Empirical Study In Organizations In Vietnam Management Essay

For assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

1. Introduction
Knowledge has been identified as one of the most important resource that
contributes to the competitive advantage of an organization (Applegate et. al, 1996).
Since early 1990's, many organizations moving towards the implementation of
Knowledge Management to achieve the competitive advantage among their
competitors.
Recently, the importance of knowledge within organizations has been addressed by
several researchers (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal,
2001; Berman, Down & Hill 2002; Bock et al., 2005). However, knowledge resides
within individual (Nonaka and Konno 1998) and, more specifically, in the employees
who create, recognize, archive, access, and apply knowledge in carrying out their
tasks.
One part of managing knowledge is knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing can be
used as a tool for retaining and developing new knowledge in the organization.
Consequently, the movement of knowledge across individual and organizational
boundaries, into and from repositories, and into organizational routines and
practices is ultimately dependent on employees' knowledge-sharing intention.

Although knowledge sharing field have been carried out in Western and South-East
Asian countries but they do in different ways. This research is to develop an
understanding of the factors that support or constrain the individual's knowledge
sharing behavior in the Vietnamese organizations, and how they eventually influence
the knowledge sharing intentions that lately cause the sharing knowledge behaviors.

2. Literature review

A revision of literature regarding KM shows a variety of definitions and viewpoints to

knowledge and Knowledge Management (Small and Sage, 2005/2006). Nonaka
recognizes knowledge as a multidimensional concept (Nonaka, 1994); likewise
Davenport and Prusak (1998) recognize knowledge as something deeper and richer
than data or information. Bartol and Srivastava (2002) consider knowledge a broad
concept which "includes information, ideas and expertise relevant for tasks
performed by individuals, teams, work units and the organisation as a whole".
Despite different wordings, there is a common agreement among academics and
practitioners that knowledge is a vital resource for organizations' success. The late
Drucker (1999) states that most part of today's work is knowledge work. Knowledge
sharing practices coordinate organizational knowledge bases with knowledge
workers and vice versa (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Knowledge sharing takes place
when organizational members share organization-related information, ideas,
suggestions and expertise with each other (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002).
Besides, Pierce and Gardner (2004) suggested that an employee's organization-based
self-esteem (OBSE) has a great effect on his motivation, attitudes, and behaviors
within an organization. OBSE can be conceptualized as an employee's belief that he
can satisfy his needs by participating in an organizational role (Pierce, et al., 1989).
People with high OBSE will believe themselves to be important, capable, and
worthwhile as organizational members.
Another factor that seems to have a considerable impact on knowledge sharing is
organizational climate. To some practitioners, creating a knowledge sharing culture
is one of the main concerns when devising a KM program (Reid, 2003). Without a
proper atmosphere in organizations, other attempts to share knowledge might be
pointless. A meager social climate in an organization might lessen the level of
engagement in knowledge sharing (Van Den Hooff and Van Weenen, 2004). In
addition, the lack of an aspiring culture to communicate and explore new ideas may
become a major barrier to knowledge sharing (Sun and Scott, 2005). Concerned
about these kinds of setbacks, managers try to provide favorable climate for
knowledge sharing. In addition, managers play some other important roles: they
grant extrinsic rewards (Saleh and Wang, 1993; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Bock et al.,
2005). But even when organizations provide technological facilities and demand
employees to share their knowledge, in most cases, employees are the ones who
finally decide whether to share their knowledge (Constant et al., 1994). Although
motivation and expertise might account for individual participation in knowledge
sharing (Wang and Lai, 2006) it is not always easy to predict when and why
employees share their knowledge (Duguid, 2005). Thus, individual factors are also

among those key elements that need to be considered while studying knowledge
sharing behavior (Nonaka, 1994; Constant et al., 1994; Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000;
Bock et al., 2005; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Kuo and Young,
2008).

3. Research model
Since our focus was on knowledge sharing behavior, we developed our model based
on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) ((Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). This theory
implies that a person's intention is a key determiner of behaviour (Sheeran and
Orbell, 1999). Each of the TRA elements include attitude toward behavior, subjective
norms, behavioral intention.
Attitude toward a specific behavior is defined as a person's evaluation of that
behavior when deciding to perform it (Kim et al., 2009). Attitude toward knowledge
sharing can be predicted by evaluating employee's belief about knowledge sharing
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1970), furthermore the perceived consequences of knowledge
sharing can influence attitude toward this behavior (Chiou, 1998). Behavioral control
is the person's perception of the extent to which s/he has control over a specific
behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2005). People's knowledge sharing is affected by their
confidence in the opportunities and resources that enables them to share their
knowledge. Intentions are affected by the person's approval of distinctive norms;
thereby the person tends to adapt to norms and is rationally criticisable whenever
s/he ignores them (Bratman, 2009). In other words, intentions are formed by the
motivational factors that affect behavior; they are indicators of people's willingness
to try hard.

As Ajzen and Fishbein suggest it's possible to add some other behavior-specific
variables to the TRA; thus, we reinforced the TRA model by adding some other
factors that were considered as effective predictors by previous studies (Armitage
and Conner, 1999; Kankanhalli et al., 2005; Bock et al., 2005; Kuo and Young,
2008).
Many organizations have established reward systems in order to motivate employees
to share their knowledge (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Knowledge sharing is most
likely to occur when employees perceive that incentives exceed costs (Kelly and
Thibaut 1978). Rewards are likely to affect people's behavior (Homans, 1974).

Absence of clear reward and recognition systems may frustrate employees to share
their knowledge (Riege, 2005). Introducing a proper knowledge sharing incentive
system can promote organizational members' knowledge contribution (Chua, 2003).
Hence, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1: anticipated extrinsic reward has positive relationship with the attitude toward
knowledge sharing.
Social exchange differs from economic exchange in that its value is not defined
clearly. Organ and Konovsky (1989) remark social exchange establishes bonds of
friendship with others, and creates unspecified obligations. It means that the value of
social exchange lies in the maintenance of long-term relationships itself, and not
necessarily by any extrinsic benefit (Blau 1967). Reciprocity acts as a benefit because
it results in feelings of personal obligation, gratitude and trust. Furthermore,
individuals engage in knowledge sharing with the expectation that their future
knowledge needs and demands will be met by others (Wasko & Faraj, 2000;
Kankanhalli et al, 2005; Bock et al, 2005). Thus, individuals who believe that their
mutual relationships with other members can improve through their knowledge
sharing and through their desire for fairness and reciprocity (Huber 2001) that seem
to have positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing. This leads to the second
hypothesis:
H2: anticipated reciprocal relationship has positive relationship with attitude toward
knowledge sharing.
When we show our expertise or a particular kind of knowledge to others, we expect to
achieve recognition and respect resulting in improved self-concept (Constant et a,
1994; Hall, 2001). O'Dell and Grayson (1998) note we share our best practices
because of our desire to be recognized by experts and peers. This cognition is defined
as an individual's sense of self-worth from their knowledge-sharing behavior.
Perceived Self-worth Enhancement refers to the notion that if an individual believes
he/she could make contributions to the organization's performance. In a knowledgesharing context, self-efficacy has showed to be one of the main determinants in
forming optimistic attitude toward knowledge sharing (Ye et al., 2006). So the third
hypothesis is:
H3: sense of self-worth has positive relationship with attitude toward knowledge
sharing.

As people experience higher levels of self-expression and personal control, there is an

increased likelihood that the individual will attribute positive events to themselves,
thereby affecting their level of organization-based self-esteem. It could be argued
that as work environment structure decreases and personal control increases, people
will come to see themselves as capable of independent action and thereby develop a
sense of self-worth consistent with that personal image. Individuals who have
successful experiences and who attribute that success to themselves are more likely
to experience an increase in self-efficacy, which in turn and over time impacts OBSE
(Gardner & Pierce, 1998, 2001). Similarly, an individual who experiences failure and
attributes it to the self will eventually experience a diminution of self-esteem.
Employing self-consistency motivation, Korman (1970) hypothesized that "all other
things being equal, individuals will engage in and find satisfying those behavioral
roles which maximize their sense of cognitive balance or consistency". He predicted
that (a) "individuals will be motivated to perform on a task or job in a manner which
is consistent with the self-image with which they approach the task or job situation,"
and (b) "individuals will tend to choose and find most satisfying those jobs and task
roles which are consistent with their self-cognitions" (Korman, 1970: 32). This means
that people who have positive images of themselves will engage in behaviors, possess
attitudes and share knowledge that reinforce that positive image. Thus, we propose
the fourth hypothesis is:
H4: organization based self-esteem has positive relationship with attitude toward
knowledge sharing.
Organizational climate is also expected to directly influence individual's intentions to
share knowledge. Scholars in cross-cultural research argue that cultural factors such
as group conformity and face saving in a Confucian society can directly affect
intention (Bang et al. 2000; Tuten and Urban 1999). According to Schneider et al.
(1996), the climate of an organization results from the feeling of members; these
inferences are in turn built upon policies, practices, procedures and motives that
members face in organizations. In this regard, the main theme of an organization's
climate is the common discernment of its members' about the organization as a
whole (Ashkanasy, 2008). So we expect organizational climate to directly influence
employees' behavioral intentions to share knowledge. This leads to our fifth
hypothesis.

H5: organizational climate has positive relationship with knowledge sharing

intention.
Attitudes can be a mediator between personal factors and knowledge sharing
intention (De Vries et al., 2006). Attitudes influence an individual's evaluation of a
particular behavior (Blue et al., 2001). Attitude toward knowledge sharing has been
examined in a lot of previous studies (Bock et al., 2005; Lin and Lee, 2004). Attitude
toward a particular behavior can be seen as the degree to which a person has a
favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior and is reflected in
their sharing behaviors (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2000). Kolekofski and Heminger
(2003) also conclude that an important factor in explaining one's knowledge sharing
activities is his/her attitude. Similarly, Bock et al. (2005) reason that a positive
attitude toward knowledge sharing results in a positive intention to share knowledge.
In general, an individual will have a good attitude toward a given behavior if he/she
believes that it will lead to positive outcomes (Mykytyn and Harrison 1993).
Therefore, it suggests that people think about their decisions and the possible
outcomes before they decide to perform a particular behavior. Overall, According to
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), an individual's intention to engage in a behavior is
determined by his/her attitude toward that behavior, which leads to the sixth
hypothesis:
H6: attitude toward knowledge sharing has positive relationship with knowledge
sharing intention.
Fig.1. Research model

4. Research methodology
The sampling frame for this study consists of companies in Ho Chi Minh City and
Binh Duong Province (Vietnam). The primary means of data collection in this study
involves a mailed questionnaire survey of selected companies doing in Ho Chi Minh
City with a concentration on industrial organizations. The study draws a random
sample of 220 respondents working at administrative offices of organizations,
including local (Hoa Sen Group, Ha Tien 1, Viet Delta) in Ho Chi Minh City and
Binh Duong Province, one of the most dynamic economic centers of Vietnam and
South-East of Asia. In the case of this study, the data selection criterion was designed
to increase validity, rather than to ensure that the sample was representative of a
given population. Therefore, this study uses a purposive sample, which is most

desirable when certain important segments of the target population are intentionally
represented in the sample.
The questionnaire consists of two sections. First section contains items to measures
research model constructs by asking general questions about the real situation of
knowledge sharing in organizations. Second section of the survey is formed to get
information about respondent's profile. Most of items were adapted from the TRA
questionnaire designed by Ajzen (2002) together with applying in previous studies
mainly with a TRA context (Pierce et al., 1989; Blue et al., 2001; Bock et al., 2005; So
and Bolloju, 2005; Lin, 2007). To ensure content validity of the scales, these items
have to represent the concept about general statement. All times in questionnaire
were adopted by 7 point Likert scales and the respondents will rate as strongly agree
to strongly disagree.
A list of items for each of the structures is presented in the Appendix, Table A.
Anticipated extrinsic reward referred the degree of employee regarding receiving
organizational rewards for knowledge sharing activities (Bock et al. 2005, Kim & Lee
et al. 2006, Lu et al. 2006). Anticipated reciprocal relationship describes an
employee's perception about improving his/her mutual relationships through
knowledge sharing (Bock et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2006). Sense of self-worth reflects the
degree perception's employees regarding about their ability to valuable contributions
and criticality (Bock et al. 2005, Lu et al. 2006). Organization-based self-esteem is
defined as the degree to which an individual believes him/herself to be capable,
significant, and worthy as an organizational member (Pierce et al. 1989).
Organizational climate impacts the employee's positive or negative feeling on
organizational environment Bock et al. 2005, Sun & Scott (2005), Lu et al. 2006).
Attitude toward knowledge sharing is as a degree of employee's positive feeling about
sharing knowledge (Fishbein & Ajzen 1981, So & Bolloju 2005, Bock et al. 2005).
Intention to share knowledge is the degree of employee believes that one will engage
in the knowledge sharing activities (Fishbein & Ajzen 1981, So & Bolloju 2005, Bock
et al. 2005).
Table 1 Sample characteristics
Component
Category
Number

%
Gender
Men
Women
Missing value
67
37
0
35.6
64.4
0.0
Age
Under 25 years old
From 25 to 35 years old
From 36 to 45 years old
Over 45 years old
Missing value
55
46
3
0
0

52.9
44.2
2.9
0
0.0
Education Level
High school
University/College
Graduate
Others
Missing value
3
79
20
2
0
2.9
76
19.2
1.9
0.0
Monthly income

Under 2 million VND

2 to under 5 million VND
5 to 10 million VND
Over 10 million VND
Missing value
13
52
8
26
5
12.5
50
7.7
25
4.8
Working experience
Under 1 year
1 to under 2 years
2 to under 5 years
Over 5 years
Missing value
35

35
21
13
0
33.7
33.7
20.2
13.5
0.0
Department
Operating
Trading
Accounting
Others
Missing value
10
23
4
65
2
9.6
22.1

3.8
62.5
1.9
Field
Industry
Agriculture
Service
Others
Missing value
39
3
36
25
1
37.5
2.9
34.6
24
1

5. Data analysis and results

The research model shown in Fig. 1 was analyzed primarily using SEM, supported by
AMOS 16.0 software. The rst step involves the analysis of the measurement
model, while the second step tests the structural relationships among latent

constructs. The aim of the two-step approach is to assess the reliability and validity
of the measures before their use in the full model.
5.1. Measurement model validation
We performed conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the properties of the
measures addressing latent constructs. CFA indicated that the nal measurement
model satisfied level of fit 2/df = 1.201, GFI = .895, AGFI = .876, NFI = .842, CFI
= .969, and RMSEA = .044, as shown in Table 2. All the model-t indices exceed
the respective common acceptance levels indicated by previous research,
demonstrating that the measurement model exhibited a fairly good t with the
data collected.
The convergent validity was tested by assessing factor loadings should be
signicant and exceed 0.6, construct reliability should exceed 0.7(Hair et al., 1998)
and average variance extracted (AVE) by each construct should exceed 0.5 for all
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 5 shows the CFA results were highly
consistent with the relationships expected between the measured items and their
respective constructs. All the factor loadings for all items exceed the recommended
level of 0.6. Composite reliability (CR) was used to assess the internal consistency of
the measurement model. In our model the composite reliability of the constructs
ranged from .831 to .894 all exceeded the generally accepted value of 0.70. In
addition, the AVE ranged from 0.54 to 0.66. Hence, all three conditions for
convergent validity were met.
The discriminant validity of the scales was tested using the benchmark suggested by
Fornell and Larcker (1981). In this approach the AVE for each construct should be
higher than the squared correlation between the construct and all of the other
constructs. Table 4 shows that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant
validity. In summary, the measurement model demonstrated adequate and
sufcient reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity.
Table 2 Model t indices for CFA model
Model t indices
Measure model
Recommend

value
Chi-squares/degree of freedom (X2 /df)
1.201
<2
GFI
0.895
> 0.90
RMSEA
0.044
< 0.08
NFI
0.842
> 0.90
AGFI
0.876
> 0.90
CFI
0.969
> 0.90
5.2. Test of the structural model
All of the model-t indices of the structural model exceeded their respective
common acceptance levels. As shown in table 3, 2/df, GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, and
RMSEA all met satisfactory levels. We could conclude that measurement model ts

the data well and thus is able to explain the research hypotheses. The results of
hypotheses tests along with the path coefcients and their signicance values are
shown in Fig. 2. In factors effect on the attitude toward knowledge sharing included:
anticipated extrinsic reward, anticipated reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth,
organization based self-esteem respectively H1, H2, H3, H4. The results show that
H2, H3, H4 were supported, while H1 was not supported. It means anticipated
reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth, organization based self-esteem positively
inuenced attitude toward knowledge sharing, anticipated extrinsic rewards had no
signicant relationship with attitude toward knowledge sharing. Additionally
organizational climate and attitude toward knowledge sharing had positive
relationship with knowledge sharing intention.
Fig. 2. SEM analysis of research model. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Table 3 Results of structural model
Hypothesized path
S.E.
Path coefficient
P
H1
ATT <--- AER
.015
-.047
.056
Not Supported
H2
ATT <--- ARR
.044

.144
.002
Supported
H3
ATT <--- SENSE
.060
.437

***
Supported
H4
ATT <--- OBSE
.062
.431

***
Supported
H5
INT <--- ORG
.042
.886

***
Supported
H6

INT <--- ATT

.048
.094
.019
Supported
Table 4 Discriminant validity

Measure
AVE
AER
ARR
SENSE
OBSE
ORGC
ATT
INT
AER
0.66
1

ARR
0.63
(.004)b
1

0.066

SENSE
0.61
(.012)
(.292)
1

.108
.540

OBSE
0.61

(.027)
(.116)
(.295)
1

.165
.340
.543

ORGC
0.55
(.040)
(.373)
(.393)
(.141)
1


.200
.611
.627
.375

ATT
0.54
(.116)
(.219)
(.203)
(.329)
(.288)
1

.341
.468
.450
.574
.537


INT
0.57
(.018)
(.376)
(.460)
(.264)
(.226)
(.219)
1
.133
.613
.678
.514
.475
.468
a Average variance extracted (AVE) = (sum of squared standardized loading)/[(sum
of squared standardized loading) + (sum of indicator measurement error)]. Indicator
measurement error can be calculated as 1 - (standardized loading)2.
b Squared correlation
Anticipated extrinsic rewards
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
kkkkkkkkkkkkehavior. 0.852 0.66

AER1 .892
AER2 .778 8.330
AER3 .757 8.134
Anticipated reciprocal relationship 0.66 0.63
ARR2 .758
ARR3 .802 8.277
ARR4 .740 7.247
ARR5 .668 8.681
Sense of self-worth 0.894 0.61
SENSE1 .795
SENSE2 .720 9.834
SENSE3 .827 9.760
SENSE4 .832 7.339
SENSE5 . 786 9.242
Organization based self-esteem 0.852 0.61
OBSE1 .737
OBSE2 .739 8.124
OBSE3 .661 7.226
OBSE4 .761 10.519
OBSE5 .756 8.321
Organizational climate 0.886 0.55
ORGC1 .775

ORGC2 .776 10.737

ORGC3 .773 8.898
ORGC4 .815 9.504
ORGC5 .764 8.762
Attitude toward knowledge sharing 0.843 0.54
ATT1 .731
ATT3 .759 9.210
ATT4 .782 9.064
ATT5 .750 8.633
Intention to share knowledge 0.863 0.57
INT2 .759
INT3 .812 8.775
INT4 .785 9.513
INT5 .771 9.084
Construct and indicators Factor loading t-value Composite reliability AVETable5
Conrmatory factor analysis results of measurement model.

6. Discussion and conclusion

The study was found factors that are likely to positively influence knowledge sharing
behavior. Five potentially salient motivational factors (anticipated extrinsic reward,
anticipated reciprocal relationship, sense of self-worth, organization based selfesteem and organization climate) were found and applied as antecedents to the
constructs of TRA model. In this study was on the individual, that means every
respondent answered the survey represented their own perspective. The analysis of
research results adopt from the previous studies (Kuo and Young, 2008; Kimand
Lee, 2006; So and Bolloju, 2005; Blue et al., 2001). Base on the result of anticipated

extrinsic rewards; it is not significant towards attitude to share knowledge.

Therefore, this factor can be omitted.
Implications: The result of this study, when applying the model into Vietnam, there
appears some suitable motivated factors to encourage the employees to share
knowledge with the others. The managers can use the result as a reference to know
more about the factors that affect the intention to share knowledge for the employees
in Vietnam.
Contributions: This research focuses on studying factors influence on the intention to
share knowledge among the employees. So, this model can help them get profit from
the knowledge sharing among their employees through understanding clearly which
factors can be used to motivate the employees to share their valuable knowledge.
Beside that, the results of this research contribute directly to the body of knowledge
by adding to cumulative results of previous studies and the overall field of knowledge
sharing intention. The results also support the theoretical explanations of this
research field.
Limitations: There might have been some other factors that could affect knowledge
sharing behavior. These factors include demographic determinants such as age,
gender and natural barriers such as time and space. Field survey is limited within
employees and limited sample size. Moreover, this research was conducted with
respondents who are a part of Vietnam, therefore, with the same culture but could
not represent for the whole employees all over the country. Therefore, it is necessary
to increase the sample size for future study to generalize the results to the general
population of knowledge sharers.
Suggestions: Further study is suggested to be conducted in a more popular section of
the process to share knowledge between the managers to employees, the citizens and
the foreign in the companies because of the rapidly increasing number of foreign
companies investing in Vietnam. The findings are consistent with the cumulative
results from previous research and support theoretical explanations in the field.
Future researchers can be done to extend and test research's model and examine the
reasons behind the existing signicant and non-signicant relationships.
Furthermore, in this study we were noteworthy to mention that our ndings are
consistent with those of the studies carried out in countries in which cultures are
characterized with high levels of collectivism. Hence, we suggest that the type of
dominant culture might also be a factor that inuences knowledge sharing behavior
and can be a topic for future researches.

References
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. 2001. "Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues". MIS Quarterly,
25, 107-136.
Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (1996). "The team climate inventory: Development of
the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness." European Journal
of Work and Organizational Behavior, 19, p. 235-258.
Bartol, K.M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). "Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems". Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
9(1), 64-76.
Bock, G. W. & Kim Y.G. 2002. "Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study
of attitudes about knowledge sharing". Information Resources Management Journal,
14, 14-21.
Bose, R (2002). "Customer relationship management: key components for IT
success", Industrial Management & data systems, 102(2), 89-97.
Bowman, B. J. 2002, "Building knowledge management systems", Information
systems management, summer: 32-40.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975), "Beliefs, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research", Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1981), "On Construct Validity: A Critique of Miniard and
Cohen's Paper", Journals of Experimental Social Psychology (17), pp. 340-350.
Fuller JB, Barnett T, Hester K, Relyea C. "A social identity perspective on the
relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational
commitment". Journal of Social Psychology 2003;143(6):789-91.
Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. 1998. "Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the
organizational context". Group and Organization Management, 23(1): 48-70.
Gardner, D. G.,&Pierce, J. L. 2001. "Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the
organizational context: A replication". Journal of Management Systems, 13(4): 3148.

G.W. Bock and Y.G. Kim, "Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of
attitudes about knowledge sharing", Information Resource Management Journal
15(2) (2002) 14-21.
Hyoung, K. M., and Moon, S. P. "Effective Reward Systems for Knowledge Sharing,"
Knowledge Management Review (4:6), 2002, pp. 22-25.
Lee, J. 2003b. "An analysis of the antecedents of organization-based self-esteem in
two Korean banks". International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14:
1046-1066.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). "The knowledge creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation". New York: Oxford University Press.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. 1989. "Organizationbased self-esteem: Construct definition measurement and validation". Academy of
Management Journal, 32: 622-648.
Pierce, J. L. & Gardner, D. G. 2004. "Self-esteem within the work and organizational
context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem literature". Journal of
Management, 30 (5), 591-622.