Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study

Abstract

Knowledge sharing is an important aspect of knowledge management that contributes to enhancing organizational learning to face competition. This paper tries to explore and analyze the relationship between different variables like information technology infrastructure, supportive organizational policies, knowledge sharing motivation, knowledge sharing practices and ongoing organizational learning. Data was collected using a questionnaire from 59 employees of Orange Company, a major telecommunication company in Jordan, and was analyzed using descriptive and multiple regression techniques. The results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between knowledge sharing practices and ongoing organizational learning. Firms need to emphasize the role of organizational learning in sustaining competitive advantage and furnish needed tools to encourage knowledge management practices. It is vital for organizations to set up an environment for social interaction as a means for knowledge sharing.

Full text

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
38
Author’s Copy
Knowledge Sharing Practices and the
Learning Organization: A Study
© 2014 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
Emad Abu-Shanab*, Maram Haddad** and Michael B Knight***
Knowledge sharing is an important aspect of knowledge management that contributes to enhancing
organizational learning to face competition. This paper tries to explore and analyze the relationship
between different variables like information technology infrastructure, supportive organizational policies,
knowledge sharing motivation, knowledge sharing practices and ongoing organizational learning. Data
was collected using a questionnaire from 59 employees of Orange Company, a major telecommunication
company in Jordan, and was analyzed using descriptive and multiple regression techniques. The results
indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between knowledge sharing practices and ongoing
organizational learning. Firms need to emphasize the role of organizational learning in sustaining
competitive advantage and furnish needed tools to encourage knowledge management practices. It is
vital for organizations to set up an environment for social interaction as a means for knowledge sharing.
* Associate Professor of MIS, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. E-mail: abushanab@yu.edu.jo
** Graduate Student, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. E-mail: marambh@yahoo.com
** * Associate Professor of Management, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA; and is the
corresponding author. E-mail: knightm@uwgb.edu
Introduction
Knowledge is an important source for value creation in organizations and needs to be managed
carefully (Massa and Testa, 2009). Research identified two challenges in this regard: dealing
with the global marketplace and trying to manage an organization’s knowledge (Coakes
et al.,
2008). Many researchers have argued that knowledge sharing is an essential part of effective
knowledge management; they considered knowledge sharing as the core of continuous
improvement process for transforming an individual’s process improvements into actual
learning (Yu
et al., 2010). Researchers tried to find a relationship between knowledge
management and organizational learning and they concluded that it is not evident, while
others proclaimed the opposite (Liao and Wu, 2010).
Utilizing 300 interviews, Alhammad
et al. (2009) concluded that academicians are
less interested in sharing their knowledge than administrators. Al-Ma’aitah’s (2008)
study on Jordanian hospitals explored the effect of using electronic collaborative media
in knowledge sharing phases and found that electronic collaborative media plays an
important role in achieving knowledge sharing; he recommended that organizations
must take into consideration the new technology in order to achieve a higher level of
knowledge sharing.

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 39
Author’s Copy
The importance of knowledge sharing is still debatable: while many companies think
that traditional channels are safer, others have failed to notice that knowledge sharing
practices nowadays are easier than before. This lack of awareness might arise from not realizing
the advantages of investing in knowledge sharing practices.
This study is one of the few studies related to knowledge sharing in the Jordanian
communication sector, where it investigates the level of involvement in knowledge sharing
practices within organizations, and explores the barriers and the benefits of joining knowledge
sharing practices to gain a good level of organizational learning. Many studies have linked
knowledge sharing with organizational performance, but this study tries to explore the effect
of knowledge sharing on ongoing organizational learning.
Literature Review
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is defined as “processes that involve exchanging knowledge between
individuals and groups” (Yu
et al., 2010, p. 32). Also, it is “the provision of task, information
and know-how to help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new
ideas, or implement policies or procedures” (Wang and Noe, 2010, p. 117). Liaw
et al. (2008)
opined that sharing knowledge is an important goal for organizations. All the individuals’
experiences and knowledge can be transferred as an organizational asset with the help of
technologies so that it is maintained as a resource for future learning.
Yang and Wu (2008) claimed that improving the practices of knowledge sharing related to
work would benefit both the organizations and the individuals. Knowledge sharing is
considered a key enabler for knowledge management, and there are two aspects of knowledge
sharing: the supply side and the demand side. The supply side is concerned with motivating
employees to share their knowledge and gain benefits to both, employees as well as the
employer. The demand side addresses the behavior of knowledge sharing among employees
and knowledge acquisition by the employer to enhance organizational knowledge (Mansingh
et al., 2009).
Information Technology and Knowledge Sharing
Recent developments in IT have made it easier for organizations to interact with employees,
customers, suppliers, and other partners, thereby improving operations (Tseng, 2008). There
is a necessity for employees within the organizations to share knowledge. Developments in
knowledge management focused on providing electronic databases, network systems, and
software to encourage the distribution of knowledge (Chow and Chan, 2008).
Lau and Tsui (2009) asserted that knowledge management and knowledge sharing tools
such as search engines, Internet, intranets, and peer-to-peer knowledge tools, all help learners
to learn anywhere and anytime within the learning environment. Such tools help learners to
share their interests, information and knowledge. The following knowledge sharing practices
are reported in the literature:

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
40
Author’s Copy
Communities of practice: Refers to “groups of people who do some sort of work together
(online or face-to-face) to help each other by sharing tips, ideas and best practices” (Ling
et
al.
, 2008, p. 129). Communities of practice provide group validation of knowledge; it is a
useful technique because knowledge is likely to be time-relevant to their immediate knowledge
needs (Sammour
et al., 2008).
Knowledge networks: Collaborative team members constitute a community network. Each
member has a role as a node within the network. There are two modes of knowledge sharing: (a)
Client-Server (C/S)-based knowledge sharing; and (b) Peer-to-Peer (P2P)-based knowledge
sharing; in this type of networks, each member maintains his own knowledge in repositories
from which knowledge can be shared with their colleagues (Zheng
et al., 2010).
Organizational Learning
Organizational learning can be defined as “the transformation process by which individual
knowledge is transferred to organizational knowledge” (Yang, 2010, p. 44). Camps and Majocchi
(2010) proclaimed that organizational learning is an adaptive and dynamic process that
contains a lot of changes influenced by past accumulated experiences focusing on building
factors that facilitate the learning process within the organizational environment. Such
factors or characteristics are called Organizational Learning Capability (OLC); these factors
allow an organization to learn.
From an organizational learning perspective, an organization is considered an entity,
where its actions can be observed and modified to improve its performance by creating new
knowledge (Phang
et al., 2008). Organizational learning is important for the long-term performance
and survival of organizations. Failing to learn may lead to poor processes within the organization,
which lead to poor implementation and sharing of new knowledge (Yukl, 2008).
Any organization that acknowledges and encourages learning and has specific learning
culture by which it develops its own employee learning practices to select the most appropriate
strategies can be identified as a “learning organization” (Skuncikiene
et al., 2009). Also, a
learning organization is “a place where employees excel at creating, acquiring, and transferring
knowledge” (Garvin
et al., 2008, p. 110). The main building blocks of learning organizations
are supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and practices, and
leadership practices (Rijal, 2009).
Based on that, a learning organization can be defined as “an environment that encourages
participation and exchange of knowledge; providing the tools for that process and the creation,
storage, and transfer of knowledge in an institutionalized process supported by the
organization’s top management”.
Irani
et al. (2009) highlighted the relationship between organizational learning and
knowledge sharing, where organizational productivity and performance depend on the
effectiveness of organizational knowledge across different units of an organization, within its
individuals and teams. Organizational learning contributes to increased organizational
knowledge and very often takes place via knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 41
Author’s Copy
(Nordtvedt et al., 2008). Knowledge sharing tools are designed to make interactions between
senders and receivers in order to facilitate sharing their experiences and engaging in problem
solving (Sammour
et al., 2008).
Law and Ngai (2008) claimed that organizational learning often recommends that the
basic storage of knowledge is the individual because the learning process needs a human
mind to recognize knowledge. So organizational knowledge must be communicated easily,
distributed and understood within all organizational levels (Abel, 2008). The ongoing learning
and sharing of knowledge has made many innovative practices possible and enabled employees to
resolve their problems (Nordtvedt
et al., 2008). By knowledge sharing, managers can keep the
individuals learning and encourage them to apply their knowledge to any application
(Yang, 2007).
Almahamid and McAdams (2010, p. 332) claimed that the individual learning process is
most likely to be voluntary rather than compulsory, and the biggest challenge is increasing
the willingness to learn new knowledge. Employee’s decision to share or not, depends on
several questions: “What to share? And with whom should I share? What are the real benefits
for me to share? Do the employees with whom I share going to share their knowledge with
me? Does sharing improve my knowledge and skills?”
Marshall and Smith (2009) proclaimed that knowledge sharing practices need to be a part
of everyday conversations as organizational learning depends on individual learning and
sharing to enhance organizational capabilities (organizational processes and systems). This
means that sharing only knowledge is not enough because people need to reflect their
knowledge through behaviors and actions to enhance organizational learning.
Methodology
This study utilizes a survey to explore employees’ perceptions towards knowledge sharing
practices. The study hypothesized that four variables will have major influence on Ongoing
Organizational Learning (OOL) (see Figure 1). The following is a description of the variables
used.
Information Technology Infrastructure (ITI): Almahamid and McAdams (2010) mentioned
that technology infrastructure is considered a facilitator in knowledge sharing practices
within an organization. Any organization has to consider the fast changes that occur in
information technology and provide tools for employees to easily share their knowledge such
as electronic mail and collaboration tools (Al-Ma’aitah, 2008).
H
1
: IT infrastructure will have a positive influence on ongoing organizational learning.
Supportive Organizational Policies (SOP): Granting employees the time to share knowledge
encourages them to make an effort to do so. Management support is very important in facilitating
knowledge sharing through its strategies, rules and procedures. Several policy concerns about
knowledge sharing are very important (Al-Busaid
et al., 2010).
H
2
: Organizational policies will have a positive influence on ongoing organizational learning.

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
42
Author’s Copy
Knowledge Sharing Practices (KSP): Formal and informal events influence knowledge
sharing such as facilitating private chats (Massa and Testa, 2009), or brainstorming and new
idea discussion processes (Coakes
et al., 2008).
H
3
: Knowledge sharing practices will have a positive influence on the ongoing organizational learning.
Knowledge Sharing Motivation (KSM): The motivation of individual behavior must be
considered because it is very important in the sharing process; there are different types of
motivation related to knowledge sharing such as competition, reputation, ego, satisfaction,
organizational climate and the economic motivation to gain personal utility (Yang and Wu,
2008). There are two types of motivation that may affect knowledge sharing: extrinsic
motivation (individuals do something to gain or to avoid a negative external outcome), and
intrinsic motivation (involves doing something according to the individual’s interest and
personal values). Examples for external motivators include rewards such as money and
avoidance of punishment (Foss
et al., 2009).
H
4
: High motivation to share will positively influence the ongoing organizational learning.
A questionnaire (see Appendix) was developed based on the proposed research model
and extensive literature review, and was distributed to 59 employees of Orange Company in
Jordan. The questionnaire consisted of two main sections: one containing 4 questions related
to demographic information, and the other containing 25 questions related to knowledge
sharing and organizational learning; the questionnaire contained no questions identifying
employee’s identity. A 5-point Likert scale with (1) representing ‘strongly disagree’ and (5)
representing ‘strongly agree’ was used.
The questionnaire was checked for inconsistencies by an IT specialist and was pilot-
tested using Masters’ students at Yarmouk University to check the logical flow of questions.
Their suggestions were used to improve the questionnaire and its content validity. The
questionnaire included 4 items for measuring ITI, 7 for SOP, 5 for KSM, 6 for KSP, and 3 for
OOL. The scale, based on social sciences literature, used values between 1 and less than 2.5,
2.5 and less than 3.5, and 3.5 and 5 to indicate low, moderate and high, respectively.
Figure 1: Research Model
IT Infrastructure
Organizational
Policies
Knowledge Sharing
Practices
Motivation to Share
Ongoing Organizational
Learning
H
1
+
H
2
+
H
3
+
H
4
+

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 43
Author’s Copy
Results and Discussion
Table 1 depicts sample demographics, which
included 57 complete responses and 2 missing
values in job type. The sample majority was in the
age group of 25-35 years (59.3%), holding a
bachelor’s degree (72.9%), and working as
administrators (81.4%).
The means of the major variables were estimated
using the average of the corresponding items in the
scale. It is observed that the means are all above 3.5
(Table 2), indicating high evaluation of the research
variables.
The reliability of the instrument was calculated
for all multi-item variables using Cronbach’s Alpha,
where they were found to be at acceptable levels.
The highest alpha value was for the ITI construct,
and the lowest was for OOL, though the value was
more than 0.6 (Table 3).
The detailed means and standard deviations of
each item are shown in Table 4. The items related
to Internet availability for sharing information
(ITI1), prediction of sharing information in future
(KSM5), and the company allowing sharing
knowledge with partner firms (SOP7) recorded the
highest means. However, the lowest mean was
recorded for the item related to incentives given by
the company for knowledge sharing (SOP4).
Correlations were used to examine the strength
of the relationships between independent variables:
ITI, SOP, KSM, KSP; and the
dependent variable: OOL. The
results of correlations (see Table 5)
show that all correlations were
significant at 0.001 level, which
indicates the importance of each
variable in predicting OOL.
The research model and
hypotheses were tested using
multiple regression technique. The
model explained 81.7% of the
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
Variables Mean SD
ITI 3.987 0.524
SOP 3.960 0.415
KSM
3.928 0.421
KSP 3.933 0.430
OOL 3.968 0.511
Table 3: Results of Reliability Test Using
Cronbach’s Alpha
Variables No. of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
ITI 4 0.8489
SOP 7 0.7971
KSM 5 0.714
KSP 6 0.7518
OOL 3 0.6218
Table 1: Demographic Data
Gender Freq. %
Male 34 57.6
Female 25 42.4
Age (Years)
Less than 25 3 5.1
26-35 35 59.3
36-45 18 30.5
46-55 3 5.1
Education
Diploma 6 10.2
Bachelor’s degree 43 72.9
Master’s degree 10 16.9
Job Type
Administrative 48 81.4
Technical 9 15.3

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
44
Author’s Copy
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics
Item N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
ITI1 59 3 5 4.119 0.745
ITI2 59 3 5 4.051 0.600
ITI3 59 3 5 3.898 0.607
ITI4 59 3 5 3.881 0.560
SOP1 59 3 5 3.966 0.694
SOP2 59 3 5 3.881 0.590
SOP3 58 3 5 3.983 0.607
SOP4 59 3 5
3.797 0.610
SOP5 59 3 5 3.949 0.570
SOP6 59 3 5 4.034 0.615
SOP7 59 3 5
4.119 0.646
KSM1 59 3 5 3.814 0.572
KSM2 59 3 5 3.932 0.612
KSM3 59 3 5 3.881 0.745
KSM4 59 3 5 3.898 0.607
KSM5 59 3 5
4.119 0.528
KSP1 59 3 5 3.814 0.572
KSP2 59 3 5 3.966 0.642
KSP3 59 3 5 3.966 0.694
KSP4 59 3 5 4.085 0.624
KSP5 58 3 5 3.845 0.523
KSP6 58 3 5 3.931 0.792
OOL1 59 3 5 3.983
0.435
OOL2 58 3 5 3.914 0.801
OOL3 59 3 5 4.000 0.743
variation in the dependent variable (OOL). The coefficient of determination (R) = 0.9040
which is a high value,
R
2
= 0.8173, with an F
4.53
=60.4, p = 0.001.
Table 6 shows the beta values related to each independent variable, where all variables were
insignificant in predicting the dependent variable, except the KSP. It is important to relate the
correlation matrix to this result as the predictors were all significantly related to the dependent
variable when regressed in isolation of the others. But when regressed together, the competition
on the variance survived only one variable. Table 7 summarizes the results of hypotheses tested.

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 45
Author’s Copy
Table 5: Correlation Matrix of Research Variables
Variables ITI SOP KSM KSP OOL
ITI
1
SOP 0.710*** 1
KSM 0.644*** 0.857*** 1
KSP 0.544*** 0.740*** 0.832*** 1
OOL 0.548*** 0.704*** 0.805*** 0.897*** 1
Table 6: Multiple Regression Analysis
Variables
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
t Sig.
(Constant) –0.397 0.302 –1.315 0.194
ITI 0.053 0.081 0.055 0.660 0.512
SOP –0.069 0.153 –0.056 –0.449 0.655
KSM 0.243 0.168 0.200 1.449 0.153
KSP 0.882 0.125 0.742 7.043 0.000
Conclusion
This paper looked at knowledge sharing as a way to
enhance the ongoing organizational learning; the
results show that although all correlations between
variables were significant at 0.001 level, indicating
the importance of each in predicting OOL, the results
of the multiple regression analysis for the suggested
research model show that only KSP were significantly
related to OOL, and the other three variables were
not significant contributors to OOL. Therefore, the
study concludes that KSP is a significant predictor of
OOL; this result is in line with the results of Law
and Ngai (2008) and Coakes
et al. (2008).
Some studies in literature indicated that employees’ motivation to share knowledge should
be associated with a good level of organizational learning (e.g., Yang and Wu, 2008); motivation
(intrinsic or extrinsic) is important to KSP and OOL implementation. Such conclusion was
not supported in this study because of high convergent validity of indicators. The same can
be said about the relationship between ongoing learning and the policies implemented.
The major findings can be summarized as follows: first, the predictors listed in this study
were all significant when regressed individually, which indicates the perceptions of the
Hypothesis Result
H
1
Not Supported
H
2
Not Supported
H
3
Supported
H
4
Not Supported
Table 7: Hypotheses Results

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
46
Author’s Copy
employees towards a comprehensive uniform picture of all issues related to knowledge sharing.
Second, it is important to look carefully into the means of the summated variables as all
predictors were highly perceived by employees, with infrastructure as the highest and
knowledge motivation as the lowest (with minor difference). When testing for differences
that accounted for the demographics of the study (gender, age, education and job type), all
demographics were not significant in differentiating the means of ongoing organizational
learning.
Limitations: First, the study focused on Orange Company, one of the telecommunication
companies in Jordan, which represents a homogeneous and small sampling environment.
This would influence the generalizability of the results and the results of data analysis (the
high bivariate correlations). A diverse sample from more than one firm in the sector would
yield better results. Second, the sample size might have limited the conclusions and data
analysis; a larger sample would improve future research. Although telecommunication
companies are interested in knowledge as a valuable resource, some telecommunication
companies in Jordan refused to allow a study on their employees.
Future Scope: This research may be expanded by including more companies to collect
more data and reach a sample that covers a wider range of industries; more effort is needed
to find new and uncovered variables that are related to knowledge sharing or to ongoing
organizational learning. Finally, a comprehensive definition of knowledge sharing should
be developed in order to ensure consistent results regardless of the place and time of the
study.

References
1. Abel M (2008), “Competencies Management and Learning Organizational Memory”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 15-30.
2. Ahmad N and Daghfous A (2010), “Knowledge Sharing Through Inter-Organizational
Knowledge Networks”,
European Business Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 153-174.
3. Al-Busaid K, Olfman L, Ryan T and Leroy G (2010), “Sharing Knowledge to a Knowledge
Management System: Examining the Motivators and the Benefits in an Omani
Organization”,
Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, Vol. 2010 (2010).
4. Alhammad F, Faori S and Abu Husan L (2009), “Knowledge Sharing in the Jordanian
Universities”,
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 10, No. 3.
5. Al-Ma’aitah M (2008), “Using Electronic Collaborative Media in Knowledge Sharing
Phases: Case Study in Jordan Hospital”,
International Journal of Education and Information
Technologies,
Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 238-247.
6. Almahamid S and McAdams A (2010), “The Relationships Among Organizational
Knowledge Sharing Practices, Employees’ Learning Commitments, Employees’
Adaptability and Employees’ Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Investigation of the Listed

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 47
Author’s Copy
Manufacturing Companies in Jordan”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge,
and Management, Vol. 5.
7. Camps J and Majocchi A (2010), “Learning Atmosphere and Ethical Behavior, Does It
Make Sense”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 129-147.
8. Chow W and Chan L (2008), “Social Network, Social Trust and Shared Goals in
Organizational Knowledge Sharing”,
Information and Management, Vol. 45, No. 7,
pp. 458-465.
9. Coakes G, Coakes J and Rosenberg D (2008), “Cooperative Work Practices and
Knowledge Sharing Issues: A Comparison of Viewpoints”,
International Journal of
Information Management,
Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 12-25.
10. Foss N, Minbaeva D, Pedersen T and Reinholt M (2009), “Encouraging Knowledge
Sharing Among Employees: How Job Design Matters”,
Human Resource Management,
Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 871-893.
11. Garvin D, Edmondson A and Gino F (2008), “Is Yours a Learning Organization?”,
Harvard Business Review, March.
12. Irani Z, Sharif A and Love P (2009), “Mapping Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning in Support of Organizational Memory”,
Int. J. Production
Economics
, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 200-215.
13. King W R, Chung T R and Haney M H (2008), “Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning”,
Omega, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 167-172.
14. Lau A and Tsui E (2009), “Knowledge Management Perspective on E-learning
Effectiveness”,
Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 324-325.
15. Law C and Ngai E (2008), “An Empirical Study of the Effects of Knowledge Sharing and
Learning Behaviors on Firm Performance”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34,
No. 4, pp. 2342-2349.
16. Liao S and Wu C (2010), “System Perspective of Knowledge Management, Organizational
Learning and Organizational Innovation”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37,
No. 2, pp. 1096-1103.
17. Liaw S, Chen G and Huang H (2008), “Users’ Attitudes Toward Web-Based Collaborative
Learning Systems for Knowledge Management”,
Computers and Education, Vol. 50,
No. 3, pp. 950-961.
18. Ling C, Sandhu M and Jain K (2008), “Knowledge Sharing in an American Multinational
Company Based in Malaysia”,
Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21, No. 2,
pp. 125-142.
19. Mansingh G, Brysonand K and Reichgelt H (2009), “Issues in Knowledge Access,
Retrieval and Sharing—Case Studies in a Caribbean Health Sector”,
Expert Systems
with Applications,
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 2853-2863.

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
48
Author’s Copy
20. Marshall J and Smith S (2009), “Learning Organizations and Organizational Learning
What Have We Learned”,
Management Services, Summer.
21. Massa S and Testa S (2009), “A Knowledge Management Approach to Organizational
Competitive Advantage: Evidence from the Food Sector”,
European Management Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 129-141.
22. Mihalca R, Uta A, Andreeescu A and Introsureanu I (2008), “Knowledge Management
in E-Learning Systems”,
Revista Informatica Economica , Nr. 2 (46).
23. Nordtvedt L, Kedia B, Datta D and Rasheed A (2008), “Effectiveness and Efficiency of
Cross-Border Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Examination”,
Journal of Management
Studies,
Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 714-744.
24. Phang C, Kankanhalli A and Ang C (2008), “Investigating Organizational Learning in
e-Government Projects: A Multi-Theoretical Approach”,
Journal of Strategic Information
Systems,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 99-123.
25. Rijal S (2009), “Leading the Learning Organization”,
Business Education and Accreditation,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 131-140.
26. Sammour G, Schreurs J, Al-Zoubi A Y and Vanhoof K (2008), “The Role of Knowledge
Management and E-Learning in Professional Development”,
Int. J. Knowledge and Learning,
Vol. 4, No. 5, p. 465.
27. Skuncikiene S, Balvociute R and Balciunas S (2009), “Exploring Characteristics of a
Learning Organization as Learning Environment”,
Socialiniai Tyrimai/Social Research,
Vol. 1, No. 15, pp. 64-75.
28. Tseng S (2008), “The Effects of Information Technology on Knowledge Management
Systems”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 150-160.
29. Wang S and Noe R (2010), “Knowledge Sharing: A Review and Directions for Future
Research”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 115-131.
30. Yang H and Wu T (2008), “Knowledge Sharing in an Organization”,
Technological
Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 75, No. 8, pp. 1128-1156.
31. Yang J (2007), “The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Learning and
Effectiveness”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 83-90.
32. Yang J (2010), “Antecedents and Consequences of Knowledge Sharing in International
Tourist Hotels”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp. 42-52.
33. Yu T, Lu T and Liu T (2010), “Exploring Factors that Influence Knowledge Sharing
Behavior Via Web Logs”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 32-41.
34. Yukl G (2008), “Leading Organizational Learning: Reflections on Theory and Research”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 49-53.
35. Zheng L, Jiang Z and Song H (2010), “Distributed Recommender for Peer-to-Peer
Knowledge Sharing”,
Information Sciences, Vol. 180, No. 18, pp. 3546-3561.

Knowledge Sharing Practices and the Learning Organization: A Study 49
Author’s Copy
Appendix
Section 1: Information about the employee
Gender:  Male  Female
What is your age group?
 25 years and below  26-35 years  36-45 years
 46-55 years  56 years and above
What is your highest educational level?
 High School  Bachelor’s Degree  Master’s Degree
 Doctoral Degree  Others
What is your job function?
 Administrative  Technical
 Service-oriented  Managerial  Others
Section 2: Questions about the factors and concepts relating to knowledge sharing
Please answer the listed questions where each number carries the meaning of the evaluation
of the following:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.
S. No. Statements Answers
1. Internet connection is available so that I can share 1 2 3 4 5
information with others, such as employees at work,
suppliers and customers.
2. Computerized information systems are available and can be 1 2 3 4 5
accessed to share information with others.
3. The company generally has a good infrastructure 1 2 3 4 5
(hardware/software).
4 . Databases are available and I can search for the information 1 2 3 4 5
that I need.
Measures of IT Infrastructure
Questionnaire

The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. XII, No. 2, 2014
50
Author’s Copy
Appendix (Cont.)
S. No. Statements Answers
12. I am continuously encouraged to bring new knowledge to 1 2 3 4 5
the company.
13. Top management always supports its employees to bring and 1 2 3 4 5
exchange new knowledge.
14. Bonuses are the primary motivation for the exchange of knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5
15. I intend to exchange information and knowledge in the future. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I expect an increase in knowledge share in the future. 1 2 3 4 5
Measures of Knowledge Sharing Motivation
S. No. Statements Answers
17. Training allows me and my colleagues to share expertise and 1 2 3 4 5
knowledge.
18. The company has teams and groups. 1 2 3 4 5
19. We share knowledge and experiences during workshops. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I share the knowledge with others during business meetings 1 2 3 4 5
and conferences.
21. We share knowledge during the lunch break. 1 2 3 4 5
22. We share our knowledge with our colleagues often by e-mail. 1 2 3 4 5
Measures of Knowledge Sharing Practices
S. No. Statements Answers
23. The company is generally educated. 1 2 3 4 5
24. The company is committed to continue learning. 1 2 3 4 5
25. Knowledge spreads quickly and adequately in the company. 1 2 3 4 5
Measures of Ongoing Organizational Learning
S. No. Statements Answers
5. Top management supports the exchange of knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
in the proceedings, not only through the logos.
6. The company encourages employees to participate in 1 2 3 4 5
setting goals.
7. The company encourages employees to share knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
and experience.
8. The company gives rewards for knowledge sharing behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5
9. The rewards offered by my company for knowledge sharing 1 2 3 4 5
are attractive.
10. Knowledge sharing increased the teamwork. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The company allows the exchange of knowledge with partners 1 2 3 4 5
from outside the company, but under conditions.
Measures of Supportive Organizational Policies
Reference # 29J-2014-04-02-01