Content uploaded by Manjit Singh Sandhu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Manjit Singh Sandhu on Dec 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Knowledge sharing among
public sector employees:
evidence from Malaysia
Manjit Singh Sandhu
Department of Management, School of Business, Monash University,
Sunway Campus, Malaysia
Kamal Kishore Jain
Indian Institute of Management, Indore, India, and
Ir Umi Kalthom bte Ahmad
Implementation Coordination Unit, Prime Minister’s Department,
Federal Government Administration Centre, Putrajaya, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to: identify the views of public sector employees
towards the importance of Knowledge Sharing (KS); identify the barriers to KS; and identify initiatives
that may encourage KS.
Design/methodology/approach – The design employed in this research was mainly descriptive in
nature. A survey-based methodology employing a research questionnaire was used to elicit the views
of public sector employees towards KS. A total of 320 questionnaires were randomly distributed and
170 were successfully collected, giving a response rate of 60 percent.
Findings – The results showed that the respondents were very positive in their views towards
“importance of KS” and they also strongly felt that knowledge was a source of competitive advantage.
However, they were of the view that the importance of knowledge sharing was not clearly
communicated and many of them were not sure whether KS strategy existed in their department. The
public sector employees also showed self-serving biases when it came to their willingness to share
knowledge compared with their perception of their colleagues’ willingness to share knowledge.
Respondents perceived organizational barriers as being more critical compared with individual
barriers. Main organizational barriers were lacking in IT systems and there was a lack of rewards and
recognition. Lack of time, lack of interaction and lack of interpersonal skills were identified as the main
individual barriers. The most favoured KS initiatives found in this study was use of e-mail systems;
inter-agency activities and use of information and communication technology (ICT) followed by
support from top management.
Research limitations/implications – The study is confined to the public sector and thus it cannot
be generalized to all organizations. The sample for this study is also limited to two public sector
departments: ICU (Implementation Coordination Unit) and PWD (Public Works Department) and thus
the views are strictly limited to these agencies. The findings from this study can be useful in
enhancing public policy towards effective management and implementation of KS programs.
Originality/value – Since there is limited research on KS in the public sector from developing and
emerging nations such as Malaysia, this empirical contribution will further enhance the theoretical
knowledge on KS in the public sector from a developing nation’s perspective. Second, this is one of the
few studies that examine views towards knowledge donating and knowledge receiving in the public
sector. This area needs the utmost attention, since it was found in this study that employees’ perceived
knowledge-sharing willingness (donating) may differ from colleagues’ perceived KS willingness
(knowledge receiving).
Keywords Knowledge management, Public administration
Paper type Research paper
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm
IJPSM
24,3
206
Received 10 September 2009
Revised 2 April 2010
Accepted 27 April 2010
International Journal of Public Sector
Management
Vol. 24 No. 3, 2011
pp. 206-226
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-3558
DOI 10.1108/09513551111121347
Introduction
Background to the study
Knowledge is being considered as one of the most important drivers of the economy
today and shall continue to be so in the years to come. Knowledge is continuously
generated throughout an organization. To be successful and remain competitive, firms
must ensure that knowledge is managed in the most effective manner. According to the
resource based view, firms can maintain and achieve sustainable competitive advantage
and earn superior profits if it owns and controls its tangible and intangible assets
(Wernerfelt, 1984, 1995). The management guru Peter Drucker had also acknowledged
knowledge as an important economic resource in an organization (Drucker, 1995). In his
viable system model, Beer (1985, 1990, 1995) stated that only those systems survive that
are adaptable. To make adaptation possible, organizations need intelligence – a
constant flow of knowledge. According to Senge (1990), a leading guru in the area of
organizational learning, an organization that facilitates knowledge sharing and learning
among its members will continuously transform into a learning organization. Recent
empirical research has proven the positive impact of knowledge management (KM) and
knowledge sharing (KS) on organizational effectiveness (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000;
Yang, 2007) and innovation capability (Lin, 2007). As organizations focus on leveraging
human capital in the face of tightening labor markets, employees are being encouraged
to disseminate their knowledge throughout their organizations, thereby abandoning
traditional competitive morays. In every organization, there are individuals who are
willing to share their knowledge, and there are those who prefer not to. Knowledge
creation and information management have become more vital. Thus, research in the
area of KM/KS has been growing exponentially over the past few years. A large focus of
the research has been in the area of KS behavior.
Research problem
A review of the literature revealed that most research on KS behavior is focused on
private organizations. For example, Lin and Lee (2004) examined the attitude of senior
managers towards KS in selected private firms in Taiwan. van den Hooff and de
Ridder (2004) covered private Dutch organizations. Yang (2004, 2007) focused on KS
behavior in the hotel industry in Taiwan. Voelpel and Han (2005) examined KS attitude
in private multinational firms in China. Ling et al. (2009) covered KS behavior in an
MNC in Malaysia. Considerable research has also been done on KS behavior among
students (Kwok and Gao, 2005; Connelly and Kelloway, 2003). One area that has not
received much attention is the public sector. There is dearth of research that covers KS
behavior in the public sector or government organizations (Willem and Buelens, 2007
and Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004b). The limited studies available are mostly
focused on KM and not KS (Syed-Ikhsan, 2004a, b; McAdam and Reid, 2000; Gorry,
2008). Most probably, this lack of interest is due to the non profit nature of public sector
firms and therefore there is no motivation to examine this issue. In recent years, public
sector has gone through rapid transformation from a traditional bureaucratic system to
one which is more market driven (Horton, 2003). To encourage greater autonomy,
public sector employees are now more empowered (Horton, 2003). Today, public sector
firms are known as knowledge based organizations (Willem and Buelens, 2007; Luen
and Al-Hawamdeh, 2001) since knowledge is their most vital asset. Public sector firms
emphasize on developing and providing knowledge services (Luen and Al-Hawamdeh,
Knowledge
sharing
207
2001). They play an important role in the development and provision of knowledge
services and should be the focal unit of analysis in KM and KS research. As knowledge
is a central resource of the government service, effective KS among employees is a
significant public management challenge for providing excellent government service
to constituencies at all levels. This study is an attempt to provide some insights into KS
behavior of public sector employees in an emerging economy such as Malaysia.
Specifically, the objectives of this study are to identify the views of public sector
employees towards:
.importance of KS;
.knowledge donating and knowledge receiving;
.barriers to KS; and
.initiatives to encourage KS.
Literature review
A review of theories on KM reveals that initial studies were focused on knowledge
transfer among subsidiaries of multinational firms and knowledge was seen as a vital
proprietary asset (Gupta and Govindarajan, 1991; Davidson, 1980, 1983). There were
also old theories that linked knowledge sharing to communication theory where the
sharing of knowledge was seen as a form of information exchange between
individuals in organizations (Shannon and Weaver, 1949, as cited in Cummings,
2003). In the twenty-first century, knowledge was referred to as a central part of
continuous learning in organizations which occurred through interaction among
employees. This eventually became known as part of what we today know as
Organization Learning Theory (Szulanski, 2000). One of the most important theories
in the field of KM was however developed by Nonaka (1994), which he termed as the
Dynamic Theory of Knowledge Creation. This theory provided a comprehensive
theoretical view on how to conceptualize the entire knowledge creation process which
later became known as the SECI model. Within the four modes (Socialization,
Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) KS played a vital role for all
knowledge conversions to succeed (Nonaka, 1994). Nonaka (1994) argued that the key
to the success of knowledge sharing was ultimately individual and organizational
commitment. Most research in the 90s also emphasized on the technological aspect of
KM where more focus was given on the KM systems (Gray, 2000). However, in the
last few years many organizations realized that technology is only an enabler and the
main success of KS lies in the hands of people. In other words, the focus of KS should
be more on the organizational members who are involved in the sharing of
knowledge. This research will focus on the public sector or to be more specific two
government agencies under the federal government:
(1) Public Works Department (PWD) under Ministry of Works; and
(2) Implementation Coordination Unit (ICU).
Knowledge and knowledge sharing
Knowledge can be classified into tacit and explicit (Nonaka, 1994). Explicit knowledge
is defined by Polanyi (1966, 1998) as knowledge that is formal, systematic and can be
codified into records, databases. Tacit knowledge on the other hand is defined as
knowledge that is personal, intangible and embedded in the cognitive minds of people
IJPSM
24,3
208
and is obtained through learning and experience (Polanyi, 1966, 1998). Such knowledge
can only be transferred by applying it (Choi and Lee, 2003). This knowledge is
therefore more difficult to retain since it is intangible and not available in records.
KS can be referred to as the process of capturing knowledge or moving knowledge
from a source unit to a recipient unit (Bircham-Connolly et al., 2005). Willem (2003) on
the other hand defines KS as exchange of knowledge between two parties in a
reciprocal process allowing reshape and sense making of the knowledge in the new
context. As researchers we would like to define knowledge sharing as transfer of
valuable facts, beliefs, perspectives, concepts learned through study, observation or
personal experience from knower to knowee. van den Hooff and de Ridder (2004)
further divide KS into:
.knowledge donating – one’s own view on one’s KS willingness; and
.knowledge receiving – one’s view on colleagues’ KS willingness.
This research will explore KS views based on these two dimensions.
Increasing trends in job hopping have made organizations realize the importance of
knowledge sharing among organizational members. Strack et al. (2008) argue that the
work force in most developed economies is steadily ageing and the retirement of this
workforce cohort represents the loss of crucial knowledge whose value to the
organization extends far beyond the worker’s individual position. Past findings on the
importance of KS in the public sector tend to be mix. A study conducted on views
towards importance of KS in an American manufacturing firm in Malaysia found that
75 percent of the respondents had positive views towards knowledge sharing (Ling
et al., 2009). However, more than 20 percent of the respondents indicated their
ignorance on the importance of KS. Another study in selected Malaysian universities
found that almost all the academic staff showed positive views towards importance of
KS (Jain et al., 2007). A comparison between public and private sector employees in
Ireland, found that respondents from the public sector were more positive in their
views on the importance of KS (McAdam and Reid, 2000). A study conducted in
Kuwait on the importance of KS found less satisfactory results. Only about half the
respondents were positive in their views on the importance of KS (Al-Athari and Zairi,
2001). With regards to views towards knowledge receiving and knowledge donating
previous empirical studies have shown mixed results. Jain et al. (2007) in their study
covering KS among academic staff in selected Malaysian universities found that self
serving biases exist whereby respondents tend to be very positive in their perception
towards knowledge donating and give a higher ranking when it comes to their
willingness to share knowledge. However, their perception was not that positive and
they gave a lower ranking when it came to knowledge receiving. Colleagues were
considered to be less willing to share knowledge. A large number of respondents did
not express their opinion explicitly.
KS barriers
Riege (2005) has classified KS barriers into three broad categories:
(1) individual;
(2) organizational; and
(3) technological.
Knowledge
sharing
209
Individual barriers refer to personal barriers such as lack of communication skills, lack
of social networks, differences in culture, lack of time, lack of trust, lack of motivation,
lack of awareness of the benefit of KS, lack of interaction, fear of not receiving
recognition (Riege, 2005; Jain et al., 2007; Ling et al., 2009). Senge (1997) argued that
“sharing of knowledge is not about giving people something or getting from them but
sharing occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another develop
new capacities for action”. Importance of trust and motivation as an antecedent of KS
has been widely highlighted in the literature by a number of authors (Newell and Swan,
2000; McEvily et al., 2003; Riege, 2005; Sondergaard et al., 2007). A survey covering
ninety different public sector firms in Belgium found a dominant positive effect of trust
on KS intensity and effectiveness (Willem and Buelens, 2007). Organisational barriers
are barriers that originate from the firm. Examples of such barriers are lack of rewards,
lack of support from top management, ineffective HRM practices, weak organizational
structure, inadequate infrastructure, poor organisational culture, office politics, lack of
KM/KS strategies, lack of formal and informal avenue to share knowledge, competition
between business units, lack of training etc. (Riege, 2005; Jain et al., 2007; Ling et al.,
2009).
Among the technology barriers highlighted (Riege, 2005) are lack of integration of
IT systems/processes, lack of technical support, lack of maintenance of integrated IT
systems, people’s reluctance to use IT systems and lack of training for familiarization
of IT systems and processes. Liebowitz and Chen (2003) in their empirical study on KS
issues in the public sector found the following barriers to KS: poor organization and
management, lack of KS culture, low motivation to share knowledge, bureaucratic
structure, and knowledge hoarding culture. Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland (2004b) in their
study on KM problems in the Malaysian public sector identified bureaucratic culture
and structure, poor communication channels, and political interference as major
barriers to knowledge sharing. Lack of technology was a major barrier to KS in the
public sector (McAdam and Reid, 2000). Gorry (2008) who conducted two case studies
on KS in the public sector in the USA found that inadequate technology and lack of
institutional commitment (lack of leadership and top management support) as main
barriers to KS. Gorry further found from the case studies that public sector firms are
loosely organized and this creates a stumbling block to the creation of KS culture.
KS initiatives
Some of the popular KS initiatives employed in today’s knowledge based organisations
and discussed in the literature are story telling (Snowden, 2000), communities of
practice (Lesser and Fontaine, 2004), knowledge networks (Lincoln et al., 1992), reward
systems (Lee and Ahn, 2007), intranets (Stoddart, 2001), building trust (Fisman and
Khanna, 1999; Cheng et al., 2008). Research conducted in an American multinational in
Malaysia found that the most effective method to promote KS is to link it with rewards
and performance appraisal followed by top management support (Ling et al., 2009).
However, non monetary reward was perceived as less effective in the same survey.
Another similar research conducted among academic staff in academic institutions in
Malaysia found similar results. The top three strategies advocated were support from
top management, linking KS with rewards and performance appraisal and using
newsletters to disseminate information ( Jain et al., 2007). Research conducted in the
public sector in Belgium found that trust, informal systems such as meetings and
IJPSM
24,3
210
personal network and incentives were important factors that can encourage KS
(Willem and Buelens, 2007). Another study covering both the public and private sector
in Ireland found that although initiatives such as workshops, discussion forums,
training needs analysis and face-to-face communication were used to encourage KS,
these were not used effectively (McAdam and Reid, 2000).
Methodology
The research design employed in this research was mainly descriptive in nature. A
survey based methodology was employed through questionnaires to elicit the views of
public sector employees towards KS. The sample used for this research comprised of
public service executives from Grade 41 and above from the headquarters of both ICU
(a non-technical department), Prime Ministers Department at Putrajaya
(Administrative city) and PWD, Kuala Lumpur, the technical arm of the
Government. ICU is an administrative department while PWD is the largest
technical department in the Malaysian civil service.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. Section A consisted of questions
(items) eliciting demographic and personal background information. Section B
consisted of 11 questions (items) designed to ascertain general views towards the
following:
.importance of KS and awareness of the benefit of KS;
.existence of KS initiatives;
.employees willingness to share knowledge (knowledge donating); and
.colleagues’ willingness to share knowledge (knowledge collecting).
Section C consisted of 15 questions (items) eliciting views towards KS barriers. Section
D consisted of 17 questions eliciting views of respondents towards type of KS
initiatives that should be promoted. The data was collected on a five point Likert scale
where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5 represented “strongly agree”. The
measures were mainly adapted from past literature (Riege, 2005; Jain et al., 2007; Ling
et al., 2009). The questionnaire was also pre-tested in terms of elucidation, clarity and
intents by circulating it to a few members of the Infrastructure Section, ICU in order to
ascertain its construal level. The move was also to incorporate changes, amendments
and any useful suggestions. Improvement and modification including rephrasing and
rewording were done based on the feedback obtained. Therefore, it is well-founded to
regard that the data collected was reliable. To reduce social desirability bias, the
survey was conducted using the “anonymous self administration” approach whereby
personal employment information and job position details were not asked. This is to
ensure the person does not feel directly or personally involved in the answers given
and to ascertain neutrality, detachment and reassurance. 320 questionnaires were
distributed randomly and 170 were successfully collected giving a response rate of 60
percent. The use of random sampling in the survey helped reduce voluntary response
biases that are normally inherent when respondents are self selected volunteers. To
further reduce bias towards positive responses or answers which may result in
common method error variance, we conducted factor analysis as suggested by
Podsakoff et al. (2003) to find out if items will load only into one factor. Our results of
factor analysis showed that there were more than one factor (barriers, initiatives and
Knowledge
sharing
211
general views towards KS) which indicate that common method variance error does no
arise in the data.
Reliability analysis
To ensure stability and consistency of the data collected, reliability test was conducted.
The survey instrument was pre-tested to ensure reliability by distributing it to a few
staff members to determine the understandability of the items and to make useful
suggestions. Pilot testing was conducted among 30 employees to further fine tune and
make adjustments and eliminate questions that were not appropriate. Cronbach alpha
reliability coefficient values were then calculated. The results of the Cronbach alpha
values are reported in Table I. The Cronbach alpha values for all the sections were
more than 0.7 indicating high internal consistency.
Results
Respondents’ profile and background information
The demographic profile of the respondents is given in Table II which is
self-explanatory.
General views towards KS
General views of respondents on various aspects of KS are given in Table III. It can be
observed from this table that a whopping 79.4 percent of respondents (strongly agree)
consider that “knowledge is the most important factor to a delivery system”. When
“agree” and “strongly agree” responses are taken together, we find that almost 97
percent of respondents think that “KS is important for a successful delivery system”
and that “KS will enable the department to have a competitive advantage”. As
Respondents’ profile Classification Frequency %
Gender Male 107 62.9
Female 63 37.1
Race Malay 166 97.6
Chinese 4 2.40
Age 20-30 35 20.6
31-40 14 8.20
41-50 71 41.8
51-60 50 29.4
Note: n¼170
Table II.
Demographic profiles of
respondents
Description Number of statements Cronbach’s alpha
Items related to the general views towards
knowledge sharing 11 0.885
Statements related to the barriers to knowledge
sharing 15 0.870
Statements related to views towards knowledge-
sharing initiatives 17 0.873
Table I.
Reliability analysis
IJPSM
24,3
212
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Items n%n%n%n%n% Mean SD
1. I think knowledge is the most important
factor for a delivery system
9 5.3 0 2 1.2 24 14.1 135 79.4 4.62 0.948
2. I think KS is important for a successful
delivery system
4 2.4 0 1 0.6 61 35.9 104 61.2 4.54 0.739
3. I think that the importance of KS is clearly
communicated
4 2.4 14 8.2 37 21.8 102 60.0 13 7.6 3.62 0.835
4. KS will enable the department to have a
competitive advantage
0 0 3 1.8 91 53.5 76 44.7 4.43 0.531
5. There is growing awareness of the benefit of
KS in my organization/department
0 2 1.2 40 23.5 126 74.1 2 1.2 3.75 0.484
Table III.
General views towards KS
Knowledge
sharing
213
compared to this the response to “importance of KS is clearly communicated” and
“there is growing awareness on the benefits of KS in my organization/department” was
much below: 67.6 and 75.3 percent respectively
Views towards existence of KS strategy and culture
Respondents were asked to give their views on two statements as given in Table IV.
Although most respondents felt that there exists a clear KS strategy in their
organization and there prevails KS culture in the organization/department, a large
number were also indecisive.
Views towards knowledge donating and knowledge receiving
Views on knowledge donating. Employees were asked whether they were willing to
share knowledge related to their work. Response was very positive where 97 percent
stated “agree” and “strongly agree”. To another similar statement whether they were
willing to share ideas and knowledge outside their scope of work, the response was
again very positive with 96 percent stating “agree” and “strongly agree”. The mean
values for these two statements were 4.27 and 4.21 respectively. This shows that
employees are willing to share knowledge with others and this bodes well for the
department’s KS initiates.
Views on knowledge receiving. The mean value for two statements under this
category ‘my colleagues are willing to share information related to work with me’ and
“my colleagues are willing to exchange ideas and knowledge outside the scope of work
with me” was 3.93 and 3.73 respectively, which is less than mean value of two items
under knowledge donating. It seems to be a case of self serving bias. The results on
views towards knowledge donating and knowledge receiving are depicted in Table V.
Views on barriers to KS
Views on barriers to KS were divided into organizational barriers and individual
barriers to enhance its meaningfulness.
Organisational barriers. There were seven statements (items) that measured
organizational barriers to KS. These barriers are arranged in descending order of their
mean value. Highest mean value indicates the strongest barrier to KS as perceived by
the respondents. It can be observed that “inadequate IT systems and processes in the
department discourage KS” and “lack of reward and recognition system to motivate
KS” figure as the two top most barriers under this category. The results on views
towards organizational barriers towards KS are depicted in Table VI.
Individual barriers. There were eight statements (items) that measured individual
barriers to KS. The highest individual barrier was “general lack of time to share
knowledge”. The second highest individual barrier was ‘lack of interactions between
those who can provide and those who need knowledge’. “Lack of trust among
personnel in the department” was not viewed as a strong barrier. Almost 50 percent of
the respondents did not agree with the statement that there is general lack of trust
among personnel in the department. The second lowest barrier was “difficult to
convince colleagues on the values and benefits of the knowledge I may possess”. The
results on views towards individual barriers towards KS are shown in Table VII.
IJPSM
24,3
214
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Items n%n%n%n% Mean SD
1. The department has a KS culture 0 10 5.9 45 26.5 97 57.1 18 10.6 3.73 0.730
2. There exists a clear KS strategy in my organization/
department
0 12 7.1 70 41.2 82 48.2 6 3.5 3.48 0.681
Table IV.
Views towards existence
of KS strategy
Knowledge
sharing
215
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Items n%n%n%n%n% Mean SD
1. I am willing to share knowledge related to work
when required by my colleagues
4 2.4 0 10 0.6 105 61.8 60 35.3 4.276 0.705
2. I am willing to exchange ideas and knowledge
outside the scope of work with my colleagues
4 2.4 0 3 1.80 112 65.9 51 30.0 4.212 0.698
3. My colleagues are willing to share information
related to work with me
0 0 31 18.2 119 70.0 20 11.8 3.935 0.546
4. My colleagues are willing to exchange ideas and
knowledge outside the scope of work with me
0 1 0.60 61 35.9 90 52.9 18 10.6 3.735 0.649
Table V.
Views towards
knowledge donating and
knowledge receiving
IJPSM
24,3
216
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Items n%n%n%n%n% Mean Rank
Organisational barriers
1. Inadequate IT systems and processes in the
department discourage KS
0 6 3.5 12 7.1 136 80.0 16 9.4 3.953 1
2. There is a lack of reward and recognition system to
motivate KS
2 1.2 8 4.7 61 35.9 77 45.3 22 12.9 3.641 2
3. There is no system to identify colleagues to share
knowledge
6 3.5 40 23.5 29 17.1 94 55.3 1 0.6 3.259 3
4. Physical work environment and layout of work areas
restrict effective KS
7 4.1 31 18.2 67 39.4 62 36.5 3 1.8 3.135 4
5. There is a lack of formal and informal activities to
instil KS in the department
2 1.2 25 14.7 81 47.6 58 34.1 4 2.4 3.218 5
6. The existing departmental culture does not support
KS sufficiently
21 12.4 54 31.8 49 28.8 42 24.7 4 2.4 2.729 6
7. Retention of highly skilled and experienced staff is
not a priority
33 19.4 66 38.8 33 19.4 27 15.9 11 6.5 2.512 7
Table VI.
View towards
organizational barriers to
knowledge sharing
Knowledge
sharing
217
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Items n%n%n%n%n% Mean Rank
Individual barriers
1. There is a general lack of time to share knowledge 2 1.2 27 15.9 48 28.2 71 41.8 22 12.9 3.494 1
2. There is a lack of interactions between those who can
provide and those who need knowledge
15 8.8 46 27.1 32 18.8 70 41.2 7 4.1 3.047 2
3. Staff does not share knowledge due to poor
communication and interpersonal skills
7 4.1 43 25.3 57 33.5 49 28.8 14 8.2 3.118 3
4. The status fear restricts staff from seeking
knowledge from their immediate superiors and peers
0 52 30.6 57 33.5 58 34.1 3 1.8 3.071 4
5. The reluctance regarding KS is due to the perception
of the loss of power if knowledge is shared
1 0.6 88 51.8 20 11.8 61 35.9 0 2.828 5
6. The fear that undue credits are being accorded to
undeserving parties creates deterrent to KS
6 3.5 31 18.2 78 45.9 51 30.0 4 2.4 3.094 6
7. It is difficult to convince colleagues of the values and
benefits of the knowledge I may possess
0 72 42.4 45 26.5 53 31.2 0 2.888 7
8. There is a general lack of trust among personnel in
the department
9 5.3 76 44.7 47 27.6 37 21.8 1 0.6 2.676 8
Table VII.
View towards individual
barriers to knowledge
sharing
IJPSM
24,3
218
Views on KS initiatives
There were 17 statements (items) that measured public sector employee’s views
towards KS initiatives. These were ranked to ascertain the highest proposed KS
initiative. The main KS initiatives proposed were use of email system; inter agency
activities, use of ICT, top management support and adoption of KS activities in
monthly departmental activities. More than 70 percent of the respondents stated
“agree” and “strongly agree” to the statement that KS can be encouraged if it is linked
to rewards. Close to 30 percent of respondents were also not supportive of linking KS
initiatives to performance appraisal. The results on views towards KS initiatives are
depicted in Table VIII.
Discussion
KS is considered to be very important in the public sector as is evident from the survey.
Respondents were also very positive when asked whether KS can enhance competitive
advantage. It shows consistency in their views. The views of public sector employees
were much more positive as compared to similar studies conducted in Malaysia ( Jain
et al., 2007; Ling et al., 2009) and in Kuwait where only 50 percent were positive
(Al-Athari and Zairi, 2001). It was a cause of concern when quite a large number of
respondents (more than 30 percent) were not very sure (indecisive and disagreed) that
KS culture existed in the department. In fact many (about 50 percent) were also not
sure whether KS strategy existed. This reflects that there is a scope for improvement in
government policies trying to create KS culture in the public sector..
When it came to views towards knowledge receiving and donating, the public sector
employees showed self serving biases. They were very positive (almost all) when asked
about their willingness to share knowledge (knowledge donating) within their job
scope and outside their job scope. This finding supported a similar study conducted
among academic staff in Malaysian universities (Jain et al., 2007). With regards to their
perception towards their colleague’s willingness to share knowledge, the views were
although positive but smaller in percentage (only 80 percent were positive). Eighteen
percent were indecisive indicating reservation or lack of trust towards their colleagues.
It is interesting to highlight that the respondents perceived that their colleagues are
less willing to share knowledge when it came to knowledge that is outside their job
scope. Furthermore a large number were also indecisive (36 percent) again indicating
lack of trust or “knowledge is power” syndrome.
Regarding barriers to KS, public sector employees perceived organizational barriers
as more critical as compared to individual barriers based on the ranking and mean
values obtained. The main organizational barriers were lack of IT systems and lack of
rewards and recognition. This finding supported similar studies conducted in the
public sector where technology was found to be a major obstacle to KS (Gorry, 2008;
McAdam and Reid, 2000; Ling et al., 2007; Jain et al., 2007). The main individual
barriers were lack of time, lack of interaction and lack of interpersonal skills. Lack of
time was also found to be one of the main barriers in the study conducted in an
Amercian MNC in Malaysia and among academic staff in Malaysian universities (Ling
et al., 2009; Jain et al., 2007). However, it is interesting to note that, lack of trust was not
seen as a critical barrier among the public sector employees. It was ranked the lowest
among all individual barriers. This clearly contradicts the findings from the study
conducted in the American MNC in Malaysia where trust was found to be the major
Knowledge
sharing
219
Strongly
disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
agree
Statements n%n%n%n%n% Mean Rank
1. The organizational/departmental e-mail system should
be used for knowledge of significance to staff
0 0 1 0.6 117 68.8 52 30.6 4.300 1
2. Inter-agencies activities can encourage and enhance KS
efforts
0 1 0.6 1 0.6 141 82.9 27 15.9 4.141 2
3. Make use of ICT to induce KS activities as monthly or
regular programs
0 0 4 2.4 125 73.5 41 24.1 4.218 3
4. The top management should welcome and consider KS-
related suggestions and activities from the staff
4 2.4 0 1 0.6 86 50.6 79 46.5 4.388 4
5. The top management should be willing to accept and
make changes through KS activities
4 2.4 0 1 0.6 97 57.1 68 40.0 4.324 5
6. KS activities should be included in the monthly
departmental or organizational activities
0 0 5 2.9 124 73.5 40 23.5 4.206 6
7. KS activities should be openly supported by the top
management
4 2.4 0 1 0.6 84 49.4 81 47.6 4.400 7
8. Staff should be encouraged to put forward their
suggestions on KS-related activities
0 0 9 5.3 113 66.5 48 28.2 4.229 8
9. KS culture is possible if the top management openly
emphasizes and encourages the importance of
knowledge
5 2.9 1 0.6 5 2.9 90 52.9 69 40.6 4.276 9
10. Regular publications and similar tools are useful in KS
efforts among the staff
2 1.2 7 4.1 5 2.9 115 67.6 41 24.1 4.094 10
11. KS can be improved if technology is also improved 0 8 4.7 13 7.6 122 71.8 27 15.9 3.988 11
12. KS can be encouraged if it is linked with the
performance appraisal of the staff
6 3.5 7 4.1 16 9.4 103 60.6 38 22.4 3.941 12
13. Regular KS campaigns should be organized periodically 0 1 0.6 29 17.1 101 59.4 39 22.9 4.047 13
14. KS can be successfully implemented if clearly linked
with rewards and some forms of remuneration
2 1.2 2 1.2 36 21.2 99 58.2 31 18.2 3.912 14
15. KS can be encouraged if there is a designated knowledge
officer in the department
6 3.5 21 12.4 23 13.5 105 61.8 15 8.8 3.600 15
16. Non-monetary rewards, e.g. recognition and
appreciations, are more effective in encouraging KS
6 3.5 11 6.5 35 20.6 98 57.6 20 11.8 3.677 16
17. Knowledge repositories (database) must exist in my
organization/department
6 3.5 15 8.8 39 22.9 102 60.0 8 4.7 3.535 17
Table VIII.
Views towards KS
initiatives
IJPSM
24,3
220
barriers among its staff (Ling et al., 2009) and another study among public employees
in Belgium (Willem and Buelens, 2007). This auger well for public sector employees
and it will be easier to implement policies in the future.
The most favoured KS initiatives found in this study was use of email systems; inter
agency activities and use of ICT followed by support from top management. This
shows that in the public sector, technological systems are important tools to enhance
KS among employees. This is also consistent with their views that lack of IT systems
is a major barrier to KS. The most favoured initiative was linking KS to rewards and
performance appraisal. This was not surprising since MNCs are more naturally
focusing on competiveness and it is a culture to link work outcomes to rewards and
appraisal.
Implication to theory
This research has a couple of theoretical contributions. First, there is limited research
on KS in the public sector from developing and emerging nations such as Malaysia.
This empirical contribution will enhance further the theoretical knowledge on KS in the
public sector from a developing nation. Second, this is one of the few studies that
examine views towards knowledge donating and knowledge receiving in the public
sector. This area need utmost attention since it was found in this study that employees’
perceived KS willingness (donating) may differ from perceived colleagues’ KS
willingness (knowledge receiving). This can be attributed to lack of positive
environment that enhances KS within departments, teams or organization. The
willingness to share knowledge can also be influenced by whether the knowledge is
work related and non work related. Employees were more willing to share knowledge
when it is work related and are quite reluctant to share knowledge if it is non work
related. This conforms to “knowledge is power syndrome”. Third, this research has
contributed further to the identification of KS barriers and KS initiatives in the public
sector from a fast developing nation.
Implication to practice
The findings from this study can be useful to enhance public policy towards effective
management and implementation of KS programs. It is clear from this study that KS
initiatives must be clearly communicated in the organization so that all public sector
employees are aware on its importance and usefulness.
Conclusion
Most public sector organizations in Malaysia, until few years ago, operated in a highly
protected environment. As the process of economic liberalization began it became
difficult for these enterprises to compete and sustain with those organizations who
operated on efficiency rather than on bureaucracy. A new approach to public
management became mandatory. This new public management approach requires
increasing teamwork, limiting the number of rules, and obtaining more value-driven
management and decentralization in public sector organizations. Being successful only
on the basis of “know how” has become difficult. Public sector organizations now need
to have knowledge about “know what”, “know where”, “know if”, “know when”, and
‘know why’. This entire set of knowledge will never be available with one individual. It
is only by sharing each other’s knowledge that an organization can think of being
Knowledge
sharing
221
successful. It is interesting to discover that the employees in the public sector are aware
of this fact. However, a whole range of barriers may exist in the organization that may
discourage people to share knowledge. Public sector organizations need to take up
studies that may help them identify knowledge sharing barriers that exist in their
workplace and take appropriate measures to overcome them. Human resource
management can play a key role in an organization’s endeavor to achieve this
objective. If a company really needs to benefit from knowledge sharing, it needs to
align its human resource practices and processes in such a way that knowledge
sharing becomes a part of the organizational culture. Corporate education, performance
management, reward system, recruitment practices, and career planning can be
designed in a way that encourages people to share their knowledge.
Future research direction
Future research should focus on group related barrier since a large amount of work in
the public sector is conducted in teams. There is dearth of research focusing on KS
barriers in teams. Future research on KS in the public sector should also examine its
impact on work related outcomes such as efficiency, productivity, commitment,
performance etc. There is little research that examines impact of KS on organizational
outcomes in the public sector.
Research limitations
This research has its own limitations. First, in spite of every care being taken in
designing the survey instrument as per the best research methodology practices, the
wording of the questions might have influenced the responses. Second, the study is
confined to the public sector and thus it cannot be generalized to all organizations.
Third, the sample for this study is also limited to two public sector departments (ICU
and PWD) and thus the views are strictly limited to these agencies and cannot be
generalized to all public sector staff.
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.
Beer, S. (1985), Diagnosing the Systems for Organizations, Wiley, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1990), The Brain of the Firm, Wiley, Chichester.
Beer, S. (1995), The Heart of Enterprise, Wiley, Chichester.
Bircham-Connolly, H., Corner, J. and Bowden, S. (2005), “An empirical study of the impact of
question structure on recipient attitude during knowledge sharing”, Electronic Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Cheng, J.H., Yeh, C.H. and Tu, C.W. (2008), “Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply
chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 283-95.
Choi, B. and Lee, B. (2003), “An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate
performance”, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 403-17.
Connelly,C.E.andKelloway,E.K.(2003),“Predictorsofemployees’perceptionsof
knowledge-sharing cultures”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24
No. 5, pp. 294-301.
IJPSM
24,3
222
Cummings, J. (2003), “Knowledge sharing: a review of the literature”, Operation Evaluation
Department Working Paper, World Bank, available at: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/oed/
oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaSearch/D9E389E7414BE9DE85256DC600572CA0/
$file/knowledge_eval_literature_review.pdf (accessed February 21, 2008).
Davidson, W.H. (1980), “The location of foreign direct investment activity: country
characteristics and the theory of the firm”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 9-22.
Davidson, W.H. (1983), “Structure and performance of international technology transfer”, Journal
of Management Studies, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 453-66.
Drucker, P.E. (1995), “The information executives truly need”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73
No. 1, pp. 54-62.
Fisman, R. and Khanna, T. (1999), “Is trust a historical residue? Information flows and trust
levels”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 79-92.
Gorry, G.A. (2008), “Sharing knowledge in the public sector: two case studies”, Knowledge
Management Research and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 105-11.
Gray, P.H. (2000), “The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: towards a
research model”, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 2/3, pp. 175-91.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991), “Knowledge flows and the structure of control within
multinational corporations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 768-92.
Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000), “Knowledge management’s social dimension: lessons
from Nucor Steel”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 71-80.
Horton, S. (2003), “Participation and involvement – democratisation of new public management”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 403-11.
Jain, K.K., Sandhu, M.M. and Sidhu, G. (2007), “Knowledge sharing among academic staff: a case
study among business schools in Klang Valley, Malaysia”, Journal for the Advancement of
Arts and Science, 2 January, pp. 23-9.
Kwok, S.H. and Gao, S. (2005), “Attitude towards knowledge-sharing behavior”, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, Winter, pp. 45-51.
Lee, D.J. and Ahn, J.H. (2007), “Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing”,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 180 No. 2, pp. 938-56.
Lesser, E.L. and Fontaine, M.A. (2004), “Overcoming knowledge barriers with communities of
practice: lessons learned through practical experience”, in Hildreth, P.M. and Kimble, C.
(Eds), Knowledge Networks: Innovation through Communities of Practice, Idea Group
Publications, Hershey, PA, pp. 14-23.
Liebowitz, J. and Chen, Y. (2003), “Knowledge-sharing proficiencies: the key to knowledge
management”, in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management 1:
Knowledge Matter, Vol. 1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 409-24.
Lin, H. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 Nos 3/4, pp. 315-32.
Lin, H.F. and Lee, G.G. (2004), “Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing
behaviour”, Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 108-25.
Lincoln, J.R., Gerlach, M. and Takahashi, P. (1992), “Keiretsu networks in the Japanese economy:
a dyad analysis of intercorporate ties”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 561-85.
Knowledge
sharing
223
Ling, C.W., Sandhu, M.S. and Jain, K.K. (2009), “Knowledge sharing in an American
multinational company based in Malaysia”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 125-42.
Luen, T.W. and Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001), “Knowledge management in the public sector:
principles and practices in policy work”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 311-18.
McAdam, R. and Reid, R. (2000), “A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use
of knowledge management”, Journal of European Training, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 317-29.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. (2003), “Trust as an organizing principle”, Organization
Science, No. 14, pp. 91-103.
Newell, S. and Swan, J. (2000), “Trust and inter-organizational networking”, Human Relations,
No. 53, pp. 1287-327.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Polanyi, M. (1998), “The tacit dimension”, in Prusak, L. (Ed.), Knowledge in Organization,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA.
Riege, A. (2005), “Three dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization,
Currency Doubleday, New York, NY.
Senge, P.M. (1997), “Sharing knowledge”, Executive Excellent, Vol. 14 No. 11, p. 17.
Snowden, D. (2000), “The art and science of story or ‘Are you sitting uncomfortably?’”, Business
Information Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 215-26.
Sondergaard, S., Kerr, M. and Clegg, C. (2007), “Sharing knowledge: contextualizing
socio-technical thinking and practice”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 423-35.
Stoddart, L. (2001), “Managing intranets to encourage knowledge sharing: opportunities and
constraints”, Online Information Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Strack, R., Baier, J. and Fahlander, A. (2008), “Managing demographic risk”, Harvard Business
Review, February.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004a), “Benchmarking knowledge management in a public
organization in Malaysia”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 238-66.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O. and Rowland, F. (2004b), “Knowledge management in a public organization:
a study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of
knowledge transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 95-111.
Szulanski, G. (2000), “The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 9-27.
IJPSM
24,3
224
van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-30.
Voelpel, S.C. and Han, Z. (2005), “Managing knowledge sharing in China: the case of Siemens
ShareNet”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 51-63.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wernerfelt, B. (1995), “The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 171-5.
Willem, A. (2003), “The role of organization specific integration mechanisms in inter-unit
knowledge sharing”, PhD dissertation, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Ghent
University, available at: http://72.14.203.104/search?q¼cache:AwAf_ok1x7UJ:www.
ofenhandwerk.com/oklc/pdf
Willem, A. and Buelens, M. (2007), “Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: the effect
of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing”, Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 581-606.
Yang, J. (2004), “Job-related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 118-26.
Yang, J. (2007), “The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 83-90.
Further reading
Nonaka, I. (1991), “The knowledge-creating company”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 6,
pp. 96-111.
About the authors
Manjit Singh Sandhu joined Monash University Malaysian campus in 2007. Prior to this he was
the head of the Centre for Teaching and Learning and a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Business
Administration, Tun Abdul Razak University, Malaysia. His research interest spans a wide
variety of topics such as knowledge economics/knowledge sharing, foreign direct investment,
e-banking, competitive advantage of firms, economics of entrepreneurship, leadership, e-learning
etc. Some of his research papers have been published in refereed journals such as Journal of
Workplace Learning,New England Journal of Entrepreneurship,Knowledge Management Review
(UK),Malaysian Journal of Distance Education (USM),Malaysian Journal of Educational
Technology,Asian Journal of Distance Education,Journal of Contemporary Management
Research,Journal for the Advancement of Science and Arts and Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship
and Sustainability. He actively participates in international conferences and has presented papers
in Indonesia (2002), Oman (2003) Turkey (2006) and Romania (2008). Manjit Singh Sandhu is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: manjit.singh@buseco.monash.edu.my
Kamal Kishore Jain is currently a Professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Indore
(India). Prior to this he was a Professor and Deputy Dean (Research and Graduate Studies) in the
Faculty of Business Administration, University Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR), Malaysia. Before
joining UNITAR, he was chairing the Department of Business Administration, St John’s College,
Agra (India). He did his graduation and postgraduation from St John’s College, Agra (India). He
was awarded PhD degree by Agra University in 1983. During his teaching span of over 30 years,
he has taught at Christ Church College, Kanpur (India), St John’s College, Agra (India), and
UNITAR (Malaysia). He is actively involved in research, training, and consultancy. He takes
Knowledge
sharing
225
regular MDPs on themes like stress management, team building, conflict resolution, negotiation,
personality development, leadership etc. He has about 40 publications to his credit in the national
and international journals and his bio-data have been included in Reference Asia – Asia’s Who Is
Who of Men and Women of Achievement, and Trainers and Training Institutions – Who Is Who.
He has presented research papers in many national and international conferences. His paper
“Relationship between psychological characteristics and entrepreneurial inclination” was given
outstanding paper award at IBBC Conference held at Sarawak, Malaysia in December 2006. He
got Unitar’s President Award for his meritorious contribution to the University in January 2007.
His research interest is in the area of e-learning, leadership, HRD, and organizational
development and change.
Ir Umi Kalthom bte Ahmad graduated with an MBA from Universiti Tun Abdul Razak,
Malaysia in 2008. She is currently the Deputy Director of the Implementation and Coordination
unit at the Prime Minister’s Department Federal Government Administration Centre. She has
been in the public sector for more than 25 years.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
IJPSM
24,3
226
