Knowledge sharing is the process in which people interact and intentionally make knowledge

available to each other.[1]It also involves activities of disseminating information from one person

or group to another.Knowledge sharing behaviour itself is a set of behaviours that involve the

exchange of information or assistance to another.Basing on Theory of Reasoned Action(TRA)

and Theory of Planned Behaviour(TPB),knowledge sharing behaviour is derived by knowledge

sharing intention which is a function of knowledge sharing attitude,subjective norms and

perceived behavioral control.[1]

Several researchers have explored the factors affecting and influencing knowledge sharing

behaviour into several categories like personal factors,social factors,organizational factors

and technological factors.I will enumerate few factors within each category as follows:

Enjoyment of helping others as the desire to increase the welfare of one or more individual

other than oneself [Batson,Ahmad and Tsang 2002].[2]Helping others provides opportunities for

learning and growth,may also yield a kind of intrinsic enjoyment.Therefore,those who derive

enjoyment from helping others may be more favorable oriented towards knowledge sharing.

Perceived loss of knowledge power when people behave in a way that they hoard knowledge to

themselves in fear of competition or job security(for employees).And with this view,people are

discouraged from sharing their knowledge because it is seen as if knowledge sharing weakens

one’s power of status(Knowledge is power).[2]

Self efficacy as the degree to which people believe in their efforts or contributions,determines

whether they can execute courses of action to attain designated types of performances in the

organization.Those who believe that they can contribute organizational performance by sharing
knowledge will develop great positive willingness to take part in the knowledge sharing

activities.[3]

Social interaction.O’Dell and Grayson(1999) contend that learning and sharing knowledge are

social activities that focus on interaction of individual behaviour with the learning and sharing of

values on a reciprocal basis.[3]Such activities include social networking,outings and any kind of

face to face interaction.These activities increase communication and may tie up people’s trust

and intimacy of friendship.Thus,working closely with others and having familiarity with

them are important antecedents of knowledge sharing.[3]

Reward system as an organizational factor is associated with the effectiveness of knowledge

sharing because it affects employees’ willingness to share what they know.Rewards for

knowledge sharing can range from monetary incetives like increased salary and non-monetary

awards like promotions.[4]These systems are useful for motivating individuals to perform the

targeted behaviours and promote knowledge sharing behaviour.

Organisational culture play a vital role in building a knowledge sharing behaviour of an

individual.For knowledge sharing,organizational culture is more important because knowledge

sharing needs a supporting organisational culture.A culture which can not be manipulated and

people trust it when they think of sharing.[4]An environment in which knowledge sharing is

considered important,employees share willingly instead of being forced.

Trust through which knowledge sharing as a human behaviour can not be fostered without.It is

an important dimension of relation capital that resides in an individual’s relationships with others

including peers,team members and co-workers for creating an environment for knowledge
sharing [HedlundandNonaka,1993].[5]It is an important factor of knowledge sharing as it fosters

sharing and acquiring knowledge and retrieve specific resources.

Measuring factors influencing knowledge sharing behaviour:

Opinion based surveys method examine constructs like willingness to share knowledge-sharing

behaviour and factors which can influence it.It is often based on the use of scenarios or

questionnaires with statements evaluated by the informant on a Likert scale.[6]

The Likert scale is a questionnaire(type of rating scale) helpful to provide more granular

information on people’s attitudes towards a subject than a simple yes/no question type.The scales

are most commonly 5-point or 7-point scales with a neutral middle point,such as ‘neither agree

nor disagree’ but 4 or 6-point Likert scales can be used.[6]

Forexample:Yi(2009) used a 4-dimensional model consisting of 28 items.

Yang(2007) measured knowledge sharing by a 10-item scale.

Combination of hard and soft indicators.Forexample, Usoro et al(2007) measured knowledge

sharing in on-line communities via a questionnaire.In their research they examined How often an

employee takes part in a process of the knowledge sharing(Quantity of sharing) and Usefulness

of shared knowledge(Quality).[6]

Conclusively,Knowledge sharing is one of the great aims of Knowledge management.It leads to

improvement in innovation capability,better decision making by individuals,better and higher

performance.Morever several other methods can be used in measuring,such as Hard data

measurement,River Chart and Spider diagram.[6]

REFERENCES

.Lee,Tiffany T,,(2018)”Knowledge Sharing Behaviour:Clarifying Its measurement and

Atecendents”.Graduate Theses and Dissertations.https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7540

.Howell,D.(2010).Stastical methods for psychology.Wadsworth,Cengage Learning

.Campbell,J.P.&Kuncel,N.R.(2001).Individual and team training.Handbook of Industrial Work

and Organizational Psychology.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage

.Bartol,K.,&Srivastava,A(2002).Encouraging knowledge sharing:the role of organizational

rewards systems.Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies,9(1),64-76

.Edwards,W.R.,&Schleicher,D.J.(2004).On Selecting Psychology Graduate Students:Validity

Evidence for a Test of Tactic Knowledge.Journal of Educational Psychology,96(3),592-

602.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663,96,3.592

.Ipe,M.(2003).Knowledge Sharing on Organisations:A Conceptual Framework.Human Resource

Development Review,2(4),22-25