2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
The Impact of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Locus of Control on
Organizational Knowledge Sharing Practices
Simon Cleveland
Nova Southeastern University
sc1674@nova.edu
Abstract
Knowledge management (KM) literature identifies
numerous barriers that inhibit employees knowledge
sharing practices. Presently, there is a research gap
that examines what factors promote such barriers
and their direct impact on knowledge seeking and
knowledge contributing behaviors via information
and communication technologies (ICTs). To bridge
the gap, a content analysis study of 104 KM articles
identified three contributors to common KM barriers.
A proposed causal model based on the contributors
was tested using structural equation modeling
technique on the responses collected from 314 ICT
users. The results demonstrate that role conflict, role
ambiguity, and locus of control predicted knowledge
seeking and knowledge contributing behaviors via
ICTs.
1. Introduction
This article builds upon prior research-in-progress
study [1] by expanding the scope, refining the model
and providing the final results of the research.
While extant literature demonstrates that
sustainability of competitive advantage for any firm
is achieved through the effective dissemination of
knowledge between employees [2], a gap exists in the
understanding of how to effectively promote
knowledge sharing within organizations. For
example, a recent study demonstrated that the mere
existence of organizational procedures to share
knowledge does not guarantee the occurrence of
knowledge sharing. In fact, while 62% of
organizations report having formal procedures for
documenting experiential knowledge, 89% of their
employees never engage in knowledge exchange [3].
Similarly, some studies suggest that information and
communication technologies (ICTs) can facilitate the
flow of knowledge [4], while others have shown little
evidence of such success [5]. In fact, US firms spend
nearly $4.5 billion on ICTs without realizable
benefits to the knowledge sharing processes [6].
1530-1605/15 $31.00 2015 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2015.457
Timothy J. Ellis
Nova Southeastern University
ellist@nova.edu
Furthermore, knowledge transfer success rate is
measured as mediocre 13% among European and US
organizations [7]. It seems the problem is not rooted
in the technology, but in series of factors that
underlie widely accepted knowledge sharing barriers
such as employees poor communication skills, lack
of time, and lack of trust[8, 9].
To truly understand this problem it is necessary to
examine the behavioral characteristics of knowledge
sharing and determine potential factors that may
impact these characteristics. For this purpose, the
goal of this study is to answer two questions: 1) What
are the potential factors that contribute to the
common knowledge sharing barriers?, and 2) How do
these factors impact employees use of ICTs for the
purposes of knowledge seeking and knowledge
contributing? A predictive knowledge sharing model
was developed to explain the impact of the proposed
factors on employees knowledge sharing behaviors
via ICTs.
2. Knowledge Sharing Process
Knowledge sharing, the process of continuous
dissemination, absorption, and utilization of
information among employees for the purposes of
integrated learning, consists of two practices:
knowledge contributing (donation) and knowledge
seeking (collection) [10]. Examination of the process
through the prism of these two distinct behavioral
blocks will allow an adequate exploration of the
unique drivers that impact each behavior and a
determination of potential contributors to the lack of
knowledge sharing success. Furthermore, a set of
inhibitors (barriers) to each behavior are proposed.
2.1 Knowledge Seeking
Knowledge seeking involves behavior associated
with actively searching for information for the
purposes of fulfilling specific information needs [11].
Such needs typically stem from the existence of
3801
ambiguous problems in need of knowledge on
potential courses of action [12]. Belkin [13] argued
that knowledge seeking behavior consists of: 1) the
seekers awareness of knowledge disparity; 2) a quest
for gathering relevant information, and 3) an
awareness of reduced knowledge disparity.
A theory that explains this behavior is the
information foraging theory proposed by Pirolli and
Card [12] who suggested that valuable information is
viewed as prey that is often hidden in the
environment (e.g. online documentation, books,
media, people, etc). Since it may take longer to locate
a piece of information from a file drawer than from
an online database, information foragers, similar to
predators, are forced to make decisions whether to
hunt for hard-to-locate prey, or focus on accessing
prey that maximize the rate of gain of information
relevant to their task, (p. 646). As a result, the
foragers consider certain information more valuable
when the amount of time and effort taken to locate it
is minimal and will not seek additional information if
efficiency has been achieved. The theory also
explains that in order to locate the more profitable
information, foragers will modify their strategies or
the structure of the environment to maximize their
rate of gaining valuable information, (p. 643).
KM research suggests that a key inhibitor to
knowledge seeking behaviors is lack of time. Time
constraints were characterized as the employees
unwillingness to devote time and resources for
knowledge sharing [14], lack of contact time and
interaction between knowledge sources and recipients
[8], tools available to share knowledge are very time
consuming [14], stress and fears of retribution for
failing to meet a deadline [15].
Perceived time pressure is frequently attributed to
the characteristics of the tasks assigned to employees.
For example, pressure to complete large workloads
cause severe time constraints that often lead
employees to seek knowledge from highly accessible
sources via ICTs [16]. Task uncertainty and task
interdependence lead seekers to widen the search for
knowledge sources[17] while task complexity and
high demanding work are associated with an
increased need for problem solving information and
general-purpose sources [18]. Moreover, individuals
engage in greater feedback seeking behaviors in
environments characterized by higher role ambiguity
[19].
2.2. Knowledge Contributing
Knowledge contributing is a behavior that
involves exchange of knowledge, information, and
assistance between individuals and groups [20].
3802
KM researchers have relied on the social
exchange theory to explain knowledge contributing
behaviors [21]. The theory suggests that individuals
constantly weigh the individual costs and benefits
before making a determination whether to engage in
specific behaviors as individuals who share expertise
with others risk losing the competitive advantage, or
damage to their reputation (in the cases of providing
the wrong information) [22].
Extant KM literature provides a host of extrinsic
motivators, such as status change, promotions, and
raises, positively affect knowledge contributing
behavior [23]. Work-related characteristics, such as
in-role behavior, work and task conflict,
decentralization, and work engagement also drive
knowledge contributing behaviors [24].
Additionally, a blend of intrinsic and
organizational factors has also been found to impact
knowledge contributing behaviors. For example,
enjoyment in helping others, reciprocity,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to
experience, and role breadth self-efficacy are key
factors that impact employees knowledge
contributing practices [25, 26]. Moreover, ethical
culture, sense of belonging, and social ties are all
positively related to knowledge contributing [27].
Knowledge contributing behaviors are also impacted
by community identity, social awareness, and
knowledge sharing self-efficacy [28]. Finally,
anticipated reciprocal relationships and sense of self
worth also drive attitudes toward knowledge
contribution and subjective norms (e.g. normative
beliefs and motivation to abide by them) and
organizational climate (fairness, innovativeness, and
affiliation) impact individual intentions to share
knowledge [22].
One essential element for knowledge contributing
is communication, since it is used to establish
relationships among individuals that lead to the
development of trust, shared language, collegiality,
and openness [21]. As a result, it can be argued that
knowledge contribution is inhibited by constraints
such as poor interpersonal communication skills and
lack of trust.
The review of literature revealed a host of
individual characteristics and extrinsic factors that
fostered both knowledge seeking and knowledge
contributing behaviors. Three major inhibitors to both
behaviors were recognized (lack of time, poor
communication, and lack of trust). Next, three
underlying factors that potentially contribute to these
barriers (i.e. role conflict, role ambiguity, and locus
of control) were examined.
3. Contributors to Knowledge Sharing
Behaviors
To extract potential contributing factors to the
identified knowledge sharing barriers, a content
analysis study was conducted following the six stages
identified by [29]. The first stage included the design
of the method, definitions of context, data source
exploration, and identification of barriers. The
manifest approach, focusing on identification of the
physical occurrences of the common knowledge
barriers within each article, was selected [30]. This
process was followed by the selection of journal
articles as the unit of analysis. A purposive sample of
articles examined during the literature review was
selected from the discipline of knowledge
management from a variety of domains (e.g.
information systems, information technology
consulting, healthcare, education, research, and new
product development). 104 KM articles were
extracted from the domains of information systems,
information technology consulting, healthcare,
education, research, new product development, and
information sciences databases as recommended by
[31]. The databases included: ABI/Inform Complete-
ProQuest, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Computer
Society Digital Library, Computers and Applied
Sciences Complete - EBSCO host, Wiley Online
Library - Blackwell Publishers, IBI Global Science
Direct Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, JSTOR,
ProQuest Computing ProQuest, and SpringerLink -
Springer.
A single coder used both inductive and deductive
approaches to discover sentences and paragraph
references that percolated to three potential
contributing factors. Berg [30] suggested that during
the inductive approach, the researcher becomes
absorbed in the articles to determine the theme or
meaning of the authors message, while the deductive
approach relied on schemes grounded in theory.
The coding unit used in the study was a mixture of
words and textual references. The categories for the
coding were words that represented specific themes.
For example, coded sentences, or paragraphs that
describe increased task conflict, task
interdependence, as well as any associated synonyms
were categorized under the category job complexity.
These categories were assigned to specific concepts
that constituted variables [30]. These concepts were
determined during the content analysis review of
each article. The final grouping of the categories
percolated to a single concept (e.g. role conflict, role
ambiguity, and locus of control).
3803
Testing the reliability of the coding was
performed at two separate intervals using random
selection of units as recommended by [32].
Measurement to determine whether a perfect
agreement or agreement by chance has occurred was
performed using kappa statistic [33]. Kappa of .7 was
achieved and was considered an acceptable reliability
level.
During the coding phase, 61 sources (a total of
199 references) were found to contain the categories
that percolated to the concepts of role conflict, role
ambiguity, and locus of control. Role conflict
percolated through seven different categories that
collectively appeared 89 times throughout the
sources. Two of these categories (job complexity and
job interdependence) accounted for more than 60% of
the references. The role ambiguity variable emerged
through five different categories that appeared 123
times. One of these categories (job clarity) accounted
for 76% of all references. Finally, the locus of control
variable percolated through four different categories
that appeared 39 times. One of these categories (job
awards) accounted for 62% of all references.
3.1 Role Conflict
Role conflict is defined as the occurrences of two
or more role pressures for an employee, where the
compliance with one makes it difficult to comply
with the other [34]. It is characterized as over-
demand on employees to complete specific tasks that
they perceive as excessive on their time availability
[35]. According to the organizational role theory
(ORT), in the workplace, employee behaviors are
determined by a set of rules, norms and specific
social positions that are directed by normative
expectations and organizational demands [34]. Role
conflicts arise due to a combination of multiple and
sometimes conflicting supervisory expectations and
lack of sufficient employee training [36]. Moreover,
role conflicts are observed as a result of changes in
organizational culture and job responsibilities as a
result of new enterprise technologies propagation [37,
38]. [39] proposed that leading conditions for role
conflict include lack of sufficient time to perform the
new role and stress caused by the inability to meet
expected requirements and behaviors.
Information systems research suggests that the
lack of time barrier stems from the introduction of
new technology, conflicting expectations and norms
of employees roles in the enterprise. For example, an
investigation of the impact of ICT-created stress on
employees role stress and productivity showed that
an increase in role stress resulted in time pressures
and a need for multitasking [40]. Employees are
overloaded by information quantity, the introduction
of new technology, and leaner organization
structures.
In this study, it is proposed that employees seek to
resolve their role conflicts by engaging in knowledge
seeking about their roles, expectations and values
from internal sources (colleagues and supervisors),
and external groups (sources outside their work
group) [41]. As a result:
H1a. Role conflict positively impacts knowledge
seeking behaviors via ICTs.
According to the social exchange theory,
individuals will perform favors to others with the
expectation of forthcoming return. This expectation is
predicated on the existence of a long-term
relationship between individuals [26]. It is argued
that as employees experience role conflict and engage
in knowledge seeking with others, they will also
reciprocate by contributing knowledge to their peers
in order to solidify long-term relationships.
Therefore, it is proposed that:
H1b. Role conflict positively impacts knowledge
contributing behaviors via ICTs.
3.2 Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity is defined as the level to which
clear information is lacking regarding the expectation
associated with a specific position [34, 42]. It is
related to conflicting supervisory expectations,
ambiguous definitions of tasks, and lack of
clarification of duties. Role theory suggests that
individuals experiencing role ambiguity will engage
in attempts to resolve the issues associated with the
vagueness of their positions since new or changing
roles have the potential to increase ambiguity in
conditions of novel technologies, rapid organizational
growth, reorganizations, and shifts in managerial
philosophies.
Employees engage in knowledge seeking tactics
from their supervisors and colleagues in order to
reduce uncertainty about their roles [43]. Those who
engage in greater knowledge seeking experience
reduced levels or role ambiguity and role conflict.
Conversely, those who do not engage in knowledge
seeking experience higher levels of role ambiguity
and role conflict. Employees who rely on third-
parties as information-seeking sources while
excluding their supervisors are expected to encounter
higher levels of ambiguity and role conflict than the
ones relying on both third-party and supervisors for
information sources. Those who relied on indirect
3804
questions and disguised conversation for information
sources are also expected to experience higher role
ambiguity and role conflict than the ones who less
frequently used such tactics.
A higher level of uncertainty with a work role is
positively related to information-seeking via the use
of indirect knowledge-seeking tactics. Such tactics
are positively related to role ambiguity, while overt
tactics (direct solicitation of information) were
negatively related to role ambiguity [44]. Finally,
perceived lack of competence also inhibits
knowledge seeking behaviors [45].
Role ambiguity has a negative effect on job
performance and strong impact on empowerment as
ambiguous tasks or goals introduce a great level of
uncertainty into employees work which results in
increased expectations from multiple stakeholders
[46]. Correspondingly, access to information helps to
reduce uncertainty, increase understanding of work
roles and increase employee empowerment. A meta-
analysis of 96 journal articles found that role
ambiguity negatively correlates with feedback from
others (knowledge contribution) because individuals
learn their roles primarily through such feedback
[47].
Consistent connectivity to an ICT enhances work
speed, increases workload levels and increases
employees perceived work overload. For example,
consistent connectivity to an ICT (e.g. email) results
in frequent interruptions to employees work
practices, while changes to the ICT results in role
ambiguity due to new learning demands. Workload
and role ambiguity become the dominant stressors
that lead to exhaustion and turnover intentions [48].
Individuals faced with expectations of their duties
tend to seek clarification and engage in information
seeking behaviors in order to exchange tacit
knowledge that can assist them in completing their
roles [49]. As a result, it is proposed that under
conditions of low ambiguity:
H2a. Role ambiguity positively impacts
knowledge seeking behaviors via ICTs.
Employees use ICTs to share information usually
exchanged in informal places (e.g. by the water
cooler or when bumping in the hallway), for
discussions, clarification, informal communication,
and problem solving [50]. These conversations lead
to sharing of random ideas, noteworthy items, or
other personal experiences that can clarify
ambiguities. At the same time, social exchange
theory posits that individuals assess the benefit and
costs before engaging in interactions with others [21].
When high role ambiguity exists, costs to contribute
knowledge will be greater than the benefits due to
perceived time pressure. In contrast, when low role
ambiguity is present, individuals will focus on
seeking task-specific knowledge to achieve higher
benefits at lower costs. Therefore it is proposed that
under conditions of low ambiguity:
H2b. Role ambiguity positively impacts
knowledge contributing behaviors via ICTs.
3.3 Locus of Control
Locus of control (LOC) is the extent to which
employees believe that events in their lives are either
contingent upon their own behaviors or on the actions
of others [51]. According to the social learning theory
(SLT), peoples motivations to engage in a specific
behavior are impacted by the results of previous
behaviors [52]. Since individuals strive to minimize
negative consequences while maximizing positive
results, they will engage in behaviors that are
expected to have a high probability of resulting in
positive outcomes [51]. Positive results will either
reinforce or weaken repetitions of that behavior,
depending on whether an individual believes that the
reinforcement resulted from his or her personal
behavior or from an outside entity. This personal
locus (location) of control is characterized as internal
or external.
Individuals with high internal LOC (internals)
believe their behaviors determine what occurs to
them. Extant literature shows that internals tend to
engage in word-of-mouth communication with out-
group members (colleagues) and in increased level of
information seeking in order to remain in control of
their environment. Internals score themselves as more
knowledgeable of the product class than externals
and are reported to find greater enjoyment in face-to-
face and computer mediated communication with
others [53, 54].
Studies have demonstrated relationships between
internal LOC, information acquisition, and learning
motivation. For example, internals process
information better than externals so much so that if
internals were added to a team, the team experiences
an increased information-processing capacity, greater
information acquisition behavior, and better team
performance [55]. As a result, it is proposed that:
H3a. Internal locus of control positively impacts
knowledge seeking behaviors via ICTs;
Individuals with high external LOC (externals)
believe that factors such as luck, fate, or powerful
others determine what happens to them [51]. They
3805
tend to be more withdrawn, less likely to take risks,
and rely more on information from their inner circle
since this makes them feel safe.
A meta-analysis study of 106 articles found that
externals learned more and had higher transfer levels
of declarative knowledge [56]. Furthermore,
externals were found to communicate via ICTs for
the purpose of inclusion [54] and shared more
appropriate and less premature information than
internals [57]. As a result, it is proposed that:
H3b. External locus of control positively impacts
knowledge contributing behaviors via ICTs.
Figure 1 provides the proposed causal model.
H1a +
Role Conflict
H1b +
Knowledge Seeking
H2a +
Role Ambiguity
H2b +
H3a + Knowledge Contributing
Locus of Control
H3b +
Figure 1. Proposed model
5. Methodology
5.1 Scales
Role conflict and role ambiguity were measured
using a 7-point scale ranging from very false (1) to
very true (7) developed by Rizzo, House and
Lirtzman [42]. Spector [58] Work Locus of Control
Scale (WLOC) was used to measure locus of control.
The original scale was measured via a 7-point Likert
scale with anchors on 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree. External WLOC was represented by
high scores, while internal WLOC by low scores.
Knowledge seeking and knowledge contributing
behaviors were measured via a scale originally
developed by Van Den Hooff and De Ridder [10].
The original instrument used a 5-point Likert scale
and consisted of a total of eight items. The scale was
modified to a 7-point Likert scale and the wording
adjusted to fit the ICT context of the study. To
determine the understandability of the questions and
the loading of the modified instrument, the scale was
validated with a purposive sample of six experts.
Extant literature demonstrates that such sample sizes
were sufficient to determine instrument clarity [59,
60]. The experts in the current study matched the
characteristics of the targeted population for this
study (full-time employees that fulfilled the job
function of analyst and used ICTs to share knowledge
within their organizations). Furthermore, knowledge
of survey preparation techniques was a prerequisite in
order to leverage recommendations for improvement
of the instrument items.
5.2 Population and Sample Size
The population for this study was considered
employees who used ICTs at work (e.g. email, instant
messaging, forums, and knowledge repositories) to
seek and contribute knowledge. Employees in
supervisory roles experience higher levels of
ambiguity and uncertainty with their job duties than
non-supervisory employees [61]. As a result the
sample was delimited to participants with the job
function of analyst from across of variety of
industries since this position was consistent across
organizations in terms of its non-supervisory duties.
Furthermore, part-time employees experience
significantly greater role ambiguity than their full-
time counter parts due to perceived job strain as a
result of reduced information training, job
information, and social support [62]. In order to
control for this variable, only full-time employees
were invited to take part in the study. Finally, the
sample was restricted to employees who resided only
in the United States. Moreover, since structured
equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the
data, a sample size of at least 200 participants was
targeted [63, 64].
Survey invitations were sent to 1,368 employees
of organizations from a variety of industries. Each
respondent was pre-qualified prior to taking the final
survey to ensure the delimitations criteria were met.
As part of the pre-qualification process, participants
were asked whether they used any of the following
systems at work: email, instant messaging, online
forums, or knowledge repositories. Only users of
these ICTs were allowed to proceed with the survey.
The survey process returned 498 responses. Of these,
173 were excluded during the pre-qualification
process, leaving 326 useful responses (a response rate
of 23.8%).
6. Results
6.1 Demographics
The final sample used for the analysis consisted of
314 participants (Mahalanobis distance statistics for
p-value of 0.001 were used to identify and remove
twelve multivariate outliers[65]). The sample
contained 55% males and 45% females. Nearly 70%
3806
of the respondents were between the ages of 30 and
60. Three quarters of the sample had attained an
associates or higher college degree. Over 60% had
between one and 10 years of work experience and the
majority (nearly 90%) earned an annual income of
$50,000 or higher. Approximately 60% of the
participants worked in mid-size companies with over
500 employees, while the largest industry represented
by the sample (22%) was government, followed by
financial services (12.7%), and telecommunications
and internet (6.7%).
6.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted
to assess construct validity. Principal components
analysis with verimax rotation, and Kaiser
normalization was performed on all constructs.
Several items were removed to arrive to a clean
pattern matrix without cross-loadings. The procedure
produced a five-factor model with factor loadings
ranging from 0.70 to 0.89 (eigenvalues >1) that
explained 71% of the total variance.
6.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
performed prior to the SEM in an effort to establish a
good fit of the measurement model [66]. The model
estimation was performed using the maximum
likelihood estimator (ML) as it fit the studys sample
size and data type [67]. Model fit was assessed based
on criteria proposed by [68].
Table 1 provides the reliability and validity values
for the estimated model. To determine whether the
measures were unrelated, a test for discriminant
validity was performed and the square root values of
all AVEs (on the diagonal) were evaluated. All
values were below the established threshold of <.85
[69]. As a result, it was established that the criteria
for construct reliability, convergent validity, and
disriminant validities were satisfied.
Since all the survey data was collected through the
same questionnaire during the same period of time,
systematic measurement error can impact the
estimates of the relationships between the constructs.
Such error, attributed to common method variance
(CMV), often stems from the measurement method.
Williams and Brown [70] argued that when there
is CMV present, the measurement intercorrelation
can be either inflated or deflated, resulting in
measurement errors. Common latent factor (CLF)
was added to the model to determine the variance that
is common to all factors. This method uses the CLF
to capture the common variance among all observed
variables in the model. The standardized regression To determine the impact of internal versus external
weights from the model were compared to the LOC on the knowledge seeking and knowledge
standardized regression weights of a model without contributing behaviors, each case was coded for high
the CLF to determine whether differences will (external LOC) versus low (internal LOC) values as
require the retention of the CLF during the recommended by [58]. Next, the SEM model was
computation of the structural model [71]. Since none tested for each group. The results demonstrated
of the compared values exceeded .08, it was support for both H3a and H3b were supported.
concluded that the presence of CMV was not of Finally, role conflict was found to have no
significant size to impact the interpretations of the significant impact on knowledge seeking behaviors;
results. therefore H1a was rejected.

Table 1. Reliability and Validity Values Table 2. Hypotheses Testing Results

CR AVE MSV ASV WLOC KnowSeek KnowContr RoleConf RoleAmb Path
WLOC 0.848 0.584 0.052 0.027 0.764 Coeficient
KnowSeek 0.857 0.667 0.549 0.150 0.173 0.817 Hypothesis Hypothesized Path () Remarks
KnowContr 0.855 0.597 0.549 0.148 0.097 0.741 0.773 H1a KnowSeek <--- RoleConf 0.08 Rejected
RoleConf 0.889 0.501 0.163 0.055 0.227 0.041 0.043 0.708 H1b KnowContr <--- RoleConf 0.14** Supported
RoleAmb 0.801 0.592 0.163 0.058 0.129 -0.139 -0.180 0.404 0.769 H2a KnowSeek <--- RoleAmb 0.17* Supported
WLOC - Work Locus of Control H2b KnowContr <--- RoleAmb 0.21* Supported
CR = Composite Reliability
H3a KnowSeek <--- WLCS 0.19** Supported
AVE = Average Variance Extracted
H3b KnowContr <--- WLCS 0.14* Supported
MSV = Maximum Shared Variance
ASV = Average Shared Variance *p .05; **p.10

6.4 Structural Equation Modeling 7. Implications, Limitations and Future

Research
The SEM model (Figure 2) was specified using the
CFA measurement model. The model estimation was The current gap in the KM literature on how to
performed using ML. The model fit was considered effectively promote knowledge sharing among
estimated when the established threshold criteria employees in organizations exists because barriers
values were met (x2/df=2.815, GFI=.892, that inhibit knowledge sharing practices are poorly
RMSEA=.076, NFI=.875, AGFI=.854, CFI=.915, understood. This study enhanced the KM body of
PGFI=.662, PNFI=.721). knowledge by providing an in-depth view of three of
these barriers that are often disregarded in KM
studies: lack of time, poor communications skills, and
lack of trust. A six-stage content analysis study was
conducted on 104 articles and a total of 199
references that percolated to three observed major
contributors to these barriers: role conflict, role
ambiguity, and locus of control. The responses were
analyzed from 314 full-time analysts who used ICTs
at their places of employment to share knowledge.
The final results confirmed that the proposed
contributors predicted employees knowledge sharing
behaviors via ICT.
The present study extended prior KM models by
Figure 2. SEM model
incorporating employees knowledge-sharing
behaviors via specific technology agents. For
example, Connelly and Kelloway [20] questioned
6.5 Hypotheses Testing whether separate knowledge sharing practices existed
among different occupations and how these practices
Table 2 shows the results of the hypotheses
were influenced by employees commitment to their
testing. The results showed that role conflict and role
roles. The current study provided partial answers to
ambiguity positively influenced knowledge
these questions. The results showed that the conflict
contributing behaviors. Thus, H1b and H2b were
and ambiguity influenced knowledge sharing
supported. In addition, role ambiguity was also found
behaviors via ICTs. Moreover, the study
to positively influence knowledge seeking behaviors,
demonstrated that employees personal LOC also
thus H2a was supported.
influenced these behaviors.

3807
 The results of the present study extend prior
research [72] which sought an answer to the question
of how perceived time pressure influenced
knowledge seekers behaviors. The researchers found
that perceived time pressure prevented participants
from sharing their knowledge as it fostered feelings
of preoccupation. The current study showed that
perceived time pressures were in fact symptoms of
the conflict and ambiguity in the roles of individuals,
and it was precisely these contributors that influenced
the knowledge seeking and contributing practices.
Furthermore, the results demonstrated that these
contributors positively influenced the behaviors in
question.
The present research provides several practical
implications for organizations. First, the study adds
value to the organizational decision making process
by highlighting the contributors to employees lack of
time to exchange knowledge, mainly role conflict and
role ambiguity. Management is encouraged to be
mindful of the level of conflicting job expectation
that can result in increased employee role stress.
Furthermore, while organizations frequently invest in
ICTs in order to improve employees productivity,
increase communication, and decrease production
time [73], management needs to recognize that new
technology also increases employees role conflict
and role ambiguity. Such investments result in
increase lack of time due to increased need to learn
how to use the new technology. If an employees role
conflict is also increased at such times, the level of
perceived time pressure will inhibit knowledge
sharing behaviors. Future research is needed to
demonstrate whether the type of ICT can act as
moderator on the relationships between role conflict,
role ambiguity, and knowledge sharing behaviors.
This study also demonstrated that internal LOC is
a good predictor of knowledge seeking behaviors.
Since employees with external LOC are known to be
communication apprehensive, organizations should
also consider implementing training programs that
are designed to improve communication skills among
these employees. These programs will help
employees overcome the communication barriers
created by their LOC and help them engage more
freely in knowledge seeking behaviors.
A limitation of this study is its generalizability
across certain job types. This study was delimited to
respondents who occupied the position of analyst. It
is plausible that the selection of respondents with this
specific job function led to the rejection of the H1a
hypothesis. It is also possible that results of this study
would not apply to employees with jobs where role
conflict, role ambiguity, and ICTs are not present
(e.g. certain trade jobs). Furthermore, it is probable
3808
that the impacts of exogenous on the endogenous
variables may be much more pronounced in jobs with
greater demand on the use of ICTs (e.g. system
administrators, software developers, or content
managers).
Future research can test the model with a sample
from a different job function type. Moreover, future
research can focus on expanding understanding of the
effects of ICT systems on knowledge sharing
behaviors. First, specific ICT capacities that
complement knowledge users needs and contribute
to the increase in knowledge seeking and knowledge
contributing practices should be examined. For
example, future studies should explore what effects
have specific groupings of ICTs (both synchronous
and asynchronous) on knowledge sharing behaviors.
Future studies should also examine whether there is
an optimum number of ICT systems for each specific
behavior (knowledge seeking versus knowledge
contributing). These studies should also investigate
the optimum level of knowledge sharing that can be
achieved through the unique characteristics of each
ICT type.
8. References
[1] S. Cleveland, and T. Ellis, "Causal Model for Predicting
Knowledge Sharing Via Icts", 20th Americas Conference
on Information Systems, 2014.
[2] J. Evermann, "Towards a Cognitive Foundation for
Knowledge Representation", Information Systems Journal,
15(2), 2005, pp. 147-178.
[3] T. Williams, "How Do Organizations Learn Lessons
from Projects-and Do They?", Engineering Management,
IEEE Transactions on, 55(2), 2008, pp. 248-266.
[4] M. Alavi, and D.E. Leidner, "Knowlede Management
and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual
Foundations and Research Issues", MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
2001, pp. 107.
[5] S. Kelly, and M. Jones, "Groupware and the Social
Infrastructure of Communication", Communications of the
ACM, 44(12), 2001, pp. 77-79.
[6] D. Gilmour, "How to Fix Knowledge Management",
Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 2003, pp. 16-17.
[7] R. Ruggles, "The State of the Notion", California
Management Review, 40(3), 1998, pp. 80-89.
[8] A. Riege, "Three-Dozen Knowledge-Sharing Barriers
Managers Must Consider", Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(3), 2005, pp. 18-35.
[9] P.Y.-T. Sun, and J.L. Scott, "An Investigation of
Barriers to Knowledge Transfer", Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(2), 2005, pp. 75-90.
[10] B. Van Den Hooff, and J.A. De Ridder, "Knowledge
Sharing in Context: The Influence of Organizational
Commitment, Communication Climate and Cmc Use on
Knowledge Sharing", Journal of Knowledge Management,
8(6), 2004, pp. 117-130.
[11] Y. Xu, C. Tan, and L. Yang, "Who Will You Ask? An
Empirical Study of Interpersonal Task Information
Seeking", Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 57(12), 2006, pp. 1666-1677.
[12] P. Pirolli, and S. Card, "Information Foraging",
Psychological Review, 106(4), 1999, pp. 643-675.
[13] N.J. Belkin, "Anomalous States of Knowledge as a
Basis for Information Retrieval", Canadian journal of
information science, 5(1), 1980, pp. 133-143.
[14] V.R. Santos, A.L. Soares, and J.. Carvalho,
"Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research and
Development Projects: An Exploratory Study on the
Perceptions of Project Managers", Knowledge and Process
Management, 19(1), 2012, pp. 27-38.
[15] B.S. Fugate, R.W. Thomas, and S.L. Golicic, "The
Impact of Coping with Time Pressure on Boundary
Spanner Collaborative Behaviors", International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(7),
2012, pp. 697-715.
[16] R. Fidel, and M. Green, "The Many Faces of
Accessibility: Engineers' Perception of Information
Sources", Information Processing & Management, 40(3),
2004, pp. 563-581.
[17] Cross, R.E. Rice, and A. Parker, "Information Seeking
in Social Context: Structural Influences and Receipt of
Information Benefits", IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews,
31(4), 2001, pp. 438-448.
[18] K. Bystrm, and K. Jrvelin, "Task Complexity
Affects Information Seeking and Use", Information
Processing & Management, 31(2), 1995, pp. 191-213.
[19] S.J. Ashford, and L.L. Cummings, "Feedback as an
Individual Resource: Personal Strategies of Creating
Information", Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 32(3), 1983, pp. 370-398.
[20] C.E. Connelly, and E.K. Kelloway, "Predictors of
Employees Perceptions of Knowledge Sharing Cultures",
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5),
2003, pp. 294-301.
[21] P.M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley,
New York, NY, 1964.
[22] G.-W. Bock, R.W. Zmud, Y.-G. Kim, and J.-N. Lee,
"Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing:
Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-
Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate", MIS
Quarterly, 29(1), 2005, pp. 87-111.
[23] A. Kankanhalli, B.C. Tan, and K.K. Wei,
"Understanding Seeking from Electronic Knowledge
Repositories: An Empirical Study", Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology,
56(11), 2005, pp. 1156-1166.
[24] L. Lu, F. Zhou, and K. Leung, "Effects of Task and
Relationship Conflicts on Individual Work Behaviors",
International Journal of Conflict Management, 22(2), 2011,
pp. 131-150.
[25] A. Cabrera, W.C. Collins, and J.F. Salgado,
"Determinants of Individual Engagement in Knowledge
Sharing", The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(2), 2006, pp. 245-264.
[26] A. Kankanhalli, B.C. Tan, and K.-K. Wei,
"Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge
3809
Repositories: An Empirical Investigation", MIS Quarterly,
21(5), 2005, pp. 113-143.
[27] S. Chai, and M. Kim, "A Socio-Technical Approach to
Knowledge Contribution Behavior: An Empirical
Investigation of Social Networking Sites Users",
International Journal of Information Management, 32(2),
2012, pp. 118-126.
[28] F.-C. Tseng, and F.-Y. Kuo, "The Way We Share and
Learn: An Exploratory Study of the Self-Regulatory
Mechanisms in the Professional Online Learning
Community", Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 2010,
pp. 1043-1053.
[29] K. Krippendorff, "Content Analysis", in (Barnouw, E.,
Gerbner, G., Schramm, W., Worth, T.L., and Gross, L.,
'eds.'): International Encyclopedia of Communications,
Oxford University Press New York and Oxford, 1989
[30] B. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for the Social
Sciences, Allyn & Bacon, 4 edn, Needham Heights, MA,
2001.
[31] Levy, and T.J. Ellis, "A Systems Approach to Conduct
an Effective Literature Review in Support of Information
Systems Research", Informing Science: International
Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 9(2006, pp. 181-
212.
[32] D. Riffe, S. Lacy, and F.G. Fico, Analyzing Media
Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in
Research, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah,
NJ, 2005.
[33] J. Cohen, "A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal
Scales", Educational and psychological measurement,
20(1), 1960, pp. 37-46.
[34] R.L. Kahn, D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn, J.D. Snoek, and
R.A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role
Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, 1964.
[35] S.M. Sales, "Some Effects of Role Overload and Role
Underload", Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 5(6), 1970, pp. 592-608.
[36] M. Wickham, and M. Parker, "Reconceptualising
Organisational Role Theory for Contemporary
Organisational Contexts", Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22(5), 2007, pp. 440-464.
[37] S. Cleveland, and T.J. Ellis, "Toward a Model for
Customer-Driven Release Management", 19th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, 2013.
[38] S. Cleveland, and T.J. Ellis, "Orchestrating End-User
Perspectives in the Software Release Process: An
Integrated Release Management Framework", Advances in
Human-Computer Interaction, 2014(2014).
[39] N.M. Noor, "Work-Family Conflict, Work-and
Family-Role Salience, and Women's Well-Being", The
Journal of Social Psychology, 144(4), 2004, pp. 389-406.
[40] M. Tarafdar, Q. Tu, B.S. Ragu-Nathan, and T. Ragu-
Nathan, "The Impact of Technostress on Role Stress and
Productivity", Journal of Management Information
Systems, 24(1), 2007, pp. 301-328.
[41] R.T. Sparrowe, and R.C. Liden, "Process and Structure
in Leader-Member Exchange", Academy of Management
Review, 1997, pp. 522-552.
[42] J.R. Rizzo, R.J. House, and S.I. Lirtzman, "Role
Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations",
Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 1970, pp. 150-
163.
[43] V.D. Miller, and F.M. Jablin, "Information Seeking
During Organizational Entry: Influences, Tactics, and a
Model of the Process", Academy of Management Review,
1991, pp. 92-120.
[44] T. Holder, "Women in Nontraditional Occupations:
Information-Seeking During Organizational Entry", Journal
of Business Communication, 33(1), 1996, pp. 9-26.
[45] F. Lee, "The Social Costs of Seeking Help", The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(1), 2002, pp. 17-
35.
[46] D.K. Knight, H.-J. Kim, and C. Crutsinger,
"Examining the Effects of Role Stress on Customer
Orientation and Job Performance of Retail Salespeople",
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
35(5), 2007, pp. 381-392.
[47] S.E. Jackson, and R.S. Schuler, "A Meta-Analysis and
Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and
Role Conflict in Work Settings", Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 36(1), 1985, pp. 16-78.
[48] R. Ayyagari, V. Grover, and R. Purvis, "Technostress:
Technological Antecedents and Implications", MIS
Quarterly, 35(4), 2011, pp. 831-858.
[49] M.H. Hsieh, "Human Centric Knowledge Seeking
Strategies: A Stakeholder Perspective", Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(4), 2009, pp. 115-133.
[50] D. Zhao, and M.B. Rosson, "How and Why People
Twitter: The Role That Micro-Blogging Plays in Informal
Communication at Work", in (Editor, 'ed.'^'eds.'): Book
How and Why People Twitter: The Role That Micro-
Blogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work,
ACM, 2009, pp. 243-252.
[51] J.B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Internal
Versus External Control of Reinforcement", Psychological
monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1966, pp. 1-28.
[52] J.B. Rotter, Social Learning and Clinical Psychology,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1954.
[53] N. Srinivasan, and S. Tikoo, "Effect of Locus of
Control on Information Search Behavior", Advances in
Consumer Research, 19(1), 1992, pp. 498-504.
[54] L.M. Flaherty, K.J. Pearce, and R.B. Rubin, "Internet
and Face-to-Face Communication: Not Functional
Alternatives", Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 1998, pp.
250-268.
[55] C. Boone, and A. Van Witteloostuijn, "Team Locus-
of-Control Composition, Leadership Structure, Information
Acquisition, and Financial Performance: A Business
Simulation Study", Academy of Management Journal,
48(5), 2005, pp. 889-909.
[56] J.A. Colquitt, J.A. Lepine, and R.A. Noe, "Toward an
Integrative Theory of Training Motivation: A Meta-
Analytic Path Analysis of 20 Years of Research", Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 2000, pp. 678-707.
[57] Y. Libert, P. Janne, D. Razavi, I. Merckaert, P.
Scalliet, N. Delvaux, A.-M. Etienne, S. Conradt, J.
Klastersky, and J. Boniver, "Impact of Medical Specialists'
Locus of Control on Communication Skills in Oncological
Interviews", British journal of cancer, 88(4), 2003, pp. 502-
509.
3810
[58] P.E. Spector, "Development of the Work Locus of
Control Scale", Journal of occupational psychology, 61(4),
1988, pp. 335-340.
[59] L. Abraham, A. Hareendran, I.W. Mills, M.L. Martin,
P. Abrams, M.J. Drake, R.P. Macdonagh, and J.G. Noble,
"Development and Validation of a Quality-of-Life Measure
for Men with Nocturia", Urology, 63(3), 2004, pp. 481-
486.
[60] S. Hart, E. Jan Hultink, N. Tzokas, and H.R.
Commandeur, "Industrial Companies' Evaluation Criteria
in New Product Development Gates", Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 20(1), 2003, pp. 22-36.
[61] J. Hannaway, "Managerial Behavior, Uncertainty and
Hierarchy: A Prelude to a Synthesis", Human Relations,
38(11), 1985, pp. 1085-1100.
[62] B.D. Steffy, and J.W. Jones, "Differences between
Full-Time and Part-Time Employees in Perceived Role
Strain and Work Satisfaction", Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11(4), 1990, pp. 321-329.
[63] J.C. Loehlin, Latent Variable Models: An Introduction
to Factor, Path and Structural Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ, 1992.
[64] R. Weston, and P.A. Gore, "A Brief Guide to
Structural Equation Modeling", The Counseling
Psychologist, 34(5), 2006, pp. 719-751.
[65] R.B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling, Guilford press, New York, NY, 2005.
[66] J.C. Anderson, and D.W. Gerbing, "Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and
Recommended Two-Step Approach", Psychological
Bulletin, 103(3), 1988, pp. 411-423.
[67] K.A. Bollen, Structural Equations with Latent
Variables, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989.
[68] S. Ryu, S.H. Ho, and I. Han, "Knowledge Sharing
Behavior of Physicians in Hospitals", Expert Systems with
Applications, 25(1), 2003, pp. 113-122.
[69] D.T. Campbell, and D.W. Fiske, "Convergent and
Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix", Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 1959, pp. 81.
[70] L.J. Williams, and B.K. Brown, "Method Variance in
Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Research:
Effects on Correlations, Path Coefficients, and Hypothesis
Testing", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 57(2), 1994, pp. 185-209.
[71] K.A. Bollen, "A New Incremental Fit Index for
General Structural Equation Models", Sociological
Methods & Research, 17(3), 1989, pp. 303-316.
[72] C.E. Connelly, D.P. Ford, O. Turel, B. Gallupe, and D.
Zweig, "Im Busy (and Competitive)!Antecedents of
Knowledge Sharing under Pressure", Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 2013, pp. 1-12.
[73] L. Borghans, and B. Weel, "The Division of Labour,
Worker Organisation, and Technological Change", The
Economic Journal, 116(509), 2006, pp. F45-F72.