Organizational cultures influence on knowledge transfer

in the service industry of Bangladesh

Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................ 3
2. Literature review.................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Knowledge Transfer........................................................................................... 4
2.2 Organizational Culture...................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Collaboration............................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Learning and Development.........................................................................6
2.2.3 Top Management Support...........................................................................7
2.2.4 Organizational Citizenship...........................................................................7
3. Research methodology........................................................................................... 9
4. Results.................................................................................................................. 10
Demographic Information:..................................................................................... 10
Reliability Analysis................................................................................................. 11
Regression analysis............................................................................................... 12
Descriptive statistics............................................................................................. 13
Correlation Analysis:.............................................................................................. 14
5. Discussion............................................................................................................ 15
6. Limitations and Future Work................................................................................. 17
7. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 17
References................................................................................................................ 19

Abstract

Purpose - This paper attempts to examine how organizational

culture
influence knowledge transfer.
Design/methodology/approach - This study is based on
quantitative research, administering around 50 managerial staff in
well renowned corporations in the service industry of
Bangladesh.
Findings - The paper explains the role of organizational cultural
on knowledge transfer process in the service industry. Learning
and development, top management support, collaboration,
organizational citizenship are positively related to knowledge
transfer.
Research limitations/implications - The outcome of this
research provides useful indications of how organizations can
work to ensure knowledge transfer within their work place. The
findings will help the organizations to create appropriate
environment of knowledge transfer. However, the research is
limited to organizations in Dhaka only. Furthermore, similar
research can be extended to organizations in other countries with
a larger sample which may bring more statistical power and
thereby, increases generalization.
Originality/value - While the links between organizational
culture and knowledge transfer have been examined
independently, few studies have investigated the association
between these two concepts. This paper examines the nature of
this relationship and presents empirical evidence, which suggests
that organizational culture influences the process of knowledge
transfer in the service industry of Bangladesh.

1. Introduction
In todays knowledge-driven economy, organizations acknowledge
knowledge as a strategic resource which is trasnfered and created
to ensure a sustainable competitive advantage (Zhang and
Jasimuddin, 2008; Howell and Annansingh, 2013; Jasimuddin,
2007). Knowledge management is an integrated process that
collects, stores and disseminates knowledge in an organization.
Although transfer of knowledge among organizational employees
is encouraged (Jasimuddin and Zhang, 2011), knowledge transfer
is not straightforward. For example, tacit knowledge is more
difficult to transfer than explicit knowledge which can be easily
disseminated to a large number of people (Ling et. al, 2009;
Jasimuddin et. al, 2005). The topics surrounding organizational
culture have attracted considerable interest among both
academics and practitioners within knowledge management field
(Zheng et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2011; Wiewiora et al., 2013; Islam
et al., 2012; Jasimuddin et al., 2005). Zheng et al. (2010), for
example, study examines the mediating role of knowledge
management in the relationship between organizational culture,
structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness, suggesting
that knowledge management fully mediates the impact of
organizational culture on organizational effectiveness, and
partially mediates the impact of organizational structure and
strategy on organizational effectiveness. However, the notions of
organizational culture and knowledge transfer have been
frequently discussed but the previous studies rarely combined
them. We know very little about how organizational culture
influences knowledge transfer. Hence, the paper will focus on the
influence of organizational culture on knowledge transfer.
The primary aim of this paper is to present a theoretical model
and empirical analysis of the relationship between organizational
culture and knowledge transfer. In the next section, we review the
relevant literature and develop hypotheses. We then describe the

methodology adopted in this research, followed by an analysis of

the findings. The subsequent section discusses the empirical
results. Finally, we conclude with the directions for future
research, and theoretical and managerial implications.

2. Literature review
This section rigorously reviews the relevant literature to propose a
research model which posits that the characteristics of
organizational cultures influence on knowledge transfer in the
context of the organizations in the service industry based in
Dhaka, Bangladesh.
2.1 Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge transfer among employees in an organization is widely
regarded as a crucial component in business (Szulanski, 2000;
Jasimuddin, 2012). Jasimuddin (2006), for instance, contends that
knowledge transfer is important for enhancing the competitive
advantage of an organization. The Jasimuddins argument (2006)
is developed by Cohen and Levinthal (1990) who suggest that
knowledge transfer is a critical factor for a firms ability to
respond to changes, innovate and achieve competitive success.
Drawing on the social capital theory, it can be argued that
knowledge transfer between individuals is contingent upon social
interaction which is vital for making any successful decision (Adler
and Kwon, 2002; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Kostova and Roth,
2003). In line with this, Teh and Sun (2012) argue that knowledge
transfer is a process of exchanging knowledge, experiences, and
skills through social interaction within a department or
organization. Parallel to this, Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) define
knowledge transfer as the activities of how organizational
members exchange their knowledge to improve organizational
learning capacity, stimulate the creation of new knowledge, and

eventually enhance its competitiveness. An attempt can be made

to provide a working definition of knowledge transfer for the
purpose of the present research: Knowledge transfer within an
organization is an act of transmission of organizational knowledge
among employees so that they can take purposeful actions and
involve in innovation. However, the motivation of knowledge
transfer is not straightforward (Jasimuddin et. al., 2006). Wang et
al. (2014) investigate how to motivate knowledge transfer in an
organization, arguing that knowledge transfer will be greater for
employees who are encouraged, evaluated and rewarded. Keong
and Al Hawamdeh (2002) observe that knowledge is power and
no one is willing to give it away freely. In this regard, others
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Liao et al., 2011; Gibbert et al.,
2002) contend that leadership, organizational structure, and
organizational culture are critical success factors for knowledge
transfer. These issues will be elaborated in turn.
2.2 Organizational Culture
A knowledge supporting culture is one of the most important
conditions to ensure efficient knowledge flow among
organizational members (Kazi, 2005). From a constructivist
perspective, organizational culture can be viewed as a continuous
process of building/rebuilding identity in and around an
organization (Tuan, 2012). This, in turn, facilitates social
integration among members which helps the organization sustain
as a whole, assimilating different subgroups within its
environment (Koot, 2004). Appropriate organizational culture is
pre-requisite for knowledge creation and dissemination. Several
authors (e.g., Wiewiora et al., 2013; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; De
Long and Fahey, 2000) also comply with these facts that culture
establishes an organizational context for social interaction and
creates norms regarding what is right and wrong.
Culture may also act as a barrier to knowledge transfer
(McDermott and ODell, 2001). Diverse cultures at the intraorganizational,
organizational,
trans-organizational
and
supraorganizational levels may act simultaneously, and thus
result in cultural complexity (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007). Most

specifically, employees resistance to change, their motivation to

transfer knowledge and leadership commitment are also affected
by the cultural dimensions (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).
Therefore, a pertinent culture should be established to encourage
people to transfer their knowledge within an organization as well
as among business partners (Rivera-Vazquez et al., 2009).
Innovative organizations create competitive advantages through
fostering learning and development, asking people to collaborate,
and allowing them to share power by practicing participative
decision making (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Although there are
various characteristics of culture that affect knowledge transfer,
this study focuses on three characteristics: collaboration, learning
and development, and top management support.

2.2.1 Collaboration
The role of collaborative tools to support social construction of
knowledge is evident in organizations around the world (Ryan et
al., 2010), and the inclusion of knowledge management as an
organizations best practice is meant to ensure that collaboration
is institutionalized, and that knowledge transfer occurs (RiveraVazquez et al., 2009). Collaboration refers to how people in an
organization actively assist and support in work-related issues.
Several studies (e.g., Parker and Price, 1994; Eisenberger et al.,
1990; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Krogh 1998, Nahapiet and Ghoshal
1998) also find the relationship between collaboration and
knowledge transfer. Hence, we hypothesized that:
H1: Collaboration has positive relationship with knowledge
transfer.
2.2.2 Learning and Development

Learning and development orientation refers to the extent to

which an organization is willing to encourage its members to learn
and develop themselves for long-term success. This is due to the
fact that organization relies largely on its employees skills and
knowledge in order to produce breakthrough in its products and
services (Tidd et al., 1998). Several authors (e.g., Yang, 2007;
Jones et al., 2003) contend that there is a relationship between
learning process and knowledge transfer. Organizations facilitate
learning
process
through
transfer
knowledge
among
organizational member. Therefore, we have formulated the
following hypothesis:
H2: Learning and development
relationship with knowledge transfer.

orientation

has

positive

2.2.3 Top Management Support

Top management support within an organization through
leadership skills acts as a role model in which knowledge transfer
occurs without any coercive influence. Several scholars (e.g., Kerr
and Clegg, 2007; Jasimuddin et al., 2006; Islam et al., 201l)
contend that leaders play an important role in organizational
knowledge transfer. Others (e.g., Bircham-Connolly et al., 2005;
Seba et al., 2012) emphasize on the pivotal role of leadership in
knowledge transfer. Leaders firstly, contribute to employees
learning from their personal experience; secondly, persuade
employees to transfer their knowledge in order to generate new
knowledge; thirdly, they influence decision making process based
on valuable knowledge transfered between members. Parallel to
this, Kennedy and Mansor (2000) also find that top management
support has an impact over knowledge transfer activities. We,
therefore, hypothesize that:

H3: Top management support has positive relationship with

knowledge transfer.
2.2.4 Organizational Citizenship
The highly competitive environment urges organizations to search
for new ways of gaining sustainable competitive advantage. After
it was found out that technological-, structural- and capital-based
assets are insufficient for getting the desired result, attention was
drawn to human factor. However, it is not enough for the
employees to carry out the defined role requirements in order to
gain sustainable competitive advantage. In this respect,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which is believed to
increase the performance of the employees, and therefore the
organization, is among the leading issues that draws the most
attention in the fields of organizational psychology, organizational
behavior and human resources. The relationship between
knowledge transfer and organizational citizenship have been the
subject of the scores of diverse studies in the literature. The
interest in the issue is growing particularly because of the fact
that both terms occur as a result of interactions among the
employees and they increase the performance. Whether
organizations can achieve sustainable competitive advantage
depends on the precondition that they must attain their defined
performance/success aims. When the organizations achieve this,
the need for the behaviors as part of OCB arises. In this respect, it
is obvious that knowledge transfer will have a positive effect on
the organizational performance directly or indirectly due to its
definition. When the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and trust within the organization (Wech,
2002, p. 354) is considered, naturally it will be assumed that there
is a relationship between OCB and knowledge transfer. Connelly
and Kelloway have found out that social interaction reinforces the
perception of knowledge transfer culture but technology does not
have such an effect, in their study where they evaluated various
factors that possibly impinge on the perceptions of knowledge
transfer culture in an organization (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003, p.
298). This finding show that not material factors but social and

psychological factors and human relations are decisive in

accomplishing knowledge transfer. OCB is a significant topic to be
evaluated in this respect. There are studies, though in limited
numbers, that measures the relationship between the two terms.
Mogotsi (2009, p. 136) has reached the conclusion that there is a
positive correlation between knowledge transfer and OCB and has
reached the inference that knowledge transfer is a type of OCB.
Connelly and Keloway (2003, p. 294) even concluded that
knowledge transfer and OCB are similar behaviors. We, therefore,
hypothesize that:
H4: Organizational Behavior has positve relationship
knowledge transfer
Figure 1: A conceptual model of knowledge transfer

with

Model Framework
Culture
H1 H4

From the existing studies on the determinants of knowledge flows

from the organizations, we infer that organizational culture are
preconditions for knowledge transfer. The theoretical framework
suggested in this study draws the relationship between

organizational culture and knowledge transfer.

develops 4 hypotheses regarding these concepts.

The

paper

3. Research methodology
A regression analysis is employed to test the hypotheses, using
statistical software SPSS version 22. The source of data collection
was different organizations in the service industry which is an
effective vehicle for knowledge transfer (Inkpen, 2008; Hong et
al., 2009). A questionnaire survey was developed using the
previous work and utilized for data collection. The questionnaire
consisted of seven sections having measurement scale for
collaboration, learning and development, top management
support, organizational citizenship, and knowledge transfer. The
primary means of distributing the survey questionnaire was
visitng several organizations in the service industry of Bangladesh
with a cover letter explaining the objectives of the study. The
respondents of this study were managerial staffs who were also
selected randomly from the organization based in Dhaka,
Bangladesh. A total of 50 questionnaires were distributed, all of
them were returned with a 100% response in terms of
cooperation. All questionnaire items were assessed on a five-point
Likert Scale Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Uncertain

Agree

Strongly
Agree

4. Results
Demographic Information:
The respondents demographic information is given above in the
demographic table. The males were 72% and the females were of
28%. Educational background reveals that PHD holders were of
2%, Masters Degree holders were of 52% and Bachelors Degree
consisted of 46%. 50% of the respondents were from 25 years to
35 years of age.
Table:01

Demographic Information

Demographic Information

Reliability Analysis
The internal reliability can be tested using Cronbachs alpha
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Hence, Cronbachs alpha ()
reliability estimates were used to measure the internal
consistency of these multivariate scales (Nunnally, 1978). Table 2
shows the reliability assessments for independent variables,
moderating variable and dependent variable to test the internal
consistency. The reliability analysis indicates the degree to which
items in each set correlate with one another. Cronbachs alpha ()
was used to establish this inter-item consistency. The Cronbach
alpha () should be greater than 0.5 to indicate a strong reliability
for a questionnaire content (Nunnally, 1978; Cuieford, 1965). In
this study, the Cronbach of the majority of constructs was
greater than 0.50.

Table:02
Summary of Reliability Analysis

The reliability analysis indicates the degree to

which items in each set correlate with one another.
The Cronbach Alpha should be greater than 0.5 to
indicate strong reliability for a questionnaire
content.

Regression analysis
Regression analysis was carried out to test the relationship of the
dimensions of organizational culture and structure with
knowledge transfer. The first regression models involve
organizational
culture
and
organizational
structure
as
independent variables and knowledge transfer as the dependent
variable. This regression analysis was conducted to test
Hypotheses 1 to 5. The coefficient of determination R is 0.274.
The R2 indicates the fraction of total variance in the endogenous

construct accounted for by those exogenous constructs (Chin,

1998; Mathieson et al., 2001). Overall, a substantial amount of
variance is explained in the endogenous variable, knowledge
transfer. In Table 3, the coefficient of determination R (0.274)
indicates that organizational culture and structure variables
explain 27.4% of the variance of knowledge transfer. The finding
of the study rejects the entire hypothesis except H1 that is of
Collaboration.
Table:03

The regression analysis was conducted to

test Hypothesis 1 to 4. The coefficient of
determination R2 (0.274) indicates that
independent variables explain 27.4% of the
variance of knowledge transfer.

Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics of all the variables concerning the current
research are shown. Descriptive statistics include mean and
standard deviation. The mean for knowledge transfer (3.7400 ; SD
= .45221) indicates that knowledge transfer is presents among

the service industry employees at moderate levels. The mean for

collaboration between employees or staffs (3.7920; SD = .42563)
implies that collaboration process are at high levels . The mean
learning (3.6400; SD =.57475) represents that learning is
available in the service industry at mild levels. The mean of top
management support (3.6200; SD = .73928) implies that top
management support is present in the industry at low leves. And
the mean for organizational citizenship (3.1055, SD = .44093)
indicates is present in the industry at moderate levels.
Table:04
Summary of Descriptive Statistics
Demographic
Variable

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Knowledge
Transfer

3.7400

.45221

50

Collaboration

3.7920

.42563

50

Learning

3.6400

.57475

50

Top
Management
support

3.6200

.73928

50

Organizational
Citizenship

3.1055

.44093

50

Correlation Analysis:
Correlations are measured for the relationship among two
variables, exploring the relationship among variables specially
relationship between independent and dependent variables and
to make correlation analysis go through with all variables. The

value of correlation coefficient ranging from -1 to 1. Strong

correlation between variables are indicated when the value are
found closer to absolute 1. The bivariate correlation practice was
a subject to a one tailed statistical significance at two different
levels, starting with highly significant (p < .01) and significant (p
< .05). All data collected from the survey are analyzed through
correlation and results are shown in the table below. This analysis
is used to illustrate the existing relationship among the study
variables (Collaboration, Learning, Top Management Support,
Organizational citizenship and Knowledge Transfer). From the
table below in can be implied that Knowledge transfer is most
significantly correlated with collaboration (r = 0.000, p < 0.05),
Learning with Top Management Support (r = 0.012, p < 0.5) and
organizational citizenship with collaboration (r = 0.016, p < 0.05).
Knowledge transfer is most insignificantly correlated to
organizational citizenship (r = 0.189, p > 0.05), Collaboration with
Top Management support (r = 0.474, p > 0.05), Learning with
Organizational Citizenship (r = 0.85, p > 0.05).
Table:05
Summary of Correlation Analysis

5. Discussion
This study attempts to extend our understanding of the
relationship between organizational culture and knowledge
transfer by adding collaboration as a moderator in their
relationship. We propose and test an integrated framework in
which organizational culture is treated as the key factors that
influence knowledge transfer, and collaboration moderates such
relationship. The outcome regarding the relationship between
collaboration and knowledge transfer found in the organizations in
the service industry of Bangladesh could be interpreted from
different angle. It is possible that people within an organization
believe in the principle of knowledge hoarding, what Hansen
(1999) identifies the fear of losing power. The notion explains
individuals' unwillingness to transfer knowledge with others as
they believe their acquired knowledge is valuable and necessary
for their personal benefits (e.g., job security, career progression).
This is quite a normal tendency of individuals and the opposite
may be true when they perceive that their colleagues and
managers are supportive what Jasimuddin et al. (2006) term it as
reciprocity. Learning and development orientation is found to
have the next most significant relationship with knowledge
transfer. This result also confirms the previous studies (Islam et
al., 2008; Yang, 2007). From the organizational perspective,
learning and development orientation is a prerequisite for longterm success in knowledge cultivation. Learning through transfer
knowledge among organizational members can bring in benefits
for an organization (Yang, 2007; Jones et al., 2003). First, it
enables employees to reflect on the consequences of their
behaviors and actions. Second, it augments the ability to
approach to organizational problem more accurately by
understanding the environment, obtaining insights from the place
where they operate. That is why organizations rely largely on its
employee skills and knowledge so as to produce breakthrough in
its products and services through continued learning (Tidd et al.,
1998).
This paper makes several contributions to the literature. The
contribution of this paper is twofold. Firstly, we contribute to the

conceptualization of the organizational culture as the important

aspect of knowledge transfer. Prior work has typically studied the
effect of organizational culture and organizational structure on
knowledge transfer, which this study confirms. While many
studies have focused isolated on the importance of organizational
culture (Sackmann and Friesl, 2007; Rivera-Vazquez et al., 2009)
and organizational culture and organizational structure (Chen et
al., 2010; Willema and Buelensa, 2009) for knowledge transfer,
this paper brings them together to explain their linkage, and
quantify the relationship.
Hence, the paper goes beyond the conventional finding to provide
new insights. Although the paper does not develop a new theory,
we hope it will motivate scholars and practitioners to engage with
the issues in different ways than they have in the past.

6. Limitations and Future Work

The results of this research must be interpreted in the context of
its limitations, requiring additional research. First, the data was
collected from a sample of organizations in the service industry
within Dhaka only. It is possible that the results could vary in other
organizational contexts. Future work would also investigate the
differences in antecedents of knowledge transfer in local
organizations and in other industry sectors. Further, the findings
could vary in different countries due to the influence of national
cultural factors. Cross cultural validation would allow the impact
of culture on knowledge transfer behavior to be revealed. Hence,
we believe that the results may be extended to organizations in
other Asian countries with similar economic and infrastructure
conditions. Second, based on a sample of 50 respondents, several
significant results have been obtained. However, a larger sample
that brings more statistical power would have allowed more
sophisticated analysis and thereby, increases generalization.
Moreover, this study did not consider all determinants that
facilitate knowledge transfer. Social dimension of knowledge
transfer is an important area that may help understand why
employees transfer what they know and what they are transfering

(Widn-Wulff, G. (2014). Other than those prescribed may also

affect knowledge transfer in an organization. For instance, other
factors associated with the social capital theory (e.g., trust) could
be examined in future research.
Furthermore, the knowledge characteristics were not taken into
account in the research model. Additional research is warranted
to incorporate tacit and explicit knowledge in understanding the
notion of knowledge transfer.

7. Conclusion
In todays business world, knowledge is considered as vital
resource in formulating appropriate competitive strategies so as
to ensure successful performance of organizations. As knowledge
transfer is thought to be a powerful source of gathering
knowledge and creating competitive advantage, it is desirable for
companies to adopt an environment where proper knowledge flow
can be assured. Generally speaking, knowledge transfer activities
are dependent on organizational culture. The current study
explains the role of organizational cultural on knowledge transfer
process in organizations in the service industry of Bangladesh,
Given its results, this study provides some useful suggestions for
managers. The outcome of this research provides useful
indications of how organizations can work to ensure knowledge
transfer within their work place. This study helps organizations to
be aware of the issues related to knowledge transfer. Most
specifically, the finding will help the organizations to create
appropriate environment within their surrounding knowledge to
trasnfer. As mentioned earlier, the research framework postulated
in this study contributes to the knowledge management practice,
particularly knowledge transfer, in several ways. As mentioned
earlier this study has some contributions towards the literature
since it examined the relationship between organizational culture
and knowledge transfer practices in the service industry context.
More specifically, this has been reflected and evidenced in the
study revealing the relationships between learning and
development,
top
management
support,
collaboration,
organizational citizenship and knowledge transfer behavior. Since
various organizations require distinct types of approaches to

knowledge transfer due to the size, people, financial capability,

etc., knowledge transfer requires a major change in organizational
culture and commitment at all levels of employees, especially
from the top management (Gupta and Govindaranjan, 1991). The
findings of this study will help organizations to better understand
the need for creating a better knowledge transfer culture.
Furthermore, managers may also utilize the findings of this study
in formulating and reviewing knowledge transfer strategies.

References
Abouzeedan, A., & Hedner, T. (2012). Organization structure theories and
open innovation
paradigm. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development, 9(1), 6-27.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New
Concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Ajmal, M.M., Koskinen, & Kaj U., (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based
Organizations:
An Organizational Culture Perspective. International Project Management
Journal 39
(1), 715.

Andrews, M.C. & Kacmar, K.M. (2001). Impression management by

association: Construction
and validation of a scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 142-161.
Bircham-Connolly, H., Corner, J. & Bowden, S. (2005). An empirical study of
the impact of
question structure on recipient attitude during knowledge sharing. Electronic
Journal of
Knowledge Management, 32(1), 1-10.
Burns, T., & Stalker, GM. (1961). The Management of Innovation (3rd ed.).
London;Tavistock
Publications
Chen, C.-J., Huang, J.-W. & Hsiao, Y.-C. (2010). Knowledge management and
innovativeness:
The role of organizational climate and structure, International Journal of
Manpower, 31(8), 848
870.
Chin, W.W., 1998, The partial least squares approach to structural equation
modelling, in Markoulides,
G.A. (Eds),Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Mahwah, NJ, 295-336.
Chong, C.W., Chong, S. C., & Lin, B. (2010). Organizational demographic
variables and
preliminary KM implementation success. Expert Systems with Applications.
37, 7243-7 254.
Clarke, T. & Rollo, C. (2001). Capitalising Knowledge: Corporate knowledge
management
Investments, Creativity and Innovation Management, 10(3) 177188.
Claver-Corts, E., Zaragoza-Sez, P. & Pertusa-Ortega, E. (2007).
Organizational structure
features supporting knowledge management processes, Journal of
Knowledge Management,
11(4), 45 57.
Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal. D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new
perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152.
Cuieford, J.P., 1965. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th
ed., McGraw, NY.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects
of Determinants
and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590.
Doherty, N. F. Champion, D. & Wang, L. (2010) An holistic approach to
understanding the
changing nature of organizational structure, Information Technology and
People. 23(2), 116
135

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations

Manage What
They Know, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Dyer, J. & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high performance
knowledge sharing
network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal. 21(3) 345-367.
De Long, D. & Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management. The
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113127.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-La Mastro, V. (1990), Perceived
organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 51-59.
Ghani, KA., Jayabalan, V. & Sugumar M. (2000) Impact of advanced
manufacturing technology
on organizational structure. Journal of Technology Management Research. 13,
157-75.
Gibbert, M., Jenzowsky, S., Jonczyk, C., Thiel, M., & Volpel, S. (2002),
ShareNet the Next
Generation Knowledge Management In: Davenport, T., Probst, G.J.B.
Knowledge Management
Case Book, pp. 42-59.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra A. & Segars, A. H. (2001), Knowledge Management: An
Organizational
Capabilities Perspective, Journal of Management Information systems, 18(1),
185-214.
Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. (1991), Knowledge Flow and the structure of
Control
Within Multinational Corporations, Academy of Management Review, 16(4).
768-782.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.
Hurley, R. F. & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and
organizational
learning: An integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, 62,.
42-54.
Hedlund, G. (1999), The intensity and extensity of knowledge and the
multinational corporation
as a nearly recomposable system (NRS), Management International Review,
39(1), 5-44.
Hildreth and Kimble, (2002). The duality of knowledge. Information Research,
8(1). Paper online.
Ho, L.-A., Kuo, T.-H. & Lin, B. (2012), How social identification and trust
influence

organizational online knowledge sharing, Internet Research, 22(1), 4-28.

Hong, J. F. l., Snell, R. S., Easterby-Smith, M., 2009. Knowledge flows and
boundary crossing at
the periphery of a MNC. International Business Review, 18, 539-554.
Harrison, J. & Daly, M. (2009), Leveraging health information technology to
improve patient
safety, Public Administration and Management, 14(1), 218-37.
Howell, K. E. & Annansingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in
UK universities:
A tale of two cultures?, International Journal of Information Management, 33,
32 39.
Islam, M. Z., Hasan, I. & Zain, A. Y. M. (2012). Organizational culture and
structure on knowledge
sharing. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2180427.
Islam, M. Z., Ahmed, S. M., Hasan, I. & Ahmed, S. U. (2011), Organizational
culture and
knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from service organizations, African
Journal of Business
Management, 5(14), 5900-5909.
Islam, M. Z., Ahmad, Z. A. & Mahtab, H. (2010), The Mediating Effects of
Socialization on
Organizational Contexts and Knowledge Sharing, Journal of Knowledge
Globalization, 3(1), 3148.
Islam, M. Z., Mahtab, H. & Ahmad, Z. A. (2008), The role of knowledge
management practices
on organizational context and organizational effectiveness, ABAC Journal,
28(1), 42-53.
Inkpen, A. C., 1998. Organization learning acquisition, and strategic alliances.
European
Management Journal, 16(2), 223-229.
Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005), Social Capital, Networks, and
Knowledge Transfer,
Academy of Management Review, 30(1) 146165.
Jasimuddin, S. M., Connell, C., & Klein, J. H. (2012). Extending the knowledge
transfer
framework: An interactive and dynamic process. Information Systems
Journal, 22(3) 195-209.
Jasimuddin, S. M. & Zhang Z. (2011). Storing transferred knowledge and
transferring stored
knowledge, Information Systems Management 28(1), 84-94.
Jasimuddin, S. M. (2007). Exploring knowledge transfer mechanisms: The
case of a UKbased
group within a high-tech global corporation, International Journal of
Information
Management 27(4), 294-300

Jasimuddin, S. M. (2006), Knowledge transfer: A review to explore conceptual

foundations and
research agenda, In L. Moutniho, Hutcheson, G. and Rita, P. (Eds.) Advances
in Doctoral
Research in Management (pp. 3-20) vol. 1, Singapore: World Scientific.
Jasimuddin, S. M., Connell, N. A. D., & Klein, J. H. (2006). What motivates
organisational
knowledge transfer? Some lessons from a UK-based multinational. Journal of
Information and
Knowledge
Management,
5(2),
165-171.
Jasimuddin, S. M., Klein, J. H., & Connell, C (2005). The paradox of using tacit
and explicit
knowledge: strategies to face dilemmas Management Decision, 43(1), 102112.
Jasimuddin, S. M., Connell, C., & Klein, J. H., (2005). The Challenges of
navigating a topic
to a prospective researcher: The case of knowledge management research,
Management Research
News, 28(1/2) 62-76.
Jones, N.B., Herschel, R.T. & Moesel, D.D. (2003), Using knowledge
champions to facilitate
knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 49-63.
Janz, B.D, & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of
effective knowledge
management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture, Decision
Sciences 34(2), 351384.
Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: Successful partnerships
manage the relationship,
not just the deal. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 96-108.
Koot, W. (2004). Organizational culture, International Encyclopedia of the
Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 10934-8.
Kazi, A. S. (2005). Knowledge management in the construction industry: a
socio-technical
perspective, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Keong, L. C. & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors impacting knowledge
sharing. Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management, 1(1), 49-56.
Kostova, T., and Roth, K. 2003. Social Capital in Multinational Corporations
and a Micro-Macro
Model of its Formation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 297-317.
Ke, W. and Wei, K. K. (2008). Organizational Culture and Leadership in ERP
Implementation,
Decision support Systems, 45(2), 208-218.

Kerr, M, and Clegg C (2007). Sharing knowledge: contextualizing socio

technical thinking and
practice, The Learning Organization, 14(5), 423-435.
Kennedy, J., & Mansor, N.(2000). Malaysia Culture and the Leadership of
Organizations: A
Globe Study, Malaysia Management Review, December,44-53.
Kotabe, M., Jiang, C. X., & Murray, J. Y. (2011). Managerial ties, knowledge
acquisition,
realized absorptive capacity and new product market performance of
emerging multinational
companies: A case of China. Journal of World Business, 46 166-176.
Krogh, G. (1998) Care in the knowledge creation. California Management
Review 40, (3) 133-153.
Liao, C., Chuang, SH. & To, PL.(2011). How knowledge management.
mediates the relationship
between environment and organization culture. Journal of Business
Research, 64(7): 728-736.
Lie, D. & Slocum, J W. (1992).Global strategy, competence-building and
strategic alliances.
California Management Review, 1992; 35(1): 8197.
Ling, C. W., Sandhu, M. S. & Jain, K. K. (2009), Knowledge sharing in an
American
multinational company based in Malaysia, Journal of Workplace Learning,
21(2), 125-142.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., Chin, W. W., 2001. Extending the technology
acceptance model:
the influence of perceived user resources. ACM SIGMIS Database: Special
Issue on Adoption,
Diffusion, and Infusion of IT, 32 (3), 86-112.
McDermott, R. & ODell, C. (2001), Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing
knowledge,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85.
Mentzas, G., Apostolou, D., Young, R. & Abecker, A. (2001), Knowledge
networking: a holistic solution
for leveraging corporate knowledge, Journal of Knowledge Management,
5(1), 94 107.
Morand, D. (1995). The Role of Be havioral Formality and Informality in the
Enactment
of
Bureaucratic and Innovative Organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 20, 831-872.
Nonaka, I & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 242-266.

Nishimoto, K. & Matsuda, K. (2007), Informal communication support media

for encouraging
knowledge-sharing and creation in a community, International Journal of
Information
Technology and Decision Making, 6(3), 411-26.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Parker, L.E. & Price, R.H.(1994). Empowered Managers and Empowered
Workers: the Effects
of Managerial Support and Managerial Perceived Control o Workers Sense of
Control over
Decision-Making, Human Relations, 47(8), 911-928.
Rivera-Vazquez, J. C., Ortiz-Fournier, L. V. & Flores, F. R. (2009), Overcoming
cultural
barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge
Management,
13(5), 257-270.
Robbins, S.P. (1996), Organizational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies,
Applications, Seventh
editions, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Practice Hall International Inc.
Ryan, S. D., Windsor, J. C., Ibragimova, B. & Prybutok, V. R. (2010),
Organizational Practices
That Foster Knowledge Sharing: Validation across Distinct National Cultures,
Informing
Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, Vol. 13.
Ruggles, R. (1998), The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in
Practice, California
Management Review, 40(3), 80-89.
Sackmann, S. A. & Friesl, M. (2007), Exploring cultural impacts on knowledge
sharing behavior in
project teams results from a simulation study, Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(6), 142156.
Seba, I., Rowley, J. & Delbridge, R. (2012), Knowledge sharing in the Dubai
Police Force,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 114 128.
Sharratt, M. & Usoro, A. (2003). Understanding knowledge sharing in online
communities of
practice. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196.
Standing, C. & Benson, S. (2000),Irradiating intranet knowledge: the role of
the interface,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4( 3), 244 251.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic
analysis of stickiness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(3).

Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1998) Managing Innovation: Integrating
Technological,
market and Organizational change, New York: Wiley.
Teh, P.-L. & Sun, H. (2012),Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and
organisational citizenship
behaviour, Industrial Management and Data Systems, 112(1), 64 82.
Tsai, W. (2002), Social structure of Coopetition within a multiunit
organization: coordination,
competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing, Organization
Science, 13(2),
179-190.
Tuan, L. T. (2012), Behind knowledge transfer, Management Decision, 50(3),
459-478.
Widn-Wulff, G. (2014). The challenges of knowledge sharing in practice: a
social approach.
Elsevier.
Weinfurt, K. P., 1995. Multivariate analysis of variance. In L. G. Grimm & P. R.
Yarnold
(eds.)
Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 245-276).
Washington: American
Psychological Association
Willema, A. & Buelensa, M. (2009), Knowledge sharing in inter-unit
cooperative episodes:
The impact of organizational structure dimensions, International Journal of
Information
Management 29, 151160.
Wiewiora, A, Trigunarsyah, B, Murphy, G & Coffey, V (2013), Organizational
culture and
willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspective in Australian
context,
International Journal of Project Management, 38(8) 1163-1174.
Yang, J. T. (2007), The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational
learning and effectiveness,
Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.
Zhang Z. & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2012). Knowledge Market in Organizations:
Incentive
Alignment and IT Support. Industrial Management & Data System, 112(7)
1101-1122.
Zhang Z. & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2008). Pricing strategy of online knowledge
market: The analysis
of Google answers. International Journal of E-Business Research, 4(1), 55-68.
Zhao, H., & Luo, Y. (2005), Antecedents of knowledge sharing with peer
subsidiaries in other
countries: A perspective from subsidiary managers in a foreign emerging
market, Management
International Review, 45(1), 71-97.

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, GN. (2010). Linking organizational culture,
structure, strategy, and
organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management.
Journal of Business
Research, 63(7), 763-771.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier:
the relationship between affect and employee
citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees
perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 24(5), 294-301.