Factors Influencing Employees Knowledge Sharing Behaviour within an Investment Firm in Kuwait - Research Paper Example

DBA THESIS PROPOSAL FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEES’ KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIOUR WITHIN AN INVESTMENT FIRM IN KUWAIT SALEH AL-OTHMAN Background Knowledge sharing is increasingly becoming important in organizations in the present-day knowledge era. Knowledge sharing at the individual level is a process whereby an individual voluntarily provides access to exchange information, knowledge and experiences with other members of the organization. Knowledge sharing is crucial because knowledge in organizations is dispersed and organizations are not self-contained entities (Orlikowski, 2002; Tsoukas, 1996). Knowledge sharing involves complex and multi-faceted behaviours, which are organized by a range of factors, such as cultural, organizational, technological, individual’s values and attitudes, and so on (Oliver, 2008). Introduction Knowledge sharing and its influencing factors have gained considerable scholarly focus in the past. Scholars in this regard have focused on individual-related factors, such as the motivation, purpose, and propensity to share knowledge (Cyr & Choo, 2010), where propensity can be described as a personal norm that replicates the costs and benefits of sharing, but which is influenced by the wider internal and external organizational framework (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). Knowledge sharing is regarded as expressive constituent of self-identity that is considered as well-informed and/or could also be a subjective norm, such as behaviour or a personal norm (Cyr & Choo, 2010). Knowledge sharing is often regarded as unnatural because people consider the knowledge that they have as priceless and/or crucial due to which, they are reluctant in sharing it with others (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De Long and Fahey, 2000). Thus, important in knowledge sharing is the perception of the benefit that the individuals make out as a result from knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing, however, does not occur in a vacuum, but within a context. The context not just involves individual-related influencing factors, such as individual’s values and attitudes, but also organizational factors, such as the organizational culture and norms, availability of technology, information access, etc. (Oliver, 2008). As a result, the methods used to share knowledge must be aligned with and suit the organizational culture, norms, technological infrastructure, etc. (Davenport and Prusak, 1998).These contextual factors are significant in structuring mindsets, attitudes and subsequent linkages of individuals (De Long and Fahey, 2000). In this scenario, social interactions among organizational members become important for individuals to share knowledge to support innovation and drive performance. While the literature on the factors that influence employees knowledge sharing is abundant, it is particularly scanty in terms of Kuwait commonly and its financial sector specifically. Kuwaits financial sector has 11 local and 10 international banks. Among the 11 local banks, a higher proportion (6) is of Islamic banks, showing that Islamic finance in Kuwait is in demand. Similarly, the Capital Standards (2010) report notes that of the 100 investment firms (the largest number among GCC countries), 54 follow Islamic finance, most of which (51) are publicly listed. In the year 2009, Kuwait’s economy underwent a financial predicament, followed by government’s stabilizing interference. Afterwards, the venturing organizations were suggested to re-evaluate their business models by paying attention to consumer’ requirements and technological innovations. This naturally brought the importance of knowledge sharing to produce new products and services to the forefront. How investment firms can best foster knowledge sharing requires an in depth examination of the factors influencing knowledge sharing. This could be best achieved with the help of a case study within a given representative investment firm. Literature Review A short number of studies have scrutinized the significance of factors affecting knowledge sharing in terms of Kuwait. Table 1 shows that scholars have generally focused on knowledge management systems to highlight their importance (Al-Athari & Zairi, 2001; Almarshad et al., 2010), or more specifically on the perceptions of senior academics and KM experts regarding the placement of KM modules in core, elective or cognate segments of the curriculum (Ur Rehman et al., 2013). I could only find one study, which examines knowledge sharing in the context of Kuwait. Ur-Rehman, et al, (2011) evaluate knowledge sharing between students along with the factors essential for knowledge acquirement through knowledge sharing. The study highlights the significance of confidence, compliance for sharing, motivation, speculations about knowledge sharing and knowledge acquirement through knowledge sharing that are key influencing factors. This study, however, is conducted in an academic setting and while it provides interesting pointers (trust, willingness, etc.), it is still to be analyzed about the influence of these factors in terms of their implementation to an organizational setting, specially in terms of investment organizations. TABLE 1: STUDY ON KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN KUWAIT Studies Focus Key Findings Al-Athari & Zairi (2001) To understand the accessibility of knowledge management Systems in the private and civic divisions in Kuwait. A large number of participants of the study belonging to private as well as public divisions in Kuwait have faith in their knowledge management system and categorise it crucial for the growth of their organisations. The respondents further informed that employees working in the organisations along with prevalent knowledge of the organisations are the most significant resource of ideas. Almarshad et al. (2010) To examine recent behaviours towards knowledge management, tracing key organisational functions for continuation and structuring of a knowledge management system for civic structure continuation. By applying the concept and tools of KM and developing a KM system, the value for money spent by the public departments can improve. Ur Rehman et al. (2013) To analyze the perceptions of senior academics and KM experts regarding the placement of KM modules in core, elective or cognate segments of the curriculum. The findings provided a systematic view of the foundation, secondary and peripheral topics of KM discipline. Curriculum designers will find results to be benchmark in their pursuit of delineating coursework in any given institutional context. Ur-Rehman et al. (2011) To evaluate the attitude of students in relation to their knowledge sharing throughout their studies along with the factors essential for knowledge acquirement through knowledge sharing. The study highlights the significance of confidence, compliance for sharing, motivation, speculations about knowledge sharing and knowledge acquirement through knowledge sharing that are key influencing factors. As social interactions are a key enabler for knowledge sharing, a set of literature on social exchange theory offers an interesting analysis framework. According to the social exchange theory, the individuals are enabled in terms of knowledge sharing on the perceived benefits in relation to other actors in the context that may result from such behaviour, and that a positive perception is more likely to contribute their knowledge sharing behaviours. For knowledge sharing, individuals tend to evaluate their knowledge sharing activity in terms of cost benefit analysis. They keep their interest in the forefront in case of such an interaction and want to attain maximum out of such information sharing activity (Molm, 2001). According to Liang et al. (2008), the perceived advantages cannot always be tangible, as individuals communicate with the anticipation of reciprocity. In such kind of sharing, people engage in the process of knowledge sharing on the basis of anticipated future benefits like obtainment of required supplies with the support of social reciprocity. The creation of social connections also depends on the future returns associated with knowledge sharing and better relations are there along with better knowledge sharing with maximized benefits. With the help of reciprocation, individuals anticipate future advantageous returns based on knowledge sharing that puts a positive impact on social relations (Cabrera et al., 2005). Social exchange theory has been found to be effective in explaining knowledge sharing behaviours among individuals (Watson and Hewett, 2006). Employees are motivated to participate in the knowledge sharing process linked to electronic knowledge repositories with anticipated future benefits to individuals (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), the future anticipated benefits for the employees can be future reciprocity, positioning, employment protection, and promotional viewpoints. Ma (2007) with a virtual community context emphasizes the importance of the contentment that individuals have as part of a certain community. According to Chiu et al. (2006), there has been attention towards interpersonal factors like social contact, confidence, and norm of reciprocity in a virtual form of communication for knowledge sharing. The study conducted Kim and Lee (2006) shows analysis of organisations in terms of knowledge sharing. They have elaborated that the reward systems that are part of an organisational culture influences the efficiency of knowledge sharing in an organisation, whereas Lin (2007) reported a poor association between organizational rewards and employees’ willingness. Pai (2006) gives attention to the utilisation of IS/IT strategic planning and knowledge sharing, supported by the top management. Social exchange theory in relation to knowledge sharing has been discussed and evaluated by many researchers. The study conducted by Liang et al. (2008) gives attention to social exchange theory in terms of its structuring an extended model that incorporates IT assistance and organisational form as moderators. Resultantly, it was found that social exchange theory is quite crucial in terms of structuring individuals’ behaviour of knowledge sharing. The study is also advantageous because it highlights the relationships between social interaction and knowledge sharing and trust and knowledge sharing. Social interaction and trust are also parts of social exchange theory. IT related factors also influence individual behaviour of knowledge sharing. Chiu et al. (2006) also conducted a study regarding comprehension of social interaction, confidence, norm of reciprocity, recognition, combined vision and known language usage in virtual set ups where people are tend to share their individualised knowledge. Social interaction works as a crucial forward planner for sharing quantified knowledge. In virtual communities, the managers and administrators are required to structure and maintain knowledge sharing using such methods and mechanisms that are accommodative and motivating for knowledge sharing. Likewise, the study conducted by Cyr & Choo (2010) scrutinizes the attitude of knowledge sharing being affected by a logical calculation between cost and benefit analysis, prioritised knowledge sharing based on results of the sharing and interaction on the basis of performance based connections. As a result of the study, it was found that the participants of knowledge sharing have a positive perceived benefit after a cost benefit analysis of the process of knowledge sharing. In addition, the participants do not always have self-interest in knowledge sharing, but at least, they have some perceived benefit connected. Following the above, the social exchange theory can be seen to specifically offer three aspects that are ‘personal cognition, interpersonal interaction, and organisational contexts’. Personal cognition can be described as anticipated benefits and obligations towards the organisations. Interpersonal interaction can be described as having social contact and confidence. However, organisational contexts can be described as having organisational assistance and introduced rewards systems in the workplaces. Within this framework, IT support could facilitate the sharing of knowledge among organizational members. The specific hypotheses that can be generated from the literature are as follows: SOCIALEXCHANGETHEORY – TESTING HYPOTHESES Individual Cognition Individual cognition comprises two variables – perceived benefits and organizational commitment. Perceived Benefits: Perceived benefits can be described as the anticipated views of individuals in terms of returns compared to their behaviours (Forsythe, 2006). As far as people’s presence and contribution in a social group is concerned, they anticipate to be well reputed and have better positioning as a return of their participation. People also tend to share their knowledge on the basis of their concerns of sociability (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Therefore, it can be said that individuals are encouraged to share their knowledge on the basis of perceived benefits associated to their communal lives. This leads to the first hypothesis: H1a: Perceived benefit is positively associated with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment (OC) can be described as positive behaviour towards the organisation and the existence of a connection between the workers and the organisation in terms of its quality. OC has been found to be related to many organisational behaviours including turnover, contentment with job, sense of obligation, and helpfulness (Meyer et al. 1993; Liang et al. 2008). Wasko and Faraj (2005) claim, on the basis of shared membership, that one’s commitment to a collective can be described as a feeling of accountability to support others who are part of the collective. Rocha et al. (2008) conducted a study, involving many other empirical studies, claiming that organisational commitment is connected to other variables that are performance based. In addition, the study conducted by Mathieu and Zajac (1990) has a meta-analysis that is indicative that most general OC links are as the predecessors like personal traits, positioning of roles, features of a job, organisational features and connections between the group and the leader. The OC links are also simultaneous like encouragement at workplace, job engagement, contentment with the job, pressure and work-related obligations. The OC links also appear as a result like work performance, willingness to leave, delay and turnover. These features are crucial as they motivate an individual for knowledge sharing. This leads to the second hypothesis: H1b: Organizational commitment is positively associated with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour Interpersonal Interaction Within interpersonal interaction there are two variables that are being studied – social interaction and trust. In this section the relevance of these two factors will be discussed along with the hypothesis. Social Interaction Social interaction is a channel for information and resource flows. The social interactions allow the participants of knowledge sharing to interact so that greater amount of information is shared. Social interaction can be regarded as guiding towards a sequenced exchange of knowledge involving the participants (Hall, 2003). There are many forms of social interaction that are communication that is face-to-face, in form of discussion, voicing expression, conversing, and discoursing, all these are considered as forms of social interaction. The forms of social interaction are regarded as the benefits of knowledge sharing, specifically in case of unspoken knowledge (Panahi et al., 2012). These authors add that social interaction can be in person or even virtual. Social media plays a significant role in most individuals’ life and a lot of information and knowledge is being shared through the social media platforms. This also shows the importance of information technology in social interaction, which can also be applied to knowledge sharing. Chiu et al. (2006) and Inkpen and Tsang (2005) have also found social interaction to significantly influence knowledge sharing. The individuals are enabled to share knowledge that is efficient, profound and sized based on social interaction. This leads to the third hypothesis: H2a: Social interaction is positively linked with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour. Trust Trust is another factor that has been identified as an enabler to knowledge sharing (Amayah, 2013; Liang et al. 2008). Trust can be described as an assemblage of detailed beliefs chiefly related to truthfulness, compassion, and eligibility of other participant (Chiu et al. 2006). In the social exchange theory, the social exchange process is incomplete without trust. The exchange connections are created and maintained on the basis of trust. Resultantly, the knowledge that is shared is valuable and standardised. The parties that are involved in exchange of knowledge are ready to form a cooperative bondage based on the trust that they enjoy collaboratively (Liang et al., 2008). The study by Amayah (2013) focuses on tacit knowledge and therefore, she states that for the transference of unspoken knowledge, trust and joint understanding need to be present between two parties involved in knowledge sharing. Individuals are prone to share their knowledge when they have confidence in the truthfulness of the content and have some authoritative source of information (Ardichvili et al., 2003). The parties involved in knowledge sharing experience openness based on trust (Garavan et al. 2007). In addition, the knowledge sharing activity is motivated in participants who intend to work together (Liao, 2006; Sharratt and Usoro, 2003). This leads to the fourth hypothesis: H2b: Trust is positively associated with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour. Organizational Context Organizational context has two variables - Organizational Support and Reward Systems. This section will provide an overview of these two variables. Organizational Support Organizational support refers to the common awareness about organisational care for the welfare of its workers and importance that it gives to their efforts and participation (Liang et al., 2008). According to the social exchange theory, the connection between management and employees is created in form of a trade. The employees look for benefits like salary, assistance and reputation, however, the management looks for endeavour and trustworthiness from workers. Resultantly, this fact cannot be denied that organisational assistance is integrally required directly or indirectly. Employees and supervisors also form an encouraging relationship based on their knowledge sharing. They communication is mostly about work related issues and require openness in communication. This leads to the fifth hypothesis: H3a: Organizational support is positively associated with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour. Reward Systems In addition to organizational support, reward systems that provide members incentives to shape their behaviour or improve their performance in learning are also essential (Pham and Swierczek, 2006). The rewards that are offered in organisations are diversified and include financial incentives like augmented compensation, bonuses and other incentives and nonmonetary rewards like advanced promotions and other tangible rewards. The rewards given in the organisations are based on performance and can be supportive in encouraging employees to work better (Kharabsheh, 2007). Organisations must have some form of a reward system in order to enable positive knowledge sharing at the workplace and various studies have highlighted the importance of reward system in organisational set up. The study conducted by Bartol and Srivastava (2002) scrutinises the role of financial rewards in motivating sharing of knowledge in the organisational set up. The researchers, Bartol and Srivastava (2002) analysed four mechanisms of knowledge sharing and were able to gather data about positive connection between financial rewards and knowledge sharing. In addition, the researchers also discussed that the reward system attached to the knowledge sharing through databases is most advantageous for participating in knowledge sharing as a whole behaviour can be analysed. The knowledge sharing behaviour along with reward allocator can be implemented and will provide opportunities for the employees. This leads to the sixth hypothesis: H3b: Reward systems are positively associated with an individual’s knowledge sharing behaviour. Information Technology There are technological equipments for assisting with the struggle of knowledge sharing that come under the heading of information technology infrastructure (Bechina and Bommen, 2006). Technology and knowledge sharing form a connection that is described by Smith (2003). The fact cannot be denied that IT enables the formation of connectivity in knowledge sharing, but IT is not able to encourage employees to share the knowledge that they have. Overall, technology or in particular information technology can be categorised as a knowledge sharing enabler. Human aspect or concept cannot be ignored completely even after the implementation of technological efficient tools in the workplace, as there is no surety about employees’ correct participation with the usage of tools. A fully human resource system along with different areas of specialisation and methods and tools of communication are placed in the organisational knowledge maps that are structured by the management. With the support of this knowledge map, employees working at the workplace are enabled to reach other employees according to their specialisation to solve the issues (Desouza and Awazu, 2003). The mapping tool along with the defined human resource system is advantageous for employees in surmounting geographical border lines (Desouza and Awazu, 2003). This leads to the seventh hypothesis: H4: Use of IT-based knowledge management systems moderates the relationship between the studied independent variables and individuals knowledge sharing behaviour. Table 1 provides an overview of some of the literature on knowledge sharing using social exchange theory and also studies carried out in Kuwait. Problem Definition It is generally assumed by the scholars and consultants that people tend to share their knowledge as an ingredient of their job requirements because of significance of knowledge sharing in the obtainment of shared objectives. However, this concept is not right because the administration in various organisations has witnessed that practically knowledge sharing at workplaces is not a common practice in spite of following strategies of person to person interaction and knowledge sharing or person to document knowledge sharing or interaction (Hansen, et al. 1999). Knowledge sharing based on employees’ interaction is enough rewarding in an organisational setup. It is beneficial because the organisation enjoys the opportunities of development based on its old experiences, there can be much quick responsiveness to issues, the structuring of innovative ideas and perceptions becomes easy, and lastly, the old mistakes or repetition can be ignored. As far as individual are concerned, knowledge sharing becomes vague as enough time and endeavour are needed for knowledge sharing and people are considerate about loss of acquired knowledge. They think that their valuable knowledge will be reused and attained by others. The knowledge sharing that is considered much advantageous for the organisations, but problematic for the individuals forms a challenging state for the organisations (Cyr & Choo, 2011). Individuals are much more disturbed in knowledge sharing and research and studies show that methods and systems for knowledge sharing are scrutinised in terms of their efficacy, but the factors that impact on individual’s intent in knowledge sharing in an organisation are not researched in depth to find solutions to the issue. Research Questions Research Question: How is knowledge sharing influenced by individual, group and organizational factors as outlined by the social exchange theory? What is the significance of individual cognition (perceived benefits and organizational commitment) on knowledge sharing? Does interpersonal interaction (social interaction and trust) enable employees to share their knowledge? How do organizational context factors such as organizational assistance and reward systems influence knowledge sharing? What is the significance of information technology on knowledge sharing? Research Model The proposed research mode for this research has been adopted based on reviewing various forms of literature on knowledge sharing. The variables that are studied in this research are factors that facilitate and encourage knowledge sharing between employees in the organizations. Figure 1.1 shows the proposed research model. Figure 1.1: Proposed Research Model Intended Contribution Managers, decision makers and other leading organisational personnel cannot negate the importance of knowledge as it is required to make the right decision and also for employees to function better in their jobs. Knowledge sharing will help, elevate the use of knowledge and create a learning environment in the organization through which, employees can be more productive and managers can be more efficient in managing their teams and carrying out efficient decisions. In addition to all this, knowledge needs to be managed. so that it can be beneficial to the organization and its employees for its usage in different scenarios. Through this research, the researcher aims to create a knowledge sharing environment by recognising the factors supportive in knowledge sharing in the organization. By understanding the factors that enable knowledge sharing, the management can be provided the recommendations that need to be implemented to ensure successful knowledge sharing and gaining competitive advantage. Methodology This research aims to adopt both empirical and non-empirical designs. In other words, primary and secondary data will be collected for this research. The sources of secondary data will be articles, books, internet sources and other published resources, which will form the literature review on KM and related topics. The literature review will have the background information for carrying out the research, as the research framework and conceptual model will be generated from these. The primary data will be collected from employees in the organization through surveys, followed by interviews with the managers. Emphasis is on the primary data that will be collected for this research. The primary data collection consists of a mixed methodology wherein both quantitative and qualitative research methods are utilised. The use of these two methods will be on two phases. The first phase will be quantitative research method. Quantitative Research Quantitative research method tackles numbered data that can be understood by computation. This data can be extracted from different statistical tests and models. A sample population is required to answer same set of designed questions with predetermined numbered responses and these responses are collected and calculated respectively as per the numbered codes or real numbers (Saunders et al.2007). A survey will be carried out to collect the data. The data collection instrument will be self-administered questionnaires designed using closed-ended questions and five point Likert scale questions. This will be discussed in the subsequent sections. Qualitative Research Qualitative research can be described as a research methodology in which, the researcher is able to assemble qualitative data that is based on rough knowledge of the subject. This method is quite detailed as compared to quantitative research. In the qualitative data research, the researcher collects data himself/herself that is much more time wasting (Saunders et al. 2003). Qualitative research is used to help explain a phenomenon. It is designed to understand and find to how reasons through explanations. Qualitative data can also help to derive the opinion, experience and feelings of the individual and attempts to describe a social phenomenon as they occur. Qualitative research follows a deductive approach and is aimed towards testing the research theories. Data collection is done through personal interaction with the respondents (Hancock, 2002). The process in the second phase which is based on a qualitative research method, is to collect data from managers through personal face-to-face interviews. The expected number of participants is 250. The interviews will be semi-structured and therefore will use questions to guide the interviews. The questions will be prepared based on the findings of the quantitative data analysis. Questionnaires Questionnaires are very useful in survey data collection. The term ‘questionnaire’ is used in a simple manner to add all methods of data collection and the respondents are provided with same set of questions, which are prearranged (Saunders et al. 2003). A pilot test is to be carried out on 8-10 employees and managers in order to guarantee validity and reliability of the data. The pilot test results will indicate the ease of understanding the questions and also how the respondents answer each of the questions / statements. As indicated earlier, the questionnaire will be designed to be self-administered. The questionnaires will be designed using professional survey websites such as QuestionPro.com, SurveyMonkey.com or similar websites. The use of such websites ensures mandatory controls and the data can be collected either in an Excel format or SPSS data format. The questionnaire website link will be emailed to every employee, supervisor and manager in the investment firm. The expected number of participants in the survey is 250. The questionnaire will have a covering letter that describes the objective of the survey and will provide in writing the assurance of anonymity and confidentiality. The questionnaire will collect samples of age, gender, nationality, employment positioning and years of service in the organization in the lieu of demographic variables, but not personal information that discloses the respondents identify will be collected. In addition to this the use of survey websites ensures that email address or other information of the individual is also not disclosed that will jeopardize the respondents’ credibility or reputation. The collected data will be statistically analysed using SPSS and the results will be discussed in the data analysis chapter. The findings will be used to carry out the second phase of the primary data collection. This will be a qualitative research method. The interviews will also be based on questions and therefore, would be a semi-structured approach. The usage of questions helps to focus on particular aspects that need clarification and enhancement to the research. In addition to this the semi-structured approach allows the user to add more information and also the researcher to ask more questions as a means of clarifications. The interviews are with the department heads (managers) and these managers will be assured confidentiality to ensure that their personal information is not revealed. If the managers are not comfortable in doing interviews in their offices, the interviews will be carried out in a coffee shop or other places where they can speak openly and without bias. Data Analysis The statistical software program, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) is employed for quantitative data evaluation. Following are the proposed types of statistical analysis that will be carried out on the quantitative data. Descriptive Analysis: The descriptive analysis is capable of the provision of understanding about the responses of the demographic variables and ‘the five point scale Likert statements’. Crosstab Analysis: The Crosstab analysis is employed to comprehend the linkage of responses obtained from two variables. Correlation Analysis: The purpose of correlation analysis is to be employed in order to comprehend the correlation importance of the variables. Factor Analysis: The usage of factor analysis is to comprehend data redundancy. Along with comprehension of data redundancy, the factor analysis also helps in understanding of importance of each ‘five point Likert statement’. Regression Analysis: The purpose of regression analysis is to comprehend the importance of independent as well as dependent variables of the study. One-way ANOVA and Independent Sample T-Test: The purpose of this test is to comprehend the importance of demographic variable over the studied variables. Work Plan Following is the proposed stages and timeline for the thesis. Proposed Dissertation Stages and Timeline REFERENCES Al-Athari, A. and Zairi, M. (2001) “Building benchmarking competence through knowledge management capability: An empirical study of the Kuwaiti context”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 70-80 Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. (2001) “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107–136. Almarshad, A., Motawa, I. and Ogunlana, S. (2010), “Knowledge management for public building maintenance in Kuwait”. In: Egbu, C. (Ed) Procs 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010, Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in Construction Management, 877-886. Amayah, A. T. (2013) “Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 454-471 Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), “Motivation and barriers to participation in online knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-77. Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76. Bechina A. A. and Bommen, T. (2006) “Knowledge sharing practices: Analysis of a global Scandinavian consulting company”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.4, No. 2, pp. 109 – 116. Bender, S. and Fish, A. (2000) “The transfer of knowledge and retention of expertise: The continuing need for global assignments”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 125-137. Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111. Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E.F. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas”, Organization Studies, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 687-710. Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C., and Salgado, J.F. (2006) “Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 245-264. Capital Standards (2010) “Kuwait Investment Sector”, Industry Research, November 2010 Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T.G. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-1888. Cress, U., Barquero, B., Schwan, S. and Hesse, F.W. (2007), “Improving quantity and quality of contributions: two models for promoting knowledge exchange with shared databases”, Computers & Education, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 423-40. Cyr, S. & Choo, C. W. (2011) “The individual and social dynamics of knowledge sharing: an exploratory study”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 66, No. 6, pp. 824-846 Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L. (1998) “Working knowledge: how organisations manage what they know”, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 113-27. Desouza, K. and Y. Awazu, (2003) “Knowledge management”, HR Magazine, November, pp. 107-112. Forsythe, S., Liu, C., Shannon, D., and Gardner, L.C. (2006) “Development of a scale to measure the perceived benefits and risks of online shopping,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 55-75. Galletta, D., Marks, P., McCoy, S. and Polak, P. (2003), “What leads us to share valuable knowledge? An experimental study of the effects of managerial control, group identification, and social value orientation on knowledge-sharing behavior”, Proceedings of 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (CD/ROM), January 6-9, 2003, Computer Society Press, New York, NY. Garavan, T.N., Carbery, R. and Murphy, E. (2007), “Managing intentionally created communities of practice for knowledge sourcing across organizational boundaries: insights on the role of the CoP manager”, The Learning Organization: The International Journal of Knowledge and Organizational Learning Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 34-49. Hall, H. (2003) “Borrowed Theory: Applying Exchange Theories in Information Science Research,” Library & Information Science Research Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 287-306. Hancock, B. (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Trent Focus Group Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., and Tierney, T. (1999) “What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?”Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 106-116. Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165. Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Staples, D.S. (2000), “The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 2-3, pp. 129-54. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., and Wei, K.K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 113-143. Kharabsheh, R. A. (2007) “A Model of Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 419 - 426, Kim, S., and Lee, H. (2006) “The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge sharing capabilities,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 370-385. Liang, T., Liu, C., and Wu, C. (2008) “Can Social Exchange Theory Explain Individual Knowledge-Sharing Behavior? A Meta-Analysis”, Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Paris 2008, International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2008 Proceedings, Association for Information Systems, pp. 1-18 Liao, L.F. (2006), “A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 227-236. Lin, C.P. (2007) “To Share or Not to Share: Modelling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Its Mediators and Antecedents,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 411-428. Ma, M., and Agarwal, R. (2007) “Through a Glass Darkly: Information Technology Design, Identity Verification, and Knowledge Contribution in Online Communities,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 42 - 67. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990) “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108, No. 2, pp. 171-194. McKenzie, J., Truch, A., & Winkelen, C. (2001), “Winning commitment for knowledge management initiatives”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 115-127. Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., and Smith, C.A. (1993) “Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 538-551. Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnyutsky, L. (2002) “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 20–52. Molm, L. D. (2001) Theories of social exchange and exchange networks, Sage, London, pp. 260-272. Oliver, G. (2008), “Information culture: exploration of differing values and attitudes to information in organisations”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 363-85. Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing.Organization Science,13, 249−273. Pai, J.C. (2006) “An empirical study of the relationship between knowledge sharing and IS/IT strategic planning (ISSP),” Management Decision, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 105-116. Panahi , S., Watson , J., and Partridge, H. (2012) “Social Media and Tacit Knowledge Sharing: Developing a Conceptual Model”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Viol. 64 (2012), pp. 1095-1102 Pham, N.T., and Swierczek, F.W. (2006) “Facilitators of organizational learning in design,” The Learning. Organization, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 186-201. Rocha, F. S., Cardoso, L., and Tordera, N. (2008), “The importance of Organizational Commitment to Knowledge Management”, Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 211-232 Saunders M, Lewis P, &Thornhill A (2003) Research Methods for Business Students (2nd Ed.)’, Prentice Hall, London Saunders M, Lewis P, &Thornhill A (2007) Research Methods for Business Students (3rd Ed.)’, Prentice Hall, London Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003), “Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of practice”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-196. Smith, H. (2003) ‘Instilling a knowledge-sharing culture’, [online], Queen’s Centre for Knowledge-Based Enterprises, pp 1-17, www.business.queens.ca/kbe, Accessed: 12February 2014. Storey, J., & Quintas, P. (2001), “Knowledge management and HRM”, In J. Storey (Ed.), Human Resource Management, a Critical Text. London: Thomsom Learning. Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system: A constructionist perspective. Strategic Management Journal,17,11−25. Ur Rehman, S., Al-Alawi, S. A. and Chaudhry, A. S. (2013) “Validation of Knowledge Management Modules for Curriculum Design”, Singapore Journal of Library & Information Management, Vol. 42, pp. 22-45 Ur Rehman, S., Khan, A. J., Dost, M. K. B., Wassan, A. A. and Rasool, N. (2011) “Knowledge sharing behavior of the students: comparative study of LUMS and COMSATS”, Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 138-149 Wasko, M.M., and Faraj, S. (2005) “Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of Practice”, MIS Quarterly Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 35–57. Watson, S., and Hewett, K. (2006) “A Multi-Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 141-173. Read More