Knowledge Sharing Motivation in The Public Sector: The Role of Public Service Motivation

XML Template (2015) [10.3.
2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
//blrnas3.glyph.com/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/RASJ/Vol00000/140049/APPFile/SG-
RASJ140049.3d (RAS) [PREPRINTER stage]
International
Review of
Administrative
Article Sciences
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
0(0) 1–21
Knowledge sharing motivation ! The Author(s) 2015
in the public sector: the role Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of public service motivation DOI: 10.1177/0020852314558032
ras.sagepub.com
Chung-An Chen
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Chih-Wei Hsieh
City University of Hong Kong
Abstract
The literature on knowledge sharing motivation has addressed the importance of both
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to sharing knowledge. However, a theory of know-
ledge sharing motivation in the public sector requires particular consideration since
government’s main concern is in public service, not profits. Therefore, the present
study introduces the concept of public service motivation (PSM) to the study of know-
ledge sharing among civil servants. Based on the PSM theory, this study postulates that
civil servants’ interest in policy making, commitment to the public interest, compassion,
and willingness for self-sacrifice can drive them to share knowledge for a sacred reason
– serving the public interest. By using the data collected from middle-level public man-
agers in Taiwan, the authors empirically tested whether PSM predicts knowledge shar-
ing, and our hypotheses received strong support. Thus, PSM opens a new window for
researchers interested in the study of knowledge sharing in the public sector.
Points for practitioners

With the introduction of PSM, the present study connects knowledge sharing with
public administration. Public service as a calling leads civil servants to share knowledge
in order to create more advanced organizational knowledge and accordingly improve
public service performance. Compared to situational factors (e.g. the use of information
technology and rewards), PSM plays an even more pivotal role in promoting knowledge
sharing, according to the results of our empirical research. Thus, altruistic motivation
should be addressed and emphasized if knowledge sharing in the public sector is to be
encouraged.
Corresponding author:
Chung-An Chen, 14 Nanyang Drive, HSS-05-15, Nanyang Technological University, Republic of Singapore,
637332.
Email: cchongan@gmail.com
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at Bobst Library, New York University on May 19, 2015
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
2 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)
Keywords
knowledge sharing, public service motivation
Introduction
Knowledge is indispensable to virtually all organizations, particularly public
organizations. Modern governments are expected to solve complicated problems
regarding human livelihoods and to serve as driving forces to enhance societal
growth (Milbraith, 1989), and solving problems needs expertise. From the view
of the politics–administration dichotomy, the source of civil servants’ power is not
election, but professional knowledge (Meier, 2006; Rourke, 1984). According to
Waldo (1980), public administration as an innovative and active driver that facili-
tates civilization in history relies on its continuously updated and cutting-edge
knowledge.
Surprisingly, the management of knowledge has received limited attention in the
field of public administration. Focusing on knowledge sharing, we find only two
articles in mainstream public administration journals (Kim and Lee, 2006; Willem
and Buelens, 2007). Indeed, a few publications that explore antecedents of know-
ledge sharing in the public sector appear in generic management journals (Cong
et al., 2007; Lee and Ahn, 2007; Sandhu et al., 2011; Seba et al., 2012; Taylor and
Wright, 2004; Yao et al., 2007; Yusof et al., 2012). The authors of these articles
suggest that organizational structures, managerial commitment, leadership, trust in
colleagues, information technology (IT), and rewards are key predictors for suc-
cessful knowledge sharing in the public sector. However, a theory of knowledge
sharing motivation in the public sector has not yet been established. To address the
gap, the present study investigates public sector knowledge sharing with a focus on
motivation by introducing the concept of public service motivation (PSM) (Perry
and Wise, 1990) to examine whether public sector employees are driven to share
knowledge not only by incentives or other situational factors but also by a more
sacred motive – serving the public interest. The findings are expected to enhance
our understanding of knowledge sharing motivation and address the motivational
structure for knowledge sharing in the public sector.
Knowledge sharing
Scholars have made serious efforts to discover miscellaneous propellers of and
impediments to knowledge sharing in the hope of enhancing knowledge sharing.
In general, these antecedents fall into three main categories (Ipe, 2003). The first
category is the properties of knowledge itself. For example, whether knowledge is
valuable, necessary for task accomplishment, and easily articulated determine indi-
vidual knowledge sharing (Spender, 1996). The second category is opportunities to
share, also referred to as situational factors, such as culture of the work environ-
ment, language, vision and goals, formal and centralized structures, IT application,
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 3
and most importantly, managerial support (Kim and Lee, 2006; Yusof et al., 2012).
The third category is motivation to share, the focus of the present study. According
to Ipe (2003), there are four genres of knowledge sharing motivation (and demo-
tivation): the fear of the loss of power, expected reciprocal benefits, rewards
for sharing, and expected relationships with recipients. Most evidence-based stu-
dies of knowledge sharing motivation in the past decade include one or more of
the aforementioned motivational factors (e.g. Bock et al., 2005). In sum, this pre-
liminary typology serves as a solid research basis for knowledge sharing
motivation.
Knowledge sharing motivation: a thorough review

Despite its contribution, Ipe’s (2003) typology of knowledge sharing motivation
has an inherent flaw: this typology assumes that knowledge sharing is a result of a
person’s deliberate calculation of costs and benefits (Bock et al., 2005) and employ-
ees will not share unless they perceive the benefits of sharing, such as reciprocal
benefits, rewards, and stronger interpersonal ties. While accurate, this view is none-
theless incomplete. In fact, sharing is often defined as a voluntary act (Davenport
and Prusak, 1997) and should be understood through the lens of intrinsic motiv-
ation. As Osterloh and Frey (2000) indicate, intrinsic motivation is as important as
extrinsic motivation in determining knowledge sharing.
The intrinsic dimension of knowledge sharing motivation has been addressed in
recent empirical research. However, the content of intrinsic motivation varies. For
example, in some studies, intrinsic motivation refers to knowledge sharing self-
efficacy, meaning that individuals feel the confidence to provide valuable know-
ledge to their colleagues (Hsu et al., 2007; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Lin, 2007). In
other studies, intrinsic motivation is interpreted as the sense of self-worth, reputa-
tion, or pride (Bock et al., 2005; Hsu and Lin, 2008; Kwok and Gao, 2004).1 More
commonly, intrinsic motivation is deemed to be a person’s affective-based willing-
ness to help colleagues (Hsu and Lin, 2008; Kwok and Gao, 2004; Lin, 2007). A
popular sentiment in these empirical studies is that intrinsic motivators, despite the
forms, are more effective than extrinsic motivators in predicting knowledge shar-
ing. This reflects Gagné’s (2009) perspective that being motivated to share out of
interest or personal meaning results in more positive attitudes toward knowledge
sharing.
The subcategories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations reviewed in this section
cover nearly all potential motivational predictors for knowledge sharing. It is fair
to say that the development of knowledge sharing motivation research is approach-
ing a mature level. However, we argue that a theory of knowledge sharing motiv-
ation in the public sector requires special consideration of its unique context. Due
to the nature of public service provision, public sector organizations are more likely
than businesses to attract those who are high in public service motivation (Steijn,
2008). We believe that public service motivation, as a special form of civil servants’
motivation, determines their knowledge sharing.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Public service motivation

Perry and Wise (1990: 368) first define PSM as ‘an individual’s predisposition to
respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and
organizations’. Following this pioneer study, many public administration scholars
have tried to give different definitions to PSM (Brewer et al., 2000; Bright, 2008;
Houston, 2006; Rainey and Steinbauer, 1999; Vandenabeele, 2007; Wright and
Pandey, 2008). Despite different descriptions, their definitions generally follow
the line of altruism, as Perry et al. (2010) indicate in a review study of PSM.
Basically, PSM is reflected in four dimensions, namely attraction to policy
making, commitment to the public interest, compassion, and self-sacrifice (Perry,
1996). These dimensions are underpinned by three undergrounding mechanisms:
rationality, norm, and affectivity (Perry and Wise, 1990).
In the present study, we anticipate that PSM as a form of altruistic motivation
functions as an accelerator for organizational knowledge sharing in the public sector.
However, we do not expect that the four dimensions of PSM will influence knowledge
sharing through the same mechanism, and we do not expect that they will gener-
ate similar impacts on knowledge sharing as well. Below we elaborate our views.
PSM and knowledge sharing

We first hypothesize that ‘compassion’ as a core component of PSM promotes
knowledge sharing. The undergirding logic of this relationship can be observed
from the nature of knowledge sharing itself. Knowledge sharing as a voluntary act
(Davenport and Prusak, 1997) to some extent resembles many prosocial and altru-
istic behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior (Gagné, 2009). As stated
earlier, empirical evidence shows that PSM is positively associated with organiza-
tional citizenship behavior (Kim, 2006; Pandey et al., 2008), as well as citizenship
behavior outside of organizational settings such as volunteering, donating blood,
and political participation (Houston, 2006; Perry et al., 2008; Taylor, 2008). The
positive relationship between PSM and citizenship behavior is likely grounded in
compassion, the most fundamental affective component of PSM. According to
Goetz (2008), compassion and agreeable personality are inseparable, and agree-
ableness is a source of being good-natured, forgiving, helpful, and altruistic
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). In fact, compassion as an affective factor in PSM is
analog to the aforementioned ‘affective-based willingness to help colleagues’ in the
business management literature (Kwok and Gao, 2004; Lin, 2007).
H1: Compassion is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.
Our second hypothesis centers on the effects of ‘self-sacrifice’ and ‘commitment

to the public interest’. Knowledge sharing involves risks. As Ipe (2003) indicates,
knowledge sharing is a power game. If individuals perceive that sharing causes a
loss of power, they will hoard knowledge for personal defense. It is not surprising
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 5
that scholars continuously call for the creation of an environment of interpersonal

trust and procedural justice in order to combat knowledge hoarding stemming
from perceived risks (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Hsu et al., 2007; Mooradian
et al., 2006; Renzl, 2008). While we admit the importance of external influences
such as a trust culture and procedural fairness, we also believe that individuals’
spirit of self-sacrifice for the public interest and their commitment to the public
interest can transcend their selfish concern for personal risks and accordingly orient
them to share knowledge for better service delivery.
H2: Self-sacrifice is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.
H3: Commitment to the public interest is positively correlated with knowledge

sharing.
Finally, we consider the impact of ‘attraction to public policy making’.

Knowledge sharing is often a result of rational deliberation. Sharing occurs
when individuals perceive the value of knowledge sharing. The existing literature
hints that the value can be identified as both personal (e.g. rewards and reciprocal
benefits) and organizational (e.g. achieving the visions and goals) (Kim and Lee,
2006; Taylor and Wright, 2004). In the public sector, the value may be identified as
societal as the provision of public service is often the main goal of government
organizations. From this point of view, civil servants who have a strong interest in
policy making are more likely than others to identify the societal value of know-
ledge sharing, i.e. generating better public policies and providing better public
services with more updated organizational knowledge. Therefore,
H4: Attraction to public policy making is positively correlated with knowledge

sharing
In sum, public service as a calling (Houston and Cartwright, 2007) may lead civil
servants to share knowledge in order to create more advanced organizational
knowledge and accordingly improve public service delivery. We anticipate that
PSM as a form of altruistic motivation is positively related to knowledge sharing
in general. Although the four dimensions, according to the literature, should posi-
tively influence knowledge sharing, we do not expect that their impacts are simi-
larly strong. The main reason leading to the difference is the disparate level of
individual self-determination accompanied by the four dimensions of PSM.
Different PSM dimensions, different self-determination, different impacts

According to Perry (1996), compassion as the central motive for public servants and
‘patriotism of benevolence’ is grounded in affectivity. Commitment to the public
interest is commonly considered normative. Attraction to public policy making
serves as a rational motive. Regarding self-sacrifice, Perry (1996) is not
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
very clear.2 In our view, self-sacrifice is to a great extent rooted in norms because
self-sacrifice can be found in religious creeds, implying that self-sacrifice is a belief
learned through socialization.
According to self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci, 2000), when
people act based on affectivity, their psychological regulatory style is internal and
the motivational structure can be interpreted as intrinsic. In other words, compas-
sion in PSM refers to a type of intrinsic motivation. When people act based on either
rationality or norms, their psychological regulatory style should be interpreted as
extrinsic. That is, commitment to the public interest, self-sacrifice, and attraction to
policy making fall into the category of extrinsic motivation. However, extrinsic
motivation is not one-dimensional as the psychological regulatory styles vary
depending on the nature of the regulations. Rationality, compared to norms, exhi-
bits weaker psychological regulation. What leads individuals to participate in policy
making is the identification of the value of good policies for people. However, people
cannot be condemned if they choose not to participate in policy making. A motive
stemming from rationality such as attraction to policy making is referred to as
identified regulation (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Vallerand and Ratelle, 2004).
Norms accompany stronger psychological regulation than rationality. Violating
norms may not cause direct physical punishment, but one often feels psychologic-
ally guilty. One possible reason is that norms catalyze the internalization of iden-
tified values and their integration into our value system (Etzioni, 2000). In SDT,
this is called integrated regulation (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Vallerand and Ratelle,
2004). Both commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice as norm-based
PSM belong to this category.
According to SDT, internal regulation, integrated regulation, and identified
regulation constitute a person’s autonomous motivation.3 We can learn at least
two things by employing SDT to understand PSM. First, altruistic motivation such
as PSM does not have to be always intrinsic. Sometimes wanting to help others and
contributing to the society may result from extrinsic reasons. Second, the four
dimensions of PSM are reflected in different levels of self-determination: compas-
sion as a type of internal regulation is the highest; attraction to policy making as a
type of identified regulation is the lowest; commitment to the public interest and
self-sacrifice as a type of integrated regulation are in between. Therefore, we offer
the following hypothesis:
H5: Regarding the association between different dimensions of PSM and knowledge
sharing, compassion is the strongest, attraction to policy making is the weakest, and
commitment to the public interest and self-sacrifice are in between.
Data
Data used in the current study were collected from civil servants in Taiwan. Strictly
speaking, Taiwan is still in the burgeoning state of democracy as democratization
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 7
came about less than four decades ago (Berman et al., 2013a). Despite its relatively
young democracy, public administration in Taiwan features administrative values
(e.g. efficiency, transparency, accountability, and rule orientation) that can be
found in mature democracies around the world (Jan, 2010). Although generaliza-
tion from the Taiwanese data is not impossible, we must bear in mind that the
national culture of Taiwan, characterized as collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010),
may influence the practice of knowledge sharing as Chow et al. (2000) suggest. This
limitation will be discussed in greater detail in a later section.
In our data, all survey participants were middle managers working in the Taipei
City Government. In a 14-grade hierarchy, the grades of middle managers are
generally between seven and nine. Middle managers were selected because the
flow of information and the exchange of knowledge occur intensively at the
middle level in most bureaucracies (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), making them
ideal for the current research. The questionnaire was originally designed in the
summer of 2009. We cooperated with a team of scholars at National Chengchi
University in Taiwan to finalize the questionnaire and conducted the survey in
2010. Among all collected responses, three cases were found to be invalid and
deleted as a result of the misplacement of non-middle managers on the survey
list. As a result, 514 responses were successfully collected which yielded a response
rate of 66.7 percent.
Variables
We measure the dependent variable, knowledge sharing, with two Likert items (1 ¼
not important at all and 6 ¼ extremely important) stating, ‘I voluntarily share my
professional knowledge with my colleagues through text-based ways such as mes-
sages, emails, documents, or internet’ and ‘I voluntarily share my profes-
sional knowledge with my colleagues in a face-to-face manner’ (Cronbach’s
alpha ¼ .75). Grounded in the explicit/tacit typology (Nonaka and Konno, 1998;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), these two items capture explicit knowledge sharing
and tacit knowledge sharing respectively.
The main independent variable is PSM. Following Perry’s (1996) dimensionality
of PSM, the authors selected 14 items (three within attraction to policy making;
four within commitment to the public interest; three within compassion; four
within self-sacrifice) with 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 6 ¼ strongly agree. The most
fundamental criterion applied to item selection was translation – whether an item
could be translated into Chinese without losing much of its meaning. Cronbach’s
alpha for each dimension of PSM is .69 (attraction to policy making), .72 (com-
mitment to the public interest), .80 (compassion), and .81 (self-sacrifice), and for
the PSM index (the summation of 14 items) is .82. To test if the four constructs of
PSM as well as the dependent variable are salient and distinct, we ran a factor
analysis with the VARIMAX rotational method. Using the cutoff value of .4 sug-
gested by Stevens (2009), Table 1 demonstrates that all items correspond to com-
posite measures adequately as expected.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Table 1. Factor analysis
1 2 3 4 5
PSM1-1 .092 .042 .603 .018 .053

PSM1-2 .055 .005 .672 .074 .083
PSM1-3 .002 .119 .705 .060 .201
PSM2-1 .129 .187 .381 .063 .453
PSM2-2 .143 .106 .037 .152 .624
PSM2-3 .381 .372 .106 .108 .473
PSM2-4 .332 .363 .129 .075 .436
PSM3-1 .228 .732 .011 .087 .194
PSM3-2 .206 .783 .007 .200 .184
PSM3-3 .105 .624 .065 .158 .070
PSM4-1 .717 .107 .053 .124 .095
PSM4-2 .740 .092 .023 .091 .159
PSM4-3 .659 .339 .090 .167 .192
PSM4-4 .568 .178 .097 .154 .101
Knowledge sharing1 .191 .224 .081 .882 .182
Knowledge sharing2 .234 .189 .099 .569 .096
Eigenvalue 2.319 2.123 1.528 1.304 1.258
Variance explained (%) 14.496 13.267 9.549 8.148 7.864
Note: Factor loadings of .4 or above are shown in bold.
Regarding control variables, we admit that potential confounding variables were

too many and we are unable to control for all of them in one model. As a result, we
chose five variables that belong to three main genres in Ipe’s (2003) categorization
of knowledge sharing determinants: properties of knowledge, situational factors,
and motivation. We selected them bearing in mind the following two consider-
ations: first, they have repeatedly appeared in the research on knowledge sharing
in recent years, implying their key roles in enhancing/compromising knowledge
sharing. Second, Ipe’s (2003) categorization, so far the most all-encompassing
and based on economic rationality, embraces non-altruistic factors in different
aspects. Choosing these variables allows us to compare the impact of PSM, an
indicator of social altruism, with the impact of non-altruistic factors, especially
rational individualism. See Table 2 for descriptive statistics and Appendix A for
variable measurement.
Findings
Results from the correlation matrix in Table 3 provide some preliminary support to
our hypotheses. Correlation coefficients show that all knowledge sharing variables
(explicit sharing, tacit sharing, and the index as the summation of these two) are
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 9
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
Variable N Mean SD Min Max
Knowledge sharing 1 (tacit; face-to-face) 506 5.04 0.73 1 6

Knowledge sharing 2 (explicit; text-based) 506 4.62 0.91 1 6
Knowledge sharing index 505 4.83 0.74 1 6
PSM1: Attracting to policy making 506 3.96 0.93 1 6
PSM2: Commitment to the public interest 506 4.77 0.69 1.75 6
PSM3: Compassion 510 5.36 0.58 1 6
PSM4: Self-sacrifice 508 4.41 0.80 1.50 6
PSM index 498 4.62 0.53 1.57 6
Knowledge sharing endangering promotion 507 2.01 0.83 1 6
Knowledge sharing for task accomplishment 507 4.87 0.89 1 6
Satisfaction with current compensation 506 4.21 0.93 1 6
Trust in colleagues 506 4.29 0.77 1.50 6
Perceived procedural justice 499 3.73 0.99 1 6
Age 495 44.99 7.15 24 64
Agency tenure 500 4.70 5.35 0 39
Male 500 0.54 0.50 0 1
significantly (p < .01) correlated with every subdimension of PSM as well as the
PSM index, although the coefficients of compassion, self-sacrifice, and commitment
to the public interest are apparently higher than that of attraction to policy
making. Regarding controls, with the exception of gender and agency tenure,
almost every variable is significantly correlated with knowledge sharing, a finding
in line with the existing literature.
In addition to correlation coefficients, we investigate how PSM influences know-
ledge sharing using OLS regression with the use of the knowledge sharing index
(the summation of explicit sharing and tacit sharing) as the dependent variable. The
results are reported in Table 4. After controlling for all confounding variables, we
find that the PSM index (Model 1) is still a statistically significant predictor for
knowledge sharing (coef ¼ 0.47, p < .00). When PSM is separated into four sub-
dimensions (Model 2), we find that commitment to the public interest, compassion,
and self-sacrifice are statistically significant, but attraction to policy making is not
(coef ¼ 0.03, p < .28). This provides evidence supporting H2, H3, and H4 but not
H1.4
In the present study, we use standardized coefficients (Beta values) to compare
the substantive influence of each variable. In Model 1, PSM index (Beta ¼ .33) is
the most influential predictor for knowledge sharing. In Model 2, after we separate
PSM into four dimensions, the most influential predictor is perceived necessity of
knowledge sharing for task accomplishment (Beta ¼ .24). Compassion as affective
RASJ140049.3d
XML Template (2015)
10
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
Knowledge sharing 1: Tacit (1) 1.00

Knowledge sharing 2: Explicit (2) 0.61 1.00
(RAS)
Knowledge sharing index (3) 0.87 0.92 1.00

PSM1: Attracting to policy 0.16 0.14 0.16 1.00
making (4)
[10.3.2015–12:40pm]
PSM2: Commitment to the 0.40 0.30 0.38 0.28 1.00

public interest (5)
PSM3: Compassion (6) 0.41 0.32 0.40 0.08 0.49 1.00
PSM4: Self-sacrifice (7) 0.40 0.35 0.41 0.15 0.50 0.42 1.00
PSM index (8) 0.48 0.40 0.48 0.57 0.81 0.63 0.77 1.00
[PREPRINTER stage]
[1–21]
Knowledge sharing endangering 0.27 0.15 0.23 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.21 1.00
promotion (9)
Knowledge sharing for task 0.35 0.28 0.35 0.07 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.30 0.20 1.00
accomplishment (10)
Satisfaction with current 0.30 0.27 0.32 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.05 1.00
compensation (11)
Trust in colleagues (12) 0.32 0.26 0.32 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.26 1.00
Perceived procedural justice (13) 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.08 0.40 0.47 1.00
Age (14) 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.17 0.16 0.26 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.23 0.01 0.12 1.00
Agency tenure (15) 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.26 1.00
Male (16) 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.16 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.20 0.04 1.00
p < .01 when coefficients < .12; p < .05 when coefficients > .09.
International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 11
Table 4. OLS regression: knowledge sharing Index as DV
Model 1 Model 2
Beta Coef p Beta Coef p
PSM index 0.33 0.47 0.00** – – –

PSM1: Attracting to policy making – – – 0.04 0.03 0.28
PSM2: Commitment to the public interest – – – 0.10 0.11 0.03*
PSM3: Compassion – – – 0.20 0.26 0.00**
PSM4: Self-sacrifice – – – 0.14 0.13 0.00**
Knowledge sharing endangering promotion 0.10 0.09 0.01* 0.09 0.08 0.02*
Knowledge sharing for task accomplishment 0.26 0.22 0.00** 0.24 0.21 0.00**
Satisfaction with current compensation 0.20 0.16 0.00** 0.20 0.16 0.00**
Trust in colleagues 0.01 0.01 0.84 0.01 0.01 0.82
Perceived procedural justice 0.02 0.01 0.66 0.03 0.02 0.53
Age 0.08 0.01 0.05* 0.07 0.01 0.11
Agency tenure 0.08 0.01 0.03* 0.08 0.01 0.03*
Male 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.05 0.08 0.18
N 463 463
Adjusted R square 0.373 0.387
**p < .01; *p < .05.
PSM (Beta ¼ .20) is the second most influential predictor. Its influence is as strong
as that of compensational satisfaction (Beta ¼ .20). If we compare the four dimen-
sions of PSM, we find that compassion is the most influential predictor
(Beta ¼ .20), more influential than commitment to the public interest (Beta ¼ .10)
and self-sacrifice (Beta ¼ .14) as the norm-based PSM. The least influential one is
attraction to policy making (Beta ¼ .04) as the rational PSM. To be more precise in
statistics, we conducted several post-regression tests to examine whether any two
coefficients of PSM are statistically different from each other. Under the null ‘any
two PSM coefficients are equal’, most test results rejected the null at the level of
a ¼ .05 or at least a ¼ .10. Therefore, H5 is supported.
Regarding control variables, knowledge sharing endangering promotion, know-
ledge sharing for task accomplishment, satisfaction with the current compensation,
and agency tenure are statistically significant. The influence of age is diluted when
PSM is separated into four dimensions (Model 2). Trust in colleagues, perceived
procedural justice, and gender fail to reach the significance level of a ¼ .05. While
we are unable to pinpoint what exactly leads to insignificant coefficients of trust in
colleagues and perceived procedural justice, fairly high statistical correlations
between these two variables (.47) and between trust in colleagues and satisfaction
with current compensation (.40) are a possible reason.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Table 5. Bivariate Ordered Probit regression (n ¼ 463)
Explicit knowledge Tacit knowledge

sharing sharing
Coef p Coef P
PSM1: Attracting to policy making 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.42

PSM2: Commitment to the public interest 0.27 0.01* 0.13 0.20
PSM3: Compassion 0.54 0.00** 0.35 0.00**
PSM4: Self-sacrifice 0.20 0.02* 0.20 0.01**
Knowledge sharing endangering promotion 0.29 0.00** 0.07 0.34

Knowledge sharing for task accomplishment 0.40 0.00** 0.32 0.00**
Satisfaction with current compensation 0.35 0.00** 0.20 0.00**
Trust in colleagues 0.01 0.87 0.03 0.73
Perceived procedural justice 0.05 0.44 0.11 0.07
Age 0.00 0.67 0.02 0.04*
Agency tenure 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.02*
Male 0.04 0.73 0.25 0.02*
Wald test (2) 184.61**
r 0.59
LR test of independent equations (2) 112.72**
**p < .01; *p < .05.
To verify whether it is suitable to estimate explicit and tacit knowledge sharing

jointly, we perform the bivariate ordered probit statistical procedure.5 Table 5
presents the two-equation model that is generated from the analysis. Overall, the
model fits the data well (Wald 2 ¼ 184.61, p < .00). The estimated correlation
between the error variances of the two equations is .587, which is statistically
significant (p < .00). We also find that, in general, the results pattern of bivariate
ordered probit regression is similar to that of OLS regression: the coefficients of
compassion, self-sacrifice, and commitment to the public interest are statistically
significant, but the coefficient of attraction to policy making is not.6 However, some
interesting findings deserve special attention. First, regarding PSM, compassion
and commitment to the public interest are much more influential in the model of
explicit knowledge than the model of tacit knowledge. Does it mean that sharing
tacit knowledge implies the loss of personal value, and the fear of losing value
counterbalances the impacts of PSM? Second, age, agency tenure, and gender are
statistically significant only in the model of tacit knowledge. If the loss of personal
value is indeed an important concern, does it mean that senior people are less afraid
to share knowledge because their status is more established? Does it mean that men
are more afraid to share knowledge, or does it mean that they are simply less
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 13
talkative than women? These propositions go beyond the scope of the current study
and the answers are not readily available, but they would be interesting topics for
future research.
Implications
With the introduction of PSM, the present study connects knowledge sharing with
public administration. When research on knowledge sharing is conducted in the
public sector context, existing findings show that knowledge sharing determinants
noted in the generic management literature can be readily applied to the public
sector (e.g. Yusof et al., 2012), meaning that ‘sector matters little’. Focusing on
motivation, however, we argue that a theory of knowledge sharing motivation in
the public sector requires special consideration as civil servants’ altruistic motiv-
ation is not limited to intraorganizational affairs. Public service as a calling
(Houston and Cartwright, 2007) can lead civil servants to share knowledge in
order to create more advanced organizational knowledge and accordingly improve
public service delivery or the quality of public programs/policies. In sum, our
research advances the theory of knowledge sharing motivation by considering
the special context of the public sector and giving altruistic motivation a broader
definition that includes serving the public interest.
The present study contributes to the field of general public administration as well.
Although Waldo (1980) reminded us that public administration relies on constantly
updated knowledge to facilitate civilization, the research on knowledge-related
topics is still scant, except two knowledge-sharing articles published in mainstream
journals (Kim and Lee, 2006; Willem and Buelens, 2007). This article, as the third
piece of research that focuses on knowledge sharing in the public sector, does not
merely advance the understanding of knowledge sharing or PSM. In a broader sense,
it encourages scholars to pay more attention to knowledge-related research, a topic
that is critical but underdeveloped in public administration.
In addition to the aforementioned main contributions, a few additional points
deserve greater discussion. The first one concerns different dimensions of PSM.
Regression results show that compassion as an affective motive has the greatest
impact on knowledge sharing whereas the rational motive, attraction to policy
making, has the weakest impact (and more importantly, the coefficients are not
statistically significant). The norm-based motives, commitment to the public inter-
est and sacrifice, are in between. It implies that to enhance helping behaviors such
as knowledge sharing, the effect of rational PSM alone is not enough. In fact, a few
recent empirical studies of volunteering provide a similar view. They either argue
that attraction to policy making is presumed to be a poor antecedent of volunteer-
ing activity (Coursey et al., 2011) or find that attraction to policy making is less
effective than other PSM dimensions in predicting volunteering and donating deci-
sions (Clerkin et al., 2009).
The second point concerns the relative importance of PSM compared to controls
included in the present study. Except for demographics, controls in the present
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
study pertain to properties of knowledge, situational factors, and extrinsic motiv-

ation for knowledge sharing. Existing research that simultaneously examines both
altruistic motivation and other situational and motivational antecedents generally
demonstrates that altruistic motivation is more influential than other factors (Hsu
and Lin, 2008; Lin, 2007). Our finding is consistent with this pattern: the influence
of PSM is stronger than that of most controls, especially in the aggregate model
(Model 1 in Table 4). The finding perfectly reflects Gagné’s (2009) perspective that
being motivated to share out of interest or personal meaning results in more posi-
tive attitudes toward knowledge sharing. Similarly, the literature on volunteering
suggests that knowledge sharing as a type of voluntary act (Davenport and Prusak,
1997) is more strongly espoused by altruistic motives than by functional motives
(e.g. self-protection, career help, making friends, and self-enhancement) (Mowen
and Sujan, 2005), further supporting our finding.
Following these two points, we provide practical suggestions to front-line public
managers. While most research on knowledge sharing encourages managers to
provide a sense of security and procedural justice for employees, facilitate inter-
personal trust, use IT, and offer benefits for sharing, the method of enhancing
altruistic motivation is not commonly addressed. We do not deny the importance
of situational factors and extrinsic motives, but apparently altruistic motivation,
particularly PSM in the public sector, plays an even more pivotal role in promoting
knowledge sharing. To ensure a high level of civil servants’ PSM, public managers
may wish to consider the following issues: are there adequate tools that help in the
hiring of individuals high in PSM and winnowing out those low in PSM? Are there
mentoring programs that help enhance employees’ PSM (Bozeman and Feeney,
2009)? Does the organization provide appropriate training that helps employees
counteract the ‘reality shock’ brought on by citizens’ cynical attitudes and lack of
appreciation (Blau, 1960; Buurman et al., 2009)? Does the organization provide
excessive external incentives such as contingent rewards based on performance that
eventually crowd out PSM (Frey and Jegen, 2001; Jacobsen, 2011)? In sum,
to enhance knowledge sharing, public managers may benefit not only from the
generic management literature about knowledge sharing but also from the PSM
literature.
Limitations and suggestions for future research

Despite the contribution of linking PSM to knowledge sharing, limitations exist in
the present study and we call for future research to improve them. First, we tested
our hypotheses using data collected in Taiwan which is culturally dominated by
Confucian collectivism. People in this culture tend to create a group norm, follow
it, and hesitate to be too prominent (Berman et al., 2013b). They also face less
competition than people in an individualist culture, where people often have an
obsessive desire to get ahead of others and keep material and knowledge to them-
selves to avoid harm (Kirby and Ross, 2007). Is PSM more likely to help people
transcend the concern for self-protection in a collectivist culture than in an
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 15
individualist culture? We need more evidence. Due to this generalizability concern,

we call for similar studies in an individualist culture.
Second, we rely on only two items to capture different facets of knowledge
sharing. This is not enough. Contemporary studies of knowledge sharing often
make knowledge sharing behaviors, attitudes, and intentions distinctive and iso-
lated from each other (Bock and Kim, 2002; Gagné, 2009; Hsu and Lin, 2008). It
would provide a substantial contribution if researchers could compare the impact
of PSM on the three different knowledge sharing components. Finally, the meas-
urement of PSM can be improved as well. We collected the data in early 2010 and
happened to miss newly developed PSM measurement tools by Kim and his col-
leagues (Kim, 2009; Kim et al., 2013). The new tools contain elements more tai-
lored to the Asian context and include commitment to public value as a new
dimension. They may more faithfully and completely reflect multiple dimensions
of PSM.
To study knowledge sharing motivation in the public sector, we aim to go
beyond the framework of knowledge sharing motivation grounded in the generic
management literature by introducing PSM, a core theory in the field of public
administration. In fact, if scholars intend to more faithfully depict knowledge
sharing or other knowledge management dynamics in the public sector, improving
the understanding of theories in public administration is necessary. In addition to
PSM, the theory of red tape (Bozeman, 1993; Bozeman and Feeney, 2011), for
example, could be useful to the research of knowledge sharing because red tape as a
type of external intervention may crowd out (Frey and Jegen, 2001) an individual’s
intrinsic motivation to share knowledge. In sum, the present study merely scratches
the surface of public sector employees’ knowledge sharing motivation. More
research effort is called for in the future.
Financing
The authors thank the Taiwan National Science Council for project funding (grant
number NSC-96-2414-H-004-037-SS2); the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for
International Scholarly Exchange (grant number RG003-D-06); and the
Nanyang Technological University (start-up grant number 4080392). The authors
also thank Dr Don-Yun Chen at National Chengchi University for making the
data available.
Notes
1. It should be noted that reputation and pride are not intrinsic in nature as both are
external to individuals, according to self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci,
2000).
2. In fact, most public administration scholars cannot clearly indicate whether self-sacrifice
is grounded in affectivity, norm, or rationality. An example can be found in Taylor
(2007).
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
3. ‘Autonomous motivation’ is a counterpart of ‘controlled motivation’ such as monetary

rewards or physical punishments in SDT.
4. We did not detect multicollinearity and heteroskedasticity by using VIFs and the
Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test.
5. Bivariate ordered probit regression is performed because the two dependent variables,
explicit and tacit knowledge sharing, are ordinal and, more importantly, this estimation
procedure enables us to verify whether the two regression equations that have the same
specification are truly correlated (Greene, 2003).
6. Commitment to the public interest is not statistically significant in the model of tacit
knowledge, but its joint effect for both models is significant (p < .05). Also, bivariate
ordered probit findings show that compassion is the most influential, attraction to policy
making is the least influential, and self-sacrifice and commitment to the public interest are
in between, in line with the OLS findings.
References
Barrick MR and Mount MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job perform-
ance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26.
Bartol KM and Srivastava A (2002) Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9(1):
64–76.
Berman EM, Chen D-Y, Jan C-Y and Huang TY (2013a) Public agency leadership: The
impact of informal understandings with political appointees on perceived agency innov-
ation in Taiwan. Public Administration 91(2): 303–324.
Berman EM, Sabharwal M, Wang C-Y, West J, Jing Y, Jan C-Y, Liu W, Brillantes A, Chen
C-A and Gomes R (2013b) The impact of societal culture on the use of performance
strategies in East Asia. Public Management Review 15(8): 1065–1089.
Blau PM (1960) Orientation toward clients in a public welfare agency. Administrative
Science Quarterly 5(3): 341–361.
Bock G-W and Kim Y-G (2002) Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of
attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal 15(2):
14–21.
Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G and Lee J-N (2005) Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. Mis Quarterly 29(1): 87–111.
Bozeman B (1993) A theory of government red tape. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 3(3): 273–303.
Bozeman B and Feeney MK (2009) Public management mentoring: A three-tier model.
Review of Public Personnel Administration 29(2): 134–157.
Bozeman B and Feeney MK (2011) Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration
Theory and Research. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Brewer GA, Selden SC and Facer RL II (2000) Individual conceptions of public service
motivation. Public Administration Review 60(3): 254–264.
Bright L (2008) Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfac-
tion and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public
Administration 38(2): 149–166.
Buurman M, Dur R and Van den Bossche S (2009) Public sector employees: Risk averse and
altruistic? IZA Discussion Paper 4401, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 17
Chow CW, Deng FJ and Ho JL (2000) The openness of knowledge sharing within organ-
izations: A comparative study of the United States and the People’s Republic of China.
Journal of Management Accounting Research 12(1): 65–95.
Clerkin RM, Paynter SR and Taylor JK (2009) Public service motivation in undergraduate
giving and volunteering decisions. American Review of Public Administration 39(6):
675–698.
Cong X, Li-Hua R and Stonehouse G (2007) Knowledge management in the Chinese public
sector: Empirical investigation. Journal of Technology Management in China 2(3):
250–263.
Coursey DH, Brudney JL, Littlepage L and Perry JL (2011) Does public service motivation
matter in volunteering domain choices? A test of functional theory. Review of Public
Personnel Administration 31(1): 48–66.
Davenport TH and Prusak L (1997) Information Ecology: Mastering the Information and
Knowledge Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Etzioni A (2000) Social norms: Internalization, persuasion, and history. Law and Society
Review 34(1): 157–178.
Frey BS and Jegen R (2001) Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys
15(5): 589–611.
Gagné M (2009) A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management
48(4): 571–589.
Goetz JL (2008) Compassion as a Discrete Emotion: Its Form and Function. Doctoral dis-
sertation. Berkeley: University of California.
Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofstede GH, Hofstede GJ and Minkov M (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of
the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, 3rd edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Houston DJ (2006) ‘Walking the walk’ of public service motivation: Public employees and
charitable gifts of time, blood, and money. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 16(1): 67–86.
Houston DJ and Cartwright KE (2007) Spirituality and public service. Public Administration
Review 67(1): 88–102.
Hsu C-L and Lin JCC (2008) Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance,
social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management 45(1):
65–74.
Hsu M-H, Ju TL, Yen C-H and Chang C-M (2007) Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual
communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations.
International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 65(2): 153–169.
Ipe M (2003) Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human
Resource Development Review 2(4): 337–359.
Jacobsen CB (2011) Public service motivation and monetary incentives: Substitution or
crowding? Paper presented at the IRSPM Annual Conference, Dublin.
Jan C-Y (2010) History and context of public administration in Taiwan. In: Berman EM,
Moon MJ and Choi H (eds) Public Administration in East Asia: Mainland China, Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan. New York: CRC Press, pp. 497–516.
Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY and Wei K-K (2005) Contributing knowledge to electronic know-
ledge repositories: An empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly 29(1): 113–143.
Kim S (2006) Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea.
International Journal of Manpower 27(8): 722–740.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Kim S (2009) Revising Perry’s measurement scale of public service motivation. American
Review of Public Administration 39(2): 149–163.
Kim S and Lee H (2006) The impact of organizational context and information technology
on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review 66(3):
370–385.
Kim S, Vandenabeele W, Wright BE, Andersen LB, Cerase FP, Christensen RK, et al (2013)
Investigating the structure and meaning of public service motivation across populations:
Developing an international instrument and addressing issues of measurement invari-
ance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23(1): 79–102.
Kirby EG and Ross JK (2007) Kiasu tendency and tactics: A study of their impact on task
performance. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 8(2): 108–121.
Kwok JSH and Gao S (2004) Knowledge sharing community in P2P network: A study of
motivational perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(1): 94–102.
Lee D-J and Ahn J-H (2007) Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing.
European Journal of Operational Research 180(2): 938–956.
Lin H-F (2007) Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science 33(2): 135–149.
Meier KJ (2006) Politics and the Bureaucracy: Policymaking in the Fourth Branch of
Government. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Milbraith LW (1989) Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Mooradian T, Renzl B and Matzler K (2006) Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge
sharing. Management Learning 37(4): 523–540.
Mowen JC and Sujan H (2005) Volunteer behavior: A hierarchical model approach for
investigating its trait and functional motive antecedents. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 15(2): 170–182.
Nonaka I and Konno N (1998) The concept of ‘ba’: Building a foundation for knowledge
creation. California Management Review 40(3): 40–54.
Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Osterloh M and Frey BS (2000) Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms.
Organization Science 11(5): 538–550.
Pandey SK, Wright BE and Moynihan DP (2008) Public service motivation and interper-
sonal citizenship behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary model.
International Public Management Journal 11(1): 89–108.
Perry JL (1996) Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability
and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5–22.
Perry JL, Brudney JL, Coursey DH and Littlepage L (2008) What drives morally committed
citizens? A study of the antecedents of public service motivation. Public Administration
Review 68(3): 445–458.
Perry JL, Hondeghem A and Wise LR (2010) Revisiting the motivational bases of public
service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration
Review 70(5): 681–690.
Perry JL and Wise LR (1990) The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration
Review 50(3): 367–373.
Rainey HG and Steinbauer P (1999) Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory
of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 9(1): 1–32.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 19
Renzl B (2008) Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear
and knowledge documentation. Omega 36(2): 206–220.
Rourke FE (1984) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1): 68–78.
Sandhu MS, Jain KK and Ahmad IUK (2011) Knowledge sharing among public sector
employees: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management
24(3): 206–226.
Seba I, Rowley J and Delbridge R (2012) Knowledge sharing in the Dubai police force.
Journal of Knowledge Management 16(1): 114–128.
Spender J-C (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal 17(Special Issue): 45–62.
Steijn B (2008) Person–environment fit and public service motivation. International Public
Management Journal 11(1): 13–27.
Stevens J (2009) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Taylor J (2007) The impact of public service motives on work outcomes in Australia: A
comparative multi-dimensional analysis. Public Administration 85(4): 931–959.
Taylor J (2008) Organizational influences, public service motivation and work outcomes: An
Australian study. International Public Management Journal 11(1): 67–88.
Taylor WA and Wright GH (2004) Organizational readiness for successful knowledge shar-
ing: Challenges for public sector managers. Information Resources Management Journal
17(2): 22–37.
Vallerand RJ and Ratelle CE (2004) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical
model. In: Deci EL and Ryan RM (eds) Handbook of Self-determination Research.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, pp. 37–63.
Vandenabeele W (2007) Toward a public administration theory of public service motivation:
An institutional approach. Public Management Review 9(4): 545–556.
Waldo D (1980) The Enterprise of Public Administration: A Summary View. Novato, CA:
Chandler & Sharp Publishers.
Willem A and Buelens M (2007) Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: The
effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 581–606.
Wright BE and Pandey SK (2008) Public service motivation and the assumption of person–
organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration &
Society 40(5): 502–521.
Yao LJ, Kam THY and Chan SH (2007) Knowledge sharing in Asian public administration
sector: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 20(1):
51–69.
Yusof ZM, Ismail MB, Ahmad K and Yusof MM (2012) Knowledge sharing in the
public sector in Malaysia: A proposed holistic model. Information Development 28(1):
43–54.
Chung-An Chen is assistant professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs
Programme, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests
include public management, organizational behavior, and human resource man-
agement, with a particular focus on human motivation.
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chih-Wei Hsieh is assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy, City

University of Hong Kong. His research interests focus on public service delivery,
human resource management, and organizational behavior. He has published art-
icles on emotional labor, public service motivation, and workplace diversity in
various journals.
Appendix A: Variable measurement

Dependent variable
Knowledge sharing index (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .75)
. I voluntarily share my professional knowledge with my colleagues through text-

based ways such as messages, emails, documents, or the internet
. I voluntarily share my professional knowledge with my colleagues in a face-
to-face manner
. Independent variables
PSM 1: Attraction to policy making (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .69)
. Politics is a dirty word (rev)

. I don’t care much for politicians (rev)
. The give and take of public policy making doesn’t appeal me (rev)
PSM 2: Commitment to the public interest (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .72)
. It is hard for me to get interested in what is going on in my community (rev)

. I unselfishly contribute to my community
. I consider public service my civic duty
. I would like to know more about what people need in my homeland
PSM 3: Compassion (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .80)
. I am often moved by the plight of the underprivileged

. I am often reminded of how dependent we are on one another
. Many public welfare programs are indispensible
PSM 4: Self-sacrifice (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .81)
. I think people should give back to society more than they get from it
. Making a difference in society means more to me than personal achievement
. I would risk my career for the public good of society
. I can accept a government’s decision that benefits people but hurts my
interests
XML Template (2015) [10.3.2015–12:40pm] [1–21]
Chen and Hsieh 21
PSM index (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .82)
Control variables
. I am afraid that sharing knowledge will jeopardize my promotion
. It is hard to accomplish organizational tasks if people do not share knowledge
. Compensational satisfaction (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .80)
. I am satisfied with my salary
. I am satisfied with my monetary benefits (e.g. retirement pension, insurance,
etc.)
. I am satisfied with my non-monetary benefits (e.g. flexible schedule, unpaid
leave, etc.)
. Trust in colleagues (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .76)
. My colleagues share important information related to work without
reservation
. I keep strong faith in my colleagues as they have a high level of professional
ethics
. In this organization, there seems to be an invisible barrier between people
(rev)
. My interaction with my colleagues is transactional and insincere (rev)
. Perceived procedural justice (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .74)
. There are clear rules and procedures for promotion in this organization
. The procedures for filing complaints in this organization are perfect
. Decisions regarding promotion are not transparent in this organization (rev)
. Age
. Agency tenure
. Male

Knowledge Sharing Motivation in The Public Sector: The Role of Public Service Motivation

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

Knowledge Sharing Motivation in The Public Sector: The Role of Public Service Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

XML Template (2015) [10.3.

Points for practitioners

2 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Chen and Hsieh 3

Knowledge sharing motivation: a thorough review

4 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Public service motivation

PSM and knowledge sharing

H1: Compassion is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.

Our second hypothesis centers on the eﬀects of ‘self-sacriﬁce’ and ‘commitment

Chen and Hsieh 5

that scholars continuously call for the creation of an environment of interpersonal

H2: Self-sacriﬁce is positively correlated with knowledge sharing.

H3: Commitment to the public interest is positively correlated with knowledge

Finally, we consider the impact of ‘attraction to public policy making’.

H4: Attraction to public policy making is positively correlated with knowledge

Different PSM dimensions, different self-determination, different impacts

6 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Chen and Hsieh 7

8 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Table 1. Factor analysis

PSM1-1 .092 .042 .603 .018 .053

Regarding control variables, we admit that potential confounding variables were

Chen and Hsieh 9

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Variable N Mean SD Min Max

Knowledge sharing 1 (tacit; face-to-face) 506 5.04 0.73 1 6

Knowledge sharing 1: Tacit (1) 1.00

Knowledge sharing index (3) 0.87 0.92 1.00

PSM2: Commitment to the 0.40 0.30 0.38 0.28 1.00

Chen and Hsieh 11

Table 4. OLS regression: knowledge sharing Index as DV

Beta Coef p Beta Coef p

PSM index 0.33 0.47 0.00** – – –

12 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Table 5. Bivariate Ordered Probit regression (n ¼ 463)

Explicit knowledge Tacit knowledge

PSM1: Attracting to policy making 0.05 0.43 0.05 0.42

Knowledge sharing endangering promotion 0.29 0.00** 0.07 0.34

To verify whether it is suitable to estimate explicit and tacit knowledge sharing

Chen and Hsieh 13

14 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

study pertain to properties of knowledge, situational factors, and extrinsic motiv-

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Chen and Hsieh 15

individualist culture? We need more evidence. Due to this generalizability concern,

16 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

3. ‘Autonomous motivation’ is a counterpart of ‘controlled motivation’ such as monetary

Chen and Hsieh 17

18 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Chen and Hsieh 19

20 International Review of Administrative Sciences 0(0)

Chih-Wei Hsieh is assistant professor in the Department of Public Policy, City

Appendix A: Variable measurement

. I voluntarily share my professional knowledge with my colleagues through text-

PSM 1: Attraction to policy making (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .69)

. Politics is a dirty word (rev)

PSM 2: Commitment to the public interest (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .72)

. It is hard for me to get interested in what is going on in my community (rev)

PSM 3: Compassion (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .80)

. I am often moved by the plight of the underprivileged

PSM 4: Self-sacriﬁce (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .81)