a learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation

Human Systems Management 25 (2006) 227–236 227IOS Press

A learning organization perspective onknowledge-sharing behavior and firminnovation

Li-Fen LiaoChing Yun University, Department of Information Management, No. 229, Chien-Hsin Rd., Jung-Li, Taoyuan 320,Taiwan R.O.C.Tel.: +886 3 4581196 #7311; Fax: +886 3 4683904; E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Sharing knowledge and firm innovation are the crucial ways to sustain competitive advantage. This study builds anested model to test the relationship between learning organization, knowledge-sharing behavior, and firm innovation.

Data gathered from 254 employees were used to examine the relationship of the learning organization to employees’knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation. The results indicate that open-mindedness, shared vision and trust have posi-tive effects on both knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation. While commitment to learning does not shows significantrelationship on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation. Communication has significance on firm innovation but notsignificance on knowledge-sharing behavior.

Keywords: Commitment to learning, firm innovation, knowledge-sharing, openmindedness, shared vision

Li-Fen Liao earned her PhD degree atthe University of Chengchi in Taiwan;she is an assistant professor of infor-mation and management at Ching YunUniversity in Taiwan. Her current re-search interests include knowledge shar-ing, firm innovation and business man-agement.

1. Introduction

Nowadays knowledge is one of the key successfulfactors for sustaining competitive advantage, especial-ly in high knowledge-intensive company. Knowledgehas become the most precious property of company.

However, sharing knowledge in company is not anofficial task. How to encourage employee especiallyknowledge-intensive workers to share their experi-ences and knowledge is a crucial way to keep the com-pany in the competitive position.

Learning organization embodies the degree to whichfirm are committed to systematically challenging thefundamental beliefs and practices. A learning cultureencourages organizations to question not only the in-formation they process but also whether their particu-lar approach to innovation is applicable [4].

The objectives of this study are: (1) Does em-ployee’s knowledge-sharing behavior impact on firminnovation; (2) Does learning organization has influ-ence on employee’s knowledge-sharing behavior; and(3) Do learning organization have direct impact on firminnovation.

This paper is organized into six sections. Follow-ing this introduction is a literature review of theknowledge-sharing, learning organization, and firm in-novation. Then, we describe the research model andformulate an empirical model for testing. In Section 4,we present the analysis and findings obtained by thestructural equation modeling method. In Section 5, wediscuss the significance of the findings and implica-tions. Finally, we conclude the paper with a discussionof this paper’s contributions and suggestions for futureresearch.

0167-2533/06/$17.00 2006 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

228 L.-F. Liao / A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation

2. Literature review

2.1. Knowledge-sharing

The competitive advantage of a corporate lies in itsknowledge, the knowledge within its employees, theknowledge built into its structure and systems [25].Knowledge that resides within an individual is referredto as tacit knowledge, which is hard to verbalize andcodify. And knowledge that can be articulated and putinto print is explicit knowledge. In an organization,rules and guidelines expressed in codified form is onekind of explicit knowledge [31].

Knowledge sharing is the activity dependent on theinteraction and communication between individualsand business units. The success of knowledge shar-ing depends on the amount and quality of interactionbetween the employees, and the willingness and abil-ity of using knowledge [25]. Organization can encour-age employees’ interaction and future to share theirknowledge by policy [18]. Managers should seriouslyconcern their objectives with organization’s goal, thentranslate these objectives into technical and researchgoals and promote to employees [16].

2.2. Learning organization

Learning organization refers to organization-wideactivity of creating and using knowledge to enhancecompetitive advantage [8]. Organizational learningmeans the process of improving actions through betterknowledge and understanding [14]. Learning capabil-ity involve the development of the capacity to assimi-late existing and problem-solving skills representing acapacity to create new knowledge [10].

Learning orientation is an organizational character-istic which reflects the value that a firm places not onlyquickly response to the environmental change but con-stantly challenges the assumptions that frame the orga-nization’s relationship with the environment [4].

The values of organizational learning capabilities re-volve around its (1) commitment to learning, (2) open-mindedness, and (3) shared vision [4,8]. In addition tothese three dimensions, to encourage learning, organi-zation must provide good communication channel andthe feel of trust.

Organizational learning is not simply the sum ofeach employee’s learning, although organizational learn-ing occurs though individuals. Organizations do notpossess a brain, but they have cognitive systems andmemories. Learning enables organizations to build un-derstanding and interpretation of their environment andto assess viable strategy [14].

2.3. Firm innovation

Innovation is defined as the generation, acceptance,and implementation of new ideas, processes, products,or services [35]. Amabile et al. defined innovation asthe successful implementation of creative ideas withinorganization [1]. The process of firm innovation in-volves the acquisition, dissemination, and use of newknowledge [8].

Innovation is a means of changing an organization,whether the change to the response is in its internal orexternal environment or as a preemptive action takento influence an environment [12]. Successful innova-tion requires an active and highly sophisticated coordi-nation of the efforts of a number of key members [13].

Hurley and Hult [20] indicated that organizationalinnovativeness can be conceptualized as an aspect oforganizational culture that precedes innovation. If themembers of an organization are willing to adopt newideas and actions in the organization, the organizationis openness to the innovation.

3. Research model

Figure 1 illustrates the research model. In this study,learning organization contains five dimensions includ-ing commitment to learning, open-mindedness, sharedvision, communication, and trust. The models were de-scribed in Table 1.

Knowledge sharing is the behavior of diffusing one’sowned knowledge with other members within one’s or-ganization. How to share knowledge to create value-added benefits is the main focus of an organization[26,34]. Knowledge is often critical to the innovationprocess.

The ability to exploit external knowledge is a criticalcomponent of innovative capabilities. Thus, prior re-lated knowledge gives the ability to recognize the valueof new information, assimilate it and apply it [10].Sharing information and knowledge about customerneeds, market changes, competitor actions, and tech-nology evolution could superior to competitors.

Innovation seems to have become a major deter-minant for long-term success. Innovative firm createunique products, structures, or operations. To realizethe unique functions, a diversity of knowledge andability is required [29]. Therefore, the first hypothesisis,

H1: Employee’s knowledge-sharing behavior ispositive to firm innovation.

L.-F. Liao / A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation 229

Fig. 1. Research model.

Table 1

Summary of theoretical models

Model 1: Path from Learning Organization to Knowledge-Sharing and Knowledge-Sharing to Firm Innovation

Model 2: Path from Learning Organization to Firm Innovation

Huber [19] defined organizational learning is thedevelopment of new knowledge or insights that havethe potential to influence behavior [19]. Innovation isthe implementation of new ideas, products or proces-ses [35]. Being oriented toward learning indicates anappreciation for and desire to assimilate new ideas.Consequently, organization learning is conceptualizedas the antecedents to knowledge-sharing and innova-tion [20].

Commitment to learning is likely to foster a learningclimate. It is the degree that company values and pro-mote learning [8]. Companies that committed to learn-ing pay much attention to the cause and effects of theiractions and detect and correct errors in use [4]. Com-panies though learning is an important investment andcrucial for survival [8].

Open-mindedness is linked to unlearn. Unlearn isthe heart of change. Firms proactively question long-held routines, assumptions, and beliefs [4]. Therefore,open-mindedness is the willingness to critically evalu-ate the organization’s operational routine, assumption,beliefs and accept new ideas [8].

Shared vision is that it is universally known, under-stood, and used in a manner that gives the organizationa sense of purpose and direction [4]. Without a sharedvision, learning by individual of a company is less to bemeaningful. With shared vision, individuals are muchlikely to shared dominant logics (business goal or mis-

sion) or desire outcome (e.g., sales, R&D capability,high production rate). Therefore, a clear direction oflearning is to form a firm’s strength or competence [8].

Communication plays an important role to over-come the resistance to innovation and to reduce uncer-tainty. Enhanced communication quality is positivelyrelated to innovation because members with a broaderawareness of the consequences and implications of aninnovation are more likely to facilitate it. Communi-cation can break down barriers to innovation causedby fear or lack of knowledge [22]. If employees havehigher degree of interdependence to cooperate withothers, then they are more likely to share informationbecause of self-interest and reciprocity [11].

Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to bevulnerable to the actions of another party, with the ex-pectation that the other will perform a particular ac-tion important to the trustor, irrespective of the abilityto monitor or control that other party” [5,28]. In socialrelationships, trust reduces complexity and Blau [6]considers trust essential for stable social relationships.When employees trust their supervisors, they may haveconfidence in that they can achieve better long-run out-comes with cooperative behavior [32]. Interpersonaltrust is fundamental to all social situations that demandcooperation and interdependence [23]. Successful co-operation requires the existence of a climate in whichemployee feel safe in displaying proactive behavior.


Accordingly, a climate of trust and support has beenlinked to firm innovation [3].

Organizational learning is associated with the devel-opment of new knowledge, which is crucial for firminnovation capability and firm performance [8]. There-fore, the second and third hypotheses are,

H2: Learning Organization is positively relatedwith knowledge-sharing behavior

H2a: Organization’s commitment to learning ispositive to knowledge-sharing behavior.H2b: Organization’s open-mindedness is posi-tive to knowledge-sharing behavior.H2c: Organization’s shared vision is positiveto knowledge-sharing behavior.H2d: Communication is positive to knowledge-sharing behavior.H2e: Trust is positive to knowledge-sharing be-havior.

H3: Learning Organization is positively relatedwith firm innovation.

H3a: Organization’s commitment to learning ispositive to firm innovation.H3b: Organization’s open-mindedness is posi-tive to firm innovation.H3c: Organization’s shared vision is positiveto firm innovation.H3d: Communication is positive to firm inno-vation.H3e: Trust is positive to firm innovation.

4. Research methodology

4.1. Procedure

The survey is distributed in eight computer relatedmanufacturing companies in Taiwan. Questionnaireswere mailed to the eight companies. Then each depart-ment dispatches to their employees.

4.2. Sample

The subjects are the employees in the eight com-puter manufacturing companies. Since this study ex-amines the organizational learning, knowledge-sharingbehavior, and firm innovation, the subjects would beanyone working in the companies. With 400 question-naires distributed, there were 271 responses received,the response rate is 67.75%. Out of the 271 responses,

Table 2

Descriptive statistics of subjects

count Percentage

Gender Male 149 58.7%Female 105 41.3%

Education High School 7 2.7%Background University 177 69.7%

Master 68 26.7%PhD 2 0.8%

Age Less 29 years 103 40.5%30–39 years 136 53.5%40–49 years 13 5.2%50–59 years 2 0.8%

None Manager 180 70.9%Low Level Manager 46 18.1%

Manager Middle Level Manager 26 10.2%High Level Manager 2 0.8%

General Management 28 11.0%Sales/Marketing 39 15.4%R&D 83 32.7%

Responsibility Finance 15 5.9%Information System 46 18.1%Human Resource 3 1.2%Manufacturing 22 8.7%Others 18 7.1%

seventeen responses were eliminated due to incompletedata or in regular answers. Consequently, there werethe adjusted 254 responses obtained for use in the finalanalysis of the study. Table 2 depicted the basic back-ground of subjects. The subjects are 58.7% of male and41.3% of female.

4.3. Measures

Learning organization. Learning orientation refers toenhance organizational competitive advantage by cre-ating and using knowledge through organization-wideactivity [8]. Values that are associated with the organi-zation’s learning capabilities include the three dimen-sions: commitment to learning, open-mindedness, andshared vision [4,8]. Besides, the supporting environ-ment for learning is important. Therefore, this studyadded two dimensions for learning organization: com-munication and trust.

Commitment to learning considers learning is an im-portant investment that is crucial for survival. Open-mindedness is the willingness to critically evaluate theorganization’s operational routine to accept new ideas,and shared vision refers to an organization-wide fo-cus on learning. Items for commitment to learning,open-mindedness, and shared vision are adopted from


Calantone et al. [8] and which items are revised fromBaker and Sinkula [4]. Items for communication andtrust are adopted from [36].

Knowledge-sharing behavior. Knowledge-sharing be-havior is regarded as the degree to which employeesactually share their knowledge with their colleaguesfor professional tasks. The test items for knowledge-sharing behavior are revised from Bock and Kim [7].

Firm Innovativeness. Firm innovation was measuredby a four-item scale which adopted from Calantoneet al. [8]. The items developed by Calantone et al. [8]were drawn from prior researches and it was well val-idate by many studies. The items are listed in the Ap-pendix.

5. Results

To assess the two Models this study followed a two-step procedure using confirmatory factor analysis andstructural equation modeling [2]. LISREL 8.52 andSPSS 10.0 were used to perform these analyses. Be-cause the research model having large numbers of vari-ables often result in fit difficulties and neither the sam-ple was large, this study combined respective scaleitems. For purposes of uniformity, items were com-bined so that there were three indicators for each latentvariable.

5.1. Data analysis

To assess the relationships between learning organi-zation, knowledge-sharing and firm innovation, a two-step procedure was used to test the nested model [2].The test of the measurement model includes inter-nal consistency and the convergent and discriminatevalidity of the instrument items. Convergent validityis assessed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)and Maximum Likelihood (ML) Estimation. Table 3

presents the results of descriptive statistics and confir-matory factor analysis. Composite reliability and vari-ance extraction are the tests for unidimensionality ofa construct. The composite alpha is 0.8112–0.93642,which is higher than 0.7, thus satisfying Nunnaly’s cri-teria. For variance extraction, the acceptance level is50% [15]. The estimations of variance extracted rangefrom 58.51% to 83.975%, which exceeds the recom-mended value.

The test of discriminate validity is used to checkon multicollinearity. Thus, a measure should correlatewith all measures of the same construct more highlythan any measures in other constructs [9]. Table 4 dis-plays the highest correlation 0.7344 is between com-mitment to learning and shared vision, while the othercorrelations range from 0.2416 to 0.7195. Althoughseveral variables showed significant correlations, theirtolerance values ranged from 0.621 to 0.957, indicat-ing that multicollinearity is not a likely threat to theparameter estimates [17].

Before assessing the structural or measurementmodel, we examine the overall fit of the model toensure model adequacy. There are three types ofgoodness-of-fit measurement: absolute fit measures,incremental fit measures and parsimonious fit mea-sures [17,33]. Absolute fit measures assess the over-all model fit with no adjustment for overfitting. Incre-mental fit measures compare the proposed model toa NULL model. Parsimonious fit measures adjust themeasures of fit to compare models with different num-bers of coefficients and determine the fit achieved byeach coefficient [17].

Table 5 represents the results of goodness-of-fitmeasurements. Goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are ab-solute fit measures. The GFI value is 0.86 in Model 1which is higher than 0.8. The GFI value is 0.79 inModel 2 which is less than 0.8, but still at a marginalacceptance level. The value of RMSEA for Model 1 is

Table 3

Descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis

Variables Mean SD Composite Variancereliability extraction %

Commitment to learning 2.26 0.72 0.8937 76.231%Open mindedness 2.65 0.71 0.8611 70.848%Shared vision 2.45 0.79 0.9364 83.975%Communication 2.68 0.720 0.8797 69.536%Trust 2.37 0.78 0.8389 73.584%Knowledge Sharing 2.42 0.528 0.8112 58.510%Firm innovation 2.57 0.80 0.9137 79.826%


Table 4

Interrelation among variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Commitment to learning 1.0002. Open-mindedness 0.5742 1.0003. Shared Vision 0.7344 0.6462 1.0004. Communication 0.5422 0.5739 0.6772 1.0005. Trust 0.4473 0.3312 0.5542 0.5678 1.0006. Knowledge-sharing 0.3268 0.3711 0.3616 0.2434 0.2705 1.0007. Firm innovation 0.5298 0.6096 0.7195 0.5712 0.3894 0.2416 1.000

Table 5

Goodness-of-fit measurement table

Model GFI RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI IFI

Model 1 0.86 0.043 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93

Model 2 0.79 0.039 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.94

0.043, and of Model 2 is 0.039, both of them are lessthan 0.08, satisfying the criteria of 0.08.

Normed fit index (NFI) and Non-normed fit index(NNFI) are incremental fit measures. Both NFI andNNFI indices for Model 1 are 0.92, and for Model 2 are0.93 which are higher than 0.9, indicating that the in-cremental fit measurement reaches an acceptable level.Comparative fit index (CFI) and Incremental fit index(IFI) are parsimonious fit measures. Both CFI and IFIin Model 1 are 0.93, and Model 2 are 0.94, higherthan 0.9. The overall model fit tests indicate that Model1 and Model 2 are relatively adequate to represent theproposed relationships.

A model is said to be nested within another modelwhen its set of freely estimated parameters is a sub-set of those estimated in the model [2]. To assess thenested models, first is to assess the pseudo chi-squarevalue for goodness-of-fit of structural model. The chi-square value for most saturated model Ms (smallestpossible value for any structural model, in our caseis Model 2) is 342.69 with the degrees of freedom ofNULL Model (largest number of degrees of freedomfor any structural model) is 210. The pseudo-statisticis not significant; therefore, the structural model is ac-ceptable.

The sequential chi-square difference test (SCDT)compares the relative fit of the nested models. The testsneeds to make a comparison of chi-square values andassociated degrees of freedom of two models, one ismore restricted than the other. If the chi-square differ-ence test is not significant, it would be interpreted asthe more restricted model fitting the data as well as theless restricted one [2,30].

The results of sequential chi-square difference testof the two nested models (Model 1 and Model 2) reach

Table 6

Sequential chi-square difference test table

Model χ2 Df ∆χ2 ∆df

Model 1 462.92 173

Model 2 342.69 169 120.23 4

NULL 5203.69 210

statistical significance (∆χ2 = 120.23, df = 4, P �0.05) and are listed in Table 6. These findings indicatethat Model 2 does not fit the data as well as Model 1.

5.2. Hypothesis test

The standardized path coefficients for Model 1and Model 2 are depicted in Table 7. According toModel 1, Firm innovation is explained 64% of vari-ance by knowledge-sharing. Knowledge-sharing be-havior (β = 0.80; T = 4.64; P < 0.01) has pos-itive influence on firm innovation which support H1.Knowledge-sharing behavior is associated with the fivedimensions of learning organization, which togetherexplain 92% of the variance. The learning organizationof open-mindedness (β = 0.38; T = 3.10; P < 0.01),shared vision (β = 0.65; T = 3.40; P < 0.01),and trust (β = 0.58; T = 4.97; P < 0.01) have di-rect and positive effect on knowledge-sharing behaviorwhich support H2b, H2c, and H2e. However, commit-ment to learning (β = −0.072; T = −0.74; P � 0.05)and communication (β = −0.019; T = −0.22; P �0.05) have no significant relationship with knowledge-sharing behavior.

In Model 2, firm innovation is associated with thefive dimensions of learning organization, which to-gether explain 61% of the variance. Among the di-mensions of learning organization, open-mindedness(β = 0.26; T = 3.05; P < 0.01), shared vision(β = 0.59; T = 4.87; P < 0.01), communica-tion (β = 0.32; T = 2.64; P < 0.01), and trust(β = 0.19; T = 2.52; P < 0.01) have significant in-fluence on firm innovation. However, commitment tolearning (β = −0.090; T = −1.08; P � 0.05) does


Table 7

Standardized path coefficients for Model 1 and Model 2

Path Model 1 Model 2

→ β T β T

Commitment to learning K.S. −0.072 −0.74Open mindedness K.S. 0.38 3.10∗∗Shared vision K.S. 0.65 3.40∗∗Communication K.S. −0.019 −0.22Trust K.S. 0.58 4.97∗∗Commitment to learning Firm innovation −0.090 −1.08Open mindedness Firm innovation 0.26 3.05∗∗Shared vision Firm innovation 0.59 4.87∗∗Communication Firm innovation 0.32 2.64∗∗Trust Firm innovation 0.19 2.52∗∗K.S. Firm innovation 0.80 4.64∗∗

Fig. 2. The SEM results for Model 1.

not show significant relationship with firm innovation.Figure 2 illustrates the SEM results for Model 1 andFig. 3 represents the results of Model 2, where the dot-ted line indicates no significant relationship.

6. Discussion

The results point out that knowledge-sharing behav-ior has positive relationship with firm innovation. Theattitude towards information sharing is not only af-fected by an individual’s rational self-interest, but alsoaffected by organizational culture and policies [11].

Successful innovation requires an active and highly so-phisticated coordination of the efforts of a number ofkey members [13].

The results of Model 1 indicated that open-minded-ness, shared vision, and trust indeed have significantimpact on knowledge-sharing behavior. The results ofModel 2 depicted that open-mindedness, shared vision,communication, and trust have significant influenceson firm innovation. Therefore, open-mindedness,shared vision, and trust have direct effects on bothknowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation.

Open-mindedness is the willingness to criticallyevaluate the organization’s operational routine, assump-


Fig. 3. The SEM result for Model 2.

tion, beliefs and accept new ideas [8]. It challenges thebelief, assumption and routine that rooted in the orga-nization. Therefore, it provides the changing environ-ment for exchanging knowledge and the ideas of inno-vation.

Shared vision is to establish the purpose and direc-tion accepted by a whole company. With the same goalor direction, employees could move on the expecteddestination. Members would study the same topics orshare their experience and knowledge in the same goaland could come out new ideas.

Trust is fundamental for all social situations that de-mand cooperation and interdependence [21]. Owing tothe lack of explicit rules and regulations, people haveto rely on trust in the cooperative behaviors to justifytheir expected benefits from the exchange [6,27]. Trustis a key element in the emergence and maintenance ofsocial exchange relationships [24]. Therefore, trust isthe prerequisite for knowledge-sharing and firm inno-vation.

Communication is an important factor in firm in-novation. Innovativeness is an aspect of a firm’s cul-ture which is the notion of openness to new ideas [20].However, communication does not show a signifi-cant relationship on knowledge-sharing behavior. Priorstudy depicted that knowledge-sharing is the activitydependent on the interaction and communication be-tween individuals and business units. The success of

knowledge sharing depends on the amount and qual-ity of interaction between the employees, and the will-ingness and ability of using knowledge [25]. There-fore, interaction and communication with individualsand business unit may be just general talk, not sharingtheir experience or knowledge unless they are willing-ness and with the ability to share their knowledge.

Commitment to learning is not significant in bothknowledge-sharing and firm innovation. Commitmentto learning is trying to create a learning environment.Top manager though learning is a kind of investmentinstead of expense. However, in the result it does notshow that commitment to learning has positive relationon knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation.The problem maybe that top managers commit learn-ing is an important job but actually they do not reallyimplement it in organization.

7. Conclusion

There are some contributions of this study. The firstis that this study tries to find out the dimensions oflearning organization which possibly impact on firminnovation and knowledge-sharing behavior. The sec-ond is that this study examines the influence of knowl-edge sharing behavior to firm innovation. The third isthat this study find out expect commitment to learn-


ing, other four dimensions (open-mindedness, sharedvision, communication, and trust) have significant in-fluence on knowledge-sharing behavior; three dimen-sions (open-mindedness, shared vision, and trust) havesignificant effects on firm innovation.

Since this study has a number of limitations, fur-ther study is needed. First, this study is limited inthe companies of computer industry in Taiwan. Thecharacteristics of the companies in computer indus-try may different from other industry. Therefore, fur-ther research could replica this study in other field.The second limitation is in the dimensions of learn-ing organizational. There maybe have other dimen-sions to describe a learning organization. Using othervariables may be good to probe the cause-and-effectof knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation.Third, the result shows that commitment to learninghas no influence on both knowledge-sharing behaviorand firm innovation. This could be verified by other in-dustry or location.

Appendix.

Commitment to Learning [8]

1. Managers basically agree that our business unit’sability to learn is the key to our competitive ad-vantage.

2. The basic values of this organization includelearning as key to improvement.

3. The sense around here is that employee learningis an investment, not expense.

4. Learning in my organization is seen as a keycommodity.

Open-Mindedness [8]

1. We are not afraid to reflect critically on the sharedassumptions we have made about our customers.

2. Personnel in this enterprise realize that the veryway they perceive the marketplace must be con-tinually questioned.

3. We always collectively question our own biasabout the way we interpret customer information.

4. We continually judge the quality of our decisionsand activities taken over time.

Shared Vision [8]

1. There is a commonality of purpose in my organi-zation.

2. There is total agreement on our organizational vi-sion across all levels, functions, and divisions.

3. All employees are committed to the goals of thisorganization.

4. Employees view themselves as partners in chart-ing the direction of the organization.

Communication [36]

1. Management here does a good job of communi-cating with employees.

2. This organization gives praise and recognitionfor outstanding performance.

3. There is good communication between depart-ments in this organization.

4. Around here, conflicts are resolved to the satis-faction of those concerned.

Trust [36]

1. My supervisor shows complete trust in employ-ees’ ability to perform their job well.

2. I feel free to discuss problems or negative feel-ings with my supervisor.

3. Within reason, people in this organization can saywhat they want without fear of punishment.

Knowledge Sharing [7]

1. I often provide the knowledge from company’straining program or further education to our teammembers.

2. I often provide my personal working experienceand knowledge to our team members.

3. I often provide company’s data, for exampletechnical reports and manuals, to other teammembers.

Firm Innovativeness [8]

1. Our company frequently tries out new ideas.2. Our company seeks out new ways to do things.3. Our company is creative in its methods of opera-

tion.4. Our new product introduction has increased over

the last 5 years.


References

[1] T.M. Amabile, R. Conti, H. Coon, J. Lazenby and M. Her-ron, Assessing the work environment for creativity, Academyof Management Journal 39 (1996), 54–84.

[2] J.C. Anderson and D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation mod-elling in practice: A review and recommended two-step ap-proach, Psychological Bulletin 103(3) (1988), 411–423.

[3] M. Baer and M. Frese, Innovation is not enough: Climatesfor initiative and pshcyological safety, process innovations,and firm performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(2003), 45–68.

[4] W.E. Baker and J.M. Sinkula, The synergistic effect of mar-ket orientation and learning orientation on organizational per-formance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4)(1999), 411–427.

[5] R. Bhattacharya and T.M. Devinney, A formal model of trustbased on outcomes, Academy of Management Review 23(3)(1998), 459–472.

[6] P.M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley &Sons, New York, 1964.

[7] G.W. Bock and Y. Kim, Breaking the myths of rewards: An ex-ploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing, Informa-tion Resources Management Journal 15(2) (2002), 14–21.

[8] R.J. Calcantone, S.T. Cavusgil and Y. Zhao, Learning orienta-tion, firm innovation capability, and firm performance, Indus-trial Marketing Management 31 (2002), 515–524.

[9] W.W. Chin, The partial least squares approach to structuralequation modeling, in: Modern Methods for Business Re-search, G.A. Marcoulides, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295–336.

[10] W.M. Cohen and D.A. Levinthal, Absortpive capacity: A newperspective on learning and innovation, Administrative ScienceQuarterly 30 (1990), 128–152.

[11] D. Constant, S. Keisler and Sproull, What’s mine is ours, or isit? A study of attitudes about information sharing, InformationSystems Research 5(4) (1994), 400–421.

[12] F. Damanpour, Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis ofeffects of determinants and moderators, Academy of Manage-ment Journal 34(3) (1991), 555–590.

[13] D.S. Elenkov and I.M. Manev, Top management leadershipand influence on innovation: The role of sociocultural context,Journal of Management 31(3) (2005), 381–402.

[14] C.M. Fiol and M.A. Lyles, Organizational learning, Academyof Management Review 10(4) (1985), 803–813.

[15] C. Fornell and D.F. Larcker, Structural equation models withunobservable variables and measurement errors, Journal ofMarketing Research 18(2) (1981), 39–50.

[16] L.F. Frederiksen, S. Hemlin and K. Husted, The role of knowl-edge management in R&D: A survey of danish R&D leaders’perceptions and beliefs, International Journal of TechnologyManagement 28(7/8) (2004), 820–839.

[17] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black, Multi-variate Data Analysis with Reading, Prentice Hall, 1995.

[18] H. Hall, Input-friendliness: Motivating knowledge sharingacross intranets, Journal of Information Science 27(3) (2001),139–146.

[19] G.P. Huber, Organizational learning: The contributingprocesses and the literatures, Organization Science 2 (1991),88–115.

[20] R.F. Hurley, G. Hult and M. Tomas, Innovation, market orienta-tion, and organizational learning: An integration and empiricalexamination, Journal of Marketing 62 (1998), 42–54.

[21] G. John, A.M. Weiss and S. Dutta, Marketing in technology-intensive markets: Toward a conceptual framework, Journal ofMarketing 63 (1999), 78–91.

[22] D.J. Johnson, M.E. Meyer, J.M. Berkowitz, C.T. Ethington andV.D. Miller, Testing two contrasting structural models of in-novativeness in a contractual network, Human CommunicationResearch 24(2) (1997), 320–348.

[23] C. Johnson-George and W.C. Swap, Measurement of specificinterpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to as-sess trust in a specific other, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 43(6) (1982), 1306–1317.

[24] M.A. Konovsky, Citizenship behavior and social exchange,Academy of Management Journal 37(3) (1994), 656–669.

[25] K. Lagerstrom and M. Andersson, Creating and sharing knowl-edge within a transactional team – the development of a globalbusiness system, Journal of World Business 38 (2003), 84–95.

[26] J. Liebowitz and I. Megbolugbe, A set of frameworks to aid theproject manager in conceptualizing and implementing knowl-edge management initiatives, International Journal of ProjectManagement 21 (2003), 189–198.

[27] X. Luo, Trust production and privacy concerns on the Internet:A framework based on relationship marketing and social ex-change theory, Industrial Marketing Management 31 (2002),111–118.

[28] R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman, An integrativemodel of organizational trust, Academy of Management Review20(3) (1995), 709–734.

[29] E. Molleman and M. Broekhuis, Sociotechnical systems: To-wards an organizational learning approach, Journal of Engi-neering and Technology Managmenet 18 (2001), 271–294.

[30] K.W. Mossholder, N. Bennett, E.R. Kemery and M.A. Weso-lowski, Relationships between bases of power and work reac-tions: The mediational role of procedural justice, Journal ofManagement 24(4) (1998), 533–552.

[31] I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-creating Company,Oxford University Press Inc., 1995.

[32] S.N. Ramaswami, S.S. Srinivasan and S.A. Gorton, Informa-tion asymmetry between salesperson and supervisor: postulatesfrom agency and social exchange theories, Journal of PersonalSelling & Sales Management 17(3) (1997), 29–50.

[33] Y. Reisinger and L. Turner, Structural equation modeling withlisrel: Application in tourism, Tourism Management 20 (1999),71–88.

[34] S. Ryu, S.H. Ho and I. Han, Knowledge sharing behavior ofphysicians in hospitals, Expert System 25 (2003), 113–122.

[35] V.A. Thompson, Bureaucracy and innovation, AdministrationScience Quarterly 5 (1965), 1–20.

[36] G. Zeitz, R. Johannesson, J. Ritchie and J.R. Edgar, An em-ployee survey measuring total quality management practicesand culture, Group & Organization Management 22(4) (1997),414–444.

a learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation

Documents