Organizational support on knowledge

sharing: a moderated mediation model of

job characteristics and organizational
citizenship behavior
Seung-Hyun Han, Dong-Yeol Yoon, Boyung Suh, Beixi Li and Chungil Chae

Abstract Seung-Hyun Han is based

Purpose – This paper aims to study the effects of perceived organizational support (POS) on employees’ at the University of Georgia
knowledge sharing intention (KSI). More specifically, this study examined whether these effects are College of Education,
moderated by job characteristics (JCs) and are mediated by organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Athens, Georgia, USA.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for 426 employees were collected via an online questionnaire Dong-Yeol Yoon is based at
from four IT companies in South Korea. Combined effects in the variable set were analyzed using the Konkuk University,
conditional process analyses (Hayes, 2013).
Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Findings – The results indicate that POS positively affects OCB and KSI, and that JCs moderate the
Boyung Suh is based at
relationship between POS and OCB. Also, the relationship between POS and KSI is mediated by OCB,
Southern Illinois University
and the hypothesized moderated mediation model is confirmed.
School of Medicine,
Originality/value – This study is novel in empirically establishing how employees’ KSI is affected by POS
as an integrative construct bringing together JCs and OCB. This paper intends to fill a methodological Springfield, Illinois, USA.
gap and nurture future research by adopting conditional process analyses assessing whether JCs Beixi Li is based at the
moderate the relationship between POS and OCB and mediate the effects of OCB on KSI. University of Georgia
Keywords Organizational support, Knowledge sharing, Moderated mediation model College of Education,
Paper type Research paper Athens, Georgia, USA.
Chungil Chae is based at
the Pennsylvania State
esearch has shown that organizational support in the workplace is positively related University, University Park,

R to knowledge sharing (Bock et al., 2005; Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005; Lin, 2006).
Although the overall link between organizational support and knowledge sharing is
Pennsylvania, USA.

valuable, theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that this relationship is best
conceptualized as a multidimensional mechanism with different relationships with various
mediating and moderating variables. Research thus far, however, has failed to provide a
comprehensive understanding of how an organization’s support induces an individual to
share knowledge or which variables intervene in that relationship, even though perceived
organizational support (POS) is a critical source of employee behaviors in the workplace
and typically serves as the primary means through which employees interact with their job
characteristics (JCs) and climate (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011). For example,
previous research focusing on the mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) has either failed to show empirical evidence in a model (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2005)
or has neglected to concurrently study the interaction effects of JCs.
Considering that in reality employees are exposed simultaneously to multiple bundles of Received 24 March 2018
Revised 26 June 2018
knowledge sharing (Minbaeva, 2013), mediation and moderation pathways may exist 12 August 2018
between POS and knowledge sharing. The governance mechanism for knowledge sharing Accepted 21 August 2018

DOI 10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0213 VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019, pp. 687-704, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 687
 recently suggested that the differentiated effects of organizational support could be best
uncovered through examining individual attitudes and behaviors as critical intermediaries
between job designs and managerial practices (Choi et al., 2005). The present study
focuses on OCB as an important mechanism because employees often adjust their
behavior when they perceive that they have support from their organizations, and that
might, in turn, contribute positively to sharing knowledge with others. Research shows that
organizational support perceptions in the workplace lead employees to perform extra-role
behaviors, such as OCB (Moorman et al., 1998; Piercy, 2006), and are essential
components in facilitating knowledge sharing among employees in organizations (Connelly
and Kelloway, 2003). Still, empirical evidence demonstrating that mechanism has not been
clearly explained. Do JCs amplify differences in the magnitude of the effectiveness of POS?
If OCB mediates the POS–knowledge sharing link and this mediation can be moderated by
JCs, what would their total effects on knowledge sharing look like? What impact do all these
have if they are applied together? It may be possible to uncover an organization
support–knowledge sharing relationship by modeling variation in the content of OCB and
examining how such behaviors are conditioned by JCs.
A moderated–mediation relationship between POS and knowledge sharing suggests that a
mediating construct might explain the mechanisms through which OCB affects the
relationship between POS and knowledge sharing (Sergeeva and Andreeva, 2016). A
moderated mediating mechanism is particularly important in considering JCs, which play a
pivotal interacting role between POS and OCB in an organization, as well as in expected
performance behaviors (Caesens et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2013; Randall et al., 1999).
Therefore, we used a process analysis to investigate the consequences of POS on
employees’ intention to gain knowledge, using OCB as a mediator and JCs as a moderator
in the mechanism simultaneously. Integrating organizational support theory (Eisenberger
et al., 1986), this study proposes and tests a model in which moderated-mediating
influences POS and knowledge sharing (as shown in Figure 1)
The primary objective of this research is to examine complicated structural relationships
among various work-related organizational behaviors and knowledge sharing. This research
includes the following behavioral concepts: POS, JCs, OCB and knowledge sharing
intention (KSI). Because organizations have a non-linear structure, we developed a complex
structural model from theoretical and conceptual foundations to assess direct (H1 and H2)
and indirect (H4) path relations among exogenous and endogenous variables (Edwards
and Lambert, 2007). Additionally, the moderated interactions of JCs (H3) were examined to
explain the relationship between POS and OCB, moving toward an investigation of the
mediating effect of OCB on the relationship between POS and KSI.

Figure 1 Research framework

PAGE 688 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

Literature review
This section reviews the concept for each construct and the constructs’ influential relations,
along with the theoretical foundation for the conceptual framework used in this study.

Organizational support and organization citizenship behavior

Regarding POS as a fundamental belief of employees about the managerial routine of
employee recognition and individualized patronage, scholars have used the organizational
support theory to examine its antecedents and consequences (Rhoades and Eisenberger,
2002). In their study of the emergence of POS and its effect on employees’ commitment to
organizational goals, Eisenberger et al. (1986) found that employees develop their own
conceptions of organizational support for their job-related exertions. They also found that
such support decreases the level of employees’ disengagement in their workplaces.
Since its debut in the literature in the late 1980’s to denote voluntary individual
organizational behaviors that advance organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988), both the
concept and the study of OCB have substantially influenced the field of organizational
behavior, evoking numerous related constructs, such as extra-role behavior and contextual
performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Searching for the very nature of citizenship behavior
in an organizational context through a critical review of the OCB literature, Podsakoff et al.
(2000, p. 516) identified seven dimensions of the construct from about 30 different but
overlapping concepts: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty,
organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self-development. Podsakoff
et al. (1990) investigated the positive effects of transformational leaders’ behavior on OCB.
Surveying 988 employees in a petrochemical company, that study, which used five OCB
categories (altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, civic virtue and sportsmanship), found
that the relationship between the variables was mediated by employees’ trust in the
company’s leaders and satisfaction, therefore indicating the indirect effect of
transformational leadership on OCB.
Various studies have examined and confirmed the relationship between POS and OCB
(Moorman et al., 1998; Randall et al., 1999; Wayne et al., 1997; Islam et al., 2014; Shen
et al., 2014; Asfar and Badir, 2016). In Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) meta-analytic
study of the POS literature, they identified the consequences of POS on employees’
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement, individual task performance,
stress levels and willingness to stay with an organization. Among those variables, they
considered going beyond one’s task responsibilities, which exemplifies extra-role
behaviors, to be enhanced job performance. In accordance with Rhoades and
Eisenberger’s (2002) research findings, Randall et al. (1999) found a positive relationship
between POS and OCB as they examined the effect of organizational support and politics in
association with employees’ organizational behavior and their perceptions of their
workplace. In their study investigating the mediation effect of POS between procedural
justice and OCB, Moorman et al. (1998) confirmed an indirect effect of POS in a causal
model. In the context of quality management, Wickramasinghe and Perera (2014) found that
both POS and employee engagement positively predicted OCB directed toward other
employees. A recent meta-analytical review of POS by Kurtessis et al. (2015) concluded
that POS should be positively related to effort on behalf of the organization and promoted
OCB directed to the overall organization. Given the phenomena regarding how positive
individual organizational performance is affected by POS and to yield auxiliary attestation of
the positive effects of POS on OCB, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Perceived organizational support will be positively related to organizational
citizenship behavior.

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 689

 Perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing intention
Knowledge sharing comprises a set of activities involving the exchange of knowledge in
multiple forms. It is a complex process that involves factors at the individual, group and
organizational levels operating together. Researchers have been trying to create a model
that combines different factors while investigating the relationships between each pair of
factors in a holistic way. For example, in the model proposed by Ipe (2003), four factors
were identified as significant influencers of knowledge sharing, with the interconnections
between the nature of knowledge, the motivation to share and the opportunities to share all
embedded in the organizational culture. In addition, knowledge is gradually being explicitly
recognized as an asset that contributes to the sustainable growth of an organization
(Davenport and Prusak, 2000). Nonaka (1994) made the distinction between tacit
knowledge, which is difficult to verbalize or formulate, and codified or transferable explicit
knowledge. Through the process of moving knowledge from the individual level to the
organizational level, knowledge sharing can contribute to the value and competitiveness of
an organization (Hendriks, 1999). As the world becomes more knowledge-intensive, recent
research has focused on improving an organization’s competitiveness by fostering
knowledge sharing to assist in optimizing business operations. Despite being considered
an “unnatured act” (Davenport, 1996), knowledge sharing is more complex than previously
thought (Ipe, 2004). Because it is essentially voluntary, many scholars have investigated the
external and internal factors that influence and motivate knowledge sharing.
POS and its consequences are positively linked to knowledge sharing. Organizational support
in general is a positive factor in knowledge management (Kulkarni et al., 2006). The feeling of
being valued by peers, supervisors and the organization motivates individuals to engage in
knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2004; Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). In his study of the inhibitors and
motivators of knowledge sharing, Ipe (2004) found that a sense of being valued is clearly
recognized as a motivator for knowledge sharing. Organizational commitment, one strong
consequence of POS identified by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), was confirmed by Jeung
et al. (2017) as fully mediating the relationship between POS and KSI. At the organizational
level, management support has also been identified as a driver of knowledge sharing. In a
study investigating the predictors of employee perceptions of knowledge sharing culture,
Connelly and Kelloway (2003) found that the perception of management support for
knowledge sharing is a strong predictor, alongside a positive social interaction culture. In a
narrative review of the knowledge sharing literature, Wang and Noe (2010) confirmed that
management support for knowledge sharing can positively influence an individual’s
perception of knowledge sharing culture and readiness to engage in knowledge sharing. Kim
et al. (2017) identified the supervisor–subordinate relationship as a significant condition for
knowledge sharing. Employees’ interpersonal trust and trust toward management increase
when they perceive more support from the organization (Whitener, 2011). In a study exploring
the knowledge process in the scientific community, perceived trustworthiness was identified
as central to knowledge sharing (Andrews and Delahaye, 2000). Without trust between the
sender and recipient, a formal collaborative process is insufficient to motivate knowledge
sharing. Lin (2006) also found that interpersonal trust influences an individual’s intention to
share knowledge through surveying senior executives. Based on that study’s findings on the
effect of POS on knowledge sharing behavior and to add a supplementary test to the
knowledge sharing literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. Perceived organizational support will be positively related to knowledge sharing
intention.

Moderating effect of job characteristics

Scanning the aforementioned and other studies, it appears highly likely that the POS-OCB
relationship is affected by other organizational variables. For instance, in their study that

PAGE 690 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

tested a combined model of POS and leader–member exchange (LMX), Wayne et al. (1997)
found that POS is positively associated with OCB and other dependent variables, such as
affective commitment, intention to quit and performance ratings. Although it was indirectly
hypothesized and tested, Wayne et al. found a positive reciprocal relationship between
POS and LMX, which provides indirect evidence of causal relationships among POS, LMX
and OCB. Also, developmental experiences, promotions and organizational tenure, as a
group of control variables in the study, were found to have a positive relationship with POS,
suggesting their influence on the POS-OCB relationship. Notwithstanding, Wayne et al.’s
(1997) study provides insight on how a few practices of human resources affect OCB
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002); however, an explanation is still lacking for organizational
situational factors, such as motivational aspects of employees’ jobs and work
responsibilities. Recent studies have identified organizational commitment (Wang, 2014),
employee engagement (Chhetri, 2017), trust (Paille et al., 2010; Tremblay et al., 2010) and
satisfaction (Paille et al., 2010; Shaukat et al., 2012) as variables that affect the relationship
between POS and OCB.
Among several organizational situational factors, JCs or task characteristics possess
explanatory power regarding POS and OCB (Blakely et al., 2003; Saks, 2006; Van Dyne
et al., 1994). Van Dyne et al. (1994) conceptualized the construct of OCB using three
categories: obedience, loyalty and participation (i.e. social, advocacy and functional
participation). Examining the influence of situational factors on OCB mediated by
covenantal relationships, they found that JCs (e.g. getting feedback, job autonomy and
organizational embeddedness) present a motivating peculiarity in employees’ jobs and
thereby positively influence all categories of OCB. Similarly, in his mediation study of job
and organizational engagement, Saks (2006) found that JCs, as manifested by the
enrichment and demands of an employee’s job, positively relate to OCB through the
mediating effect of employee engagement. Saks’ study also confirmed a positive
association between JCs and POS and OCB, supporting an affirmative POS-OCB
relationship. Other evidence of the significance of JCs in relation to OCB can be found in
Blakely et al.’s (2003) longitudinal study of the relationship between self-monitoring and
OCB. Testing that relationship, they investigated the effects of both task characteristics (skill
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback) and POS as a control
variable on OCB with data collected at two different time points. They found that task
characteristics are positively but weakly related to overall OCB dimensions except for the
loyal boosterism dimension at Time II. They also found that POS had positive but similarly
unconvincing positive effects on several OCB dimensions, such as loyal boosterism at
Times I and II and personal industry at Time I. Such ambiguous findings with limited positive
associations between JCs and OCB leave a gap that requires further investigation.
On the other hand, several studies have produced evidence suggesting a positive correlation
between JCs and OCB. Chiu and Chen (2005) studied employees in the electronic industries
and found positive effects for job variety and job significance on OCB. Purvanova et al. (2006)
studied the relationship between transformative leadership and OCB and found that
employees’ perceptions of their jobs mediated the relationship between transformative
leadership and OCB. Shantz et al. (2013) and Sulea et al. (2012) confirmed the mediating role
of employee engagement in the positive relationship between JCs and OCB. Enhanced JCs
with motivating expectations enable employees to value their environments and display OCB
to facilitate the function of their organization (Chen and Chiu, 2009). In other words, when
employees perceive few or no JC traits that motivate them to move beyond their assigned
tasks, they are unlikely to display OCB. Thus, we expect that the relationship between POS
and OCB will be stronger when JCs are enriched. Combined with the mediating effect that
OCB plays in KSI, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3. The positive effect of perceived organizational support on employees’ organizational
citizenship behavior is amplified by job characteristics.

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 691

 Mediating effect of organizational citizenship behavior
Many researchers have investigated the mediators in the knowledge sharing process (Lin,
2006; Andrews and Delahaye, 2000; Jo and Joo, 2011; Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2011; Hashim
and Tan, 2015). In their study investigating the associations of antecedents with KSI (i.e.
organizational learning culture, organizational commitment and OCB), Jo and Joo (2011)
found a significant relationship between OCB and KSI. In addition, although it was not
particularly tested in that study, their results of structural equation modeling (SEM) suggest
that OCB mediates the relationship between organizational learning culture and KSI. Also,
Jo and Joo (2011) found that OCB fully mediates the relationship between organizational
commitment and KSI. Chiang and Hsieh (2012) suggested that OCB acts as a mediator
between POS and job performance. In their study of hotel employees in Taiwan, they found
that employees who displayed more OCB were more likely to exceed expectations and go
beyond their job descriptions (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012). Tuan (2017) studied employers
and managers in public organizations in Vietnam and found that OCB mediated the positive
association between servant leadership and KSI. As witnessed in previous studies, OCB
acts as a mediator in the relationships among other variables (e.g. organizational learning
culture, POS, KSI and job performance), conveying its significant role in organizational
studies and practices. However, OCB as a mediator in the relationship between POS and
KSI has yet to be specified. Therefore, to investigate such a mediating role for OCB, we
propose:
H4. The positive relationship between perceived organizational support and knowledge
sharing intention is mediated by organizational citizenship behavior.

Moderated mediating effect

POS is a social signal that organizations value employees’ contributions and care for their
individual interests (Eisenberger et al., 1990). To compensate for that support, employees
might display more OCB, which might then result in active engagement in knowledge
sharing with others. Research corroborates the role of OCB in fostering knowledge sharing
(Han et al., 2016). JCs have also been shown to moderate the relationship between POS
and OCB (e.g. Van Dyne et al., 1994). As a result of the effects of organizational factors
such as POS, OCB and JCs, the level of KSI exemplified by a community of practice (CoP)
can differ significantly. A CoP is understood as an informal group that possesses a body of
common knowledge, develops shared values, and it shares a sense of communal identity
(Wenger and Snyder, 2000). CoPs thus allow members to build and share knowledge
among themselves, thereby allowing ideas to be moved around within organizations.
Recent empirical studies have showed that CoPs facilitate knowledge sharing between
members, which in turn results in higher innovation and organizational performance (Bertels
et al., 2011; Kirkman et al., 2011). Following situated learning theory (Lave and Wenger,
1991), CoPs stem from the idea that one’s learning occurs as consequence of social
participation in a knowledge sharing process. Thus, our arguments are based on the idea
that POS can amplify the OCB associated with JCs and strengthen the path between POS
and KSI. Therefore, we propose our fifth and final hypothesis:
H5. The indirect effects of perceived organizational support on knowledge sharing
intention depend on job characteristics.

Methods
This section describes the research approach and method-related procedures, including
the research context, sampling process and data collection, instrumentation and strategies
for data analysis.

PAGE 692 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

Data collection and sample framework
This study was conducted in four IT companies in South Korea. The IT industry is a good
setting for knowledge sharing research because the primary function of engineers relies on
knowledge sharing practices (Collins and Smith, 2006). Preliminary interviews with HR
managers and observation on the organizations confirmed that work in IT companies were
highly knowledge-intensive and dependent upon collaboration. After receiving approval,
questionnaires were distributed to their employees through intranet mail. Participation in the
study was voluntary, and no rewards were granted. All questionnaires were completed
through a Web-based online survey. In all, 600 questionnaires were randomly distributed,
and 426 employees completed the questionnaires (71 per cent). Missing data reduced the
analysis sample to 396. The sample comprised 267 male employees (67.6 per cent), with
231 members of the sample in their 30s (58.5 per cent). Most had four-year college degrees
(70.6 per cent), and the participants had an average tenure with their respective firms of 4.7
years. Each response was assigned its own identification number and stored on a secured
drive to ensure its confidentiality.

Instrumentation

Organizational support. POS measures concern whether organizations appreciate

employees’ contributions and treat employees favorably. This variable was measured using
an eight-item scale with five response options (Rhoades et al., 2001). Existing exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses from diverse organizations and industries provided
evidence for the high internal reliability (a = 0.90) and unidimensionality of the scale
(Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). A sample item is “My organization strongly considers my
goals and values.” Respondents indicated the extent to which they agreed with each item in
general on a five-point Likert-type scale anchored at (1) not at all and (5) all the time.

Job characteristics. This measure (a = 0.90) was adapted from the revised form of the Job
Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). On a five-point scale, participants
indicated the accuracy of statements such as “The job requires me to use a number of
complex high-level skills” (variety); “The job provides me the chance to completely finish the
pieces of work I begin” (identity); “The job is very significant and important in the broader
scheme of things” (task significance); “The job gives me considerable opportunity for
independence and freedom in how I do the work” (autonomy); “Just doing the work
required by the job provides many chances for me to figure out how well I am doing”
(feedback); and “Supervisors often let me know how well they think I am performing the job”
(feedback from agents).

Organizational citizenship behavior. Podsakoff et al. (1990) developed this measure to

describe four dimensions of OCB: conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue and
courtesy. In previous studies, the internal consistency for the single OCB scale was
consistently high (a = 0.76-0.91) (van Yperen et al., 1999). In this study, the reliability
coefficient was 0.83. A sample question is “I read and keep up with my organization’s
announcements, memos, and so on.”

Knowledge sharing intention. Scales measuring the intention to share knowledge were
developed by Bock et al. (2005). This measure consists of two constructs: intention to share
explicit knowledge and to share tacit knowledge (Bock et al., 2005). Explicit KSI was
measured via two items, including: “I will always provide my manuals, methodologies, and
models for members of my organization.” The scale’s internal reliability in the previous study
was 0.94 (Bock et al., 2005). Tacit KSI was measured via three items, including: “I
frequently share my experience of know-how from work with other members of my
organization.” The internal consistency for this scale was 0.95.

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 693

 Discriminant and convergent validity
Because our model includes a variety of constructs, we checked the discriminant and
convergent validity of the variables via confirmatory factor analyses. For the fit-indices, we
set the cutoffs using accepted standards (Kline, 2001). We began by checking the
construct fit of a one-factor model, wherein all items were collapsed into one latent construct
( x 2 = 2249.359, df = 209; CFI = 0.600; NFI = 0.578; TLI = 0.538; RMSEA = 0.449). We also
computed an alternative model wherein the endogenous items were loaded on their own
constructs, and the other three exogenous constructs were collapsed, but the two-
factor model also showed an unsatisfactory fit to the data ( x 2 = 1526.793; df = 208;
CFI = 0.741; NFI = 0.714; TLI = 0.713; RMSEA = 0.354). Then, we collapsed the two
measured scales into one factor and constructed OCB separately as a mediator. This
three-factor model fit the data slightly better than the one-factor model; however, it was
still unsatisfactory ( x 2 = 1100.786, df = 206; CFI = 0.825; NFI = 0.794; TLI = 0.803;
RMSEA = 0.120). The four-factor measurement model that we proposed fit the data well
( x 2 = 724.531, df = 203, p < 0.01; CFI = 0.903; NFI = 0.901; TLI = 0.900; RMSEA =
0.05). Therefore, we concluded that our four-factor measurement model was the most
appropriate, and all constructs were both theoretically and empirically distinct.
Convergent validity is claimed if the correlation coefficient is above 0.50, indicating that
the items all converge on the same construct.
Construct validity was established by estimating convergent validity and discriminant
validity. First, convergent validity was tested by composite reliability and average variance
extracted (AVE). All results showed acceptable values, confirming convergent validity.
Then, discriminant analysis was assessed by comparing the AVE with the corresponding
inter-dimension squared correlation estimates (Fornell and Larker, 1981). Table I shows that
the square roots of the AVE values for all study factors are greater than the inter-dimension
correlations, supporting discriminant validity. The goodness-of-fit statistics of the
measurement model indicate that the model fits the data well, as described in Table II.
Thus, we confirmed that the validity and psychometric properties of the constructs used in
this study were appropriate for further regression analyses.

Table I Composite reliability, AVE, and inter-dimension squared correlations

Constructs CR AVE 1 2 3 4

1. POS 0.92 0.77 (0.87)

2. JCs 0.73 0.57 0.56 (0.75)
3. OCB 0.84 0.64 0.43 0.42 (0.80)
4. KSI 0.88 0.59 0.32 0.52 0.58 (0.77)
Notes: The square root of the AVE in diagonal; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance
extracted

Table II Fit indices of measurement model comparison

Models x2 df CFI NFI TLI RMSEA

Full measurement model 724.531** 203 0.903 0.901 0.900 0.050

Model Aa 1100.786** 206 0.825 0.794 0.803 0.121
Model Bb 1526.793** 208 0.741 0.714 0.713 0.354
Model Cc 2249.359** 209 0.600 0.578 0.538 0.449
Notes: ** p = 0.001 chi-square discrepancy; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index;
NFI = normative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation. aPOS and JCs combined to one factor; OCB and KSI separately; bPOS, JCs, and
OCB combined to one factor; KSI separately; cAll factors combined into a single factor

PAGE 694 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

Data analysis
This study examines a moderated–mediation model. We used the PROCESS (v.2.14)
procedures of Hayes (2013) in SPSS 21, which allowed us to estimate moderated–mediation
models in a linear regression framework. In the proposed models, the moderation effect was
tested by including an interaction effect between POS and OCB in the model (after grand-
mean centering both predictor variables), whereas the mediation effect of OCB between POS
and KSI was tested using the product-of-coefficients approach. We also used bootstrapping
(n = 5,000 bootstrap samples) to test for statistical significance.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and Cronbach’s alphas for the four constructs
are presented in Table III. The correlation between POS and OCB was significant and
positive (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), and OCB was positively related to KSI (r = 0.52, p < 0.01).
Furthermore, JCs were significantly and positively correlated with OCB (r = 0.42, p < 0.01).
In the process analysis, we used hierarchical multiple regressions to test H1 and H2 and
hierarchical moderated regressions for H3 and H4. To prevent multicollinearity, we
examined the variance of the inflation factor (VIF). All VIFs in the regressions were below 2;
this indicates that multicollinearity was not found in the regressions (Zuur et al., 2010).

Hypotheses testing
The regression results in Table IV, which demonstrate that POS was significantly related to
OCB, support H1. Thus, POS had a significant and positive relationship with OCB ( b =
0.13, p < 0.01). The results in the third column of Table IV also show that POS was positively
related to KSI ( b = 0.11, p < 0.01). Thus, the direct effects of POS on OCB (H1) and KSI
(H2) were both supported.
To further assess the moderating effect of JCs between POS and OCB, hierarchical
moderated regression was used to test H3. Results in the second column of Table IV show
that the interaction term for POS with JCs was significant in predicting OCB ( b = 0.13,

Table III Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliabilities

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4

1. POS 3.07 0.76 (0.93)

2. KSI 3.81 0.64 0.32** (0.92)
3. OCB 3.86 0.51 0.43** 0.52** (0.89)
4. JCs 3.62 0.60 0.56** 0.42** 0.58** (0.82)
Notes: n = 395; **p < 0.01; Cronbach’s alphas are in parentheses

Table IV Regression results for POS, JCs, OCB, and KSI

OCB KSI
Variables b SE b SE

Constant 3.85*** (0.02) 2.29*** (0.22)

POS 0.13** (0.03) 0.11** (0.04)
JCs 0.38*** (0.04) –
OCB – 0.39*** (0.05)
POS  JCs 0.13** (0.04)
R2 0.22 0.19
F 45.76*** 44.92***
Notes: n = 395; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 695

 p < 0.01). Thus, H3 was supported. The moderation effect of JCs is represented in Figure 2.
The interaction between POS and JCs was positive and statistically significant.
H4 proposed that OCB mediates the relationship between POS and KSI. Baron and Kenny
(1986) suggest four conditions for a mediation model:
䊏 all the dependent, independent and mediating variables must establish strong
relationships with one another; and
䊏 the relationship between the dependent and independent variables must be
nonsignificant or weaker when the mediator is added between them.
Results in the third column of Table IV show that after OCB was taken into account, the
effects of POS ( b = 0.11, p < 0.01) became weaker, albeit still significant, which suggests
that OCB fully mediates the relationship between POS and KSI ( b = 0.39, p < 0.01).
To further validate the findings of moderated mediation relationships (H5), we examined Model
7 of the process analysis, which requires the magnitude of the conditional indirect effect of
POS via OCB to be different for KSI across high and low levels of JCs. To assess the
conditional indirect effect, we used the bootstrap method (number of bootstrap samples =
5,000). To gain a more specific effect from the moderated mediation effect, we investigated
the conditional indirect effect (Preacher et al., 2007). Figure 3 shows that the conditional
indirect effect was increased when the OCB level increased. Additionally, moderated OCB
mediated the relationship between POS and KSI ( b = 0.13, p < 0.01) (Table V).
In sum, all of the suggested hypotheses were supported. These findings showed the
mechanism of how POS leads to knowledge sharing. This finding indicates that OCB is
moderated by the interaction term of POS and JCs; then, the moderated OCB mediates the
relationship between POS and knowledge sharing.

Discussion
This study contributes to the literature on knowledge management at large, specifically
to the literature on the knowledge sharing process in organizations. As suggested by
Bock et al. (2005) and in practice, employees’ implicit and explicit knowledge sharing
activities significantly affect the performance of organizations by helping them achieve
their missions. This study confirms the combined effects of POS, OCB and JCs on
employees’ KSI, which ultimately influence organizational performance. A top

Figure 2 Effects of POS through JCs’ interaction with OCB

PAGE 696 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

 Figure 3 Conditional effect of OCB on KSI at values of the moderator JCs

Table V Moderated mediation effects (Model 7 of the process analysis)

95% CI
Levels of JCs Effect SE BootLL BootUL

OCB 0.13** (0.45) 0.04 0.22

10th 0.00 (0.02) 0.02 0.05
25th 0.00 (0.02) 0.02 0.05
50th 0.06 (0.01) 0.03 0.09
75th 0.06 (0.01) 0.03 0.09
90th 0.11 (0.02) 0.06 0.16
Notes: CL = confidence interval; BootLL = bootstrap lower limit; BootUL = bootstrap upper limit.
**p < 0.01

management team (TMT) can thus strategically nurture a culture of knowledge sharing.
For instance, if the TMT supports its employees by encouraging them to actively
participate in pivotal communities of practices (CoPs) both inside and outside the
company, the employees will learn from the CoPs and could improve their knowledge
and performance levels. More specifically, a company can design a promotion and
evaluation system to stimulate employees’ CoP engagement (Cabrera and Cabrera,
2005) and motivate them to share what they learn within the CoPs. Tacit knowledge is
embodied in individuals and embedded in contexts. It is also inseparable from
collectively held group processes. Thus, tacit knowledge is difficult to transmit in formal
learning practices and instead emerges from social interactions among individuals. In
this sense, a CoP can provide an effective means by which organizations can increase
the sharing of tacit knowledge by supporting situated learning and building internal
member networks (Bettiol and Sedita, 2011). We showed that OCB has a mediating
effect that is moderated by JCs and plays a significant role in the relationship between
POS and KSI. These results indicate two potential benefits of CoPs. First, sharing
knowledge can facilitate individual and group learning and build both the common
knowledge and collective identity of a CoP. Second, knowledge sharing can underpin
innovation processes and improve organizational performance (Hansen et al., 2005).
CoPs support and encourage the creation, acquisition, interpretation and dissemination
of knowledge. The benefits of a CoP in enabling knowledge sharing processes are

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 697

 based on shared values and trust-based relationships. This study highlights some of
the features that create the conditions in organizations that build OCB and identifies the
JCs that allow employees to perceive organizational support.
We found the indirect effects of OCB, mediating the POS-KSI relationship. This means
that POS leads to OCB, which leads to KSI. One inference to draw from our study result
is that good citizens in an organization are more likely to share their knowledge with
their colleagues when organizational support is involved (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;
Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore, a TMT can expect that strengthening
employees’ favorable extra-role behaviors (i.e. OCB) through enhanced POS measures
(e.g. organizational caring for employees’ well-being, goals, values, opinions and
personal issues) will induce knowledge sharing within their organizations. As an
effective knowledge management practice, Wayne et al. (1997) and Allen et al. (2003)
advocated the POS maneuvers of respecting and looking after employees with care.
Embracing such an organizational support philosophy and strategy, a TMT can use
knowledge management practices such as valuing employees’ involvement in
organizational decision-making, equitably rewarding employees and offering
developmental and learning opportunities to augment organizational support and
employee perceptions of that support (Allen et al., 2003).
The effect of favorable JCs, which we examined as a moderator in the relationship
between POS and OCB, implies that the positive effect of organizational support on
employees’ extra-role behaviors is amplified by satisfying JCs. According to our
results, POS has a relatively adverse influence on OCB when the JC level is low; in that
situation, OCB merely relates directly to a better KSI level. On the contrary, as the JC
level increases, the positive effect of POS on OCB becomes evident and consequently
drives a high level of KSI. On the other hand, enhanced organizational support would
more likely activate employees’ extra-role behavior level, concurrently impelling higher
knowledge sharing activities, when there is a complementary acknowledgment of the
characteristics of their jobs. These findings shed light on desirable HR practices in
organizations: to facilitate employee engagement in knowledge sharing, organizations
can design work environments characterized by a high level of organizational support
(Collins and Smith, 2006). In this vein, organizational support could provide an
atmosphere of interdependence and mutual learning in which employees are engaged
in OCB that is highly valuable to the organization. Because fulfilling employee tasks
increase employee engagement levels (Saks, 2006), designing and assigning
interesting jobs matter. To develop and assign tasks with highly satisfying
characteristics, HR managers can use strategic initiatives such as empowering
employees with greater autonomy, expanding the task spectrum by increasing the work
areas and skills necessary and providing more feedback to employees about tasks
performed (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Also, HR managers can carefully enrich the
design and characteristics of work in their companies to increase employees’ self-
efficacy and promote their intentions to share knowledge competently (Cabrera et al.,
2007). If a significant portion of employees’ experience vexation or burnout performing
a specific job at their workplace, managers can expect a positive outcome from a new
employee well-being initiative only after they unravel the employees’ job dissatisfaction
issue.
Regarding the theoretical implications of this study, the value of investigating our
theoretical framework lies in investigating the relationship between the study variables
(POS, OCB, JCs and KSI) in a specific organizational context and attesting to the
validity of their relationships in the human resource development (HRD) literature. The
study results suggest that organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986), as
well as social exchange theory (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) and situated learning
theory (Lave and Wenger, 1991) in combination, both shape and substantiate our

PAGE 698 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

theoretical framework of the organizational knowledge sharing process. Also, this study
has significant methodological implications for research in knowledge management,
which involves multiple organizational variables for understanding an essential role of
POS concerning the parallel effects of OCB and JCs on employees’ knowledge sharing
behavior. Previous studies showed the mediating effect of OCB and the moderating
effect of JCs separately; however, this study focused on how this complicated
relationship between POS and KSI is associated with various determinants. The tests of
our conditional process model adds auxiliary value to the knowledge management
literature by investigating the moderated mediating effect of JCs on the mediating
effect of OCB on POS and KSI using a conditional process analysis method (Hayes,
2013; Preacher et al., 2007). By challenging a pioneering role in investigating a process
model (Preacher et al., 2007) in the knowledge management field, this study is one of
only a few to test the moderated mediating influences of JCs and OCB on KSI, thus
showing the possibility of using different variables to explain the mechanism of
knowledge sharing. In brief, the theoretical and practical value of this study is what it
adds to an increasingly compelling body of literature on organizational support theory,
which explains the positive changes in employee attitudes and behaviors in
organizations. This study provides a methodological way to consider the moderated
mediation relationship between POS and KSI.
As for some of the limitations of the study, the single-source survey data can be a limitation
of the study, although we lowered the risk of common method bias by using confirmatory
factor analysis. However, closer inspection of the correlations between the study variables
revealed that the lowest correlation was 0.02. According to Lindell and Whitney (2001), this
correlation reflects the degree of common method bias, which implies that our data are
nearly free of this bias. Therefore, future research with methodological improvements is
needed to measure variables from different sources to minimize the risk. Another limitation
of cross-sectional study design can be addressed by adopting a longitudinal data
collection and analysis for a continuous assessment of knowledge sharing behaviors. Also,
we noticed a potential lack of generalizability of the findings across organizations with
different organizational cultures and internal processes. Therefore, future research is
required to investigate the differential effects of corporate initiatives or organizational
characteristics in the different organizational and business context.
In sum, this study corroborates the effect of organizational support on employees’ favorable
organizational behaviors such as KSI, involving some of key organizational factors. Further, this
study extends the knowledge management theory by investigating how OCB and JCs affect
the relationship between POS and KSI. The results of the study suggested that POS played a
significant role as social support (Kraimer and Wayne, 2004) concerning KSI both directly and
indirectly through OCB, showing that OCB partially mediated the relationship between POS
and KSI variables. Also, the study results highlighted that the level of perceived JCs moderated
the mediated the interrelationships between organizational variables such as POS and KSI. To
further investigate the conditional process of knowledge sharing in organizations, another
research involving different organizational variables such as the effect of the CoP engagement
level and organizational learning culture (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 1996) would also shed
light on the convoluted effects of such variables on employees’ KSI in their organizations.

References
Allen, D.G., Shore, L.M. and Griffeth, R.W. (2003), “The role of perceived organizational support
and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 99-118.
Andrews, K. and Delahaye, B. (2000), “Influence on knowledge processes in organizational learning: the
psychosocial filter”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 797-810.

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 699

 Asfar, B. and Badir, Y.F. (2016), “Person–organization fit, perceived organizational support, and
organizational citizenship behavior: the role of job embeddedness”, Journal of Human Resources in
Hospitality & Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 252-278.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of, Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bertels, H.M., Kleinschmidt, E.J. and Koen, P.A. (2011), “Communities of practice versus organizational
climate: which one matters more to dispersed collaboration in the front end of innovation?”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 757-772.
Bettiol, M. and Sedita, S.R. (2011), “The role of community of practice in developing creative industry
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 468-479.
Blakely, G.L., Andrews, M.C. and Fuller, J. (2003), “Are chameleons good citizens? A longitudinal study
of the relationship between self-monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business
and Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 131-144.
Bock, G., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y. and Lee, J. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C. and Salgado, J.F. (2007), “Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing”, Scientific American, Vol. 2 No. 31, pp. 245-264.
Cabrera, E.F. and Cabrera, A. (2005), “Fostering knowledge sharing through people management
practices”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 720-735.
Caesens, G., Marique, G., Hanin, D. and Stinglhamber, F. (2016), “The relationship between perceived
organizational support and proactive behaviour directed towards the organization”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 398-411.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011), “The influence of
human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: the mediating role of
affective commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 1442-1463.
Chhetri, S.B. (2017), “Predictors and outcomes of employee engagement: empirical study of Nepali
employees”, Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 2 Nos 1/2, pp. 14-32.
Chen, C. and Chiu, S. (2009), “The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship between job
characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 149
No. 4, pp. 474-494.
Chiang, C. and Hsieh, T. (2012), “The impact of perceived organizational support and psychological
empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-190.
Chiu, S. and Chen, H. (2005), “Relationship between job characteristics and organizational
citizenship behavior: the mediational role of job satisfaction”, Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, Vol. 33
No. 5, pp. 523-540.
Choi, J., Cheng, P., Hilton, B. and Russell, E. (2005), “Knowledge governance”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 67-75.
Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource
practices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Epilepsia, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Connelly, C. and Kelloway, E. (2003), “Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing
cultures”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Davenport, T.H. (1996), “Some principles of knowledge management”, Strategy þ Business, Vol. 2,
available at: www.strategy-business.com/article/8776?pg=0
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Edwards, J.R. and Lambert, L.S. (2007), “Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general
analytical framework using moderated path analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Eisenberger, R. and Stinglhamber, F. (2011), Perceived Organizational Support: Fostering Enthusiastic
and Productive Employees, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

PAGE 700 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and employee
diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Han, S.H., Seo, G., Yoon, S.W. and Yoon, D.Y. (2016), “Transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing: mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors”, Journal
of Workplace Learning, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 130-149.
Hansen, M.T., Mors, M.L. and Løvås, B. (2005), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: multiple networks,
multiple phases”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 776-793.

Hashim, K.F. and Tan, F.B. (2015), “The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’ continuous
knowledge sharing intention: a commitment-trust theory perspective”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 145-151.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Ipe, M. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: an analysis of motivators and inhibitors”, paper
presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference in the Americas,
3-7 March, Austin, TX, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=ED491481&id=ED492196
Islam, T., Khan, S., Ahmad, U. and Ahmed, I. (2014), “Exploring the relationship between POS, OLC, job
satisfaction and OCB”, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 114 No. 21, pp. 164-169.
Jeung, C., Yoon, H.J. and Choi, M. (2017), “Exploring the affective mechanism linking perceived
organizational support and knowledge sharing intention: a moderated mediation model”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 946-960.

Jo, S. and Joo, B. (2011), “Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 353-364.

Kim, S.L., Han, S., Soo, S.Y. and Yun, S. (2017), “Exchange ideology in supervisor subordinate dyads,
LMX, and knowledge sharing: a social exchange perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol.
34 No. 1, pp. 147-172.
Kim, Y.J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Johnson, R.E. (2013), “Why and when do motives matter? An
integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 231-245.
Kirkman, B.L., Mathieu, J.E., Cordery, J.L., Rosen, B. and Kukenberger, M. (2011), “Managing a new
collaborative entity in business organizations: understanding organizational communities of practice
effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 6, pp. 1234-1245.
Kline, R.B. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford, New York, NY.
Kraimer, M.L. and Wayne, S.J. (2004), “An examination of perceived organizational support as a
multidimensional construct in the context of an expatriate assignment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 209-237.
Kulkarni, U., Ravindran, S. and Freeze, R. (2006), “A knowledge management success model: theoretical
development and empirical validation”, Scientific American, Vol. 23 No. 20, pp. 309-347.

Kurtessis, J.N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M.T., Buffardi, L.C., Stewart, K.A. and Adis, C.S. (2015),
“Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1854-1884.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Lin, H. (2006), “Impact of organizational support on organizational intention to facilitate knowledge
sharing”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-35.

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 701

 Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Minbaeva, D.B. (2013), “Strategic HRM in building micro-foundations of organizational knowledge-based
performance”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 378-390.

Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), “Does perceived organizational support mediate
the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “The dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.

Paille, P., Boudeau, L. and Galois, I. (2010), “Support, trust, satisfaction, intent to leave and citizenship
and organizational level: a social exchange approach”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 41-58.
Piercy, N.F. (2006), “Driving organizational citizenship behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior
performance: the role of management control and perceived organizational support”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 244-262.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.

Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D. and Hayes, A.F. (2007), “Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 185-227.
Purvanova, R., Bono, J. and Dzieweczynski, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, job characteristics,
and organizational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), “Organizational politics and
organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-174.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5,
pp. 825-836.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, , Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Sergeeva, A. and Andreeva, T. (2016), “Knowledge sharing research: bringing context back in”, Journal
of Management Inquiry, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 240-261.

Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C. and Soane, E. (2013), “The role of employee engagement in the
relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviors”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 13, pp. 2608-2627.
Shaukat, M.Z., Senin, A.A. and Ahmed, I. (2012), “An exchange perspective of job satisfaction: a study of
banking sector of Pakistan”, Business Management Dynamics, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 59-69.
Shen, Y., Jackson, T., Ding, C., Yuan, D., Zhao, L., Dou, Y. and Zhang, Q. (2014), “Linking perceived
organizational support with employee work outcomes in a Chinese context: organizational identification
as a mediator”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 406-412.

PAGE 702 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019

Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L.P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C.Z. and Sava, F.A. (2012), “Work
engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors”,
Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 188-207.
Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Chenevert, D. and Vandenberghe, C. (2010), “The role of HRM
practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role
and extra-role performance”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 405-433.
Tuan, L.T. (2017), “Knowledge sharing in public organizations: the roles of servant leadership and
organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 361-373.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37
No. 4, pp. 765-802.
van Yperen, N.W., Van Den Berg, A.E. and Willering, M.C. (1999), “Towards a better understanding of the
link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: a multilevel
analysis”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 377-392.

Wang, S. and Noe, R. (2010), “Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 115-131.
Wang, Z. (2014), “Perceived supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of
organizational commitment”, International Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 210-214.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (1993), Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and
Science of Systemic Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Watkins, K.E. and Marsick, V.J. (Eds) (1996), In Action: Creating the Learning Organization, American
Society for Training and Development, Alexandria, VA.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-member
exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.

Wenger, E.C. and Snyder, W.M. (2000), “Communities of practice: the organizational frontier”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 139-146.
Whitener, E. (2011), “Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee commitment? A
cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-535.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Perera, S. (2014), “Effects of perceived organization support, employee
engagement and organization citizenship behavior on quality performance”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellences, Vol. 25 Nos 11/12, pp. 1280-1294.
Zuur, A.F., Ieno, E.N. and Elphick, C.S. (2010), “A protocol for data exploration to avoid common
statistical problems”, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 3-14.

Further reading
Chun, J.S., Shin, Y., Choi, J.N. and Kim, M.S. (2013), “How does corporate ethics contribute to firm
financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 853-877.

Hoyle, R.H. (2012), Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

About the authors

Seung-Hyun Han is an Assistant Professor of Learning, Leadership and Organization
Development (LLOD) at the University of Georgia. Dr Han’s research work uncovers and
tests the mechanisms by which individuals learn and develop from others’ expertise and
experiences at work. His primary focus is on individual-level learning within organizations
by exploring how this learning is influenced by interpersonal relationships and interactions
in organizations.
Dong-Yeol Yoon is an Associate Professor at the School of Business Administration of
Konkuk University, Seoul, South Korea. He specializes in the areas of global leadership,

VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 703

 expatriate management, performance appraisal and compensation, competency-based
job design, and international human resource management including HR/HRD field. Dong-
Yeol Yoon is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: ericyoon01@gmail.com
Boyung Suh is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Medical Education at Southern
Illinois University School of Medicine. He received his PhD degree in Learning, Leadership,
and Organization Development at the University of Georgia. He acquired his Master’s
Degree in Nonprofit Organizations at the same university in 2012. His dissertation,
Exploring Network-Level Organizational Performance in International Humanitarian
Collaboratives, adopted qualitative methodology and the critical incident technique as a
research method, and it also involved exploratory semi-structured interviews with leading
international humanitarian networks, such as global health organizations, United Nations’
agencies and NGO networks, to better understand the dimensions of effective performance
outcomes of interorganizational collaboratives. Other research projects cover topics such
as medical education, population science and policy, organizational learning culture, social
network for student learning outcomes, and interorganizational development.
Beixi Li is a PhD Student in Human Resource Development/Organization Development at
the University of Georgia. She received her MS from the University of Pennsylvania. Her
research interests reflect her diverse work experiences including the field of adult learning
collaboration, cross-cultural team diversity, shared leadership development of teams and
global and women leadership.

Chungil Chae is a postdoctoral fellow with the Applied Cognitive Science Lab in the College
of Information Science and Technology at Penn State, where his research involves building
trauma triage tutors for military nurses. His interests include: structure and sharing of
knowledge; career development of virtual and technology-centered workforces; and social
capital and network analysis in learning and organization development contexts.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 704 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 4 2019