite
reliability of the latent constructs exceeds even the highest of the above recommended
cut-off values (0.8), apart from PBC that is only marginally below (0.7901).
Finally, variance extracted measures ranged from 0.6360 for intention to share
knowledge (IN) to 0.4869 for PBC. Recommended threshold value for variance
measures is 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Straub, 1989; Ryu et al., 2003). In this study,
three constructs (AT, SN and IN) are above the recommended value of 0.5, whereas
PBC and knowledge-sharing behaviour (B) are marginally below 0.5, that is 0.4869 and
0.4978, respectively.
In the research model shown in Figure 1, an additional construct the level of ITU,
measured by six items was originally included. However, statistical analysis did not
indicate good applicability of this construct and was excluded from the final
investigated model.
6.1.3 Overall, model fit. The overall model fit was assessed using four common fit
measures from two perspectives: absolute fit and comparative fit (Ryu et al., 2003).
In more detail, the absolute fit measures used in the evaluation of the CFA model are:
x 2/df), root mean square error of approximation, and goodness-of-fit index.
Comparative fit index was used to measure comparative fit. The following (Table IV)
summarises the overall fit indices of the CFA model. The CFA indicated that the
measurement model fitted the data to a very satisfactory level, as all fit indices are
above commonly accepted levels.

6.2 Structural model

The first stage of analysis of the proposed research model (Figure 1), performed using
CFA, indicated the adequacy of the measurement model (Tables III and IV). After
dropping a latent construct (level of ITU), originally included in the research model
(Figure 1), the theoretical model was tested using SEM, in order to examine the causal
relationships among the remaining latent variables. The Figure 2 shows the structural
model, as produced by LISREL 8.7, along with path coefficients and factor loadings.

Model-fit index Scores Recommended value

2
x /df 1.022 * * 1 , x 2/df , 2
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.013 * * , 0.1
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 0.87 * . 0.9 (accepted if $ 0.8,
as suggested by Ryu et al. (2003))
Comparative fit index (CFI) 1.00 * * . 0.9 Table IV.
Overall fit of the CFA
Notes: *Marginal; * *accepted model
BPMJ 0.36 AT1
0.27
IN1
15,2 0.24 AT2 0.80
0.76 IN2 0.22
0.49 AT3 0.85
0.71
0.51 AT4 0.88 IN3 0.37
0.70 AT 0.79
0.74 0.57
0.45 AT5 IN 0.83 IN4 0.31
256 0.43 SN1 0.75
0.29
0.16
0.61
IN5 0.62
0.11 0.94 SN
SN2 0.14
0.72 0.71 B1 0.49
0.48 SN3 0.59 B 0.76
0.01
0.65 SN4 PBC 0.75 B2 0.42
0.75 0.65
0.43 PBC1 B3 0.43
0.76 0.65
0.42 PBC2 0.66
B4 0.57
Figure 2. 0.56 0.61
PBC3
The structural model B5 0.57
0.62 PBC4

Moreover, in order to examine the validity of the hypothesised paths, the statistical
significance of each structural parameter estimate was examined. The following
Table (V) summarises the structural parameter estimates, significance levels and
hypotheses tests results.

6.3 Hypotheses testing results

H1 and H2 proposed a positive influence of attitude and subjective norms on intention
to share knowledge, respectively. The resultant coefficients indicate that attitude
toward knowledge sharing has the strongest direct affect on the intention to share
knowledge (path coefficient: 0.57), followed by subjective norms (0.29). Both path
coefficients were significant at the p , 0.05 level. These results seem to support
Ajzen’s TPB that there is a positive effect of attitude and subjective norms on
behavioural intention.
The results are also consistent with prior research results on knowledge-sharing
behaviour, using the TRA and TPB. In more detail, Ryu et al. (2003) have found a
positive influence of attitudes and subjective norms in behavioural intentions, with
attitude having the strongest direct effect, followed by subjective norms. Lin and Lee
(2004) and Bock et al. (2005) research findings also indicate a positive relationships
among these variables. However, the direct effect on subjective norms is stronger than
the effect of attitude on behavioural intention. These variances do not contradict the

Hypothesis Path Path coefficient Remarks

H1 Attitude ! intention 0.57 * Positive supported

H2 Subjective norms ! intention 0.29 * Positive supported
H3 Perceived behavioural control ! intention 0.14 Positive but insignificant
H4 Intention ! behaviour 0.16 Positive but insignificant
H5 Level of ITU ! behaviour – Dropped
Table V. H6 PBC ! behaviour 0.01 Positive but insignificant
Hypotheses testing
results Note: *Significant at the p , 0.05 level
theory’s propositions regarding the predictors of behavioural intention. As Ajzen Knowledge-
(1991) explains, the relative importance of the three predictors of intention is expected sharing
to vary across situations and behaviour. In other words, there may be situations where
attitude alone can have a significant impact on intention, others where the former along behaviour
with PBC are sufficient to account for intentions, or even some where all three
predictors make independent contributions. Finally, Bock and Kim (2002) research
findings also indicate a positive relationship of attitudes on intention to share 257
knowledge; their study, however, does not examine the effect of subjective norms.
H3 examined the effect of PBC on behavioural intention. The estimated coefficient
(0.14) indicated a small positive direct effect on intention to share knowledge. The path
coefficient, however, was not significant at the p , 0.05 level, indicating that the
hypotheses is only “partially” supported. This means that, although the relationship
between subjective norms and intention was found to be positive, as the TPB (Ajzen,
1991) and past research (Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004) suggest, the results for the
PBC could only be characterised as inconclusive. These results can possibly be
attributed to the number of the observations included in the statistical analysis. Hence,
it could be suggested that, if the number of observations was higher, the path
coefficient could become significant, and therefore the hypothesis fully supported.
Past research findings do not indicate a uniform effect of PBC on intention. In more
detail, Lin and Lee (2004) research findings indicate that subjective norms pose the
strongest effect on intention, in relation to attitudes and subjective norms. Ryu et al.
(2003), on the other hand, found the subjective norms have the smallest direct effect on
intentions in the TPB model. Note that the path coefficient from PBC to intention in
Ryu et al. (2003) research was 0.140 ( p , 0.1), as also found in this study (Table V).
H4 examined the relationship between intention to engage in a knowledge-sharing
activity and the actual behaviour of sharing knowledge. This hypothesis proposed that
individuals’ intention to share knowledge has a positive effect on knowledge-sharing
behaviour. The path coefficient (0.16) indicated a positive but weak relationship between
these variable. The results, however, were not significant at the p , 0.05 level, as in the case
of H3 discussed earlier. The indicated positive relationship does not contradict the
suggestions of Ajzen’s (1991) theory; Lin and Lee (2004) also confirm the positive
relationship. However, many people with positive intentions do not succeed in establishing
a new behaviour, as Sheeran and Orbell (1999) point out. Moreover, Millar and Shevlin
(2003) found that future behaviour was best explained by past behaviour, as past behaviour
was found to have a stronger effect than intention on behaviour, when integrated in the
TPB. These findings can, to a certain extent, elucidate the weak direct effect of intention to
share knowledge on knowledge-sharing behaviour found in this study.
H6, on the other hand, proposed a positive effect of PBC on knowledge-sharing
behaviour. The resultant coefficient indicated an extremely weak direct effect of PBC on
B (0.01), which was also insignificant at the p , 0.05 level. The TPB suggests that, PBC,
in conjunction with behavioural intention, can be used directly for the prediction of
behavioural achievement (Ajzen, 1991). However, the weak direct effect of PBC on
behaviour does not contradict theory propositions. Although both predictors make
significant contribution to the prediction of behaviour, at any given situation, one may
be more important than the other, or only one of the two may be significant (Ajzen, 1991).
At this point it should be noted that the causal relationship between PBC and behaviour
has not been examined in prior research investigating knowledge-sharing behaviour.
BPMJ Finally, H5, suggested a positive relationship between an individual’s level of ITU
15,2 and knowledge-sharing behaviour (Figure 1), based on the Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980)
proposition that several external variables could have an affect when an intention is
realised to perform a behaviour. However, the latent construct of level of ITU was
dropped during the process of statistical analysis, as explained earlier. It should be
noted, however, that Bock and Kim’s (2002) findings suggest that “[. . .] the individual’s
258 level of ITU does not show a significant moderating effect on the knowledge sharing
behaviour”.
In conclusion, the findings of this study (Table V) indicate that attitudes and
subjective norms have a positive influence on the intention to share knowledge in the
investigated sample of bank employees in Greece, and can be used, consequently, to
predict behavioural intention to engage in knowledge sharing. In general, these results
point toward:
.
the necessity of creating a climate that would help individuals develop a more
favourable attitude toward knowledge sharing; and
.
the important role of the perceived social pressure by organisational member,
such as peers, supervisors and senior management, on the intentions of
individuals to share knowledge.

The effect of PBC on behavioural intention, as well as on knowledge-sharing

behaviour, and the effect of intention on behaviour, although positive, were not
significant for p , 0.05, and should be regarded as inconclusive. As it has been
explained, this can be largely attributed to the sample size of this study. Moreover, it
should be taken into account that the possible moderating effect of gender, educational
level and work experience, as suggested by prior studies (Constant et al., 1994;
Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Miller and Karakowski, 2005). However, the findings
overall seem to coincide with the propositions of the TPB, where this research model
was based on. Moreover, the results are, to a large extent, consistent with prior
research investigating knowledge-sharing behaviour (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al.,
2005), professional knowledge-sharing behaviour (Ryu et al., 2003; Lin and Lee, 2004),
prediction of unethical behaviour (Chang, 1998), career information-seeking behaviour
(Millar and Shevlin, 2003), and exercise among blue-collar workers (Blue et al., 2001), all
of which applied the TPB and/or its predecessor, the TRA.

7. Conclusions
7.1 General conclusions
KM has been gaining ground in the management agenda, since organisational
knowledge has been realised as a key source of competitive advantage. However, the
establishment of successful knowledge sharing initiatives is very hard to accomplish.
This can be largely attributed to the fact that organisations are merely preoccupied
with technology infrastructure, failing to focus on the individuals who are engaged in
knowledge sharing.
In the light of knowledge sharing being in essence a human activity (Robertson,
2002), the main purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of the factors
that influence individuals’ knowledge-sharing behaviour in the organisational context.
In more detail, a research model based on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB was developed in order to
examine the knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees in Greece, as relative
literature advocates the need to focus our attention on the sharing behaviour of Knowledge-
individual professional groups (Ryu et al., 2003). The choice of the banking industry sharing
was based on the belief that KM is very important for financial institutions, as various
sources indicate. The change in the global business environment has led banks to behaviour
rationalise their products and services and have also looked into KM in order to
improve their competitiveness (Dzinkowski, 2001). It should also be noted that the
banking industry in Greece is growing fast, offering a wide range of new products and 259
services.
One of the main contributions of this study is that it is probably one of the very few
that attempted to explore knowledge-sharing behaviour of the specific professional
group, i.e. bank employees, using widely accepted social psychology theories.
Moreover, the current study includes a large sample of private organisations while it is
one of the few that examines knowledge sharing in the European context, whereas,
past studies in the literature are mainly concerned with the public sector in Asian
countries (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al., 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005). This is
probably important as research results may be influenced by the sample’s national
culture characteristics. This research is also among a limited number of studies to
examine individuals’ actual knowledge-sharing behaviour, as opposed to others in the
literature, which are focused on the investigation of knowledge sharing intentions
(Bock et al., 2005). Finally, the research model has tested the direct effect of PBC on
knowledge-sharing behaviour, which, although suggested by theory, was not
examined in other research models.
The research model used, identified the cognitive predictors of knowledge-sharing
behaviour of bank employees. The research results indicated that the model fitted the
data well and that findings are consistent with the propositions of the TPB, whose good
applicability indicated by the statistical analysis, designate its use in organisational
research. In more detail, attitudes and subjective norms were found to positively
influence individuals’ intention to share knowledge. The research findings indicate that
an individual’s attitude toward knowledge sharing is the primary factor influencing
intention to share knowledge, meaning that whether a person actually shares knowledge
with others primarily depends on his/her personal, favourable or unfavourable,
appraisal or evaluation of the behaviour in question (Ajzen, 1991). Second, intention to
share knowledge was found to be influenced by subjective norms, that is by the
perceived social pressure to perform or not knowledge sharing (Ajzen, 1991).
Finally, the direct effect of PBC on intention and on behaviour, respectively, as well as
the effect of intention on knowledge-sharing behaviour, although positive they are
basically regarded as inconclusive. The inconclusiveness of the results regarding the
above causal paths is possibly attributed to the small sample included in the research
(276 observations), as well as to the potential effect of gender, educational level and work
experience, as past research indicates. The TPB suggests that the stronger the intention
to engage in a behaviour the more likely should be its performance. The estimated path
coefficient (0.16) points toward a positive relationship, which however is not very strong.
Past research has indicated that people with strong intention to choose a specific
behaviour pattern do not always succeed in establishing that new behaviour (Sheeran
and Orbell, 1999). To summarise, the research findings are consistent with both the TPB
and past research on knowledge-sharing behaviour, and, on the whole, are believed to
offer a significant behavioural perspective on knowledge sharing.
BPMJ 7.2 Managerial implications
15,2 Based on the research findings the following suggestion could be considered by
organisations wishing to implement KM initiatives and promote organisational
knowledge sharing. First, since attitude and subjective norms were found to influence
individual’s intention to share knowledge, knowledge sharing initiatives should be
targeted towards creating an environment that can positively influence those factors.
260 As Ryu et al. (2003) have also suggested, the establishment of such a positive climate
will require the promotion of several cultural factors, including professional autonomy,
cohesiveness and communication structure. Bock et al. (2005) advocate that
organisational efforts should emphasise the creation of a work context characterised
by high levels of organisational citizenship. This way, mutual social relationships can
be cultivated, which are considered as highly influencing knowledge sharing
intentions.
Second, from the technological viewpoint, the establishment of a knowledge sharing
system should promote the workplace communication (Ryu et al., 2003). Although IT
cannot, at any degree, substitute for personal communication, the establishment of an
efficient KM system could enhance knowledge sharing, especially in geographically
dispersed organisations. Moreover, organisations should focus on the creation of
communities of practice within the workplace, as human networks are the best way to
achieve knowledge sharing (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). Bock et al. (2005) suggest
that managers should provide appropriate feedback to all employees about the
achievements of “referent communities”, regardless of whether they are engaged in
knowledge sharing. These actions, the authors explain, are closely related to exercised
pressure of one’s referent group and enhancement of individual’s sense of self-worth.
The importance of social pressure in order to engage in knowledge-sharing behaviour
is consistent with the research findings indicating that subjective norms positively
influences intention to share knowledge.
Bock and Kim (2002) explain that a positive attitude toward knowledge sharing is
formed by the expectation that knowledge sharing is mutual and by the belief that
one can contribute to improvements of organisational performance. However,
special attention should be paid on turning positive attitude and intention into
knowledge-sharing behaviour. This means that knowledge-sharing behaviour should
be promoted through “enhancing the positive mood state for social associations which
precedes knowledge sharing behaviours”, rather than incorporating sophisticated
incentive and evaluation systems into KM initiatives (Bock and Kim, 2002; Bock et al.,
2005). As Gurteen (1999) argues, if people understand that sharing what they know
helps them: “[. . .] do their job more effectively; [. . .] retain their jobs; helps them with
personal development and career progression; [. . .] and brings more personal
recognition, then knowledge sharing will become a reality”. As a final point, it should
be stressed that there is an increased need for organisations to include their knowledge
sharing strategy into corporate strategy (Lin and Lee, 2004).

7.3 Limitations
Some research limitations that do not allow for the generalisation of the findings are
the following. First, since this research only included 276 observations, findings
should be confirmed through a larger sample in order to increase generalisability.
Second, the present study is solely concerned with a particular professional group,
i.e. bank employees. For that reason, since this is a longitudinal and not a cross-sectional Knowledge-
study, the results could not be generalised in other sectors. Third, the data collection was sharing
restricted to bank employees in Greece; consequently, due to the cultural factors that
characterise the sample under investigation, the results may not be confirmed, when behaviour
examining the same sector in other counties with different national cultures. As a
general rule, in order to verify and generalise the research results, the research should be
expanded geographically, as well as in other industries (Bock et al., 2005). 261
Fourth, the present study investigated possible motivators related to
knowledge-sharing behaviour based on the TPB. This means that
knowledge-sharing behaviour was examined solely focusing on salient beliefs, as
the theory suggests, considering knowledge sharing “[. . .] as a very individualistic
behaviour” (Bock and Kim, 2002). The TPB, however, does not take into account other
factors that may inhibit knowledge-sharing behaviour, such as culture and social
factors. As Bock et al. (2005) have also pointed out, the model used may have failed to
notice other factors, indicated by other researchers, that impede knowledge sharing.
These factors include: natural barriers such as time and space availability, cognitive
barriers that inhibit personal communication, and structural barriers, such as
authority and status hierarchies as well as functional boundaries, that restrain the
development of personal relationships and the free information flow (Bock et al., 2005).
Additionally, the present model does not take into account neither the possible
moderating effect of education and work experience (Constant et al., 1994) nor gender
influences (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Miller and Karakowski, 2005) on knowledge
sharing, that has been suggested by previous research.
Finally, the variables of the TPB model were measured using self-report scales
(Bock and Kim, 2002; Millar and Shevlin, 2003), meaning that the results of the study
may be influenced by common method bias. Moreover, it should be considered that the
answers could have been influenced by what is known as “social desirability”,
which could greatly affect the quality of the responses. As previous studies using
similar models suggest, more direct and objective measures should be developed
(Bock and Kim, 2002), in order to examine the accuracy and validity of the conceptual
model.

7.4 Suggestions for further research

Considering the limitations of the study, it is necessary to examine knowledge-sharing
behaviour in other industries and also include a larger sample, so as to confirm
research findings. It would also be interesting to investigate further the potential
differences of the knowledge-sharing behaviour between employees in the private and
public banking sectors, especially in the higher hierarchical levels of the organisation.
Moreover, in order to increase the exploratory power of the research model, additional
factors should be considered, such as culture, leadership style, task structure (Ryu et al.,
2003) and HRM practices (Kubo et al., 2001) to accurately reflect the effects of
organizational framework, as well as the role of social networks. At the same time,
research should be expanded to include relationships with costumers, partners and
suppliers. The role of motivation, extrinsic in particular, should be further explored,
as past research has provided with contradictory results as to their effect
on knowledge-sharing behaviour. Finally, the direct effect of PBC on intention and
on behaviour, respectively, and most importantly the effect of intention on
BPMJ knowledge-sharing behaviour, should be investigated further. There is also a need to
15,2 develop more direct and objective measures for the independent variables (Bock and
Kim, 2000), increasing the accuracy and validity of the conceptual model could be, as
common method bias could be avoided and the effects various phenomena, such as
“social desirability” can be diminished.
As far as the banking sector in particular is concerned, research should investigate
262 further the role of regulatory surveillance, which has been found to lead to low-inter-firm
knowledge sharing (Kubo et al., 2001). Finally, the effect of de-nationalisation, as well as
that of mergers and acquisitions by foreign or domestic institutions, which have
radically changed the banking environment, especially in Greece, on the KM efforts
should be also explored.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2002), “Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological
considerations”, available at: www-unix.oit.umass.edu/,aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
(accessed 9 June 2004).
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1998), “Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-23.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (1999), “Predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour:
the role of questionnaire format and social desirability”, Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 261-72.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1989), “On the use of structural equation models in experimental
design”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 271-84.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-58.
Blue, C.L., Wilbur, J. and Marston-Scott, M. (2001), “Exercise among blue-collar workers:
application of the theory of planned behavior”, Research in Nursing & Health, Vol. 24 No. 6,
pp. 481-93.
Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2000), “Breaking the myths of rewards”, Proceedings of the
INFORMS-KORMS Conference, Seoul, Korea, 18-21 June.
Bock, G.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study
of attitudes about knowledge sharing”, Information Resources Management Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 14-21.
Bock, G.W. and Pan, S.L. (n.d.), “Questionnaire for knowledge sharing”, unpublished
questionnaire.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-112.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas”, Organization Studies, Knowledge-
Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 687-710.
sharing
Chang, M.K. (1998), “Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned
action and the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 16, behaviour
pp. 1825-34.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”,
in Markoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, 263
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chua, A. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: a game people play”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 117-29.
Cohen, D. and Laporte, B. (2004), “The evolution of the knowledge bank”, KM Magazine, Vol. 7
No. 6, available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/volutionofthe
KnowledgeBank.pdf (accessed 10 December 2004).
Connelly, C.E. and Kelloway, K.E. (2003), “Predicting of employees knowledge sharing cultures”,
Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Constant, D., Kiesler, S. and Sproull, L. (1994), “What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of
attitudes about information sharing”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 400-21.
Cummings, J. (2003), Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature, The World Bank
Operations and Evaluations Department, OECD, Paris, available at: http://lnweb18.
worldbank.org/oed/oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/D9E389E7414BE9DE
85256DC600572CA0/$file/knowledge_eval_literature_review.pdf (accessed 17 December
2004).
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What
They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., de Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management
projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
Dimitriadis, E. (2003), Statistics with Applications Using S.P.S.S., Kritiki, Athens (in Greek).
Dzinkowski, R. (2001), “Knowledge management in the financial services”, Financial Times,
available at: www.ftmastering.com/mmo/mmo10_2.htm (accessed 15 December 2004).
Egan, M. and Kim, J. (2000), “Knowledge-sharing at the World Bank: building a better
knowledge-sharing tool with the YourNet intranet”, Knowledge Management Review,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 24-7.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Francis, J.J., Eccles, M.P., Johnston, M., Walker, A., Grimshaw, J., Foy, R., Kaner, E.F.S., Smith, L.
and Bonetti, D. (2004), Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned
Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Research, Centre for Health Services Research,
University of Newcastle, Newcastle, available at: www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.
aspx?itemID¼212 (accessed 20 September 2004).
Gurteen, D. (1999), “Creating a knowledge sharing culture”, Knowledge Management Magazine,
Vol. 2 No. 5, available at: www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/0/FD35AF9606901C
42802567C70068CBF5/ (accessed 9 June 2004).
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.K. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis
with Readings, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.
BPMJ Junnarkar, B. (1997), “Leveraging collective intellect by building organisational capabilities”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-40.
15,2
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y. and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 114-43.
Koulopoulos, T. and Frappaolo, C. (1999), Smart Things to Know About Knowledge
264 Management, Capstone, Dover, NH.
Kubo, I., Saka, A. and Pam, S.L. (2001), “Behind the scenes of knowledge sharing in a Japanese
bank”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 465-85.
Lahti, R.K. and Beyerlein, M.M. (2000), “Knowledge transfer and management consulting: a look
at ‘the firm’”, Business Horizons, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Lamb, E.C. (2001), “Knowledge management: how to mine the information treasures inside your
bank. A tale of measuring and managing the potential within”, Community Banker, Vol. 10
No. 9, pp. 24-6.
Laporte, B. (2004), “Knowledge sharing at the World Bank: the fad that would not go away”,
KM Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 4, available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/
Resources/TheFadthatWouldNotGoAway.pdf (accessed 10 December 2004).
Lee, J.N. (2001), “The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and
partnership quality on IS outsourcing success”, Information & Management, Vol. 38
No. 5, pp. 323-35.
Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004), “Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing
behaviour”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 108-25.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Madden, T.J., Ellen, P.S. and Ajzen, I. (1992), “A comparison of the theory of planned behaviour
with the theory of reasoned action”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Millar, R. and Shevlin, M. (2003), “Predicting career information-seeking behavior of school
pupils using the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 26-42.
Miller, D.L. and Karakowski, L. (2005), “Gender influences as an impediment to knowledge
sharing: when men and women fail to seek peer feedback”, The Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 139 No. 2, pp. 101-18.
Quinn, J.B. (1996), “Leveraging intellect”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 7-27.
Robertson, S. (2002), “A tale of two knowledge-sharing systems”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 295-308.
Ryu, S., Ho, H.S. and Han, I. (2003), “Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 113-22.
Sheeran, P. and Orbell, S. (1999), “Implementation intentions and repeated behaviour:
augmenting the theory of planned behaviour”, European Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 29, pp. 349-69.
Straub, D.W. (1989), “Validating instruments in MIS research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 147-69.
Zikmund, W.G. (2003), Business Research Methods, 7th ed., Thomson/South-Western, Mason, OH.
Appendix Knowledge-
sharing
Behaviour (B) behaviour
How frequently do you use the following knowledge with your organisational members?
1 – Very rarely to 5 – very frequently (for all five items)
Explicit knowledge Implicit knowledge
B1 Reports, official documents
B2 Manuals, methodologies, models
B4 Experience, know-how
B5 Expertise from education and training
265
B3 Know-where, know-whom
Level of ITU
How frequently do you use the following IT to share your knowledge?
1 – Very rarely to 5 – very frequently (for all six items)
ITU1 Bulletin board system ITU4 Chat-room
ITU2 E-mail ITU5 Electronic document management system
ITU3 Webpage ITU6 Knowledge repository, databases
Intention to share knowledge (IN)
1 – Extremely unlikely to 5 – extremely likely (for all five items)
IN1 I will always share my knowledge with my colleagues
IN2 I will try to share my knowledge with my colleagues
more frequently in the future
IN3 I will try to share my knowledge with my colleagues
in a more effective way
IN4 I try to share my knowledge with my colleagues, if it
will be helpful to the organisation
IN5 I intend to share my knowledge with my colleagues, if they ask
Attitude toward knowledge sharing (AT)
AT1 My knowledge sharing with other organisational members is good
1 – Very good to 5 – very bad
AT2 My knowledge sharing with other organisational
members is very harmful
1 – Very harmful to 5 – very beneficial
AT3 My knowledge sharing with other organisational
members is an enjoyable experience
1 – Very pleasant to 5 – very unpleasant
AT3 My knowledge sharing with other organisational
members is valuable to me
1 – Very valuable to 5 – very worthless
AT4 My knowledge sharing with other organisational
members is a wise move
1 – Very wise to 5 – very unwise
Subjective norms about knowledge sharing (SN)
SN1 It is expected of me that I share my knowledge
1 – Extremely unlikely to 5 – extremely likely
SN2 Most colleagues that are important to me, believe that I should share my knowledge with others
1 – I should always to 5 – I should never
SN3 Most colleagues that are important to me, share their knowledge with others
1 – Definitely true to 5 – definitely not true
SN4 Colleagues, whose opinion I value, would approve of my knowledge-sharing with others
1 – Strongly approve to 5 – strongly disapprove
PBC to knowledge sharing
PBC1 For me to share my knowledge is always possible
PBC2 If I wanted to, I could always share my knowledge
1 – Definitely true to 5 – definitely not true (for both items)
PBC3 It is mostly up to me whether or not I share knowledge with others
1 – Strongly agree to 5 – strongly disagree
PBC4 To what degree is it up to you to share your knowledge with others Table AI.
1 – Absolute control to 5 – absolutely no control Questionnaire items
BPMJ About the authors
Prodromos D. Chatzoglou is an Associate Professor of MIS in the Department of Production and
15,2 Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece, and a visiting
fellow at Greenwich University, London, UK. He received a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in Economics
from the Graduate Industrial School of Thessaloniki, Greece, a Master of Science (MSc) in
Management Sciences, and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Information Engineering both from
UMIST, Manchester, UK. His research interests include information systems (IS) project
266 management, knowledge management, e-business, IS economics, strategic management and
business performance. His work was published in the Information Systems Journal, Automated
Software Engineering Journal, European Journal of Information Systems, International Journal
of Project Management and Information and Software Technology Journal, among others. He
serves as a reviewer, and member of the scientific committee of several international journals.
Finally, he has participated in many EU funded research projects as a coordinator or project
leader. Prodromos D. Chatzoglou is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
pchatzog@pme.duth.gr
Eftichia Vraimaki is a PhD candidate in the Department of Production and Management
Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece. She holds a Bachelor of Arts (BA)
in Librarianship and Information Science from the Technological Educational Institute of
Athens, Greece, and a Master of Science (MSc) in Finance and Financial Information Systems
from the University of Greenwich, London, UK. She has presented some of her research work in
scientific conferences. She is also involved in a couple of EU funded research projects.
Her research interests include knowledge management, human resources management,
psychology and library information systems.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints