Thesis On HR

IMPACT OF AUTONOMY, TASK IDENTITY, FEEDBACK AND
INTROJECTED MOTIVATION ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING

BEHAVIOR
A Thesis submitted to Department of Management Sciences,

Bahria University – Karachi Campus, in part fulfilment of the requirement for
the MBA Degree
By:
Wajeeha Paracha
Registration No: 30929
MBA
Bahria University Karachi Campus

Fall 2018 REG #30929
MBA Thesis 2nd Half-Semester Progress Report & Thesis

Approval Statement
Supervisor – Student Meeting Record
S# Date Place of Topic Discussed Signature of

Meeting Student
APPROVAL FOR EXAMINATION
Candidate’s Name: Registration No.:
Thesis Title:
I hereby certify that the above candidate's thesis has been completed to my satisfaction and, to my
belief, its standard is appropriate for submission for examination. I have also conducted
plagiarism test of this thesis using HEC prescribed software and found similarity index at ___
that is within the permissible limit set by the HEC for the MBA thesis. I have also found the
thesis in a format recognized by the Department of Management Sciences.
Date:
Supervisor’s Signature:
Supervisor’s Name:
HoD’s Signature: Date:
i
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Declaration of Authentication
I, hereby, declare that no portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in
support of any application for another degree or qualification of this university or any other
institution of learning.
Student’s Signature: ________________________
ii
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Turnitin Similarity Report
iii
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this research of mine to my beloved family, my teachers, mentors
and close friends who supported me during this research.
iv
Fall 2018 REG #30929
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I owe it all to Almighty Allah for granting me the wisdom, health and strength to
undertake this research task and enabling me to its completion.
Completion of this research thesis was only possible because of the support of many
intellectuals. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my teachers and office colleagues.
Foremost, I wish to thank my thesis supervisor Mr. Mumtaz Ali Khan for his guidance,
together with critical eye and tolerance coupled with brilliant comments and encouragement
were the major tools which help in the completion of this thesis.
Secondly, I am also very grateful to all the teachers of Management Science Department of
Bahria University for their guidance, scholarly inputs and consistent encouragement I received
through out this research work.
The paper would not have come to a successful completion without the help of staff of
computer lab. I would like to thank the whole staff of the Computer Lab for their services, no
research could be completed without this phase of help, the center of learning resource.
However, despite all the contribution and support I got from the above mentioned peoples. I
admit that, whatever weaknesses that might be found in this research are exclusively mine.
v
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table of Contents
MBA Thesis 2nd Half-Semester Progress Report & Thesis Approval Statement ...................... i
Declaration of Authentication ................................................................................................... ii
Turnitin Similarity Report........................................................................................................ iii
Dedication ................................................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .........................................................................................................v
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... xi
Purpose ............................................................................................................................. xi
Methodology & Design .................................................................................................... xi
Findings ............................................................................................................................ xi
Limitations........................................................................................................................ xi
Recommendations ............................................................................................................ xi
Keywords: ....................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1 ..............................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 The problem Background .............................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement ....................................................................................................3
1.3 Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................4
1.4 Research Question .....................................................................................................5
1.5 Scope of the Research ...............................................................................................5
1.6 Delimitation of the Study ..........................................................................................6
1.7 Descriptive Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................6
1.7.1 Autonomy ................................................................................................................. 6
1.7.2 Task Identity ............................................................................................................. 6
1.7.3 Feedback ................................................................................................................... 7
1.7.4 Introjected Motivation .............................................................................................. 7
1.7.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior ................................................................................... 7
1.8 Summary of the chapter ...............................................................................................7
vi
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.9 Organization of the Study.............................................................................................8

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................10
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................10
2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................10
2.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses ...................................................................10
2.2.1 Autonomy and Knowledge Sharing Behavior ....................................................... 10
2.2.2 Task Identity and Knowledge Sharing Behavior .................................................... 11
2.2.3 Feedback and Knowledge Sharing Behavior......................................................... 11
2.2.4 Introjected Motivation and Knowledge Sharing Behavior .................................... 12
2.3 Review of Related Studies ........................................................................................12

2.4 Variables to be examined ...........................................................................................18
2.4.1 Dependent Variable ................................................................................................ 18
2.4.2 Independent Variable .............................................................................................. 19
2.5 Research Hypothesis ..................................................................................................19

2.5.1 Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................................................... 19
2.6 Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................20

2.5 Summary of the chapter .............................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................21
Research Methodology ............................................................................................................21
3.1 Research Approach...................................................................................................21
3.2 Research Design .........................................................................................................22
3.3 Research Population: ..................................................................................................22
3.4 Data and Sampling .....................................................................................................22
3.5 Research Instrument ...................................................................................................23
3.5.1 Job Autonomy......................................................................................................... 23
3.5.2 Task Identity ........................................................................................................... 23
3.5.3 Feedback ................................................................................................................. 23
3.5.4 Introjected Motivation ............................................................................................ 24
vii
Fall 2018 REG #30929
3.5.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior ................................................................................. 24
3.6 Face and Content Validity of the Instrument ...........................................................24

3.7 Reliability of the Measuring Scale ...........................................................................25
3.8 Statistical Model of the Study ..................................................................................25
3.9 Data Collection .........................................................................................................25
3.10 Data Analysis Method ..............................................................................................25
3.11 Summary of the chapter .........................................................................................26
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................27
Results ......................................................................................................................................27
4.1 Respondent Profile ..................................................................................................27
4.2 Reliability Test ...........................................................................................................34
Interpretation ....................................................................................................................36
4.3 Hypothesis Testing .....................................................................................................37
Hypothesis testing will help in differentiation between the null hypothesis and the
alternatie hypothesis. The rejection of the null hypothesis is bsased on the p value given
in the table. Things to consider while hypothesis testing are regression model analysis to
dertermine the relationship between (dependent Variables) autonomy, task
identity,feedback and introjected motivation with knowledge sharing behavior
(independent variable). .....................................................................................................37
4.1.1 Hypothesis 1...................................................................................................... 38
4.1.2 Hypothesis 2...................................................................................................... 38
4.1.3 Hypothesis 3...................................................................................................... 38
4.1.4 Hypothesis 4...................................................................................................... 39
4.4 Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................39

4.5 Summary of Hypotheses Testing ...............................................................................41
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................42
CRITICAL DEBATE ..............................................................................................................42
5.1 Discussion ...............................................................................................................42
5.1.1 Hypothesis 1 Discussion ................................................................................... 42
viii
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................45
Recommendations and Conclusion ..........................................................................................45
6.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................................45
6.2 Limitations of the research .........................................................................................45
6.3 Future Research ..........................................................................................................46
According to (Grant, 2007), the characteristics of the job are supposed to be considered
to be quite close to the scope of the Hackman & Oldham (1980) labor force. We have
accepted and the request will provide scope for a deeper understanding work factor in the
future. It is beneficial if, for example, such research work includes organizational culture
or a more interpersonal aspect, for example, the best think-tank describes many works
according to current aspects. The researcher increasingly understands the structure, for
example the interdependence of the tasks of (Guzzo & Shea, 1992, Langfred, 2007). The
mechanism of the relational task of (Grant et al., 2008) in the research model is more
related to the need for understanding than that of the design of work in the knowledge
sharing function. ...............................................................................................................46
6.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................46
References ................................................................................................................................48
APPENDIX a ...........................................................................................................................54
APPENDIX B ..........................................................................................................................61
ix
Fall 2018 REG #30929
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.4-1 Summary of Research Instrument ........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4.1-1 Respondent Profile ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.2-1 Reliability Test .....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.3-1 Correlations Analysis ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.4-1 Regression Analysis .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4.5-1 Summary of Hypotheses Testing..........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
x
Fall 2018 REG #30929
ABSTRACT
Purpose
Job design is one of the most popular research practices in Human Resource management
(HRM) and knowledge sharing has bcome an important and much sought after this kind of
management research practices. The Purpose of this study is to determine the effect or impact
of autonomy, job identity, feedback and motivation on the sharing and openness of employee
knowledge with the employer. In order to verify the collected data we have performed
……………..test.
Methodology & Design
The research is expalanatory that has cause and effect relationship between variables on the
basis of quantitative nature. In order to develop the hypothesis, previous research or relevant
literature has been extensively studied. The questionnaire was created and used to identify the
level of affiliation between the independent and dependent variables. The sample size is 400
people.
Findings
Limitations
Recommendations
xi
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Keywords: Autonomy, Task Identity, Feedback, Introjected Motivation and Knowledge

sharing.
xii
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The problem Background
Knowledge sharing basically alludes to getting the knowledge from the source and
giving the knowledge to the source, the establishment of knowledge sharing is the creation that
is the generation of the knowledge from knowledge collector. In this sense knowledge sharing
is the essential procedure for acquisition of knowledge and supporting employee`s motivation
and learning processes, creating new ideas and new opportunities to the employees..(Ergün
and Avcı, n.d.). In addition to the knowledge sharing and management, Job design and its
characteristics also contribute to the employee satisfaction and motivation level of the job.
(“Nick Bontis, David Richards & Alexander Serenko ,” 2011.) According to (“Hackman and
Oldham ,” 1976.) Jobs or work design of an employee should be in a way that he or she should
motivated to do that job. In order to increase productivity and making the employee feel more
satisfied in doing his work more efficiently and effectively it is necessary for the organization,
especially the managers to design the work objectives and work type of an employee in a way
that which increases the motivation level of the employee. It is very common that in various
organization’s employees are asked to do repetitive tasks which decrease the level of
satisfaction and motivation disappears because there is nothing new. It kills the creativity of
the employee.
Employees should be given at least enough empowerment that they can do their work
by their own style. According to (Latham & Pinders, 2005) employee should be given
empowerment to take decisions for the task or work he is asked to do. The employee should
1
Fall 2018 REG #30929
be given independence and freedom in order to perform the assigned task. Many managers are
seen burdening their subordinates with work load which in results dissatisfy the employee.
The employees should be held responsible for the whole process in an organization for
example, if an employee is asked to schedule an interview candidate, the employee should be
allowed to be involved in the whole process which makes him feel motivated and thus the
outcome of this particular task would become meaningful not only for that particular employee
but for the organization too.
Now in this modern era employees should be accountable for the whole work in order
to maximize their motivation and job satisfaction. (Fried, Oldham, & Cummings, 2001) widely
talk about on this can also be done by providing a good and constructive feedback to the
employee every time the task is completed, which makes the employee motivational level
positively increased and he or she will be more committed to the work and mentally the
employee will take the ownership of the tasks assigned by their managers. This will also help
the employees in sharing knowledge between them, which makes the working environment
more productive.
Due to uneasy schedule and work load employees are sometime dissatisfied or less
motivated due to repetitive task and workaholic environment they should be given
empowerment and freedom to work independently and should be involved in complete
processes which will make them feel highly motivated as they will be given feedbacks as well
which in result allows them to share their experience with other employees in the organization.
This can only be done when their design of work would be in a way that makes them work
easily and they should be internally and externally motivated.
2
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.2 Problem Statement
The Purpose of this study is to determine the pact of autonomy, Task (Job) Identity,
feedback on Knwoledge sharing behavior of an employee with his coworkers, According to
(“HENRIK BRESMAN, JULIAN BIRKINSHAW AND ROBERT NOBEL ,” 1999.)
knowledge shared is knowledge of the information exchanged between the provider and
recipient of knowledge. Researchers also noted the importance of knowledge provider
behavior. (“Osterloh & Frey,” 2000.) transfer knowledge are an important source of sustainable
competitive advantage for firms. The Organization's proposal is the most important profit
center for business, the newly formed company or collection method introduces an element of
market and price. The examiner expect to exhibit the proper specific case as association to
characterize particular parts of information and motivation. As per their commitment benefits
of the endeavor. This technique is a perspective of organizations, for example, administration
Structure of final resort, to be utilized while everything else comes up short.
According to Liu, Chang and Hu (2010) have widely talked about in the state of shared
intention and the identity of the group has an important impact on knowledge quality. Task
characteristics, such as diversification of working methods, tasks and social feedback strongly
influenced by group identity. Zhao and Zhu (2014) motivation may engage in recreation
different roles in crowdsourcing contests with the relevant costs involved. In addition, task
identity possible positive, moderate relationship between external motivation and effort. In
Support participants believe that inspirational revelations may enhance individual motivation
and inner focus (internal, comprehensive and determined and shooting motive), and in the
relationship between efforts.
3
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Employees having a significantly higher level of job autonomy while deciding on what
Key performance indicators they have to work, how they will complete their task and what are
the expected work opinions which are perceived by their seniors (A. N. Turner & Lawrence,
1965). According to observed researches and facts it has been illustrated that significantly
positive relationship between various employee’s behavior in the organization and job
autonomy like tendency to act proactively (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006).
Subsequent investigate has mainly focused on the character knowledge sharing
relationship among autonomy and feedback by Foss, Minbaeva, Pedersen and Reinholt (2009).
In context of Karachi, Pakistan this study gap recognition establishment on association of
Introjected motivation and its impact on employee performance. The purpose of this study is
to the significant of Introjected motivation, autonomy, and feedback of knowledge sharing
behavior in the small and medium enterprises based on industry in Karachi.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1. The first objective of the study is to analyze the impact of a good feedback given by
the manager to its employee and how this affects the knowledge sharing behavior of
the employee
2. The second objective of the study is to discover the impact of level of Introjected
motivation of employee on knowledge sharing behavior of employee in the workplace.
3. The third objective of the study is to identify the impact of autonomy given to employee
during work on knowledge sharing behavior of an employee.
4. The fourth objective of this study is to investigate the impact of task identity for a given
task to an employee on his knowledge sharing behavior.
5.
4
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.4 Research Question
This research aims to answer the following questions:
i. What is the impact of job autonomy on employee knowledge sharing behavior?
ii. What is the impact of task identity on employee knowledge sharing behavior?
iii. What is the impact of feedback on employee knowledge sharing behavior?
iv. What is the impact of employee introjected motivation on employee knowledge sharing
behavior?
1.5 Scope of the Research
This study inspects to provide a structure to the organizations via human resource
management how to develop their human resource and increased their skills. Practices of
Human Resource are crucial as they play a very significant role. This research underlies the
issue related to upper management understanding regarding HR practices. Knowledge sharing
frequently engages reciprocal interactions amongst individuals, as well as sending and
receiving knowledge. It is a relational act based on a sender-receiver association that
incorporates communicating one’s knowledge to others as well as receiving others’ knowledge
(Hooff & Weenen, 2004). Pragmatically this study will help the management to help
employees in work adjustment and to design their work in a way that their job satisfaction will
increase with high motivation level which will help them in sharing knowledge among
employees.
5
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.6 Delimitation of the Study
Due to short time only three characteristics of job characteristics models are considered
in this study, however, there are two more characteristics which are skill verity and task
significance which might have made this research more strengthen but due to time constraints
only three are considered. The participants of this research are the people working in different
organizations with officers and above grades.
1.7 Descriptive Definitions of Key Terms
While the descriptive definition is abstract and general in nature, and drawn from
theoretical literature, the operational definition is concretely expressed in the context of your
own research, and specifies clearly how the variable will be measured in your study. (Sani,
2016, p. 131)
1.7.1 Autonomy
Hackman and Oldham (1976), p. 258 illustrated this variable as how much the
occupation provides generous opportunity, autonomy and circumspection to the person in
planning the work and in deciding the techniques to be utilized as a part of doing it. This
variable explains the degree of freedom a job provides an employee to work with more
creativity and relaxation.
1.7.2 Task Identity
Hackman and Oldham (1975) explained this variable as how much the occupation
requires finishing of an entire work that is, doing a task from start to finish with an obvious
result. This variable focuses on the completion of an entire task with a observable result not to
leave the work incomplete.
6
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.7.3 Feedback
Ashford and Cummings (1983) discussed this variable as words that advise people in
the workplace, how well they have accomplished their objectives and task given to them. It
can also be explained as an approach to make people think about what others perceive about
their conduct and achievements.
1.7.4 Introjected Motivation
Deci and Ryan (1995) defined this variable as a product of the introjection process in
which individuals firmly adopt outer norms of self-esteem and social endorsement without
completely relating to them. This means that introjected motivation encourages an employee
to perform a task not because it has to be done, but because he feels that if it is not done there
will be a feeling of sorrow or guilt.
1.7.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior
(Lin et al., 2009) asserted this variable as any kind of knowledge which is spread or
transferred from one person to another. Knowledge whether positive or negative can be shared
by anybody to anyone it depends how the listener interprets it.
1.8 Summary of the chapter
In the above chapter the background of the study is explained from where the variables
are taken reason for selecting these variables. What are the problems which are required to
address. How much work or research has been done previously on the variables. Brief
definition of variables is also mentioned in this chapter.
7
Fall 2018 REG #30929
1.9 Organization of the Study
 Chapter I: Covers the background of the study along with problem statement.
Research objectives and research questions are also discussed. Significance of
the study is also highlighted and descriptive definitions of the desired variables
are also explained. The chapter is concluded with a short summary of what has
been discussed in this chapter.
 Chapter II: Theoretical background of the study is explained along with the
hypothesis. Literature reviews are also discussed in this chapter and a
hypothesized model of the current study is also shown. The chapter is concluded
with a short summary of what has been discussed in this chapter.
 Chapter III: Here research approach is explained along with research design
and the purpose of using this research is discussed. Research instrument is
discussed as the questionnaire is adapted so items of variables are taken from
different papers which is discussed. Then face and content validity of the
questionnaire is also discussed. Statistical model of the current study is also
discussed. Then data collection procedure is also explained along with the
sample size taken for this study. Ethical consideration is also explained.
 Chapter IV: It has detail analysis of research data, the hypothesis are tested
through statistical techniques. Respondent profile is also discussed along with
descriptive statistics.
 Chapter V: It covers the section of critical debate regarding results, Then PLS
Path model is shown with evaluation of measurement model along with
discussion of each hypothesis linked with the results.
8
Fall 2018 REG #30929
 Chapter VI: Conclusion of the study is explained along with recommendation
and future research.
9
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Knowledge sharing assumes a vital part in building mindfulness among representatives
in an association if this is done in a positive way this will help them in getting attention to what
will be going on in their working environment and in view of which they will work all the
more productively with high motivational level for the improvement of the association. Taking
after being some past reviews which demonstrate the effect of task characteristic, autonomy,
feedback, and introjected inspiration for learning sharing conduct of representatives in a firm.
2.2 Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.2.1 Autonomy and Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Self-governance is something which is imperative when we discuss a representative in
an organization worker ought to be sufficiently given opportunity so that he or she can work
autonomously. Self-rule has an extremely solid association with introjected inspiration since
when the representative is given flexibility and is permitted to work with claim style his
motivational increments.
As clarified in the Job trademark show by Hackman and Oldham (1976) expressed that
there are five center employment qualities (aptitude assortment, errand character, assignment
centrality, independence and criticism) influences three pivotal mental States (encountered the
importance of results and the genuine aftereffects of an abundance of information and
experience is in charge of), which thus influence the outcomes (work fulfillment, non-
10
Fall 2018 REG #30929
appearance, work inspiration, and so on.). Five center occupation qualities can be joined to
frame potential motivating force to score (MPS) a vocation, can be utilized as a file of how
likely a vocation is influencing representative mentalities and practices. Henceforth the
accompanying theory is recommended:
Hypothesis 1: The greater degree of autonomy provided by the job the more employee will
tend to have knowledge sharing behavior.
2.2.2 Task Identity and Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Task personality concerns identifying with a work or an occupation, others describe
furthermore taking after strategies which they make sense of. Delineating work according to
this business arrangement estimation is along these lines include to incorporate certain
suspicions regarding how the endeavor should be comprehended and moreover its execution
comes about. Exactly when a specialist identifies with his or her assignments, in any case, the
individual may mask external demands and longings so that he or she no longer needs outside
conceivable outcomes to incite the wanted lead (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Henceforth the
accompanying speculation is delineated:
Hypothesis 2: The highest level of task identity provided by a certain task or job the more will
be knowledge sharing.
2.2.3 Feedback and Knowledge Sharing Behavior
A critical instance of the general correspondence in which a man a passes on a message
to the beneficiary (Ilgen et al., 1979). This case incorporates data about the individual receiving
that data and an a few articulations about his past or past execution. Criticism itself has no
energy to rouse yet rather through its association with set objectives. For targets are viable,
people need to order input uncovers advance towards their objectives. In the event that there
11
Fall 2018 REG #30929
are no data on its execution, it is difficult to make changes in their level of execution and create
execution technique for accomplishing the objective. Thus the accompanying speculation is
anticipated as:
Hypothesis 3: Feedback positively impacts on knowledge sharing behavior.
2.2.4 Introjected Motivation and Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Representatives incited by introjection are restless for keeping up and enhancing
considerations of significance in their gatherings (Koestner and Losier, 2002). In an
organization doing a task that is socially commendable and that other definitive individuals see
as proper transforms into a prime mover of the agent's exercises. Clearly this sort of inspiration
is emphatically identified with learning sharing conduct. This will help and drove worker in
involving in knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005). Moreover, if the worker needs to get fit in
the earth and individuals he needs to comprehend what his or directors need from him.
Henceforth the accompanying theory is recommended:
Hypothesis 4: the more employees are highly motivated the more they will share knowledge
among others
2.3 Review of Related Studies
Acoording to Stenius, (2016) the study examined how the nature of inspiration predicts
learning, sharing, how the nature of inspiration predicts the nature of information sharing and
whether the nature of inspiration to impart information is related to learning withholding. It is
an overview based review, which was directed in an expansive open segment master
association in Finland. There are the reliant factors utilized as a part of this exploration which
are Knowledge Sharing in work gatherings, Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge
withholding and the three factors are inborn, identified, introjected and outer inspiration. The
12
Fall 2018 REG #30929
information was gathered utilizing a Webropol Online Survey and it took a time of three weeks.
The hypothesis connected in this exploration is Self Determination Theory. The Research
reasoned that recognized inspiration, the feeling of significance, was the most imperative
motivational driver of KS in work gatherings. The feeling of significance was likewise the best
indicator of the nature of KS, and besides, it was contrarily connected with the propensity to
withhold information. Despite what might be expected, outer inspiration, a desire that there
must be something to pick up from sharing, was not in the least connected with KS. It was, be
that as it may, emphatically connected with information withholding. The creators additionally
proposed that considering the nature of inspiration are especially vital for information based
work so more research is expected to see how the nature of inspiration impacts learning
sharing. This review utilized a scope of characteristics of inspiration, and discovered them to
contrastingly anticipate KS in work gatherings. In this manner a more nuanced
conceptualization of inspiration to incorporate the in a matter of seconds under examined
inspirational qualities, recognized and introjected inspiration, is defended in future research.
Yousaf, Yang and Sanders (2015) examined the basic linkages between workers
natural/extraneous inspiration and their errand/logical execution in a Pakistani medicinal
services and instructive setting. Workers' full of feeling word related and hierarchical duties
were proposed as arbiters to clarify these connections in this exploration. The information was
gathered from 181 specialists from a Pakistani healing facility and 135 scholastics from a
Pakistani college and broke down utilizing Baron and Kenney (1986) approach and the
Preacher and Hayes (2008) bootstrapping approach for testing numerous middle people at the
same time. The autonomous factors utilized as a part of this exploration are a characteristic
inspiration (IM) and outward inspiration (EM) where as the reliant factors are assignment
13
Fall 2018 REG #30929
execution and relevant execution. An intervening variable is likewise utilized as a part of this
exploration which is ACS-OCC and ACS-ORC. The exploration discoveries proposed that
there is a much more grounded relationship amongst IM and TP than amongst EM and TP.
The relationship amongst EM and CP was more grounded than the one amongst IM and CP.
These discoveries affirm our desire that diverse sorts of motivational introductions are
associated with various sorts of representative execution (Callahanet al., 2003). They have, be
that as it may, never been inspected in the Pakistani social setting. The affirmation of these
discoveries hence gives a culturally diverse approval.
Acoording to Zhao and Zhu (2014) the study investigated the class of inspiration in the
light of self-assurance hypothesis and combines different inspiration calculates swarm
sourcing challenges. Then, saw motivational agreement and undertaking granularity are
additionally analyzed as the direct development. This paper has developed a theoretical
structure to demonstrate the connections between different inspirations (extraneous and
characteristic) and investment exertion under the directing of saw motivational agreement and
errand granularity. An exact review is led to test the examination show by studying the Chinese
members of group sourcing challenges. The hypothesis utilized as a part of this exploration is
Self Determination Theory. The autonomous factors utilized as a part of this examination are
outer, introjected, recognized, incorporated and inborn inspiration and ward variable utilized
as a part of this exploration is Participation exertion. The exploration presumed that different
inspirations may assume diverse parts in identifying with supports exertion exhausted in the
group sourcing challenges. In addition, errand granularity may decidedly direct the relationship
between outer inspiration and supports exertion. The outcomes additionally demonstrate that
supporting of a member's apparent motivational understanding may fortify the relationship
14
Fall 2018 REG #30929
between the individual's inspiration with an inside concentration (inherent, coordinated,
distinguished and introjected inspiration) and investment exertion.
Zhang, Zhang, Song and Gong (2016). Analyzed the point by point relations amongst
inspiration and work executed under the casing of self-assurance hypothesis and to investigate
whether very much disguised outward inspiration would have a more pleasant organization
with work execution than natural inspiration in the working environment. This review was
done amid the period April 2014 to July in 2014. Members for this review were 541
representatives and their chiefs from a few organizations in China, particularly Beijing and
Hainan. The autonomous factors utilized as a part of this examination are characteristic,
introjected, broad, distinguished and direction inspirations where are the reliant variable
utilized as a part of this exploration is representative execution. The examination reasoned that
recognized direction assumed a main part in anticipating an expansion in work execution sorts.
Bauer and Mulder (2006) planned to see if the likelihood to give upward criticism to
administrators adds to the workers' sentiments of self-assurance. This ought to just be the
situation if the subordinates see the likelihood to give criticism as a genuine probability of
impact and change. The review was directed in the coordinations branch of an innovative
industrial undertaking in Germany. The quantities of the members were 76 workers, which
were gotten to by an agent of the venture and partook willfully. The evaluation was led through
survey. The three factors in this examination are upward critical, saw nature of the upward
input, representatives characteristic need fulfillment, the nature of inspiration and engagement
at work where as the needy factors are learning of administrators, understood learning and self
coordinated learning. The exploration inferred that the apparent nature of the upward criticism
is connected decidedly to self-assurance. Representatives who see the upward input as a
15
Fall 2018 REG #30929
possibility for enhancing their working conditions additionally see more support of self-rule,
fitness and social relatedness in their working environment.
Dobbelaer, Prins and Dongen (2013) investigated that whether oral criticism by
investigators of the Dutch Inspectorate of Education is a sufficient technique to bolster the
expert advancement of instructors in essential training. This review is meant to look at the
effect of short criticism preparing for investigators (concentrated on viable input, discussions)
on input quality and on educators' criticism recognition. Furthermore, it intends to concentrate
the connection between prompt observation and the postponed impression of that criticism.
The information was gathered through poll from 15 grade school overseers (ten female, five
male). The neediness variable utilized as a part of this exploration is a proficient improvement
while the autonomous factors are criticism preparing, discernment and diverse sorts of input.
The exploration discoveries show that input gave via prepared controllers can encourage
proficient improvement of educators in essential instruction and that short criticism preparing
has included esteem. The nature of the criticism by controllers was identified with an
instructors' quick impression of the input and the postponed view of the criticism. A restriction
of this review is the little gathering of overseers and the set number of input discussions they
could give. Additionally, research could be gone from looking at the effect of criticism of
prepared assessors on the expert advancement of failing to meet expectations educators.
Heo and Toomey (2015) explored the effect of framework produced visual input and
proceeded with commitment on people's inspiration to share information in a group sourcing
environment. A trial setting was intended to examine members' inspiration to contribute
learning in a group sourcing environment. Reactions from a sum of 101 members were
dissected. The three factors were visual input and time. The reliant variable was the members'
16
Fall 2018 REG #30929
self-communicated ability to additionally contribute in the exploratory information sharing
movement. The fundamental hypothesis which we’re connected and centered through this
exploration was self-assurance hypothesis. The analysts found a huge fundamental impact of
time was discovered, demonstrating general picks up in the mean ability to partake after some
time. It was likewise found that the mean readiness of the control and top absorption gatherings
were higher than the mean ability of the rank difference and status bunches. The mean contrast
got for the control gathering was predominantly amid the principal half of the information
sharing errands, while the mean distinction got for the top osmosis gathering was for the most
part amid the second 50% of the learning sharing undertakings.
According to Aggarwal and Bhargava (2009) the study intended to look at mental
contract substance, as saw by two gatherings of the work relationship, the worker and the
business. The review is led in two stages. Ponder 1 utilizes a basic rate method (CIT) to inspire
from people their observations in regards to association commitments. Consider 2 is intended
to authenticate the discoveries of the primary review through a study of 401 workers and 66
boss delegates. The consequences of the two reviews are consonant with existing writing; in
any case the part of culture on mental contract substance is noticeable. The review uncovers a
variety in representative and business point of view with respect to hierarchical commitments.
The review likewise reasoned that representatives attribute awesome significance to
individuals in power and considered their managers and prompt directors as supplier and
parental figure of their needs and interests. As far as the relative significance of mental
contract, it was found that representatives basically anticipate that the association will give
them chances for development and advancement openings and work culture took after by pay,
advantages and asset accessibility.
17
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Zabielske, Urbanaviciute, and Bagdziuniene (2015) look at the part of pro-social and
characteristic inspiration and their association in anticipating representatives' authoritative
citizenship conduct (OCB) and its measurements. The information was gathered from by and
large, 884 salaried representatives from Lithuanian open division organization the general
reaction rate was 85 percent. When all is said in done, the example comprised of 814 (92 for
each penny) ladies, and 70 (8 for every penny) of men. The reactions were measured utilizing
a five-point Likert-sort scale.
2.4 Variables to be examined
2.4.1 Dependent Variable
 Knowledge Sharing Behavior:
Besically as knowledge is very important for the internal employees to be set in
one part. In the resource based view of any organization knowledge sharing is one of
the strategically important resource of that firm. (“Bart van den Hoff and Femke de
Leeuw van Weenen,” 2004.) Knowledge sharing has very great impact on the employee
behavior and its work practices, motivational level and devotion towards that.
Consistently from above discussed literature it is presented that authority to work,
decision taking and feedback has positive relation with the dependent variable
Knowledge sharing behavior but can be on the negative side as well because of these
variables.
18
Fall 2018 REG #30929
2.4.2 Independent Variable
Opportunities to measure and share knowledge sharing on aspects are mentioned
below:
 Auntonomy
 Task Identity
 Introjected Motivation
 Feedback
2.5 Research Hypothesis
2.5.1 Hypothesis 1
 Ho1: Autonomy has insignificant impact on knowledge sharing behavior.

 Ha1: Autonomy has significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior.
H2: Highest level of Task Identity more is the Knowledge sharing
H3: Feedback positively impacts on knowledge sharing behavior.
H4: High Motivational level high is knowledge sharing
19
Fall 2018 REG #30929
2.6 Conceptual Framework
Knowledge
Sharing
Behavior
20
Fall 2018 REG #30929
In the previous chapter, we explained the theoretical context in which the theoretical
relationship of each independent variable with dependent variable is shown. Analyzes of
several literatures related to the above mentioned variables are also presented in this chapter.
Finally a hypothetical model is also presented, in which the relationship between each variable
and hypothesis is illustrated.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Methodology is a broad theory for determining what are the different technique is
systematic, theoretical analysis method to a field of study. It includes the methods and
principles of theoretical analysis and a branch of knowledge. Typically, it contains concepts
such as paradigm and quantitative or qualitative, theoretical models, stage technology
3.1 Research Approach
According to the Yang (2006), quantitative type of research make easy for the
researcher to generalize the result so in this study quantitative study approach is used for this
particular research. This approach is by and large allied with the positivist and post positivist
ideal model. It normally includes collection and converting of data into numerical form as to
apply calculation on the data for analysis in order to get some results and conclusions. Data is
collected by following some specific and strict process and used for statistical study. Nature of
21
Fall 2018 REG #30929
the study is causal research. The results obtain helps the research to interpret the relation
amongst the variables studied. This research approach is used to determine the relationship
between the dependent variable Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and the independent variables
which are Job Autonomy, Task Identity, Feedback and Introjcted Motivation.
3.2 Research Design
The research design of this study is quantitative in nature, followed by a cross-sectional
research approach.
3.3 Research Population:
The collection of the data is formed by primary resource. The target audience has been
gathered from the employees of petroleum industry of Karachi. The allocated size of the
sample is 200 respondents.
3.4 Data and Sampling
The study is based on petroleum industry. For current study, Karachi is selected as a
geographical location because it is difficult to collect data from all over Pakistan due to the
shortage of time and financial issues. Primary data is collected for the analysis of this study.
Non-probability convenience sampling technique is used for choosing the sample; it means
that since the population is not defined therefore researcher selected randomly those
respondents for the sample which are easily approachable and accessible. The sample size
collected was 200 respondents as per prove that Sekaran (2003). Simple random technique is
used and the data is collected through self-administrative and online survey.
22
Fall 2018 REG #30929
3.5 Research Instrument
3.5.1 Job Autonomy
To measure job autonomy, the study used six items which were adapted from
(Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). There were no subscales. Each respondent was asked to rate
how extensively they found their managers involved in these six behaviors. The sample item
includes “The job allows me to make my own decisions about how to schedule my work”, and
“The job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative or judgment in carrying out the work.”
The six items were rated on a five point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
3.5.2 Task Identity
To measure task identity, the study used six items which were adapted from
(Morgeson& Humphrey, 2006). There were no subscales. Each respondent was asked to rate
how they found their managers involved in these six behaviors. The sample items includes
“The job involves completing a piece of work that has an obvious beginning and end”, and
“The opportunity to do a job from the beginning to the end.” The six items were rated on a five
point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.5.3 Feedback
To measure feedback, the study used five items which were adapted from (Morgeson
and Humphrey, 2006). There were no subscales. Each respondent was asked to rate how they
found their managers involved in these 6 behaviors. The sample items included “The work
activities themselves provide direct and clear information about the effectiveness of my job
23
Fall 2018 REG #30929
performance”, and “The job itself provides me with information about my performance.” The
six items were rated on a five point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
3.5.4 Introjected Motivation
To measure introjected motivation, the study used 5 items which were adapted from
(Foss et al 2009 ;Amabile, 1994). There were no subscales. The respondents were asked to
rate how they saw their managers involved in these six behaviors. The sample items included
“I think it is an important part of my job”, and “I want my superior to think I am a good
employee.” The six items were rated on a five point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree).
3.5.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior
To measure knowledge sharing behavior, the study used five items which were adapted
from (Foss et al 2009). There were no subscales. The respondents were asked to rate how they
saw their managers involved in these five behaviors. The sample item included “To what extent
you have received the knowledge from your colleagues in your own department”, “I will share
my work reports and official documents with my organizational members more frequently in
the future.” The five items were rated on a five point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree).
3.6 Face and Content Validity of the Instrument
The research instrument (questionnaire) has been validated by 3 indusrty experts of
public and private renowned companies. Each of them has a core HR experience of nine to ten
years. Their ages are between 30 years to 50 years.
24
Fall 2018 REG #30929
3.7 Reliability of the Measuring Scale
To validate the reliability of measuring scale means make sure the internal uniformity
of questionnaire. First thing to make sure reliability is to check the length of the scale that
should cover items as much as possible to give representation of sampling of whole domain of
opinions about the attitudinal object (Ary et al., 2013). To achieve satisfactory reliability (often
above 0.80), items should be well constructed and lie within 20 to 22 number of items (Ary et
al., 2013).
3.8 Statistical Model of the Study
KSB = α + β1 (JA) + β2 (TI) + β3 (F) + β4 (IM)
Where: KS = Knowledge Sharing Behavior
JA = Job Autonomy
TI = Task Identity
F = Feedback
IM = Introjected Motivation
α = Constant
β = Coefficient of variables
3.9 Data Collection
The data is collected from the employees belonging from petroleum industry within
Karachi. Self-administered survey as well as online survey is used for this study.
3.10 Data Analysis Method
The data was analyzed using the software SPSS. The tools that were applied for
analysis are, Descriptive statistics to generate frequency tables for demographic variables and
25
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Correlation is used to assess the strength of relationship among the variables. Linear regression
which helps to predict a dependent variable through independent variables. It tests the impact
of several independent variables on a dependent variable.
In this chapter the method through which research will be conducted is written. What
techniques will be used, what will be the target population. Statistical model of the research is
also shown in this chapter. Each variable is defined in this chapter
26
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
In this research the statistical software SPSS 2.0 is used for conducting tests for checking the
reliability of the proposed questionnaire, the relationship and significance existing between the
variables autonomy, task identity, feedback and motivation (independent variable) and
knowledge sharing behavior (dependent variable). The result indicates that there is positive
relationship between two variables. There were 400 questionnaires filled out of 800 through
which we have computed variables. It also demonstrated the reliability of each variable,
regression and correlation of each construct to one another.
4.1 Respondent Profile
The following below mentioned tables of respondents profile shows the frequency and
percentage of demographic elements. Such as age, gender, experience, job function,
management level and marital status.
Table 4.1.1 Age of Respondents
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 20-25 73 34.1 34.1 34.1
26-30 90 42.1 42.1 76.2
31-35 24 11.2 11.2 87.4
36-40 12 5.6 5.6 93.0
41-45 12 5.6 5.6 98.6
46-50 3 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 214 100.0 100.0
Interpretation :
27
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.1-1 represents that 34.1% respondents lie between 20-25 years of age group,
42.1% respondents lie betwee26-30 years of age group, 11.2% respondents lie
between 31-35 years of age group, 5.6% respondents lie between 41-45 years of
respondents and 1.4% respondents lie between 46-50 years of age group.
Table 4.1-2 Gender of Respondents
Gender
Cumulative
Valid Male 121 56.5 56.5 56.5
Female 93 43.5 43.5 100.0
Total 214 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
Table 4.1-2 displays that 56.5% respondents are male and 43.5% respondents are female.
Table 4.1-3 Marital Status of Respondents
Martial Status
Cumulative
Valid Married 69 32.2 32.2 32.2
Unmarried 145 67.8 67.8 100.0
Total 214 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
28
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.1-3 shows that among 214 respondents 32.2% are married and 67.8% are unmarried.
Table 4.1-4 Job Function of Respondents
Job Function
Cumulative
Valid General Management 24 11.2 11.3 11.3
Marketing/Sales/services 30 14.0 14.1 25.4
Operations/ Engineering/
27 12.6 12.7 38.0
Technical
Accounts/finance 24 11.2 11.3 49.3
Human Resource/
42 19.6 19.7 69.0
Administration
IT/ Education/ Training/
24 11.2 11.3 80.3
Research
Other 42 19.6 19.7 100.0
Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
Interpretation:
Table 4.1-4 related to job function shows that 11.2% respondents belongs to General
Management, 14% belongs to Marketing/Sales/Services, 12.6% belongs to
Operation/Engineering/Technical, 11.2% belongs to Accounts/Finance, 19.6% belongs to
Human Resource/ Administration, 11.2% belongs to IT/Training/Research and 19.6% belongs
to other.
Table 4.1-5 Experience of Respondents
29
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Experience
Cumulative
Valid Less than a year 27 12.6 12.7 12.7
1-3 years 84 39.3 39.4 52.1
4-6 years 54 25.2 25.4 77.5
7-9 years 18 8.4 8.5 85.9
10-12 years 12 5.6 5.6 91.5
13-15 years 6 2.8 2.8 94.4
over 15 years 12 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
Interpretation:
Table 4.1-5 shows that 12.6% respondents have less than one year experience, 39.3%
respondents have 1-3 year experience, 25.2% respondents have 4-6 years’ experience, 8.4%
respondents have 7-9 years’ experience, 5.6% respondents have 10-12 years’ experience, 2.8%
respondents have 13-15 year experience and 5.6% respondents have over 15 years’ experience.
Table 4.1-6 Management Level of Respondents
Management Level
Cumulative
Valid Junior 66 30.8 31.0 31.0
Middle 126 58.9 59.2 90.1
Top 15 7.0 7.0 97.2
Other 6 2.8 2.8 100.0
Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
30
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Interpretation:
Table 4.1-6 shows that out of the respondents 30.8% respondents belongs to Junior
Management Level, 58.9% respondents belongs to Middle Management Level, 7%
respondents belongs to Top Management Level and 2.8% belongs to other Level.
4.1-7 Frequency Tables of Independent and Dependent Variables
Table 4.1-7a Autonomy
Autonomy
Cumulative
Valid Disagree 30 14.0 14.1 14.1
Neutral 57 26.6 26.8 40.8
Agree 99 46.3 46.5 87.3
Strongly Agree 27 12.6 12.7 100.0
Total 213 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
According to the table 4.1-7a, it illustrates that the large percentage regarding respondents
opinion showed as agree with 46.5% and some of them show 46.5% neutral opinions while
just only few of the respondents gave response as strongly agree and disagree.
Table 4.1.7b Task Identity
TaskIdentity
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly
3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Disagree
Disagree 6 2.8 2.8 4.2
Neutral 63 29.4 29.6 33.8
Agree 117 54.7 54.9 88.7
31
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Strongly Agree 24 11.2 11.3 100.0

Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
Interpretation:
According to the table 4.1-7b, it illustrates that the largest percentage regarding respondents
opinion showed as agree with 54.7% and some of them show 29.4% neutral opinions while
just only few of the respondents gave response as strongly agree, disagree and Strongly
disagree.
Table 4.1-7c Feedback
feedback
Valid Cumulative
Valid Strongly
3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Disagree
Disagree 15 7.0 7.0 8.5
Neutral 75 35.0 35.2 43.7
Agree 99 46.3 46.5 90.1
Strongly Agree 21 9.8 9.9 100.0
Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
Interpretation:
According to the table 4.1-7c, it illustrates that the largest percentage regarding respondents
opinion showed as agree 46.3% and some of them show 35% neutral opinions while just only
few of the respondents gave response as strongly agree, disagree and Strongly disagree.
32
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.1-7d Introjected Motivation
motivation
Valid Cumulative
Valid Strongly
3 1.4 1.4 1.4
Disagree
Disagree 12 5.6 5.6 7.0
Neutral 48 22.4 22.5 29.6
Agree 126 58.9 59.2 88.7
Strongly Agree 24 11.2 11.3 100.0
Total 213 100.0 100.0
Interpretation:
opinion showed as agree 58.9% and some of them show 22.4% neutral opinions while just
only few of the respondents gave response as strongly agree, disagree and strongly disagree.
Table 4.1-7e Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Knowlegdesahring
Frequenc Valid Cumulative
y Percent Percent Percent
Valid Strongly
6 2.8 2.8 2.8
Disagree
Disagree 9 4.2 4.2 7.0
Neutral 45 21.0 21.1 28.2
Agree 99 46.3 46.5 74.6
Strongly Agree 54 25.2 25.4 100.0
Total 213 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 214 100.0
Interpretation:
33
Fall 2018 REG #30929
opinion showed as agree 46.3% and some of them show 25.2% strongly agree while just only
few of the respondents gave response as nutral, disagree and strongly disagree.
4.2 Reliability Test
Among all the test Cronbach alpha is the most extensively used tool for describing interior
consistency. The regularity, consistency and stability of the benefits are evaluated by a
reliability test. It represents the internal coherence of elements and the proximity between
them. The Cronbach alpha for each 5 variables is calculated which include both dependent and
independent variable.
Reliability Test of Independent Variables:

Four independent varibales are assessed for reliability test that are shown below:
Reliability Test of Autonomy

Table 4.2-1 Autonomy
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.892 6
Interpretation:
The Cronbach`s alpha of question of autonomy is 0.892 which is higher than 0.6 having 6
questions, It indicates high reliability of internal items.
Reliability Test of Task Identity

Table 4.2-2 Task Identity
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
34
Fall 2018 REG #30929
.865 5
Interpretation:
The Cronbach`s alpha of question of task identity is 0.865 which is higher than 0.6 having 5
indicates high reliability of internal items.
Reliability Test of Feedback

Table 4.2-3 Feedback
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.772 6
Interpretation:
Reliability Test of Motivation

Table 4.2-4 Introjected Motivation
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.794 5
Interpretation:
Reliability Test of Dependent Variables:

Following table shows the Cronbach`s alpha of dependent variable that is knowledge sharing
behavior.
35
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.2-5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.888 5
Interpretation:
In the dependent variable Knowledge Sharing Behavior, reliability test by using the
Cronbach`s alpha method we can predict that it indicates very good and powerful internal
consistency which is 0.888 or KSB is greater than 0.6 that is 0.888 for 5 question. It reveals
that reliability of internal items.
Reliability Test Summary
Table 4.2-6 Reliability Test Summary
Construct Cronbach’s No. of

alpha items
Autonomy .892 6
Task identity .865 5
Feedback .772 6
Introjected Motivation .794 5
Knowledge Sharing .888 5
Interpretation
The value of Cronbach`s alpha for autonomy is 0.892 which elaborates that the data is highly
reliable to each other. Task identity Cronbach`s alpha is is higher than 0.6 that is 0.65 for five
questions, its demonstrate the high reliability of internal items. Feedback and Introjected
36
Fall 2018 REG #30929
motivation both have Cronbach`s alpha greater than 0.6 showing high reliability that is 0.772
and 0.798 respectively. In Dependent variable Knowledge sharing, reliability test by using the
Cronbach`s alpha method we can predict that it indicate in positive or high internal consistency
which is 0.888.
4.3 Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing will help in differentiation between the null hypothesis and the alternatie
hypothesis. The rejection of the null hypothesis is bsased on the p value given in the table.
Things to consider while hypothesis testing are regression model analysis to dertermine the
relationship between (dependent Variables) autonomy, task identity,feedback and introjected
motivation with knowledge sharing behavior (independent variable).
The strength of correlation
Table 4.3-1
Below given table show the ranges and its strength level:
Range Strength of
Association
0.81-1.00 Very Strong
0.61-0.80 Strong
0.41-0.60 Medium
0.21-.40 Weak
0.00-0.20 None
37
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.3-2 Correlation of Hypothesis
CORRELATION
Variable N Means Std. Deviation 1 2 3 4
Autonomy 1 213 3.5775 0.88481 1
Task Identity 2 213 3.7183 0.75579 0.562 1
Feedback 3 213 3.5634 0.81956 0.486 0.349 1
Motivation 4 213 3.7324 0.78832 0.567 0.514 0.585 1
Knowledge 5 213 3.8732 0.93561 0.533 0.53 0.529 0.606
Sharing
Above correlation table shows the relationships among the dependent and independent
variables.
4.1.1 Hypothesis 1
Ha1: Autonomy has significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior
The correlation of autonomy on knowledge sharing behavior interprets that there is medium
significant level between the variables and a positive correlation (r=0.533, p<0.01). This
correlation analysis supports that the autonomy has a significant positive relationship with
knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, Ho1 is supported.
4.1.2 Hypothesis 2
Ha2: Task Identity has significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior
The correlation of task identity on knowledge sharing behavior interprets that there is medium
correlation analysis supports that the task identity has a significant positive relationship with
4.1.3 Hypothesis 3
Ha3: Feedback has significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior
38
Fall 2018 REG #30929
The correlation of feedback on knowledge sharing behavior interprets that there is medium
correlation analysis supports that the feedback has a significant positive relationship with
4.1.4 Hypothesis 4
Ha4: Introjected Motivation has significant impact on knowledge sharing behavior
The correlation of introjected motivation on knowledge sharing behavior interprets that there
is medium significant level between the variables and a positive correlation (r=0.606, p<0.01).
This correlation analysis supports that the introjected motivation has a significant positive
relationship with knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, Ho4 is supported.
4.4 Regression Analysis
The analysis of the regression model considers in the hypothesis tests the formation of a
relation between the independent and the dependent variable. In this autonomy, task identity,
feedback, introjected motivation are dependent variables and independent variable is
knowledge sharing behavior. Regression is one of those techniques that quantifies the
relationship between variables that is independent and dependent variables. There can be two
or more independent variable. This test helps to analyze whether a given model is adjusted and
to what extent the dependent variable can be predicted by its predictor, i.e an independent
variable.
Regression covers three components
i. Model Summary
ii. ANOVA Table
iii. Co-efficient Table
39
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Table 4.4-1 Regression
REGGRESSION
Model Beta T Sig.
Constant 0.119 0.905
Autonomy 0.114 1.754 0.081
Task Identity 0.234 3.835 0
Feedback 0.317 5.18 0
Motivation 0.236 3.497 0.001
R Square 0.515
Adjusted R 0.506
square
F (Sig.) 55.251
Dependent Variable : Knowledge Sharing
Behavior
Interpretation
As shown in the above mentioned table 4.4-1 , The R Square of model is 0.515 means that this
explains 51.5% of the variance in knowledge sharing behavior. In this test significant
probability value p = (0.081) and signifies that autonomy explain insignificantly knowledge
sharing behavior. The significance value of autonomy is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05) which
means that autonomy is not a useful estimator of KSB.
In this test significant probability value p = (0) and signifies that task identity explain
significantly knowledge sharing behavior. The significance value of task identity is less than
0.05 (p<0.05) which means that task identity is a useful estimator of KSB.
In this test significant probability value p = (0) and signifies that feedback explain significantly
knowledge sharing behavior. The significance value of feedback is less than 0.05 (p<0.05)
which means that feedback is a useful estimator of KSB.
40
Fall 2018 REG #30929
In this test significant probability value p = (0.01) and signifies that introjected motivation
explain significantly knowledge sharing behavior. The significance value of introjected
motivation is less than 0.05 (p<0.05) which means that feedback is a useful estimator of KSB.
In referring to Table 4.4-1, the largest standardized coefficient beta is 0.317, which is
contributed by feedback, followed by the introjected motivation, which has a beta coefficient
of 0.236. This indicates that feedback has a stronger unique contribution in explaining the
dependent variable compared to introjected motivation values, task identity with 0.234 and
autonomy with 0.114 indicating contribution with dependent variable. Each variable except
autonomy make a significant contribution to the prediction of the dependent variable, as the
significant value for rest of the three variables is less than 0.05.
4.5 Summary of Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
There is a significant impact of Regression Reject the

autonomy on knowledge sharing Analysis 0.081 Hypothesis
behavior
There is a significant impact of Regression 0 Accept the

task identity on knowledge Analysis Hypothesis
sharing behavior
There is a significant impact of Regression 0 Accept the

feedback on knowledge sharing Analysis Hypothesis
behavior
There is a significant impact of Regression 0.001 Accept the

introjected motivation on Analysis Hypothesis
knowledge sharing behavior
41
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 5
CRITICAL DEBATE
5.1 Discussion
A lot of primary researches has been done on the topic of knowledge sharing behavior with
different illuminating factors of KSB as its is divided into two perspectives reception of
knowledge and transmission of knowledge (Ergün & Avcı, 2018.), Res particularly the job
characteristics on KSB . This section of the research has identified the result that we have
formulated through literature review and statistical analysis to study the effect of factors
autonomy, feedback, task identity, motivation on knowledge sharing behavior.
The four hypothesis we made were tested on the basis of statistical evidence in which three
hypothesis were confirmed and have a significant relationship with knowledge sharing
behavior, while one assumption was rejected, the criteria for acceptance and rejection being
based on the statistical analysis and the result of the data. The general conclusion shows
that employees having task identity amazing feedback and high motivation level share
more knowledge.
5.1.1 Hypothesis 1 Discussion
This section was about the relationship between autonomy and motivation. The hypothesis
we formulated is about the significant impact of autonomy on knowledge sharing behavior.
It is showed; “job autonomy as lagged factor of knowledge delivering and sharing with
others”.(“Sharon K. Parker,” 2006.) Further more in one research it is said “job autonomy
42
Fall 2018 REG #30929
is a source of heterogeneity and depends on the insight of how job design features are
made to gain the advantage from favorable surroundings towards knowledge
sharing”.(“Oscar Llopis-Corcoles & Nicolai J. Foss,” 2012.) As per our regression test we
concluded that past study support this past finding that there is no positive and significant
relationship between autonomy and knowledge sharing behavior.
The second test in this research was about the task identity, the proposed hypotheses is
about the impact of task identity on knowledge sharing behavior. It is find that employees
in jobs with greater number of understanding about job features and task structure shows
high level of knowledge sharing behavior. The identity of the task refers to the degree to
which a job requires the completion of everything and identifiable work, that is doing an
end to end job with a visible result gives you support to share the knowledge. (L. G. Pee,
2011.) A job with a high job identity allows an employee to follow the main steps of
knowledge sharing to other workers. The regression test for this hypothesis come with high
significant level with the given dependent variable that is knowledge sharing behavior.
As like the task identity, feedback which is the important factor of job characteristics, we
consider it our third hypothesis. The formulated hypothesis is about the significant positive
relation with knowledge sharing behavior. It is observed that many pervious research
supports the proposed hypothesis. The role of feedback as verbal reward, there is the
positive reactions of colleagues and supervisors as they motivates the individual to share
43
Fall 2018 REG #30929
their knowledge.(Todorova & Mills, 2014.) Hence, the finding of the current research
proves the same that there is positive significant relation between feedback and knowledge
sharing behavior.
Last test was based on the motivation level of an individual and its impact on the knowledge
sharing behavior. Most of the previous researcher gave us the positive relation of
motivation and knowledge sharing behavior, Motivation of individual persons places a
critical debate on facilitating or preventing the sharing of knowledge, introjected
motivation gets the pleasure and satisfaction resulting from the behavior. Motivation has
been recognized and emphasized in KSB on highest level.(Ergün & Avcı, 2018) The result
shows that there is the positive significant impact of motivation on knowledge sharing
behavior.
44
Fall 2018 REG #30929
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1 Recommendations
The researcher has recognized the special and detached impacts of each of the three
characteristics of job incorporated into the model. This is an improvement of the Hackman &
Oldham (1980) show since we don't take a gander at the joint impacts of these occupation
qualities incorporates two extra characteristics of job our review does not represent to be
specific, aptitude assortment and task significance that could have fortified our model.. The
findings revealed by the researcher here along these lines might be a reflection of organization
and nation particular traits. There is a requirement for further exact reviews utilizing singular
information accumulated from a more extensive assortment of firms to sum up our findings
assist. Still, we are certain that the model created and tried in this examination gives confirm
on the part of HRM practices when all is said in done and work plan specifically, in
representing singular motivation to share information. To test this recommendation advance,
the researcher has to consider a more extensive scope of HRM practices and present more
individual level variables notwithstanding motivation e.g., capacity and opportunity by (Guest,
1997).
6.2 Limitations of the research
The main limitation is the concern over time for the research was very limited. During this
course of research, one of the most difficult problem was the collection of data, as the
employees are not motivated to fill the questionnaire, the allocated time for data collection was
the major constraint.
45
Fall 2018 REG #30929
6.3 Future Research
According to (Grant, 2007), the characteristics of the job are supposed to be considered to be
quite close to the scope of the Hackman & Oldham (1980) labor force. We have accepted and
the request will provide scope for a deeper understanding work factor in the future. It is
beneficial if, for example, such research work includes organizational culture or a more
interpersonal aspect, for example, the best think-tank describes many works according to
current aspects. The researcher increasingly understands the structure, for example the
interdependence of the tasks of (Guzzo & Shea, 1992, Langfred, 2007). The mechanism of the
relational task of (Grant et al., 2008) in the research model is more related to the need for
understanding than that of the design of work in the knowledge sharing function.
6.4 Conclusion
The purpose of this research is to examine the link between autonomy, task identity, feedback,
introjected motivation and knowledge sharing behavior. The result shows that professional
autonomy has anegligible impact on knowledge sharing behavior, the task identity has a
positive impact on knwlodge sharing , feedback on work has a positive impact on the sharing
of knowledge. Introjected motivation has a positive impact on knowledge sharing behavior.
Numerous studies have established the importance of working autonomy by establishing
positive relationships between knowledge sharing and the trend toward performance (Parker,
Wall and Jackson, 1997). In addition, a high degree of autonomy may allow the employee to
free up time for learning and development (Latham & Pinder, 2005: 493). Feedback to work
is another element that experts consider serious for the inspiration, satisfaction and
46
Fall 2018 REG #30929
performance of the worker. Hackman & Oldham (1975) argue that a worker who receives
feedback as a characteristic part of the occupation will tend to meet the previously specified
positive results. The work plan and the quality hypothesis also highlight the importance of
different types of feedback, for example, from the manager and the worker's partners
(Hackman and Oldham, 1975, Sims et al., 1976). the fact that we tried theories using the
general information, to reinforce our conclusions, we triangulated the study in order with
information from two follow-up meetings followed for two hours each with the deputy
director, the leader and the leaders of Pharmaceutical Sector Karachi. The results review was
conducted in two phases. To begin, we presented the results and presented some preparatory
discoveries and reflections on the results. With respect to specific human resources
management practices, we encourage the administration to take extra precautions when
planning jobs to consolidate knowledge sharing systems. In general, it is essential that workers
do not feel weighted or controlled because it could actually affect engagement in knowledge
sharing. Our information has shown that the autonomy of the Director of Representatives can
have this negative impact. The administration must therefore be very careful when creating
such feedback practices and ensuring that workers see them as a source of enlightenment and
improvement rather than as a means of control.
47
Fall 2018 REG #30929
REFERENCES
9 Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
bulletin, 125(6), 627.
. Dobbelaer, M. J., Prins, F. J., & van Dongen, D. (2013). The impact of feedback training for
inspectors. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(1), 86-104.
Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. (1987). A second generation of multivariate analysis:
Classification of methods and implications for marketing research. Review of
marketing, 51, 407-450.
Gagné, M., &Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLSGraph:
Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association
for Information systems, 16(1), 5.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal
of Applied psychology, 60(2), 159.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., &Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares
path modeling in international marketing. Advances in international
marketing, 20(1), 277-319.
48
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Heo, M., & Toomey, N. (2015). Motivating continued knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing:
The impact of different types of visual feedback. Online Information Review, 39(6),
795-811.
Aggarwal, U., & Bhargava, S. (2009). Exploring psychological contract contents in India: the
employee and employer perspective. Journal of Indian Business Research, 1(4), 238-
251.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human resource management review, 3(3), 185-
201.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal
strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human
performance, 32(3), 370-398.
Bauer, J., & Mulder, R. H. (2006). Upward feedback and its contribution to employees' feeling
of self-determination. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18(7/8), 508-521.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (2010). Knowledge transfer in international
acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(1), 5-20.
49
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chris Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on participation
in crowdsourcing contest: A perspective of self-determination theory. Online
Information Review, 38(7), 896-917.
Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58(3), 348-365.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 64(4), 349.
Latham, G. P., &Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 485-516.
Lazauskaite-Zabielske, J., Urbanaviciute, I., &Bagdziuniene, D. (2015). The role of prosocial
and intrinsic motivation in employees’ citizenship behaviour. Baltic Journal of
Management, 10(3), 345-365.
Lin, M. J. J., Hung, S. W., & Chen, C. J. (2009). Fostering the determinants of knowledge
sharing in professional virtual communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4),
929-939.
Liu, K. L., Chang, C. C., & Hu, I. L. (2010). Exploring the effects of task characteristics on
knowledge sharing in libraries. Library Review, 59(6), 455-468.
Mark, S., Philip, L., & Adrian, T. (2009). Research methods for business students. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Noonan, R., &Wold, H. (1982). PLS path modeling with indirectly observed
variables: a comparison of alternative estimates for the latent variable. Systems
under indirect observation, Part II, 75-94.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods.
50
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Orzack, L. H., &Salloway, J. (1967). Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of
Response to Task Attributes by Arthur N. Turner; Paul R. Lawrence. Journal of Human
Resources, 2(2), 267-269.
Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational
forms. Organization science, 11(5), 538-550.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive
behavior at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 636.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLSSEM in MIS
Quarterly. MIS Quarterly (MISQ), 36(1).
Stenius, M., Stenius, M., Hankonen, N., Hankonen, N., Ravaja, N., Ravaja, N., ...&Haukkala,
A. (2016). Why share expertise? A closer look at the quality of motivation to share or
withhold knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 181-198.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice
within the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 27-43.
Van den Hooff, B., & de Leeuw van Weenen, F. (2004). Committed to share: commitment and
CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process
management, 11(1), 13-24.
51
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Wold, S., Martens, H., &Wold, H. (1983). The multivariate calibration problem in
chemistry solved by the PLS method. In Matrix pencils (pp. 286-293).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Yang, Z. (2007). PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Molecular biology
and evolution, 24(8), 1586-1591.
Yousaf, A., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2015). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on
task and contextual performance of Pakistani professionals: the mediating role of
commitment foci. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(2), 133-150.
Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Song, Y., Song, Y., ...& Gong, Z. (2016). The
different relations of extrinsic, introjected, identified regulation and intrinsic
motivation on employees’ performance: Empirical studies following self-
determination theory. Management Decision, 54(10), 2393-2412.
Zhao, Y. C., & Zhu, Q. (2014). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on participation in
crowdsourcing contest. Online Information Review, 38(7), 896.
Annick Willem and Marc Buelens (Oct, 2007). Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector
Organizations: The Effect of Organizational Characteristics on Interdepartmental
Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART,
Vol. 17, No. 4. pp. 581-606
Esin Ergün and Ümmühan Avcı (2018.). Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy, Motivation and
Sense of Community as Predictors of Knowledge Receiving and Giving Behaviors,
Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 21, No. 3 (July 2018), pp. 60-73.
52
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Óscar Llopis-Córcoles1, Nicolai J. Foss.(2012). DOES A COOPERATIVE CLIMATE
ALWAYS LEAD TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING? THE ROLES OF INTRINSIC
MOTIVATION AND JOB AUTONOMY, Ciudad Politécnica de la Innovación, Edif
Haas, M. R. (2010). The Double-Edged Swords of Autonomy and External Knowledge:
Analyzing Team Effectiveness in a Multinational Organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533180
MOTIVATION AND JOB AUTONOMY.pdf. (n.d.).
Pee, L. G. (2011). THE EFFECTS OF JOB DESIGN ON EMPLOYEES’ KNOWLEDGE
CONTRIBUTION TO ELECTRONIC REPOSITORIES,2-12-1-W9-120 Oookayama,
Meguro-ku, Tokyo, Japan, 152-8552.
Todorova, N., & Mills, A. (2014). The Impact of Rewards on Knowledge Sharing, 8 CONF-
IRM 2014 Proceedings. 27.
Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2006). Knowledge Sharing in Public Sector Organizations: The
Effect of Organizational Characteristics on Interdepartmental Knowledge Sharing.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581–606.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul021
53
Fall 2018 REG #30929
APPENDIX A
Impact of Autonomy,Task Identity, Feedback, Introjected Motivation on Knowledge Sharing

Behavior in
Figure 1:
Hypothesized model of Autonomy, Task Identity, feedback and Knowledge Sharing Behavior.
Figure 2:
Bar Charts of the Frequencies of the Respondents
Chart 2.1 Age of Respondents
54
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chart 2.2 Gender of Respondents
55
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chart 2.3 Marital Status of Respondents
Chart 2.4 Job Function of Respondents
56
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chart 2.5 Experience of Respondents
Chart 2.6 Management Level of Respondents
57
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Figure 3
Bar Charts of frequency of Dependent and Independent Variables
Chart 3.1 Autonomy
Chart 3.2 Task Identity
58
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chart 3.3 Feedback
Chart 3.4 Motivation
59
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Chart 3.5 Knowledge Sharing
60
Fall 2018 REG #30929
APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire
To study the impact of Autonomy, task identity, feedback and introjected motivation
outcome on knowledge sharing behavior
General Information
What is your job title? ________________________
How long have you been with this organization? ________________________
How long have you been working in your current position? ________________________
How many years has this organization been in existence? _____________________ Year
Select your current status:

Age Education Experience Marital Status
20-25 Matric Less than a Married
year year
26-30 years 1-3 years Unmarried

Intermediate
31-35 years Bachelors 4-6 years
36-40 years Masters 7-9 years Gender

41-45 years M. Phil 10-12 years Male
46-50 years PhD 13-15 years Female
Over 50 years Other Over 15

years
Please select your Job-function and Management Level:

Job-Function Management Level
General Management Junior
Marketing / Sales / Services Middle
Operations / Engineering / Technical Top
Accounts / Finance / Banking Other
Human Resource / Administration
61
Fall 2018 REG #30929
IT / Education / Training / Research

other (please specify)
To what industry does this organization belong?
1. Financial Institution
2. Engineering / Construction
3. Chemical / Pharmaceutical
4. Education
5. Textile
6. Energy/Gas/Oil
8. Other please specify _________________
How many people are currently employed by this organization?
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-80 81-120 More than 120
Autonomy (IV) adapted from (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006)
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree
(2) (3) (4)
(1) (5)
(1) The job allows me to make my own decisions
about how to schedule my work
(2) The job allows me to decide on the order in
which things are done on the job
(3) The job gives me a chance to use my
personal initiative or judgment in carrying out
the work
(4) The job allows me to make a lot of decisions
on my own
(5) The job allows me to make decisions about
what methods I use to complete my work.
(6) The job gives me a considerable opportunity

for independence and freedom in how I do the
work
62
Fall 2018 REG #30929
Task Identity (IV) adapted from (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006)

(1) The job involves completing a piece of work
that has an obvious beginning and end
(2) The job is arranged so that I can do an entire
piece of work from beginning to end.
(3) The job provides me the chance to
completely finish the pieces of work I begin
(4) The job allows me to complete work I start

(6) The opportunity to do a job from the
beginning to the end
Feedback (IV)adapted from (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006)
(1) The work activities themselves provide direct
and clear information about the effectiveness of
my job performance
(2) The job itself provides me with information
about my Performance
(3) I receive a great deal of information from my
manager and coworkers about my job
performance
(4) Other people in the organization, such as
managers and coworkers, provide information
about the effectiveness of my job performance
(5) I receive feedback on my performance from
other people in my organization.
(6) I receive feedback from other stakeholders

Introjected Motivation (IV) adapted from Foss et al, (2009) &Amabile, 1994
(1) I am strongly motivated by the recognition I

can earn from the task assigners.
(2) I want other participants to find out how

good I really can be in solving crowdsourcing
contest problems.
(3) Successful participation in crowdsourcing

contests means doing better than other people.
(4) I want my superior to think I am a good

employee.
63
Fall 2018 REG #30929
(5) I feel proud of myself and my team.

Knowledge Sharing (DV) adapted fromFoss et al, (2009)
(1) You have received the knowledge from your

colleagues in your own department
(2) You used the has been knowledge from
colleagues in your own department
(3) Sharing of my knowledge with organizational
members has been always an enjoyable
experience
(4) I will share my work reports and official

documents with my organizational members
more frequently in the future.
(5) I will always share my experience or know-

how from work with my organizational members
in the future.
64

Thesis On HR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis On HR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPACT OF AUTONOMY, TASK IDENTITY, FEEDBACK AND

INTROJECTED MOTIVATION ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING

A Thesis submitted to Department of Management Sciences,

Registration No: 30929

Bahria University Karachi Campus

MBA Thesis 2nd Half-Semester Progress Report & Thesis

Supervisor – Student Meeting Record

S# Date Place of Topic Discussed Signature of

APPROVAL FOR EXAMINATION

Candidate’s Name: Registration No.:

HoD’s Signature: Date:

Student’s Signature: ________________________

Turnitin Similarity Report

and close friends who supported me during this research.

undertake this research task and enabling me to its completion.

through out this research work.

1.7.2 Task Identity ............................................................................................................. 6

1.7.3 Feedback ................................................................................................................... 7

1.7.4 Introjected Motivation .............................................................................................. 7

1.7.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior ................................................................................... 7

1.8 Summary of the chapter ...............................................................................................7

1.9 Organization of the Study.............................................................................................8

2.2.2 Task Identity and Knowledge Sharing Behavior .................................................... 11

2.2.3 Feedback and Knowledge Sharing Behavior......................................................... 11

2.2.4 Introjected Motivation and Knowledge Sharing Behavior .................................... 12

2.3 Review of Related Studies ........................................................................................12

2.4.2 Independent Variable .............................................................................................. 19

2.5 Research Hypothesis ..................................................................................................19

2.6 Conceptual Framework ..............................................................................................20

3.5.2 Task Identity ........................................................................................................... 23

3.5.3 Feedback ................................................................................................................. 23

3.5.4 Introjected Motivation ............................................................................................ 24

3.5.5 Knowledge Sharing Behavior ................................................................................. 24

3.6 Face and Content Validity of the Instrument ...........................................................24

4.1.2 Hypothesis 2...................................................................................................... 38

4.1.3 Hypothesis 3...................................................................................................... 38

4.1.4 Hypothesis 4...................................................................................................... 39

4.4 Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................39

5.1.2 Hypothesis 2 Discussion ................................................................................... 43

5.1.3 Hypothesis 3 Discussion ................................................................................... 43

5.1.4 Hypothesis 4 Discussion ................................................................................... 44

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3.4-1 Summary of Research Instrument ........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Methodology & Design

Keywords: Autonomy, Task Identity, Feedback, Introjected Motivation and Knowledge

1.1 The problem Background

example, if an employee is asked to schedule an interview candidate, the employee should be

but for the organization too.

empowerment and freedom to work independently and should be involved in complete

easily and they should be internally and externally motivated.

1.2 Problem Statement

feedback on Knwoledge sharing behavior of an employee with his coworkers, According to

(“HENRIK BRESMAN, JULIAN BIRKINSHAW AND ROBERT NOBEL ,” 1999.)

recipient of knowledge. Researchers also noted the importance of knowledge provider

of the endeavor. This technique is a perspective of organizations, for example, administration

Structure of final resort, to be utilized while everything else comes up short.

relationship between efforts.

Subsequent investigate has mainly focused on the character knowledge sharing

In context of Karachi, Pakistan this study gap recognition establishment on association of

to the significant of Introjected motivation, autonomy, and feedback of knowledge sharing

behavior in the small and medium enterprises based on industry in Karachi.

1.3 Objectives of the Study