See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234833353

Motivational factors in influencing knowledge sharing among banks in Malaysia

Article  in  International Research Journal of Finance and Economics · January 2010

CITATIONS READS
39 2,330

4 authors, including:

Christine Nya-Ling Tan Tuan Hock Ng

Manukau Institute of Technology Multimedia University
31 PUBLICATIONS   548 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ying San Lim

Multimedia University
17 PUBLICATIONS   257 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessing Socio-Psychological Behaviours of Muslim Students: A Study of Smartphone Addiction at Multimedia University View project

Multimedia University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christine Nya-Ling Tan on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Research Journal of Finance and Economics
ISSN 1450-2887 Issue 44 (2010)
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010
http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm

Motivational Factors in Influencing Knowledge

Sharing Among Banks in Malaysia

Nya Ling Tan

Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: nltan@mmu.edu.my

Ying How Lye

Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: cassie_8649@hotmail.com

Tuan Hock Ng
Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: thng@mmu.edu.my

Ying San Lim

Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia
E-mail: lim.ying.san@mmu.edu.my
Tel: 606-2523642; Fax: 606-2318869

Abstract

As aggressive businesses of today move forward in grasping the lucrative returns

that is offered by the ever-growing knowledge-based economy, knowledge, which is seen
as a crucial asset had therefore predominantly become an essential core driver and a
significant reliable resource pursued by multiple industries including the banking sectors of
today. Banks are starting to understand the relevance and importance of sharing knowledge
and are beginning to appreciate knowledge as the most significant and valued asset that
leads to organisational performance. As a result, it has been anticipated that promising
motivational factors would help in encouraging the need for employees to share not only
crucial knowledge but new knowledge to further ensure that the banking industry possess
the competitive edge that they are looking for. This paper investigates and thoroughly
examines the motivational factors which covers both intrinsic (trust, learning, behaviour)
and extrinsic factors (organisation culture, reward system information technology) that
encourages the widespread sharing of knowledge among bank employees especially in the
dynamic and ever-growing banking sector in Malaysia. Our research shows that
motivational factors and knowledge sharing process (by applying Nonaka’s SECI model),
directly had a significant influence and impact in determining the success of the sharing of
warranted knowledge among bank employees in achieving desirable organisational
competitiveness. The research findings provide useful information and help deepen the
understanding of banks in motivating their employees’ tendencies to engage in knowledge
sharing practices.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010) 192

Keywords: Banks, Knowledge Sharing, Motivational Factors, Knowledge Sharing

Process, SECI Model

1. Introduction
Knowledge has been documented as the most significant building block in determining the status of
businesses of today ever since the steadily shift from a once upon hyped ‘information age’ to the
current and controversial ‘knowledge era’. In this day and age where individuals and organisations in
this competitive environment start to embrace the importance of knowledge, this crucial asset has
somehow indeed been viewed as a vital and valued asset unlike no other. Likewise, we cannot deny
that knowledge is a powerful and influential instrument that can make changes to the business world
today. Thereafter, knowledge has been considered as the main intangible ingredient in the melting pot
of organisational success that makes innovation potentially possible (Sánchez, Chaminade, & Olea,
2000).
Since the emergence of the well-known knowledge era that is radically changing the values in
organisations (Carlisle, 2001), it is therefore viewed that the long-term viability and prosperity of
organisations increasingly depend on its ability to leverage the concealed worth of this crucially
acquired intangible knowledge. In view of the fact that continuous change in market expectations and
the demands for new products introduced by knowledge-intensive firms had gradually replaced the
long ago commodities of the capital and labour-intensive firms (Ali & Ahmad, 2006), knowledge
sharing (KS) is unquestionably an important component for organisations alike especially to the
banking institutions in pursuing knowledge as an intangible and well sought-after asset.
In distinguishing the competitive and rapid changing environment, KS does play an important
role not only because it enables intellectual reuse but also the renewal of knowledge in banks that is
possessed by employees. Therefore, Barachini (2009) supported that it is imperative that these
organisations continuously motivate their employees to share valuable information so that their
intellectual capital (IC) can be leveraged. In recent years, numerous researchers and scholars had
placed a great deal of emphasis on the need to create a KS culture in organisations and to implement
business strategies that are more knowledge friendly. At the same time, organisations worldwide have
been trying to undertake initiatives in introducing effective KM by embedding KS practices in their
daily work process in achieving organisational performance (Ali & Ahmad, 2006).
For centuries, numerous banking services have grown to include financial services directed at
both businesses and individuals at large, indirectly influencing the economical practices, particularly in
Malaysia’s banking arena. Hence, implementing knowledge management (KM) initiatives is seen by
the banking industry as of vital importance to further spearhead the Malaysia’s economy, resulting in
banks to pick up the initiative in setting up KM teams within their organisation (Leng & Nasaruddin,
2007). With this in mind, banking institutions have realised that KS in KM should therefore not be
deserted nor neglected in helping to boost their survival in this ever-challenging competitive
environment.
This study aims to examine the impact of motivational factors, which includes both intrinsic
factors; trust, learning, behaviour; and extrinsic factors; organization culture, reward system,
information technology; on the knowledge sharing process; socialization, externalization, combination,
and internalization; among banks in Malaysia. The result of this study will serve as a guideline in
identifying the important factors in helping to increase employees’ tendencies to engage in knowledge
sharing practices amongst banks in Malaysia.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing (KS)
Ever since the awareness and recognition that knowledge is an indispensable asset needed by
organisations throughout, numerous renowned researchers, including Davenport & Prusak (1998) had
193 International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010)

given birth to various definitions for the term ‘knowledge’. It is therefore asserted, according to
Davenport & Prusak (1998) that knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information.
In principle, knowledge can be differentiated into two types, which are explicit knowledge
(EK) and tacit knowledge (TK) (Nonaka, Toyama, & Konno, 2000). EK is knowledge that can be
processed by information systems, codified or recorded, archived and protected by an organisation
(Barth, 2000). Conversely, Choi & Lee (2003) have defined TK as informal, embedded in mental in
mental processes, was obtained through experience and work practices, and can be transferred by
observing and applying it.
In response to continuously sharing of knowledge in organisations, be it EK or TK, the
dominance of KS enters the spotlight. KS is a component of KM but it focuses less on technology in
organisations. There are many definitions by numerous researchers and philosophers on KS, listed in
Table 1. Rather, McInerney & Day (2007) explained KS as related to the relationships among co-
workers that promote information exchange and learning. KS is viewed not only as a neutral exchange
of information, but also affects working relationships, patterns of influence and alters how people
define their responsibilities (Willett, 2002). As a consequence, organisation that does not have formal
KS practices will fail to leverage its employees' IC for business innovation and growth (O'Neill &
Adya, 2007). On top of that, the key element in KS is not the underlying (original) knowledge, but
rather the extent to which the receiver acquires potentially useful knowledge and utilises this
knowledge in his or her own operation (Minbaeva, Pedersen, Bjoerkman, Fey, & Park, 2003).

Table 1: Taxonomies of KS

Author/s Definition
“Knowledge sharing can be defined as a social interaction culture, involving the
(Lin, Lee, & Wang, 2009) exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole
department or organization.”
“Knowledge sharing can defined as the voluntary and social process to transfer,
(Harder, 2008)
absorb and reuse the existing knowledge in order to serve an organisational end.”
“It is a systematic process to create, acquire, synthesize, learn, share and use
knowledge and experience to achieve organisational goal. This knowledge can be
(Sethumadhavan, 2007)
form employees’ mind or stored in paper form in filing cabinets and/ or stored in
electronic form.”
(Bircham-Connolly, Corner, & “The process of capturing knowledge or moving it from a source unit to recipient
Bowden, 2005) unit.”
“It involves mutual exchanges among individuals, including both receiving and
sending knowledge. It was based on the sender-receiver relationship which
(Hooff & Weenen, 2004)
incorporates both communication of one’s knowledge to others as well as receiving
others’ knowledge.”
“The exchange of knowledge between at least two parties in a reciprocal process
(Willem, 2003)
allowing reshape and sense-making of the knowledge in new context.”
“Knowledge is defined as what we know: knowledge involves the mental processes
of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in
(Wilson, 2002)
the mind, however much they involve interaction with the world outside the mind,
and interaction with others.”
“Knowledge is interpreted in terms of potential for action and distinguished in the
(Malhotra, 2001) following discussion from information in terms of its more immediate link with
performance.”
“Knowledge sharing is the process through which one unit is affected by the
(Linda Argote & Ingram, 2000) experience of another. In this respect, a unit can be an individual, a group or an
organisation.”

However KS is therefore argued by many prominent researchers to be a demanding and

uncertain phase, that is consequently evoking the ‘fear of criticism’ even at the mere individual level
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010) 194

(Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling, 2003; L Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin, 2001; Mooradian, Renzl, &
Matzler, 2006). That is why this study is important to further enhance the understanding of the
respective bank’s management practitioners of the crucial need to identify and analyse the motivational
factors that influence KS in banks. In this research, KS is distinguished as the knowledge received by a
bank employee from his or her colleagues and knowledge sent by that employee to his or her
colleagues.

2.2. Motivational Factors (MFs) and Knowledge Sharing (KS)

MFs are important to motivate bank employees to share their knowledge. The MFs are divided into
two distinguishable types: intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors are trust, learning and
behaviour, whereas the extrinsic factors are organisation culture, reward system and information
technology (IT).
Within the KM literature, trust is often presented as one of the most important motivators for
successful KS process (Ford, 2003; Rolland & Chauvel, 2000). Trust is viewed as a medium through
which knowledge can be exchanged smoothly. Therefore, high level of trust helps to facilitate KS.
However, since TK in KS is deemed to be a risky deed, individuals are more inclined to conceal what
they know if they are uncertain with the outcome of sharing. Therefore, trust building in the workplace
is the first step to effective KS (Huang, 2008).
In addition, successful KS involves extended learning processes within bank employees, as
ideas related to development and innovation need to be made locally applicable with the adaptation
being done by the ‘incumbent firms’ (Nelson & Rosenberg, 1993) or ‘the local doers of development’
(Stiglitz, 1999). Learning is most often disputed as an integral feature of any businesses in taking
advantage of its knowledge resources to generate topmost superior organisational performance
(Pemberton & Stonehouse, 2000).
The movement of knowledge across individual and organisational boundaries, into and from
repositories, and into banking routines and practices is ultimately dependent on employees' KS
behaviours. Hence, since KS itself is depicted as a set of behaviours (Yang & Chen, 2007), therefore
behaviour itself is identified and further acknowledged as the degree to which an individual actually
shares his or her knowledge with others (Liang, Liu, & Wu, 2008).
Organisation culture plays a vital role in the success of a KS process in banks. KS process will
not occur unless they are supported by the culture of the banking institution itself. Organisation culture
drives the banks formal and informal expectations of individuals, defined the types of people who will
fit into the organisation, and affected how people interacted with others both inside and outside the
organisation. Consequently, an effective culture in banks is crucial in achieving effective KS process
(Govindarajan & Gupta, 2000; Gummer, 1998).
The reward system is important to motivate employee performance which is consistent with the
bank’s strategy; that is to attract and retain the right people with the right knowledge, skills and
abilities required to achieve the targeted bank’s strategic goals, and create a supportive organisational
culture and structure (Galbraith, 1973; Kilmann, 1989; Nadler & Tushman, 1998). Leonard-Barton
(1998) had thus argued that reward system can determine how knowledge is accessed and flowed in the
organisation. Rewards help to recognise excellent KS abilities of bank employees. Hence, fair and
objective performance-based reward system may help to promote bank employees’ motivation in
rejuvenating new knowledge, therefore increasing the need to share knowledge amongst its workers
(Linda Argote & Epple, 1990; Grayson & O'Dell, 1998).
It is clear that IT is playing a bigger and increasingly significant role in the banking sectors in
managing data and information before they are transformed into knowledge. Therefore, the main role
of IT in KM is not only just to support the digital capture, storage, retrieval, and distribution of an
organisation’s explicitly documented knowledge, but to also supply the necessary collaboration,
communication and networking capabilities needed for accelerating the speed of knowledge creation
and transfer (Al-Ammary, Fung, & Goulding, 2008). That is why IT is always considered to be the
195 International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010)

number one and primary tool needed to achieve competitive advantage (Christian, Lindgren, Nulden,
& Pessi, 2002). This is proven to be true especially with the support given by Bloodgood and Salisbury
(2001) that further perceive IT to assist the knowledge transfer strategy in leveraging knowledge
assets, knowledge creation strategy in creating knowledge network and therefore inevitably facilitate
communication between bank employees who share knowledge.

2.3. Knowledge Sharing (KS) Process

In view of the fact that the interactions between the EK and TK proposes the creation of new
knowledge, therefore the SECI model proposed by Nonaka is deemed useful in this study in managing
KS in banking sectors in Malaysia. SECI that stands for the four different modes of knowledge
conversion, i.e. Socialisation (S), Externalisation (E), Combination (C), and Internalisation (I); had met
with broad acceptance, especially among management practitioners, due to its intuitive logic and clear
description of knowledge types between EK and TK (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). It has also embodied
an interaction dynamic by which knowledge is transferred in a spiral process, thus allowing the
knowledge value to be further enhanced through exchanges between individuals and groups in the
organisation (Rice & Rice, 2003).
Firstly, in socialisation phrase, TK was converted into tacit knowledge by sharing experiences.
The starting point for socialisation was building the field of interaction that facilitated the sharing of
experiences and mental models. Managers create creative chaos into the creative team’s work by
questioning the ambitiousness of related goals. To turn the chaos into a creative state, team members
must have significant level of autonomy in pursuing the common agreed goal. The form of knowledge
resulted is emphatic (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
In externalisation, TK was converted into explicit i.e., expressed in language or symbols, in a
form which can be accessed, understood, shared, adapted, and reused (Chatti, 2006). If the knowledge
had no explicit form, it will be difficult to distribute it across the organisation (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995).
Next, EK was converted into EK in the combination phrase. Both the new concepts generated
through externalisation and already existing EK were organised into a larger knowledge structures,
which was systemic knowledge. The EK can be gathered either from inside or outside the organisation
(Nonaka, et al., 2000).
Finally, at internalisation phase, EK was converted into tacit knowledge. This process was
facilitated by verbalised or visualised documents, manuals or spoken stories that result from
combination. When most of the organisation’s members possess certain tacit knowledge, it became
part of the organisation’s culture (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

4. Research Methodology
The questionnaire method was used to collect the primary data. The questionnaire was divided into
three sections. Section A contains the background of the respondents, such as bank, gender, age,
education levels, positions, experiences, departments and others. Section B contains questions
requesting the respondents to state their agreement or disagreement on the issues of KS motivational
factors in their banks. Section C contains 12 statements about KS Process that is related to the
respondents’ organisation. In this study, the Likert Scale that was developed by Rensis Likert had been
chosen and applied.
The sample of banks in Malaysia was determined, namely Public Bank, Hong Leong Bank,
United Overseas Bank, CIMB Bank, EON Bank, OCBC Bank, Maybank, RHB Bank; and the
questionnaires were allocated evenly to bank employees from various levels such as managerial,
executives, supervisors and general staffs. The selection of the sample concerned was based on simple
random sampling. The bank employees’ came from diverse backgrounds, i.e. gender, age, education,
positions, experiences and others. Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of this study.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010) 196
Figure 1: Research Conceptual Framework

5. Results and Discussion

From the collected questionnaires, 114 of the respondents are female, while 81 are male. The highest
groups of respondents from the overall responded bank came from Public Bank (31.3%), followed by
CIMB Bank (18.5%), whereas the rest of the results revealed that Hong Leong Bank (17.9%), United
Overseas Bank (13.3%), RHB Bank (6.7%), OCBC Bank (6.2%), EON Bank (5.6%), and Maybank
(0.5%) respectively. For the positions held by the participants, 100 of the respondents are from
executives positions, 34 are general workers, 33 are supervisors, 23 are managers, three are directors
and two are clerks.
Reliability analyses were conducted on the independent and dependent variables. Result yield
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.800. The rule of thumb is the closer to 1.0, typically over 0.70, signified
high reliability (Berstein & Nunnally, 1994).
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the motivational factors (MFs) and KS
Process.

Table 2: Summary of means and standard deviations of MFs and KS Process

MFs
No. Means Standard Deviations
1. Trust 3.5248 0.76270
2. Learning 3.6359 0.64175
3. Behaviour 3.6769 0.78642
4. Organisation Culture 3.8137 0.68950
5. Reward System 3.6940 0.63979
6. Information Technology 3.8615 0.54977
KS Process
1. KS Process 3.7530 0.48638

Among the variables tested, Information Technology (IT) has the highest mean, which is 3.86
with standard deviation 0.550. This is because IT motivates KS due to its increasing importance in this
competitive world in capturing and storing crucial knowledge. Likewise workers can transfer their
knowledge using technology anytime, anywhere and anyhow (Ghani & Abdullah, 2008).
197 International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010)

KS Process has the mean value of 3.75 and standard deviation of 0.486. With this, it is thus
proven that KS Process are critically dominant in influencing KS since it is accepted by management
practitioners because of its intuitive logic and clear delineation of knowledge types between TK and
EK (Rice & Rice, 2003).
In many statistical analyses, normality is often conveniently assumed without any empirical
evidence or test. Herewith, normality is critical in many statistical methods. That is why when this
assumption is violated, the interpretation and inference may not be reliable or valid (Park, 2008). Table
3 shows the result of the normality test on the MFs and KS Process. The significant p-value is less than
0.05 and it means that data distribution significantly varies from a normal distribution. Thus, the data is
not normally distributed.

Table 3: Normality test for variables

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Significant Statistic df Significant
Trust 0.138 195 0.000 0.942 195 0.000
Learning 0.145 195 0.000 0.967 195 0.000
Behaviour 0.177 195 0.000 0.918 195 0.000
Organisation Culture 0.145 195 0.000 0.955 195 0.000
Reward System 0.145 195 0.000 0.954 195 0.000
Information Technology 0.129 195 0.000 0.971 195 0.000
KS Process 0.087 195 0.001 0.971 195 0.000

When the relationship is not linear, a non-parametric measure of correlation using Spearman’s
rank correlation (known also as Spearman’s rho) is used (Paulsen, 2005). Six hypotheses were
developed in this research and tested by using correlation test. Table 4 summarises the Spearman’s
correlation test for MFs and KS Process.

Table 4: Summary of correlation test between MFs and KS Process

Hypotheses Variables KS Process

Spearman correlation 0.451
H1 Trust Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195
Spearman correlation 0.489
H2 Learning Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195
Spearman correlation 0.295
H3 Behaviour Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195
Spearman correlation 0.552
H4 Organisation Culture Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195
Spearman correlation 0.382
H5 Reward System Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195
Spearman correlation 0.603
H6 Information Technology Significant (2-tailed) 0.00
N 195

The results indicate that Spearman correlation r-value for Trust, Learning, Behaviour,
Organisational Culture, Reward System and Information Technology are significant at 0.01
respectively. Therefore, the test concludes that there is a significant correlation between the MFs and
KS Process. So, H1 to H6 are rejected.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010) 198

In general, Regression analysis is a technique used for the modelling and analysis of numerical
data consisting of values of a dependent variable and of one or more independent variables.
Fundamentally, multiple regressions can establish that a set of independent variables explains a
proportion of the variance in a dependent variable at a significant level (through a significance test or
R2). The table below is the summary of the MLR test between MFs and KS Process.

Table 5: MLR test on the variables

Standard Coefficient
Variables t- Test Significant
Beta
Trust 0.077 2.135 0.034
Learning 0.214 5.222 0.001
Behaviour 0.008 0.243 0.808
Organisation Culture 0.109 2.663 0.008
Reward System 0.117 2.960 0.003
Information Technology 0.344 7.210 0.001

Table 5 shows the result of MLR analysis of H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 and H6. The analysis found
that five variables were significantly related to these hypotheses. The influencer variable was
Information Technology with the highest Beta value of 0.344 (P < 0.01) and highest t-value of 7.210.
The second influencer variable was Learning with the Beta value of 0.214 (P < 0.01) and t-value of
5.222. For Reward System, Organisation Culture and Trust, the Beta values were 0.117 (P < 0.01),
0.109 (P < 0.01) and 0.077 (P < 0.05); and the t-values were 2.960, 2.663 and 2.135. However,
Behaviour does not have any significant effect on KS Process.

6. Conclusion and Recommendation

Knowledge has been recognised as the most important factor in determining the survival of
organisations. It is therefore difficult, but not impossible, to maximise the value of knowledge by
adequately understanding how to leverage and share knowledge in organisations (Sharrat & Usoro,
2003).
In this research, the factors that motivate KS and their effects on KS Process had been studied.
The MFs for KS are divided into intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. The intrinsic motivators comprises
of trust, learning and behaviour whereas extrinsic motivators consist of organisation culture, reward
system and information technology. In a nutshell, these motivational factors help smoothen the KS
Process in banks.
In order for the banking institutions to fully leverage their knowledge potential, they must first
appreciate and look forward to the enablers that affect KS as a whole. It is therefore anticipated that
this study will eventually facilitate and assist the banking sector as a whole in better recognising and
understanding the influencing factors that further induce KS among banks. As a consequence, various
researchers and banking sector are able to include and further incorporate the MFs investigated in this
research in further enhancing the dominance and power of banking knowledge. Furthermore, banking
institutions in general can also apply the MFs and KS Process presented in this study as a guideline to
achieve competitive success in their KS implementation.

7. Limitation of Study and Future Research

Since this study analyses the degree of MFs on KS Process in the banking industry especially in
Malaysia, therefore the findings of this research may not be applicable in other interested industries.
Besides that, due to the number of limited banks that is participating in this study, i.e. as it is
only conducted in a few states in Malaysia (Kedah, Selangor, Malacca and Johore Bahru), hence the
results should not be generalised as all of the banking sector believed to be motivating KS in Malaysia.
199 International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010)

Given that this study had been done by using email and post, only 50 sets of questionnaires
were posted to each of the targeted bank but not all the questionnaires were posted back, thus the
response from all the respondent banks did not reached the anticipated 100%. Besides that, time
constraint was also an issue as some respondents took weeks in sending back the questionnaires.
Nowadays, KS plays an important role for organisations in succeeding in this ever-increasing
competitive atmosphere. Consequently, for that reason all the organisational level in the banks should
take part in KS Process to enable their employees to better understand KS Process that is implemented
in each department. Future studies should therefore focus on the relationship between KS motivational
factors and KS Process in banks (preferably in other states), so that the effectiveness and efficiency in
motivating KS will be increased. It should therefore very much propose that the scope of this study be
extended to the whole of Peninsular Malaysia and possibly to East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) in
better representing the banks within Malaysia, increasing the numbers of respondents and augmented
the reliability of the results. With this, it is expected that more critical factors in motivating KS will be
further discovered and analysed.
Consequently, it is also anticipated that this study will help in assisting academicians and
researchers alike especially in the ever-growing field of KM to better understand the MFs in
influencing KS, and also the KS Process in enhancing the effective sharing of vital knowledge among
various banking institutions.

References
[1] Al-Ammary, J.H., Fung, C.C., and Goulding, P, 2005. “Alignment of knowledge and IS/IT
strategies: A case for the banking sector in the Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC)”, In:
International Conference on Knowledge Management (ICKM 2005), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[2] Ali, H.M., and Ahmad, N.H, 2006. “Knowledge management in Malaysian banks: A new
paradigm”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice 7
[3] Ardichvili, A., Page, V., and Wentling, T, 2003. “Motivation and barriers to participation in
virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management 7, pp.
64-77
[4] Argote, L., and Epple, D, 1990. “Learning curves in manufacturing”, Science 247, pp. 920-924
[5] Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., and Naquin, C, 2001, “Group learning in organizations”, In: Groups
at work: Theory and research Turner ME (Ed.), pp. 369-411. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
[6] Argote, L., and Ingram, P, 2000. “Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82, pp. 150-169
[7] Barachini, F, 2009. “Cultural and social issues for knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge
Management 13, pp. 98 - 110
[8] Barth, S, 2000. “Defining knowledge management”, URL
http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/CRM-News/Daily-News/Defining-Knowledge-
Management-46355.aspx
[9] Berstein, I.H., and Nunnally, J.C, 1994. “Psychometric theory”, McGraw-Hill.
[10] Bircham-Connolly, H., Corner, J., and Bowden, S, 2005. “An empirical study of the impact of
question structure on recipient attitude during knowledge sharing”, The Electronic Journal of
Knowledge Management 32, pp. 1-10
[11] Bloodgood, J.M., and Salisbury, W.D, 2001. “Understanding the influence of organisational
change: Strategies on information technology and KM strategies. Decision Support Systems 31,
55-70
[12] Carlisle, Y, 2001. “Strategic thinking and knowledge management”, In: Managing Knowledge:
An Essential Reader Little S, Quintas P & Ray T (Eds.), pp. 122-138. Sage Publications Ltd,
London
[13] Choi, B., and Lee, H, 2003. “An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on
corporate performance”, Information and Management 40, 403-417
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010) 200

[14] Christian, H., Lindgren, R., Nulden, U., and Pessi, K, 2002. “The evolution of knowledge
management systems needs to be managed”. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice
[15] Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L, 1998. “Working knowledge: How organizations manage what
they know”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
[16] Ford, D.P, 2003. “Trust and knowledge management: The seeds of success”, In: Handbook on
Knowledge Management Holsapple CW (Ed.), pp. 553-576. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg
[17] Galbraith, J.R, 1973. “Designing complete organizations”, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[18] Ghani, N.F.A., and Abdullah, M.S, 2008. “Groupware technology acceptance as a knowledge
sharing tool: A case study in UUM”, In: Proceedings of Knowledge Management International
Conference, Langkawi, Malaysia
[19] Govindarajan, V., and Gupta, A.K, 2000. “Knowledge management's social dimension:
Lessons from Nucor Steel”, Sloan Management Review 42, pp. 71-80
[20] Grayson, C., and O'Dell, C, 1998. “If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer
of internal best practices”, Internal Best Practices 40, pp. 154-174
[21] Gummer, B, 1998. “Social relations in an organizational context: Social capital, real work, and
structural holes”, Journal Administration in Social Work 22, pp. 87-105
[22] Harder, M, 2008. “How do rewards and management styles influence the motivation to share
knowledge?” In: SMG Working Paper No. 6/2008
[23] Hooff, B.v.d., Weenen, and F.d.L.v, 2004. “Committed to share: Commitment and CMC use as
antecedents of knowledge sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management 11, pp. 13 - 24
[24] Kilmann, R.H, 1989. “Beyond the quick fix”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[25] Leng, L.A., Nasaruddin, and F.H.M, 2007. “Application of knowledge management in
Malaysian banks - A preliminary study”, pp. 396-401
[26] Leonard-Barton, D, 1998. “Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the sources of
innovation”, Harvard Business Press.
[27] Liang, T.-P., Liu, C.-C., and Wu, C.-H, 2008. “Can social exchange theory explain individual
knowledge-sharing behavior? A meta-analysis”, In: ICIS 2008 Proceedings
[28] Lin, H.-F., Lee, and H.-S., Wang, D.W, 2009. “Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge
sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach”, Journal of Information Science 36, pp. 25-44
[29] Malhotra, Y, 2001. “Knowledge management and business model innovation”, Idea Group Inc
(IGI).
[30] McInerney, C.R., and Day, R.E, 2007. “Trust and knowledge sharing in organisations: Theory
and practice”, In: Rethinking knowledge management: From knowledge objects to knowledge
processes Springer Berlin Heidelberg
[31] Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjoerkman, I., Fey, C.F., and Park, H.J, 2003. “MNC knowledge
transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity and HRM”, Journal of International Business Studies
34, pp. 586-599
[32] Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., and Matzler, K, 2006. “Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge
sharing”, Management Learning 37, pp. 523-540
[33] Nadler, D., and Tushman, M, 1998. “Strategic organization design: Concepts, tools &
processes”, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL.
[34] Nelson, R., and Rosenberg, N, 1993. “Technical innovation and national systems”, In: National
Innovation Systems Nelson R (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford
[35] Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H, 1995. “The knowledge-creating company, How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation”, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
[36] Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N, 2000. “SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of
dynamic knowledge creation”, Long Range Planning 33, pp. 5-34
[37] O'Neill, B.S., and Adya, M, 2007. “Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract:
Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology 22, pp. 411-436
 201 International Research Journal of Finance and Economics - Issue 44 (2010)

[38] Park, H.M, 2008. “Univariate analysis and normality test using SAS, Stata and SPSS”.
[39] Paulsen, K, 2005. “Correlation and regression”, URL
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/kpaulsen/web/
[40] Pemberton, J.D., and Stonehouse, G.H, 2000. “Organisational learning and knowledge assets -
An essential partnership”, The Learning Organization 7, pp. 184-193
[41] Rice, B.S., and Rice, J.L, 2003. “The applicability of the SECI model to multi-organisational
endeavours: An integrative review”, International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 9, pp.
671-682
[42] Rolland, N., and Chauvel, D, 2000. “Knowledge transfer in strategic alliances”, In: Knowledge
Horizons: The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management Despres C & Chauvel D
(Eds.), pp. 225-236. Buterworth Heinemann, Boston, MA
[43] Sánchez, P., Chaminade, C., and Olea, M, 2000. “Management of intangibles: An attempt to
build a theory”, Journal of Intellectual Capital 1, pp. 312-327
[44] Sethumadhavan, R, 2007. “Importance of knowledge sharing for organisations”.
[45] Sharrat, M., and Usoro, A, 2003. “Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of
practice”, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management 1, pp. 187-196
[46] Stiglitz, J, 1999. “Scan globally, reinvent locally: Knowledge infrastructure and the localization
of knowledge”, In: Keynote address, First Global Development Network Conference, Bonn,
Germany
[47] Willem, A, 2003. “The role of organisation specific integration mechanisms in inter-unit
knowledge sharing”.
[48] Willett, C, 2002. “Knowledge sharing shifts the power paradigm”, URL
http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Knowledge_Sharing_Shifts_the_Power_Parad
igm.pdf
[49] Wilson, T.D, 2002. “The nonsense of 'knowledge management”. Information Research 8
[50] Yang, C., Chen, and L.-C, 2007. “Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge
sharing behavior?”, Journal of Information Science 33, pp. 95-109

View publication stats