Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic
Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate

Author(s): Gee-Woo Bock, Robert W. Zmud, Young-Gul Kim and Jae-Nam Lee
Source: MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, Special Issue on Information Technologies and
Knowledge Management (Mar., 2005), pp. 87-111
Published by: Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25148669 .
Accessed: 15/09/2013 05:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to MIS Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Bock et al./Behavioral Intention Formation inKnowledge Sharing
v se a |sue
_n^rcci iv
behavioral intention formation in

Knowledge Sharing: Examining the
Roles of Extrinsic Motivators,
social-psychological forces,
and Organizational Climate1
By: Gee-Woo Bock Jae-Nam Lee
Department of Information Systems School of Business IT

School of Computing Kookmin University
National University of Singapore 861-1, Jeungreung-Dong, Songbuk-Gu
3 Science Drive 2 Seoul 136-702
Singapore 117543 KOREAand
SINGAPORE City University of Hong Kong
bockgw@comp.nus.edu.sg Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon Tong
HONGKONG
Robert W. Zmud
isjnlee@kookmin.ac.kr
MIS Division
Michael F. Price College of Business
University of Oklahoma
Norman, OK 73019-4006 Abstract
U.S. A.
rzmud@ou.edu Individuals' knowledge does not transformeasily

into organizational knowledge even with the
Young-Gul Kim implementationofknowledge repositories. Rather,
Graduate School of Management individuals tend to hoard knowledge for various
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and reasons. The aim of this study is to develop an
Technology integrativeunderstanding of the factorssupporting
207-43 Cheongryang, Dongdaemoon or inhibitingindividuals' knowledge-sharing inten
Seoul 130-012 tions.We employ as our theoretical frameworkthe
KOREA
theoryof reasoned action (TRA), and augment it
domino2@unitel.co.kr with extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces and organizational climate factors thatare
1V. Sambamurthy and Mani Subramani were the
believed to influence individuals' knowledge
accepting senior editors for this paper. sharing intentions.
MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1,pp. 87-111/March2005 87

Through a field survey of 154 managers from27 ployees' work-related attention (Constant et al.
Korean organizations, we confirmour hypothesis 1994). Also, organizational incentive structures,
that attitudes toward and subjective norms with such as pay-for-performance compensation
regard to knowledge sharing as well as organiza schemes, can serve
to discourage knowledge
tionalclimate affect individuals' intentionstoshare sharing if employees believe that knowledge
knowledge. Additionally, we find thatanticipated sharing will hinder theirpersonal efforts to distin
reciprocal relationships affect individuals'attitudes guish themselves relative to their coworkers
toward knowledge sharing while both sense of (Huber 2001). Once established, work climates
self-worth and organizational climate affect sub unfavorable to knowledge sharing are difficultto
jective norms. Contrary tocommon belief,we find change (Ruggles 1998).
anticipated extrinsic rewards exert a negative ef
fect on individuals' knowledge-sharing attitudes. The objective of this study is to deepen our
understanding of the factors that increase or
lessen employees' tendencies to engage in
Keywords: Knowledge sharing, theory of rea behaviors. Since
soned extrinsic
knowledge-sharing knowledge
action, motivators, social-psycho
sharing behaviors are likelyto be influenced not
logical forces, organizational climate
only by personal motivations butalso by contextual
forces (Yoo and Torrey 2002), we apply a
theoretical frame inwhich extrinsic motivators,
Introduction social-psychological forces and organizational

climate are integratedwith the theoryof reasoned
action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
In the knowledge-based view of the firm (Grant
1991, 1996; Spender 1996; Teece 2000), knowl
This paper isorganized intosix sections including
edge is the foundation of a firm's competitive
this introduction. The next section surveys the
advantage and, ultimately,the primarydriver of a
salient literature to identifyantecedents to em
firm's value. Inherently,however, knowledge
resides within individuals (Nonaka and Konno ployees' attitudes regarding knowledge sharing,
and describes our data gathering activities to
1998) and, more specifically, in the employees
who create, archive, access, and complement the existing literature. The third
recognize, apply
section presents the research model and develops
knowledge in carrying out their tasks. Conse
the research hypotheses characterizing the
quently, the movement of knowledge across
individualand organizational boundaries, intoand relationships depicted in the model. The fourth
section describes our research methods, while the
from repositories, and into organizational routines
fifthdiscusses the results and their implicationsfor
and practices is ultimately dependent on
research and practice. The last section sum
employees' knowledge-sharing behaviors. When
marizes the study's contributions.
knowledge sharing is limitedacross an organi
zation, the likelihood increases that knowledge
gaps will arise, and these gaps are likelyto pro
duce less-than-desirable work outcomes (Baird
and Henderson 2001). Theoretical Framing
Extensive knowledge sharingwithinorganizations Knowledge management has been defined as the

still appears to be the exception rather than the process of capturing, storing, sharing, and using
rule. Hoarding knowledge and lookingguardedly knowledge (Davenport and Prusak 1998). More
at the knowledge offered by others are natural specific to thisstudy, knowledge sharing concerns
human tendencies (Davenport and Prusak 1998). thewillingness of individuals inan organization to
Moreover, many, ifnot most, firmsactively limit share with others the knowledge they have
knowledge sharing because of the threats acquired or created (Gibbert and Krause 2002).
associated with industrialespionage as well as The sharing could be done directlyvia communi
concerns about diverting or overloading em cation or indirectlyvia some knowledge archive.
88 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

2005

The operative phrase here is "thewillingness of value within the organization, but any knowledge
individuals." As mentioned above, organizational shared that issubsequently judged to be unsound
knowledge largelyresides within individuals. Even or irrelevant can damage his/her reputation.
with the codification of knowledge, knowledge Consequently, the lackof sufficientextrinsicand/or
objects remain unexposed to (and hence unrecog intrinsicrewards to compensate individualsforthe
nizable by) others until the knowledge owner costs of sharing knowledge becomes a common
makes the objects available. Ina practical sense, barrier to knowledge sharing (Constant etal. 1994,
knowledge sharing cannot be forced but can only 1996; Huber 2001).
be encouraged and facilitated (Gibbertand Krause
2002). It comes as no surprise that changing In their recent review of knowledge sharing
people's behaviors is generally considered to be literature,Kalling and Styhre (2003) comment on
themost severe challenge facing firmsdesiring to the relative lack of attention paid to the role of
increase their members' knowledge-sharing motivational factors that influence knowledge
behaviors. But what, exactly, are the levers or sharing behaviors. Our synthesis of the literature
factors likelytomotivate or otherwise induce such suggests that the salient motivational factors
behaviors? surfaced by other researchers reflectthree levels
ofmotivational forces.
Individualbenefit, i.e., self-interest,personal

Insights from theExisting Literature gain, etc. (Constant et al. 1994, 1996;
Tampoe 1996; Wasko and Faraj 2000)
Szulanski (1996) suggests thatmotivational forces
derive from one of two bases: (1) employees' Group benefit, i.e., reciprocal behaviors,
personal belief structures and (2) institutional relationshipswith others, community interest,
structures, i.e., values, norms and accepted prac etc. (Constant et al. 1994, 1996; Kalman
ticeswhich are instrumentalinshaping individuals' 1999; Wasko and Faraj 2000)
belief structures (Delong and Fahey 2000). Each
of these is now discussed. Organizational benefit, i.e., organizational
gain, organizational commitment, etc.
(Kalman 1999)
Personal Belief Structures
As knowledge sharing does not come without Institutional Structures

participant costs, personal beliefs that expected
benefitswill outweigh these costs are likelyto be Institutionalstructures are typicallyreferred to as
an importantdeterminant of knowledge sharing an organization's culture or climate. An interesting
behaviors. Not only does sharing knowledge take debate has evolved inthe organizational sciences
both time and effort (Gibbert and Krause 2002), about the distinction between organizational cul
but doing so inan organizational setting results in tureand organizational climate. Dennison (1996)
the classic public good dilemma (Barryand Hardin argues that the difference between organizational
1982; Marwell and Oliver 1993): a knowledge culture and organizational climate is one of per
asset contributed for the good of the organization spectives ratherthan substance. The literatureon
can be used by others regardless ofwhether or not organizational culture and the literatureon organi
theymake a contribution in return (Dawes 1980; zational climate address a common phenomenon:
Thorn and Connolly 1987). This dilemma is inten the creation and influence of social contexts in
sifiedwhen expertise (i.e., personal reputation) is organizations. Climate refers to a contextual situa
highlyvalued inan organization but mentoring or tionat a point in time and its linkto the thoughts,
assisting others is not (Leonard and Sensiper feelings, and behaviors of organizational mem
1998). Not only does an individualchoosing to bers. Thus, it is temporal, subjective, and often
share knowledge stand to lose his/her unique subject todirectmanipulation by people with power
MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

2005 89

Bock et al./Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing
and influence. Culture, in contrast, refers to an particular behavior are left unspecified. In a
evolved contextwithinwhich specific situations are mature field of study where the beliefs that
embedded. Thus, it is rooted in history,collec underlie a focal behavior are well specified, prior
tively held, and sufficiently complex to resist literature is usually a sufficientsource for iden
attempts at directmanipulation. Generally, quanti tifying the relevant beliefs (as well as their
tativesurvey-based research taps intothe features motivational drivers). However, inour study, the
of an organization's climate whereas qualitative existing understanding of the factors that shape
and interpretiveresearch delves intothe nature of individuals' intentions to engage in knowledge
an organization's culture. Given that the focus of sharing isanything butmature. Consequently, we
our study lieswith quantitativelyassessing individ interviewed executives leading knowledge
uals' perceptions of theirorganizational context, management initiativeswithin theirorganizations
we follow Dennison's (1996) ideas and refer to to validate?and supplement, if needed?the
salient institutionalstructures as organizational motivational drivers identifiedfrom the existing
climate. literature.
Salient aspects of organizational climate which The interviewswere conducted with either the
have been surfaced by scholars interested in chief knowledge officers or chief information
understanding individuals' tendencies toward officers in five Korean organizations: Samsung
knowledge sharing are a climate inwhich individ Economic Research Institute,Samsung Advanced
uals are highly trusting of others and of the Institute
ofTechnology, Samsung Display Devices,
organization (Hinds and Pfeffer2003), an open IBM-Korea, and Accenture-Korea. As prescribed
climate with free-flowinginformation(Dixon 2000; techniques preclude prompting interviewees
Gibbert and Krause 2002; Hinds and Pfeffer2003; (Fishbein 1971; Ryan and Bonfield 1975), these
Jarvenpaa and Staples 2000; Leonard and interviewsbegan with asking what each organi
Sensiper 1998), a climate that is tolerantofwell zation had done regarding knowledge manage
reasoned failure (Leonard and Sensiper 1998), ment. This was followed by a few very general
and a climate infused with pro-social norms questions: What led theorganization to implement
(Constant et al. 1994, 1996; Hinds and Pfeffer itsknowledge management initiatives? What were
2003; Wasko and Faraj 2000). the critical success factors or drivers of the
initiatives?What difficultiesdid the organization
face in inducing its employees to contribute
knowledge within the initiatives? Inessence, the
Validating and Supplementing Prior interviews were very open-ended.
Literature with Context-Specific
Interviews Through thematic analysis of the interviewscripts
(Miles and Huberman 1994), we codified notes
To develop an integrative view of the forces and clustered issues intofactors, and organized
influencing individuals' willingness to share the results intogeneral conceptual themes. The
knowledge, we adopted TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen themes capture a set of factors that the inter
1975) as an initialtheoretical frame.Here, an indi viewees had consistently emphasized as an
vidual's decision toengage ina specified behavior influenceon theiremployees' knowledge-sharing
is determined by their intention to perform the behaviors. In summary, the motivational forces
behavior, which in turn is determined jointlyby surfaced via these interviewsare the provision of
theirattitude toward (reflectingtheirsalient behav incentives forknowledge sharing, the knowledge
ioral beliefs) and the subjective norm regarding sharer's relationshipwith the knowledge recipient,
(reflectingtheirnormative beliefs and motivation to feedback on shared knowledge fromothers, the
comply with these beliefs) the behavior. management's commitment to knowledge
management initiatives, and the three organiza
Since TRA can be applied to virtually any tional climate dimensions of fairness, innova
behavior, the nature of the beliefs operative fora tiveness, and affiliation.

2005

Resultant Set of Motivational Drivers innovativeness (a climate that is tolerant of

failure and within which informationfreely
Our synthesis of themotivational drivers (identified flows),and affiliation(a climate characterized
fromboth prior literatureand our interviews) that by pro-social norms).
influenceemployees' willingness to share knowl
edge results in three broad categories that
resonate with the intellectualstreams most often
used to explain social action: economics, social The Research Model
psychology, and sociology (Coleman 1988). and Hypotheses HMHBBBH
Economic: Anticipated Extrinsic Rewards. Figure 1 depicts our research model. Note that the
Every organization thatwe interviewed had model deviates in twomajor ways fromstandard
implemented monetary incentives, points TRA formulation in recognizing that knowledge
toward promotion, or both as extrinsic motiva sharing inherentlyinvolves collective action at its
tors for knowledge sharing. Much of the core: the subjective norm of an individual is
utilitariantraditionincludingclassical and neo posited to directlyand indirectly(throughattitude)
classical economics, assumes rational, self influence intention to share knowledge, and
interested behavior in explaining social organizational climate is posited to directly and
actions (Granovetter 1985). indirectly (through subjective norm) influence
intention to share knowledge. We will next
Social-Psychological: Anticipated Recip develop the posited relationships.
rocal Relationships and Sense of Self
Worth. Anticipated reciprocal relationships Limiting the domain of the behavioral intention
capture employees' desires to maintain on model to the rational actor, intentionto engage in
going relationships with others, specifically a behavior isdetermined by an individual'sattitude
with regard to knowledge provision and recep toward that behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980).
tion. Sense of self-worth,on the other hand, Here, attitude toward knowledge sharing isdefined
captures the extent towhich employees see as the degree of one's positive feelings about
themselves as providing value to theirorga sharing one's knowledge. This leads to the first
nizations through their knowledge sharing. hypothesis.
Here, the concept of self-worth refers to
individuals' degree of liking themselves, Hypothesis 1: The more favorable the attitude
based largely on competence, power, or toward knowledge sharing is, thegreater the
efficacy regarding conduct (Gecas 1971). intentionto share knowledge will be.
These constructs match well with the social
psychological forces identified by Huber From a socio-economic perspective, an individual
(2001) as influencing individuals' knowledge actor is assumed to choose thfecourse of action

sharing propensity. thatmaximizes utilityina given and stable set of
preferences (Smelser and Swedberg 1994).
Sociological: Fairness, Innovativeness, Knowledge sharing ismost likelyto occur when
and Affiliation. Sociologists see social employees perceive that incentives exceed costs
action as largely governed by institutional (Kelly and Thibaut 1978). For example, in
structures, e.g., social norms, rules, and Siemens' ShareNet project, explicit rewardswere
obligations (Coleman 1988). Related to these effective inmotivating employees to share their
structuresare threeorganizational
institutional knowledge (Ewing and Keenan 2001). Similarly,
climate factors forknowledge sharing, which the use of redemption points in Samsung Life
we have derived from our interviews and Insurance's Knowledge Mileage Program led toan
which align well with the contextual factors in explosive growth inknowledge registrationby its
prior literature: fairness (a trustingclimate), employees (Hyoung and Moon 2002). Thus, anti

2005 91

Anticipated
Extrinsic Rewards ^^^-^H2 ._.
Attitude
1Anticipated | H3
Reciprocal - toward
Relationships 1- v
Knowledge \
H4^T Sharing X H1
Sense ofSelf-Worth I_ I
\^
\H5 t H7 *f ^ \x^^T^X
explicit \
(
Intention
^?
Subjective H6
\j _ | to share ^^knowledge^
fc
Norm Knowledge
I ^^^T^\
mI ? V
^?^knowledgeJ
r?-
(. Fairness v \
y s^ ^ /*->
y^^f
^h9
^x __Organizational /
AffiliationJ-P *__
_--ib?_ / ._
uimate
-^ I I
C-- First-order
factors
^s
'-1 Second-order
factors
(^^^^^-/
Figure 1. Research Model
cipated extrinsic rewards are posited toencourage employees who believe theirmutual relationships
more positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing, with others can improve through theirknowledge
leading to the second hypothesis. sharing, and who are operating on the basis of
their desire for fairness and reciprocity (Huber
Hypothesis 2: The greater the anticipated extrin 2001), are likelyto have positive attitudes toward
sic rewards are, themore favorable the atti knowledge sharing. This results in the third
tude toward knowledge sharing will be. hypothesis.
Constant et al. (1994) and others (Blau 1967; Hypothesis 3: The greater the anticipated recip
Organ and Konovsky 1989) argue thatwhen two rocal relationships are, themore favorable the
individuals are influenced by their social and attitude toward knowledge sharing will be.
organizational contexts, especially where unspe
cified cooperative outputs such as knowledge are Inan ongoing interactionsetting such as knowl
exchanged, the social exchange relationship is a edge sharing inan organization, appropriate feed
major determinant of their attitudes. Social ex back isvery critical.When others respond in the
change, distinct fromeconomic exchange, estab way thatwe have anticipated, we conclude thatour
lishes bonds of friendship with and/or super line of thinkingand behavior are correct; at the
ordination over others, and engenders diffuse, same time, role taking improvesas the exchange
unspecified obligations (Organ and Konovsky continues (Kinch 1973, pp. 55, 77) according to
1989). The concern is primarilywith the relation role theory, which is the cornerstone of the
ship itself,and not necessarily any extrinsic benefit symbolic interactionistperspective on self-concept
that might directly follow (Blau 1967). Thus, formation (Gecas 1982; Kinch 1963). This pro

2005

cess of reflected appraisal contributes to the Hypothesis 6: The greater the subjective norm to
formation of self-worth (Gecas 1971), which is share knowledge is, the greater the intention
stronglyaffected by sense of competence (Coving to share knowledge will be.
ton and Beery 1976) and closely tied to effective
performance (Bandura 1978). Therefore, em Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1981) consistently
ployees who are able to get feedback on past maintain that there isutilityinseparating attitudinal
instances of knowledge sharing are more likelyto and normativevariables despite thepossibility that
understand how such actions have contributed to they may be highly correlated (Ryan 1982).
the work of others and/or to improvements in Recently, similar arguments have been made
organizational performance. The understanding (Lewis et al. 2003; Venkatesh and Davis 2000)
would allow them to increase theirsense of self that subjective norms, through social influence
worth accordingly. That, in turn,would render processes (Fulk 1993; Schmitz and Fulk 1991),
these employees more likelyto develop favorable can have an important influence on attitudes.
attitudes toward knowledge sharing than em Lewis et al. (2003, p. 662) neatly summarize these
ployees who are unable to see such linkages. arguments:
Defining this cognition as an individual'ssense of

self-worthfrom theirknowledge-sharing behavior This effect is manifest via the psycho
leads to the fourthhypothesis. logical pathways of internalizationand
Via internalization,the indi
identification.
Hypothesis 4: The greater thesense of self-worth vidual incorporates the opinion of an
throughknowledge sharing behavior is, the important referent as part of her own
more favorable theattitude towardknowledge belief structure: inessence, the referent's
sharing will be. beliefs become one's own. Via identifica
tion, the individualseeks to believe and
It is believed that sense of self-worth influences act in a manner similar to those pos
individuals' behaviors indirections congruent with sessing referent power. Therefore, com
the prevailing group and organizational norms pelling messages received from impor
(Huber 2001). The reference group's norms be tant others are likelyto influence one's
come the internalized standard against which cognition about the expected outcomes
individuals judge themselves (Gecas 1982; of technology use.
Kelman 1961). Thus, in addition to the direct
effect of sense of self-worthon attitude,we posit While this issue may be controversial (Lee and
that individuals characterized by a high sense of Green 1991), scholars have begun toexamine and
self-worth through their knowledge sharing are confirmthe relationship (Bijker 1995; Chang 1998;
more likelyto both be aware of the expectations of Shepherd and O'Keefe 1984; Shimp and Kavas
significant others regarding knowledge sharing 1984; Vallerand et al. 1992; Venkatesh and Davis
behaviors and comply with these expectations. 2000). Inparticular, Lee (1990) argues that the
This reasoning leads to the fifth
hypothesis. more individualsare motivated toconform togroup
norms, themore theirattitudes tend to be group
Hypothesis 5: The greater the sense of self-worth determined than individual-determined. Thus, it
through knowledge sharing behavior is, the seems reasonable to posit that subjective norms
greater the subjective norm to share knowl regarding knowledge sharing will influenceorga
edge will be. nizational members' attitudes toward knowledge
sharing. This leads to the seventh hypothesis.
The subjective norm construct, defined as per
ceived social pressure to performor not performa Hypothesis 7: The greater the subjective norm to
behavior (Ajzen 1991), has received considerable share knowledge is, themore favorable the
empirical support as an importantantecedent to attitude toward knowledge sharing will be.
behavioral intention(Mathieson 1991; Taylor and
Todd 1995; Thompson et al. 1991). This leads to That organizational climate is a critical driver of
the study's sixth hypothesis. knowledge sharing isgenerally understood (Con

2005 93

Bock et al./Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing
stant et al. 1996; Huber 2001; Orlikowski 1993), prior studies examining behavioral intentions in
and is especially well-expressed by Robert specific cultures (Bearden and Etzel 1982; Lee
Buckman (1998, pp. 14-15): and Green 1991; Triandis 1972; Tse et al. 1988).
This leads to the eighth hypothesis.
To move froma culture thatcalls for the
hoarding of knowledge inorder to gain Hypothesis 8: The greater the extent towhich the
power toward one that rewards the organizational climate is perceived to be
sharing of knowledge with an increase in characterized by fairness, innovativeness and
power, we need to create a climate that affiliation,the greater the subjective norm to
fosters long-lived, trustingrelationships. share knowledge will be.
We must be able to trustthatwe receive
the best informationthat can be sent to Second, organizational climate isalso expected to
us, and those who send itmust be able directly influence individuals' intentions to share
to trust that itwill be used inan appro knowledge. Scholars in cross-cultural research
priate manner.
argue that cultural factors such as group con
formity and face saving ina Confucian society can
As discussed earlier, we have identified three directly affect intention(Bang et al. 2000; Tuten
aspects of organizational climate as being parti and Urban 1999). As our data collection is limited
cularly conducive to knowledge sharing: fairness, to a sample of Korean firms,the unique character
innovativeness, and affiliation. Fairness, which ofKorean culturemust be taken intoconsideration.
reflectstheperception thatorganizational practices Korea is considered to be among the most col
are equitable and neither arbitrarynor capricious, lectivistcountries. For example, Bae and Lawler
both builds trustbetween members and serves to (2000) characterize traditionalKorean business
overcome the public good dilemma associated culture as being concerned with group harmony,
with knowledge sharing. Fairness, thus, can be as reflected insocial contracts, company loyalty
expected to lead employees to go beyond the call and commitment, authoritarian and paternalistic
of duty toshare theirknowledge and become more leadership, hierarchical structures, and bureau
knowledgeable about theirwork in the process cratic management styles. Thus, given our parti
(Kim and Mauborgne 1997). Innovativeness, cular research context Korean
(i.e., businesses),
which reflects the perception that change and we expect organizational climate to directly
creativity are actively encouraged and rewarded, influence employees' behavioral intentions to
emphasizes learning, open information flows, and share knowledge. This leads to our final
reasoned individuals in
risk-taking. Consequently, hypothesis.
innovative work contexts are more likely to share
new and creative ideas with each other than are Hypothesis 9: The greater the extent towhich the
individuals in non-innovative work contexts (Kim organizational climate is perceived to be
and Lee 1995). Finally, affiliation,defined as the characterized by fairness, innovativeness and
perception of a sense of togetherness among an affiliation, the greater the intention to share
organization's members, reflects the caring and knowledge will be.
pro-social behavior critical to inducing an
organization's members to help one another.
Bringing together these ideas with the arguments

raised earlier,we posit thatorganizational climate Research Methodology
affects individuals' intentionto share knowledge in and Analysis
twoways. First, in the perspective developed by
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), external factors such To test the proposed research model, we adopted
as institutionalstructures influencethe salience of the survey method for data collection, and exam
subjective norms. Such a view is supported by ined our hypotheses by applying the partial least
94 2005

squares (PLS) method to the collected data. Our extensive pre-test with 61 responses from 13
unitof analysis was the individual. organizations in7 industries inKorea. Next, the
internalconsistency and discriminantvalidityof the
instrumentwere assessed. Cronbach's alpha
Measurement and Data Collection values ranged from0.71 (foranticipated extrinsic
rewards) to 0.95 (forsense of self-worth). Due to
We developed the items inthequestionnaire either low item-to-totalcorrelation (less than 0.50), one
item fromanticipated extrinsic rewards and one
by adapting measures thathad been validated by
other researchers or by converting the definitions item from intention to share knowledge were
of constructs intoa questionnaire format. Speci dropped.
fically,the itemsforthe threeantecedent beliefs?
The refined instrument, in the form of a self
anticipated extrinsic rewards, anticipated recip
rocal and sense of self-worth?were administered questionnaire, was then used to
relationships,
collect the study's data from organizations in
developed based on relevant theories and prior
studies. The itemsmeasuring attitudeand subjec Korea. Thirtyorganizations were asked to partici
tivenormwere adapted fromFishbein and Ajzen's pate in the survey. They were among some 300
(1975) research, and the items formeasuring organizations whose executives were enrolled in
the "ChiefKnowledge Officer Program" offered by
organizational climatewere adapted fromprevious
the universitywhere one of the authors was in
organizational climate studies, with the items
altered to fitthe knowledge-sharing context. The service. Ten survey packets were sent to each of
threeorganizational climate dimensions were then these 30 organizations, with 259 responses
used as indicators (Chin and Gopal 1995) to returned (86 percent response rate). Out of the
create the superordinate organizational climate 259 responses, 105 responses with incomplete
construct. To eliminate any possible data were eliminated from furtheranalysis. As a
scaling
issues, the subjective norm scores were nor result, 154 responses from27 organizations (51
malized according to the procedure of Bailey and percent of the distributed survey packets) across
Pearson (1983). 16 industrieswere used in the data analysis.
Table 1 shows the respondents' characteristics
Finally, the items for the dependent variable? according to industrytypeand demographics.
intentionto share knowledge?were also adapted
fromFishbein and Ajzen's (1975) research. We
created one construct for intention to share
Analysis Methods
knowledge by forminga second-order construct
froma scale measuring intentionto share explicit PLS (Chin 1998) was used as itallows latent
knowledge and a scale measuring intention to constructs to be modeled either as formativeor
share implicitknowledge. Appendix A lists the reflective indicatorsas was the case with our data,
definitions of the variables in this study while and it
makes minimal demands intermsof sample
Appendix B gives thewording of each measure size to validate a model compared to alternative
ment itemalong with the scale means, standard structuralequation modeling techniques. We used
deviations, and alpha values (i.e., internal PLS-Graph Version 3.00 inour analysis.
consistency).
Backward translation (withthematerial translated Measurement Model

fromEnglish intoKorean, and back intoEnglish;
versions compared; discrepancies resolved) was Following recommended two-stage analytical
used to ensure consistency between the Korean procedures (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Hairet
and the original English version of the instrument al. 1998), confirmatory factor analysis was first
(Mullen 1995; Singh 1995). The initialversion of conducted to assess the measurement model;
the survey instrument was then refinedthroughan then, the structural relationshipswere examined.

2005 95

Table 1. Profile of Companies and Respondents
(a) IndustryType
I #of I #of I I I #of I #of I
Industry Company Response Percent Industry Company Response Percent
15 9.7
Food_4_31_20.1 Construction_4 "
7.8 Wholesale 1 3 1.9
Chemical_2_12
5.2 Retail 4 1 2.6
Pharmaceutical_1_8
Metal 1 3 1.9 Transportation 51 3.2
and Telecom.
Electric 2 12 7.7 Financial 3 14

9.0
Machinery and Industry
Electronics
Automotive 1 4 2.6 Entertainment 5

37 24.0
and Others
and
Electricity 1 6 3^9 Total 27
154 100.0
Gas_
(b) Demographic Information of Respondents
Measure Items Freq. Percent Measure Items Freq. Percent

Gender Male Gender 18 11.7
136_88.3 Female_
~Age 21-29 2*5 1&5 Work 0^3 15 lOI
30-34 55 36.5 Experience 3-6 36 24.4
35-39 50 33.1 (inyears) 6-9 33 22.3
40- 18 11.9 9-12 38 25.6
Missing 3 12-
26 17.6
Missing 6
Position Employee 18 11.7 Education High school 5.2 8
Chiefemployee 69 44.8 College (2 years) 11 7.1
Manager 55 35.7 University(4 years) 98 63.6
Director 11 7.1 Graduate school 37 24.0
IOthers I 1 I 0.6 I I ll
Since the model contains two second-order vari practitioners and pilot-testingthe instrument.We
ables (organizational climate and knowledge assessed convergent validity by examining com
sharing intention), we created superordinate posite reliabilityand average variance extracted
second-order constructs using factorscores forthe from the measures (Hair et al. 1998). Although
first-orderconstructs (Chin et al. 2003; Wold many studies employing PLS have used 0.5 as the
1989). According to causal priority (Diamanto threshold reliabilityof the measures, 0.7 is a
poulos and Winklhofer 2001) and the direction of recommended value fora reliable construct (Chin
change of one itemcompared with the rest (Chin 1998). As shown in Table 2, our composite
1998), we treated the indicatorsof organizational reliabilityvalues range from0.823 to 0.930. For
climate as formative and those of intentionas the average variance extracted by a measure, a
reflective. score of 0.5 indicates acceptability (Fornell and

Larcker 1981). Table 2 shows that the average
To validate our measurement model, three types variances extracted by our measures range from
of validitywere assessed: content validity, con 0.609 to 0.866, which are above the acceptability
vergent validity,and discriminantvalidity.Content value. Inaddition,Appendix C exhibits theweights
validitywas established by ensuring consistency and loadings of the measures in our research
between the measurement items and the extant model. As expected, all measures are significant
literature. This was done by interviewingsenior on theirpath loadings at the levelof 0.01. Finally,

2005

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Average
Composite Variance
Measures
Items Reliability Extracted
Anticipated extrinsic rewards (AER) 2

0.928 0.866
Anticipated reciprocal relationships (ARR) 5 0.919 0.695

Sense of self-worth (SSW) 5 0.911 0.676
Affiliation(AFF) 4 0.898 0.688
Innovativeness (INN) 3 0.874 0.699
Fairness (FAI) 3 0.870 0.691
Attitude toward knowledge sharing (ATK) 5 0.918 0.693
Subjective norm (SUN) 3 0.823 0.609
Organizational climate (OC) 3 0.841 0.639

Intentionto share knowledge (ISK) 5
0.930 0.728
Table 3. Correlation between Constructs
AER ARR SSW AFF INN FAI ATK SUN ISK

|
AER 0*931
ARR 0.251 0.834
SSW 0.194 0.532 0.821
AFF 0.046 0.287 0.155 0.829
INN 0.307 0.362 0.301 0.417 0.836
FAI 0.151 0.364 0.224 0.460 0.492 0.831
ATK -0.038 0.474 0.346 0.299 0.276 0.284 0.832
SUN 0.048 0.410 0.415 0.393 0.387 0.453 0.450 0.780
0.469 0.454 0.296
0.353 0.261
0.457 0.472 0.853
ISK_0.036
Note: AER: Anticipated extrinsic rewards; ARR: Anticipated reciprocal relationships;
SSW: Sense of self-worth;AFF: Affiliation; INN: Innovativeness;
FAI: Fairness; ATK: Attitude toward knowledge sharing; SUN: Subjective norm;
ISK: Intentionto share knowledge
*The shaded numbers inthe diagonal roware square roots of the average variance extracted.
we verified the discriminant validityof our instru greater than the levels of correlations involvingthe
ment by lookingat the square rootof the average construct. The results of the inter-construct corre
variance extracted as recommended by Fornell lationsalso show thateach construct shares larger
and Larcker (1981). The result inTable 3 confirms variance with itsown measures than with other
the discriminant validity: the square root of the measures. Since we included new measures in
average variance extracted for each construct is our study (i.e., AER, ARR, and SSW), we con

2005 97

sidered both loadings and cross-loadings to toward knowledge sharing indirectly through
establish discriminantvalidity; these are shown in subjective norms (Hypothesis 5 being significant
Appendix D. and positively related) ratherthandirectly (Hypoth
esis 3 being nonsignificant); however, this finding
In addition to validity assessment, we also may very well be a reflectionof the strong col
checked formulticollinearitydue to the relatively lectivistorientation of Korean organizations.
high correlations among some variables (e.g., a
correlation of 0.53 between SSW and ARR). The Finally, regarding organizational climate, the
resultant variance inflationfactor (VIF) values for results show, as posited, that organizational cli
all of the constructs are acceptable (i.e., between mate influences both subjective norms (H8) and
1.213 and 1.801). intention to share knowledge (H9). However,
indirect influence (through subjective norm) was
found to be stronger than direct influence.
Structural Model
With an adequate measurement model and an

acceptable level ofmulticollinearity,the proposed Discussion, Implications,
hypotheses were tested with PLS. The results of and Limitations _
the analysis are depicted in Figure 2 and sum
marized inTable 4. We discuss the results in the The objective of thisstudy has been to add to the
following sequence: standard TRA constructs collective understanding of factors likelytounderlie
(Hypotheses 1, 6, and 7), psychological antece knowledge workers' attitudes towardand intentions
dents to these TRA constructs (Hypotheses 2, 3, regarding knowledge sharing behaviors. Ac
4, and 5), and organizational climate (Hypotheses cordingly, we a
(1) surfaced number of potentially
8 and 9). salient motivational factors (anticipated extrinsic
rewards, anticipated reciprocal relationships,
Hypotheses 1 and 6 are supported as they have sense of self-worth, and three facets of organiza
been inmany previous studies applying TRA to tional climate: fairness, innovativeness and affilia
explain behavioral intentions.Hypothesis 7 isalso tion); (2) applied these as antecedents to the
supported, adding credence to the argument that attitudinal and subjective norm constructs asso
subjective norms can influence intentions both ciated with TRA research models; (3) modified the
directly and indirectly(through attitudes), espe standard TRA formulationto account forboth the
cially within cultural contexts characterized by collective action aspects of organizational knowl
strong group orientation, such as is the case with edge sharing and the collectivist orientation of the
Korean organizations. sampled (Korean) organizations; and (4) sup
ported most of the relationships posited in our
Mixed resultswere obtained fortheantecedents to research model through a survey of knowledge
the standard TRA constructs. Significant relation workers inKorean organizations. We feel each of
ships in the posited directionwere found only for these points represents a significantcontributionto
Hypotheses 3 and 5. These results suggest that, our collective understanding of why knowledge
at least intheKorean context, favorable individual workers choose to or not to engage inknowledge
attitudes toward knowledge sharing are influenced sharing behaviors. In particular,we believe the
by relational motivators rather than by expecta followingfindings are importantinsights.
tionsof extrinsic rewards. Ifanything, the negative
significantcoefficientobserved with Hypothesis 2 Contrary to commonly accepted practices
suggests thatextrinsic rewards hinder rather than associated with knowledge management
facilitate the formationof positive attitudes toward initiatives,a felt need for extrinsic rewards
knowledge sharing. Itshould also be noted that may verywell hinder?rather than promote?
sense of self-worth seems to influence attitudes thedevelopment of favorable attitudes toward
98 2005

_ -0.159*
= 1 -905) R* = Q.341
Anticipated .(t
ExtrinsicRewards . I
|
Attitude
,_fc(t?=347i*2i)
Anticipated toward
Reciprocal_!_^
IRelationships_| 0070 Knowledge \ o.232***
(t= 0.725) ^ Sharing \(t
= 2.994)
Sense of Self-Worth '-x-' N, R2 =0.318

I 0.286*** 0.900***
1^^^= ^ ^ =
(t ^^. 3.626) l(t
I 55.947h^?7^\
0.301 ***^\. explicit \
i--I-1f 0.266***
{ = 4.732)' ^^* ^
(t "niemion
intention ^Vvknowledge/
Subjective (t= 3.232) ^^^^^-^s
'_ -? w to
Norm ? share_
. .
^<?7^^\
fi2 = 0 351 Knowledge >-^^w/ implicitN
/ 0 432*** - l 7
3 T955***înow,edg^
u.aoo ^-^-"
?-443"*
^--^
_ (t"5-996)
/ft-5 9961 ^-/(t-139.145)
^TT^^N(t-21.436)
V Fairness
^x*^?-^' f s^ *v/
/ ^
^_^ 0404*^*1 I
= ^^M42* =
/"""T^,. ,.^^N(t 18.357)^ Organizational ^/^ (t i.800)
V Affiliation ,*-?-w -.. ^ m.
x^^ - ^^ Climate
0.403***
-\ = I
(t
^ 19703)^1
S
Mnnovativeness)-"^v
-^^^
1.000=
R2 */> < o.i **P < 0.05 ***P < o.oi
Figure 2. Results of PLS Analysis
knowledge sharing. While such a finding sharing and the subjective norm regarding
might simply be a reflectionof the study's knowledge sharing.
design or the specific extrinsic rewardmech
anisms applied by the sampled organizations, An individual's sense of self-worth through
plausible explanations do exist for such an knowledge sharing intensifiesthe salience of
observation: Eisenberger and Cameron the subjective norm regarding knowledge
(1996) argue that task-contingent rewards sharing.
may negatively impact intrinsicmotivations
(such as those associated with anticipated An organizational climate conducive to knowl
reciprocal relationships and sense of self edge sharing (operationalized here as fair
worth), Kelman (1958) argues that extrinsic ness, innovativeness, and affiliation)exerts a
rewards succeed only at securing temporary strong influenceon the formationof subjective
compliance, and Meyer (1975) acknowledges norms regarding knowledge sharing; italso
thatmismatches may well exist between what directlyaffects (although less strongly) individ
employees and management perceive to be uals' intentions to engage in knowledge
appropriate extrinsic rewards for the behav sharing behaviors.
iorsbeing encouraged.
In addition to this study's contributions to our
An individual's attitude toward knowledge understanding of the motivational drivers that
sharing is driven primarily by anticipated underlie individuals'knowledge-sharing behaviors,
reciprocal relationships regarding knowledge we also feel the study contributes in twoways to

2005 99

Table 4. Results of Hypothesis Testing
Hypotheses Results
H1: The more favorable the attitude toward knowledge sharing is, the greater Supported
the intentionto share knowledge will be.
H2: The greater the anticipated extrinsic rewards are, themore favorable the Not Supported
attitude toward knowledge sharing will be. (significant but in
opposite direction)
H3: The greater the anticipated reciprocal relationships are, themore Supported
favorable the attitude toward knowledge sharing will be.
H4: The greater the sense of self-worththroughknowledge sharing behavior Not Supported
is, themore favorable the attitude toward knowledge sharing will be. |
H5: The greater the sense of self-worththroughknowledge sharing behavior Supported

is, the greater the subjective norm to share knowledge will be.
H6: The greater the subjective norm to share knowledge is, the greater the Supported
intentionto share knowledge will be.
H7: The greater the subjective norm to share knowledge is, themore Supported
favorable the attitude toward knowledge sharing will be.
H8: The greater the extent towhich the organizational climate is perceived to Supported
be characterized by fairness, innovativeness and affiliation,the greater
the subjective norm to share knowledge will be.
H9: The greater the extent towhich the organizational climate is perceived to Supported
be characterized by fairness, innovativeness and affiliation,the greater
the intentionto share knowledge will be. _
the broader set of literatureapplying TRA tomodel We note that our findingsmust be interpreted in
individualbehaviors. First,we have provided addi lightof the study's limitations. First, as the data
tional evidence that, when the behavior being are cross-sectional and not longitudinal, the
studied is strongly reflectiveof collective action, posited causal relationships (although firmly based
subjective norms are likely to affect behavioral in generally accepted theories) could only be
intentionsdirectlyand indirectlythroughattitude. inferred rather than proven. Second, because
Second, our results indicate?to the best of our data collection was limited to organizations ina
knowledge, forthe firsttimewithin a TRA formula highlycollectivist national culture (Hofstede 1991),
tion?that the institutionalstructureswithinwhich our findings should not be interpretedas neces
a focal behavior is situated also influencebehav sarily applicable to firms in distinctly different
ioral intentions. As explained in the previous national cultures. Third, our findingsmay well be
paragraph, this study shows that organizational vulnerable to the threat of single-source bias.
climate influences behavior directlyand indirectly Finally, our procedures for identifyingcandidate
throughsubjective norms. However, itisvery pos antecedent motivating factors might have over
sible thatsuch an outcome is limitedto behaviors looked barriers of knowledge sharing acknowl
largely constituted through collective action, as edged by others: natural barriers such as timeand
was the case with the behaviors we surveyed. space (Hinds and Pfeffer 2003; Leonard and

2005

Sensiper 1998); cognitive barriers thatmake it stress extrinsic rewards as a primarymotivator

difficultfor individuals to communicate and other within knowledge sharing initiatives.
wise transferknowledge (Dixon 2000; Gibbert and
Krause 2002; Hinds and Pfeffer2003; von Krogh
et al. 2000); and structural barriers, such as
authority and status hierarchies as well as Conclusions iHBBHHHBBHBi
functional boundaries, that can inhibit open
informationflows and the development of inter Effective knowledge sharing cannot be forced or
personal relationships (Dixon 2000; Hinds and mandated. Firms desiring to institutionalizeknowl
Pfeffer 2003; Leonard and Sensiper 1998; von
edge-sharing behaviors must foster facilitative
Krogh et al. 2000). work contexts. By surfacing motivational drivers
associated with individuals' intentions to share
Given these limitations,we strongly encourage
personal knowledge with others, and providing
others toexamine our findingsthroughmore rigor
empirical evidence regarding the efficacyof these
ous research designs and across differentnational
motivational drivers,we feel thatwe have contri
cultures. We also recognize the value, in future buted to the development of a richer under
studies, of extending research models to (1) in
standing of what must occur in order to create
clude individuals'actual knowledge-sharing behav such facilitativework contexts. Given the impor
iors; (2) examine the sharing of specific types of tance of knowledge sharing intoday's world?and
knowledge assets; (3) examine knowledge sharing even more so in tomorrow's world?we hope that
beyond the boundaries of single organizations our findingswill be useful to others engaged in
(reflectingthe increasing necessity fororganiza scholarship aimed at enriching our collective
tional members to share knowledge with custo
understanding regardingknowledge sharingwithin
mers, suppliers, and other partners); and (4) re and across communities.
organizational
cognize that individuals share knowledge directly
with others or indirectly
via technology agents.
Based on our findings,we propose the following

Acknowledgements
suggestions to those leading knowledge-manage
ment initiativesor otherwise desiring toencourage The authors would liketo thank the senior editors,
knowledge sharingwithin theirorganizations. First, V. Sambamurthy and Mani Subramani, and the
emphasize efforts to nurture the social associate were
targeted editor, who particularly insightful in
relationships and interpersonal interactions of guiding the paper throughout the review process.
employees before launching knowledge-sharing They are also grateful to the anonymous referees
initiatives. Inparticular, fosteringa work context for their constructive comments on the paper.
characterized by high levels of organizational
citizenship is likelyto nurture the mutual social
exchange relationships thatare apparently impor
tant in driving knowledge-sharing intentions. References
Second, actively support the formationand matu
ration of robust referentcommunities within the
workplace. In particular, be sure to provide appro Ajzen, I.
"The Theory of Planned Behavior,"
priate feedback to employees engaged in (or not Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
engaged in)knowledge sharing. Such actions fol Processes (50:2), 1991, pp. 179-211.
low the importanceof exerted pressure fromone's and
Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes
referent groups (e.g., peers, supervisors, senior and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall,
managers, etc.) to engage inknowledge-sharing Englewood Cliffs,NJ, 1980.
behaviors as well as the importanceof enhancing Anderson, J. C, and Gerbing, D. W. "Structural
the individual'ssense of self-worth.Finally,do not Equation Modeling inPractice: A Review and

2005 101

Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psycho Chin,W. W., and Gopal, A. "Adoption Intentionin
logical Bulletin (103:3), 1988, p. 41-423. GSS: Relative ImportanceofBeliefs," The Data
Bae, J., and Lawler, J. J. "Organizational and Base for Advances in InformationSystems
HRM Strategies inKorea: Impacton Firm Per (26:2-3), 1995, pp. 42-64.
formance inan Emerging Economy," Academy Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newsted, P. R.
ofManagement Journal (43:2), 2000, pp. 502 "A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable
517. Modeling Approach forMeasuring Interaction
Bailey, J. E., and Pearson, S. W. "Development of Effects: Results froma Monte Carlo Simulation
a Tool forMeasuring and Analyzing Computer Study and an Electronic-mail Emotion/Adoption
User Satisfaction,"Management Science (29:5), Study," InformationSystems Research (14:2),
1983, pp. 540-545. 2003, pp. 189-217.
Baird, L., and Henderson, J. C. The Knowledge Coleman, J. S. "Social Capital in the Creation of
Engine, Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, 2001. Human Capital," The American Journal of
Bandura, A. "The Self System in Reciprocal Sociology (94), 1988, pp. 95-120.
Determinism,"American Psychology (33), 1978, Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. "The
pp. 344-358. Kindness of Strangers," Organization Science

Bang, H., Ellinger, A. E., Hadimarcou, J., and (7:2), 1996, pp. 119-135.
Traichal, P. A. "Consumer Concern, Knowl Constant, D., Kiesler, S., and Sproull, L. "What's
edge, Belief and Attitude toward Renewable Mine is Ours, or Is it? A Study of Attitudes
Energy: An Application of theReasoned Action about InformationSharing," InformationSys
Theory," Psychology & Marketing (17:6), 2000, temsResearch (5:4), 1994, pp. 400-421.
pp. 449-468 Covington, M. V., and Berry, R. G. Self-Worth and
Barry, B., and Hardin, R. Rational Man and School Learning, Rinehart and Winston, Holt,
IrrationalSociety?, Sage Publications, Newbury NewYork, 1976.
Park, CA, 1982. Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. Working Knowl
Bearden, W. O., and Etzel, M. J. "Reference edge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Group Influence on Product and Brand Pur 1998.
chase Decisions," Journal of Consumer Dawes, R. "Social Dilemmas," Annual Review of
Research (9), September 1982, pp. 183-194. Psychology (31), 1980, pp. 169-193.
Bijker,W. E. Of Bicycle, Bakelites, and Bulbs: DeLong, D. W., and Fahey, L. "Diagnosing Cul
Toward a Theory of Sociotechical Change, The tural Barriers to Knowledge Management,"
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995. Academy of Management Executive (14:4),
Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life, 2000, pp. 118-127.
Wiley, New York, 1967. Deluga, R. J. "Leader-Member Exchange Quality
Brockner, J. "The Effects ofWork Layoffs On and Effectiveness Ratings: The Role of Sub
Survivors: Research, Theory, and Practice," ordinate-Supervisor Conscientiousness Simi
Research in Organizational Behavior (10), larity,"Group & Organization Management
1988, pp. 213-256. (23:2), 1998, pp. 189-216.
Buckman, R. H. "Knowledge Sharing at Buckman Dennis, A. R. "InformationExchange and Use in
Labs," Journal of Business Strategy (19:1), Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a
January/February 1998, pp. 11-15. Group of Information,but You Can't Make it
Chang, M. K. "PredictingUnethical Behavior: A Think," MIS Quarterly, December 1996, pp.
Comparison of theTheory of Reasoned Action 433-457.
and theTheory of Planned Behavior," Journal of Dennison, D. R. "What Is the Difference between
Business Ethics (17:16), 1998, pp. 1825-1834. Organizational Culture and Organizational Cli
Chin,W. W. "The Partial Least Squares Approach mate? A Native's Point ofView on a Decade of
to Structural Equation Modeling," inModern Paradigm Wars," Academy of Management
Methods forBusiness Research, G. A. Mar Review (21:3), 1996, pp. 619-654.
coulides (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Diamantopoulos, A., and Winklhofer, H. M. "Index
Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295-336. Construction with Formative Indicators: An

2005

Alternative to Scale Development," Journal of Gibbert, M., and Krause, H. "Practice Exchange in
Marketing Research (38:2), 2001, pp. 269-277 a Best Practice Marketplace," inKnowledge
Dixon, N. M. Common Knowledge: How Com Management Case Book: Siemens Best Prac
panies Thrive by Sharing What They Know, tices, T. H. Davenport and G. J. B. Probst
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2000. (Eds.), Publicis Corporate Publishing, Erlangen,
Eisenberger, R., and Cameron, J. "Detrimental Germany, 2002, pp. 89-105.
L. R., and D. B.
Effects of Reward: Reality or Myth?"American Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, "Rethinking
Rewards forTechnical Employees," Organiza
Psychologist WAV, 1996, pp. 1153-1166.
F. the Wealth,"
tionalDynamics, 1990 (18:4), pp. 62-76.
Ewing, J., and Keenan, "Sharing
Business Week, March 19, 2001, pp. 36-40. Granovetter, M. "Economic Action and Social
Structure: Embeddedness," The American
Feldman, M. S., and March, J. G. "Information in
Journal of Sociology (91:3), 1985, pp. 481-510.
Organizations as Signal and Symbol," Adminis
Grant, R. M. "The Resource-Based Theory of
trativeScience Quarterly (26), 1981, pp. 171
Competitive Advantage: Implications forStra
186.
tegy Formulation," California Management
Fishbein, M. "Some Comments on the Use of Review (33:2), 1991, pp. 114-135.
'Models' in Advertising Research," in Pro
Grant, R. M. "Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory
ceedings: Seminar on Translating Advanced of the Firm," Strategic Management Journal
Advertising Theories into Research Reality, (17), 1996, pp. 109-122.
European Society ofMarket Research, Amster Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and
dam, 1971, pp. 297-318. Black, W. C. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. Beliefs, Attitude,
ed.), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, 1998.
Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Hinds, P. J., and Pfeffer,J. "WhyOrganizations
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Pub Don't 'KnowWhat They Know': Cognitive and
lishingCompany, Reading, MA, 1975. Motivational Factors Affecting the Transfer of
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. "OnConstruct Validity: Expertise," in Sharing Expertise: Beyond
A Critique of Miniard and Cohen's Paper," Knowledge Management, M. Ackerman, V.
Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology (17), Pipek, and V. Wulf (Eds.), MIT Press, Cam
1981, pp. 340-350. bridge, MA, 2003, pp. 3-26.
Fornell, C, and Larcker, D. F. "Structural Equa
Hofstede, G. Cultures and Organizations: Soft
tionModels with Unobservable Variables and ware of theMind, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1991.
Measurement Errors," Journal of Marketing Huber, G. P. "Transfer of Knowledge inKnowl
Research (18:2), 1981, pp. 39-50. edge Management Systems: Unexplored
Issues and Suggested Studies," European
Fulk, J., "Social Construction of Communication
Journal of InformationSystems (10), 2001, pp.
Technology," Academy ofManagement Journal
72-79.
(36:5), 1993, pp. 921-950. K. M., and Moon, S. P.
Hyoung, "Effective Reward
Gardner, D. G., and Pierce, J. L. "Self-Esteem
Systems forKnowledge Sharing," Knowledge
and Self-Efficacy Within the Organizational
Management Review (4:6), 2002, pp. 22-25.
Context: An Empirical Examination," Group &
Jarvenpaa, S. L., and Staples, D. S. "The Use of
Organization Management (23:1), 1998, pp. 48 Collaborative Electronic Media for Information
70.
Sharing: An Exploratory Study of Determi
V. "Parental Behavior and Dimensions of
Gecas, nants," Journal of Strategic InformationSys
Adolescent Self-Evaluation," Sociometry (34), tems (9), 2000, pp. 129-154.
1971, pp. 466-482. Jauch, L. R. "Tailoring Incentives to Fit Re
Gecas, V. "The Self-Concept," Annual Review of searchers," Research Management (19:6),
Sociology (8), 1982, pp. 1-33. 1976, pp. 23-27.
Gecas V. "The Social Psychology of Self-Effi Kalling, T., and Styhre, A. Knowledge Sharing in
cacy," Annual Review of Sociology (15), 1989, Organizations, Copenhagen Business School
pp. 291-316. Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003.

2005 103

Kalman, M. E. The Effects ofOrganizational Com mation Technology Use: An Empirical Study of
mitment and Expected Outcomes on the Knowledge Workers," MIS Quarterly (27:4),
Motivation toShare Discretionary Informationin 2003, pp. 657-678.
a Collaborative Database: Communication Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., and
Dilemmas and Other Serious Games, unpub Gardner, P. D. "A Longitudinal Investigationof
lished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Newcomer Expectations, Early Socialization
Southern California, 1999. Outcomes, and theModerating Effects of Role
Kelley, H. H., and Thibaut, J.W. Interpersonal Development Factors," Journal of Applied
Relations: A Theory of Interdependence,Wiley, Psychology (80:3), 1995, pp. 418-432.
NewYork, 1978. Malhotra, Y., and Galletta, D. F. "Extending the
Kelman, H. C. "Compliance, Identification,and Technology Acceptance Model to Account for
Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Influence:Theoretical Bases and Empiri
Social
Change," Journal of Conflict Resolution (2), cal Validation," in Proceedings of the 32nd
1958, pp. 51-60. Hawaii International Conference on System
Kelman, H. C. "Process of Opinion Pub
Change," Science, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los
licOpinion Quarterly (25A), 1961, pp. 57-78.
Alamitos, CA, 1999.
Kim, W. C, and R. "Fair Process:
Mauborgne,
Marwell, G., and Oliver, P. The Critical Mass in
Managing intheKnowledge Economy," Harvard Collective Action: A Micro-social Theory, Cam
Business Review (75:4), July-August 1997, pp.
bridge UniversityPress, NewYork, 1993
65-75.
Mathieson, K. "PredictingUser Intentions: Com
Kim, Y. B., and Lee, B. H. "R&D Project Team
paring theTechnology Acceptance Model with
Climate and Team Performance inKorea," R&D
the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information
Management (25:2), 1995, pp. 179-196.
"A Formalized Theory of the Self Systems Research (2:3), 1991, pp. 173-191.
Kinch, J.W.
Meyer, H. H. "The Pay-for-performance Dilemma,"
Concept," American Journal of Sociology (68),
Organization Dynamics (3:3), 1975, pp. 39-50.
1963, pp. 481-486.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. Qualitative
Kinch, J. W. Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill
Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.,Thou
Book Company, San Francisco, 1973.
sand Oaks, CA, 1994.
Koning, Jr., J. W. "Three Others R's: Recogni
Mullen, M. R. "Diagnosing Measurement Equiva
tion, Reward and Resentment," Research and
lence in Cross-National Research," Journal of
Technology Management (36:4), 1993, pp. 19
29.
InternationalBusiness Studies (26:3), 1995, pp.
573-596.
Koys, D. J., and Decotiis, T. A. "Inductive Mea
Nonaka I., and N. "The Concept of 'Ba':
sures of Psychological Climate," Human Konno,
Relations (44:3), 1991, pp. 265-286. Building a Foundation forKnowledge Creation,"

California Management Review (40:3), Spring
Lee, C. "Modifying an American Consumer
Behavior Model forConsumers inConfucian 1998, pp. 40-54.
Culture: The Case of the Fishbein Behavioral Organ, D. W., and Konovsky, M. "Cognitive
IntentionModel," Journal of InternationalCon versus AffectiveDeterminants ofOrganizational

sumer Marketing (3:1), 1990, pp. 27-50. Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Applied
Lee, C, and Green, R. T. "Cross-Cultural Psychology (74:1), 1989, pp. 157-164.
Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral Inten Orlikowski,W. J. "Learning fromNotes: Organi
tionModel," Journal of InternationalBusiness zational Issues inGroupware Implementation,"
Studies (22:2), 1991, pp. 289-305. The InformationSociety Journal (9), 1993, pp.
Leonard, D., and Sensiper, S. "The Role of Tacit 237-250.
Knowledge in Group Innovation," California Parkhe, A. "Strategic Alliance Structuring: A

Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 112-132. Game Theoretic and Transaction Cost Exami
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., and Sambamurthy, V. nation of InterfirmCooperation," Academy of
"Sources of Influence on Beliefs about Infor Management Journal (36.4), 1993, pp. 794-829.

2005

Price, J. L., and Mueller, C. W. Handbook of UniversityPress, Princeton, NJ, 1994, pp. 3-26.
Organizational Measurement, Pittman,Marsh Sparrowe, R. T., and Linden, R. C. "Process and
field,MA, 1986. Structure inLeader-Member Exchange," Acad

Robinson, J. P., and Shaver, P. R. Measures of emy ofManagement Review (22:2), 1997, pp.
Social Psychological Attitudes, The Institutefor 522-552.
Social Research, The University of Michigan, Spender, J.C. "MakingKnowledge the Basis of a
Ann Arbor, Ml, 1973. Dynamic Theory of the Firm," Strategic
Ruggles, R. "The State of theNotion: Knowledge Management Journal (17:2), Winter 1996, pp.
Management inPractice," California Manage 45-82.
ment Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 80-89. Stajkovic, A. D., and Luthans, F. "Social Cognitive
Ryan, M. J. "Behavioral IntentionFormation: The Theory and Self-Efficacy: Going Beyond Tradi
Interdependency of Attitudinal and Social tionalMotivational and Behavioral Approaches,"
Influence Variables," Journal of Consumer Organizational Dynamics, Spring 1998, pp. 62
Research (9), 1982, pp. 263-278. 74.
Ryan, M. J., and Bonfield, E. H. "The Fishbein Szulanski, G.

"Exploring Internal Stickiness:
Extended Model and Consumer Behavior," Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice
Journal of Consumer Research (2), 1975, pp. within the Firm,"Strategic Management Journal
118-136. (17), 1996, pp. 27-44.
Schaubroeck, J., and Merritt, D. E. "Divergent Tampoe, M. "MotivatingKnowledge Workers?
Effects of Job Control on Coping with Work The Challenge for the 1990s," inKnowledge
Stressors: The Key Role of Self-Efficacy," Management and Organizational Design, P. S.
Academy ofManagement Journal (40:3), 1997, Myers (Ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston,
pp. 738-754. 1996, pp. 179-189.
Schmitz, J., and Fulk, J. "Organizational Collea Taylor, S., and Todd, P. "Understanding Infor
gues, Media Richness, and Electronic Mail: A mation Technology Usage: A Test of Com
Test of the Social Influence Model of Tech peting Models," Information
Systems Research
nology Use," Communication Research (18:4), (6:2), 1995, pp. 144-176.
1991, pp. 487-523. Teece, D. J.Managing IntellectualCapital, Oxford
Seers, A., Petty, M. M., and Cashman, J. F. UniversityPress, Oxford, England, 2000.
"Team-Member Exchange under Team and Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M.
Traditional Management: A NaturallyOccurring "Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual
Quasi-Experiment," Group & Organization Model of Utilization," MIS Quarterly (15:1),
Management (20:1), 1995, pp. 18-38. 1991, pp. 125-143.
Shepherd, G. J., and O'Keefe, D. J. "Separability Thorn, B. K., and Connolly, T. "Discretionary Data
of Attitudinal and Normative Influences on Bases: A Theory and Some Experimental
Behavioral Intentions in the Fishbein-Ajzen Findings," Communication Research (14:5),
Model," The JournalofSocial Psychology^ 22), 1987, pp. 512-528.
1984, pp. 287-288. Triandis, H. C. The Analysis ofSubjective Culture,
Shimp, T. A., and Kavas, A. "The Theory of Wiley, New York, 1972.
Reasoned Action Applied to Coupon Usage," Tse, D. K., Lee, K. H., Vertinsky, I., and Wehrung,
Journal of Consumer Research (11), 1984, pp. D. A. "Does Culture Matter? A Cross-Cultural
795-809. Study of Executives' Choice, Decisiveness, and
Singh, J. "Measurement Issues inCross-National Risk Adjustment in InternationalMarketing,"
Research," Journal of International Business Journal of Marketing (52), October 1988, pp.
Studies (26:3), 1995, pp. 597-619. 81-95.
Smelser, N. J., and Swedberg, R. "The Socio Tuten, T. L., and Urban, D. J. Re
"Specific
logical Perspective on the Economy," in The to Unmet Expectations: The Value of
sponses
Handbook of Economic Sociology, N. J. Linking Fishbein's Theory of Reasoned Action
Smelser and R. Swedberg (Eds.), Princeton and Rusbult's InvestmentModel," International

2005 105

Journal ofManagement (16:4), 1999, pp. 484 virtual community, and e-commerce. He is an
489. editorial board member of InternationalJournal of

Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., Electronic Commerce and InformationResources
Pelletier, L. G., and Mongeau, C. "Ajzen and Management Journal.
Fishbein's Theory of Reasoned Action as

Applied to Moral Behavior: A Confirmatory Robert Zmud isProfessor, Michael F. Price Chair
Analysis," Journal of Personality and Social inMIS, and director of the MIS Division at the
Psychology (62), 1992, pp. 98-109. University of Oklahoma. His research interests
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. "A Theoretical focus on theorganizational impactsof information
Extension of the Technology Acceptance technology and themanagement, implementation,
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Man and diffusionof informationtechnology. He is a
senior editor for InformationSystems Research
agement Science (46), 2000, pp. 186-204.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo,K., and Nonaka, I.Enabling and Journal of the AIS, and a member of the
editorial boards of Management Science, Acad
Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, England, 2000. emy ofManagement Review, and Informationand
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. "It isWhat One Organization. Professor Zmud also serves as
research director for the Advanced Practices
Does: Why People Participate and Help Others
Council of SIM, International. He holds a Ph.D.
inElectronic Communities of Practice," Journal
fromtheUniversityofArizona (1974) and an M.S.
of Strategic InformationSystems (9), 2000, pp.
fromMIT (1970).
155-173
Wold, H. "Introductionto the Second Generation
Young-Gul Kim is professor and director of the
ofMultivariate Analysis," inTheoretical Empiri
Knowledge Management Research Center at the
cism, H.Wold (Ed.), Paragon House, NewYork, Korea Advanced Instituteof Science and Tech
pp. 7-11.
nology (KAIST). His research subjects include
1989,
and B. "National Culture and
Yoo, Y., Torrey, impactand evolution of knowledge management,
Knowledge Management ina Global Learning knowledge communitystimulation,and knowledge
Organization," inThe Strategic Management of eco systems. He was the foundingEditor-in-Chief
Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowl of theKnowledge Management Review Journal,
edge, C. W. Choo and N. Bontis (Eds.), Oxford
published by the Korea Knowledge Management
University Press, Oxford, England, 2002, pp. Society, and serves as the Asia-Pacific regional
421-434. editor for the Business Process Management
Journal. He holds a Ph.D. in MIS from the
Universityof Minnesota.
Jae-Nam Lee is an assistant professor at the

About theAuthors School of Business IT of Kookmin University,
Seoul, Korea. He holds M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
Gee-Woo Bock is an assistant professor at the in MIS from the Korea Advanced Instituteof
Department of Information Systems of theNational Science and Technology inSeoul. His research
University of Singapore (NUS). Before he joined areas are IT/IS outsourcing, knowledge
NUS, he was with the Strategic Management management, computer-supported collaborative
Department of the Samsung Economic Research learning, and electronic commerce. He has pub
Institute inSeoul, Korea. He received an MBA Systems Research, Journalof
lished inInformation
with emphases on MIS and consulting services Management Information Systems, Communi
from the Universityof Southern California (1991), cations of ACM, Journal of the AIS, European
and his Ph.D. inMIS from the Korea Advanced Journal of InformationSystems, Information&
Instituteof Science and Technology (2001). His Management, and others, and has presented
research areas are papers at several major conferences.
knowledge management,
106 2005

Appendix A
Definitions of the Constructs
Constructs Definitions Key References Items*

The degree towhich one believes that Gomez-Mejia and Balkin 2 (3)
. one will receive extrinsic incentives for (1990); Jauch (1976); Konig
one's knowledge sharing (1993); Malhotra and
Rewarqs_Galletta (1999)_
. The degree towhich one believes one Deluga (1998); Major etal. 5(5)
n icip
can jmpr0vemutua| relationshipswith (1995); Parkhe (1993);
. others throughone's knowledge Seers et al. (1995);
R .'[. P
sharing Sparrowe and Linden (1997)
The degree of one's positive cognition Brockner (1988); Gardner 5 (5)
_ based on one's feeling of personal and Pierce (1998); Gecas
fq if"
contribution to the organization (1989); Schaubroeck and
(throughone's knowledge-sharing Merritt (1997); Stajkovic and
behavior) Luthans (1998)
? . The perception of togetherness Kim and Lee (1995); Koys 4(4)
Decotiis
Afflliatl?n_and (1991)_
The perception thatchange and Kim and Lee (1995); Koys 3 (4)
,. . creativityare encouraged, including and Decotiis (1991)
Innovativeness ,*, u u
risk-taking in new areas where one has
littleor no priorexperience
The perception thatorganizational Kim and Lee (1995); Koys 3 (4)
Fairness practices are equitable and and Decotiis (1991)
nonarbitraryor capricious
The de9ree ?fones Positivefeelings Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 5 (5)
Att't d t d
? . . about one's Price and Mueller
sharing knowledge 1981);
?"OWled9e (1986); Robinson and

Shaver
Shanng_ (1973)_
The degree towhich one believes that Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 3 (4)
people who bear pressure on one's 1981)
Subjective actions expect one to perform the
Norm behavior inquestion multiplied by the
degree of one's compliance with each
of one's referents
Explicit Knowledge: The degree to Constant et al. (1994); 2(3)

which one believes thatone will Dennis (1996); Feldman and
engage inan explicit knowledge- March (1981); Fishbein and
Intention to
sharing act Ajzen (1981)
Share
Implicit Knowledge: The degree to Constant et al. (1994); 3 (3)
Knowledge
which one believes thatone will Dennis (1996); Feldman and
engage inan implicitknowledge- March (1981); Fishbein and
sharing act Ajzen (1981)
*Final item numbers (Initial item numbers)
MIS Quarterly Vol. 29 No. 1/March 2005 107

Appendix B
Questionnaire Items IHHHHHHHHHH-Hi
Definitions provided to survey respondents
Here, knowledge means the individual's know-how or something which is helpful insolving problems
j
in the organization. Knowledge sharing means providing or transferringone's knowledge to others.
Knowledge sharing is possible throughvarious methods such as formaland/or informal meetings and
information systems.
j Construct I Statistics
j_Item_ = 0.9280
1.1 will receivemonetaryrewards inreturnformy knowledgesharing.
Anticipated [Alpha =
Extrinsic 2. Iwill receive additional points for promotion in return formy Mean 2.4383
S.D. = 1.0592
Rewards knowledge sharing.
= 0.9190
[ 1. My knowledge sharing would strengthen the ties between existing Alpha
I members in the organization and myself. Mean = 3.8623
2. My knowledge would me with new S.D. = 0.6180
sharing get well-acquainted
members in the organization.
Anticipated
- with
p eciproca l
3. My knowledge sharing would expand the scope of my association
other members in the organization.
e a ions ips 4 ^y know|ecjge sharing would draw smooth cooperation from
I outstanding members in the future.
I5. My knowledge sharing would create strong relationships with
members who have common interests in the organization.
1. My knowledgesharingwould help othermembers intheorganization = 0.9114

| = 3.7740 [Alpha
solve
problems. Mean
2. My knowledge would create new business for S.D. = 0.5770
sharing opportunities
the or9anizatJon
Sense of Self-
. 3. My knowledge sharing would improve work processes in the
wortn w
I organization.
4. My knowledge sharing would increase productivity in the organization. I
|
|
5. My knowledge sharing would help the organization achieve its
performance objectives.
= 0.8983
1. Members inmy department keep close ties with each other. Alpha
inmy department consider other members' Mean = 3.4545 I
I 2. Members standpoint
Affiliation I S.D. = 0.6324
highly.
3. Members inmy department have a strong feeling of 'one team'.
4. Members inmy department cooperate well with each other.
ideas for new opportunities. = 0.8743

1. My department encourages suggesting Alpha
value on taking risks even ifthat turns out Mean = 3.1753
x. , 2. My department puts much
Innovafveness = 0.7681
tobe a failure. S.D.
3. My department encourages finding new methods to perform a task.
= 0.8701
1.1 can trust my boss's evaluation to be good. Alpha
= 3.3398
Fairness 2. Objectives which are given to me are reasonable. Mean
= 0.6970
3. My boss doesn't show favoritism to any one. S.D.
members is good. = 0.9184

[
1. My knowledge sharing with other organizational Alpha
2. My knowledge sharing with other organizational members is harmful. Mean = 4.0286
a**-* a + a 3. My knowledge sharing with other organizational members is an S.D. = 0.6289
Attituaetowara
enjoyable experience.
Know edge 4 My knowledge sharing with other organizational members is valuable
*? me
5. My knowledge sharing with other organizational members is a wise
_I move._I
108 2005

Construct Item Statistics

= 0.8230
Normative beliefs on knowledge sharing (NOB) Alpha
1. My CEO thinks that I should share my knowledge with other members Mean = 3.2338
in the organization. S.D. = 0.6966

2. My boss thinks that Ishould share my knowledge with other members
in the organization.
? . . .. ., 3. My colleagues think Ishould share my knowledge with other members
Subjective Norm
in the organization.
Motivation to comply (MTC)
1. Generally I try to follow the CEO's
speaking, policy and intention.
2. Generally speaking, Iaccept and carry out my boss's decision even
though it is different from mine.
3. Generally speaking, I respect and put in practice my colleague's
decision.
Intention to share explicit knowledge = 0.9237

Alpha
1. Iwill share my work reports and official documents with members of Mean = 3.9346
=
my organization more frequently in the future. S.D. 0.7041
2. Iwill always provide my manuals, methodologies and models for
members of my organization.
Intention to
Intention to share = 0.9326
Share implicit knowledge Alpha
1 'intendto share my experience or know-how fromwork with other Mean = 3.9264
Knowledge = 0.6265
organizational members more frequently in the future. S.D.
2. Iwill always provide my know-where or know-whom at the request of
other organizational members.
3. Iwill try to share my expertise from my education or training with other
organizational members ina more effective way.
All measures employ a five-point Likert scale from "very frequently" to "very rarely" or "extremely likely" to "extremely
unlikely."
Alpha indicatesComposite Reliability
S.D. indicates Standard Deviation

2005 109

Appendix C
Weights and Loadings of the Measures i
Standard
Construct Items Weight Loading Error t-value
AnticipatedExtrinsic AER1 1 -0.489 -0.918 0.173 5.316

Rewards _ AER2 -0.586 "1 -0.943 0.111 8.512
ARR1 0.219 0.776 0.035 22.107
I ARR2 J 0.263~| 0.861 | 0.026 [ 3Z780

AnticipatedReciprocal ARR3
^ jj^gg-rJ55o- 21.473
~
Relationships ARR4 -55??- 0853 0026 32:867
_ ARR5 0.238 ~1 0.816 0.035 23.388
SSW1 0.259 ~ 0.779 0.042 18.329
SSW2 0.163 ~~ j 0.740 ~ 0.061 12.057
Sense of Self-Worth SSW3 0.270 ~ 0.853 0.037 23.271
SSW4 0.295 ~ 0.893 0.023 38.054
_ SSW5 1 0.220 ~ 0.831 0.051 16.425
AFF1 1 0.286 0.797 0.030 26.264
Affl,iatl?n | AFF2 'I 0.299~[ 0.802 | 0.033 [ 24.522 [
AFF3 f 0.312~ 0.852 0.024 34.797
AFF4 0.307 ~
| 0.865
| 0.023 [" 37.757
_ 1
INN1 1 0.393 ~ 0.831 0.029 28.941
Innovativeness INN2 0.389 0.817 0.032 25.279
_ INN3 0.413 0.860 0.022 39.886
\
FAI1 1 0.410 0.866 0.023 38.255
Fairness FAI2 1 0.406 ~ 0.828 0.031 26.367
_ FAI3 0.386 0.799 0.040 19.717
ATK1 1 0.248 0.787 0.035 22.232
ATK2 0.184 0.776 0.042 18.427
Attitudetoward 0835 O030 2&214
^72 ^3
Sharing
Knowledge 0907 1 oiois 58^T~
l?^ ^ ~
_ ATK5 0.245 0.851 0.028 30.806
SUN1 0.452 ~ 0.804 0.044 18.356
SubjectiveNorm SUN2 0 450 ~ 0.828 0.035 23.917
_ SUN3 0.374 ~ 0.704 0.062 11.285
OC1 0.446 ~ 0.829 0.025 33.473
Organizational Climate OC2 0.407 0.781 0.038 20.2872
_ OC3 1 0.398 0.786 0.040 19.375
IEK1 1 0 572 0.935 0.015 64.177
IEK2 0.507 0.917 ~ 0.017 52.427
Intention to Share
||K1 0.394 0.909 0.016 55.696
Knowledge NK2 0 325 0.885 0.022 40.705
\
_I
IIK3 I 0.382 j 0.925 l 0.016 | 58.354 I
*Both standard errors and t-values are for loadings, not weights.
110 2005

Appendix D
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis ^ ^ î^Hl
Construct Items 12345678910

Anticipated AER1 0.899 0.124 0.074 0.006 0.140 -0.016 -0.048 -0.016 0.026 -0.012
- -??-?-?-
-? -???-?
Extrinsic
Rewards AER2 0.869 0.129 0.120 0.004 0.156 0.113 -0.070 -0.06 -0.011 -0.007
ARR1 I0.233 j0.654 | 0.139 | 0.076~|0.063 | 0.069 | 0.13~| 0.072 | 0.149 | 0.263
|
ARR2 0.739 0.135 0.206 0.084 0.16~ 0.076 0.102 0.288"
Anticipated [0093" [0108"
0.144 0.187 | 0.134 [ 0.165 | 0.09~| -0.001|"o.098 | 0.103 |
Reciprocal | ARR3 |a054"| 0.820 j |
Relationships ARR4 0.749 0-266 0.011 0.199 0.048 0.012
| |a037"[ | |-0.019| | | 0.268~| | | 0.103~|
ARR5 ["0.016 j0.760 0.209 [0.081 0.217 0.077
_I | | 0.067~|-0.043| | 0.066"|-0.004|
0.392 -0.069 0.065 0.188 0.281
[SSW1 [a067"| |0.587 | -Q.dTT"| | | 0.09~| |
["-0.045 |
0.111 0.085 0.130 0.046~|0.087 | 0.033 0.093
ISSW2
?f Se'f" |07l53 j j0.767p)l)62~| | | | |
?f nlu SSW3 -0.019 0.075 0.817 0.113 -0.023 0.027 0.159 0.043 0.150 0.218
Worth ---?-??_??__.?U?-??--????????-????????
SSW4 0.296 0.048 0.089 0.174 0.163 0.042 0.108
| |O082 | | 0.771 | | [-0.020 | | | | |
SSW5 1^0.002| 0.228 | 0.762 [0.018 | 0.277~|-0.017|~0.043| 0.168 | 0.068 |~0.156|
_|
AFF1 |u~T67~|0.065 | 0.024 |QjiF| 0.026 0.149 | -0.031~|0.094 | 0.063 | 0.09eT
|
AFF2 I0.100 j0.125 [-0.039jlmF] 0-099 | 0.168 | 0.204 [0.074 fo.048 | 0.082"|
Affiliation |
AFF3 [-0.102| 0.131 j-0.022 |0.794 | 0.228 f0.101 | 0.083 | 0.063 ["0.039| 0.082"
|
AFF4 [^0.173j0.014 | 0.121 [H.802 | 0.157~|0.127 |5.118 | -0.001~|0.157 | 0.114
_j
0.090 [0.165 | 0.751 | 0.124 |5.107 | 0.050 | 0.160 | 0.070
| INN1 [0.075 | 0.177"!
Innovativeness| JNN2| 0.115 | 0.076 [0.113 |o7lOO~[0.699 [ 0.308 | 0.06~| 0.145 | 0.067 | -O.OlT
INN3 |O200"| 0.095 [0.086 |~0~260| 0.756 | 0.120 | 0.124 | 0.094 [-0.052| 0.134"
_I 0.158 [0.770 0.121 0.056 ["0.148| 0.155*
FAI1 0.095 0.039 j |
I |a08T"[ | | 0.196~|
Fairness |
FAI2 0.169
|-0.022"| |
0.082
|
0.279
|
0.115 [0.715, | 0.125~|0.119 [-0.008| 0.166
FAI3 |a05_r| 0.101 [0.034 |oT37"| 0.267 [0.706 | 0.003"]-0.032| 0.223 | 0.088
_I 0.019 [5.173 | 0.004 | 0.129 | 0.707 | 0.108~[0.062 | 0.199 |
[ATK1 [0.106 [0.212"|
Attitude toward I ATK2 [fr026~l?-095 | ?-105 I0-138 [0.080 [ 0.013 [0.809 |-0.098|"o.080| 0.062"|
Knowledge ATK3 |âT02"|0.250 j 0.113 [005^1 0.048 [0.093 [0.695 | 0.116 [0.190 | 0.205"
|
Sharin9 ATK4 [-0.133[0.152 | 0.086 | 0.075 | 0.087 | 0.016 [0.849~| 0.086 | 0.111 | 0.174"
|
ATK5 [-0.049| 0.118 | 0.154 | 0.013 |0.106~|0.062 | 0.784J0.171 | 0.044 | 0.191 |
_|
0.283 0.163 |"o.082| 0.052 0.143
Normative
| NOB1 [0.009 [ | [-0.013[0.112 |0.754 [ |~0.037|
NOB2 -0.064 -0.069 0.226 0.140 0.008 0.276 0.119 0.751 -0.028 0.210
I beliet
-?_-.-_?-.?-,-[___i?_-?;
NOB3 0.010 0.114 0.225 0.077 0.266
_| |a020 | | [0045 | |-0.040 | | 0.653 |-0.030 | |
0.121 | 0.261 0.202 | 0.280 0.098 | 0.12~|-0.019 [0.590 | 0-234
Motivation to | MTC1 | 0.057"! |
MTC2 0.010 0.105 -0.074 -0.089 -0.039 0.260 0.242 0.139 0.778 0.038
Comply I??-? -1???-,-1?- -1-1-1-L_-_-_-_-_?I-?
0.059 | 0.140 0.066 0.039 0.097 0.148
| _|
MTC3 1-0.019 | [0265 | [ | |-0.057 | 0.674 | |
IEK1 0.040 | 0.183 | 0.197 |"oi30 [-0.032| 0.203 | 0.204 | 0.125 [-0.023 | 0.726"[
j [
0.049 0.158 [0V127"0.055 0.204 0.050 fO-032 [0.803|
to
Intention | IEK2 |a012 | | [-0.015|
Share | IIK1 [-0.026 |0.090[0.117[0.13~|0.161[0.231[0.785"
|0.198|0.078|oTqT8~ |
Knowledge 0.005 0.119 0.096 |0J099~| 0.031 | 0.110 | 0.14~| 0.067 fo.085 [0.783"|
| ||K2 | | |
0.143|0.092pEJoi"!
I0.217[0.22110.072|0.107[0.078|o7T29~|
[ IIK3 [^0.047

2005 111


Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

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

Management Information Systems Research Center, University of Minnesota

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic

Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

behavioral intention formation in

By: Gee-Woo Bock Jae-Nam Lee

Department of Information Systems School of Business IT

rzmud@ou.edu Individuals' knowledge does not transformeasily

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1,pp. 87-111/March2005 87

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Introduction social-psychological forces and organizational

Extensive knowledge sharingwithinorganizations Knowledge management has been defined as the

88 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Individualbenefit, i.e., self-interest,personal

As knowledge sharing does not come without Institutional Structures

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

90 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Resultant Set of Motivational Drivers innovativeness (a climate that is tolerant of

(2001) as influencing individuals' knowledge actor is assumed to choose thfecourse of action

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Figure 1. Research Model

92 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Defining this cognition as an individual'ssense of

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Bringing together these ideas with the arguments

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Backward translation (withthematerial translated Measurement Model

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Table 1. Profile of Companies and Respondents

Electric 2 12 7.7 Financial 3 14

Automotive 1 4 2.6 Entertainment 5

Measure Items Freq. Percent Measure Items Freq. Percent

reflective. score of 0.5 indicates acceptability (Fornell and

96 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Anticipated extrinsic rewards (AER) 2

Anticipated reciprocal relationships (ARR) 5 0.919 0.695

Subjective norm (SUN) 3 0.823 0.609

Organizational climate (OC) 3 0.841 0.639

Table 3. Correlation between Constructs

AER ARR SSW AFF INN FAI ATK SUN ISK

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

With an adequate measurement model and an

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Sense of Self-Worth '-x-' N, R2 =0.318

Figure 2. Results of PLS Analysis

MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Table 4. Results of Hypothesis Testing

H5: The greater the sense of self-worththroughknowledge sharing behavior Supported

100 MIS QuarterlyVol. 29 No. 1/March

This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 05:11:20 AM

Sensiper 1998); cognitive barriers thatmake it stress extrinsic rewards as a primarymotivator

Based on our findings,we propose the following