Access to this full-text is provided by IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Content available from International Journal of Knowledge Management
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
DOI: 10.4018/IJKM.291704
Volume 18 • Issue 1
This article published as an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and production in any medium,
provided the author of the original work and original publication source are properly credited.
*Corresponding Author
1
Tšeole Emmanuel Tahleho, National University of Lesotho, Lesotho
Patrick Ngulube, University of South Africa, South Africa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7676-3931
Knowledge can play an important role in ascertaining an organization’s competitive edge if the
knowledge of employees is nurtured and utilized as an asset with a potential to improve service
delivery. The study focused on knowledge sharing at the Thomas Mofolo Library in Lesotho to
determine if knowledge sharing was being used to improve service delivery at the library. A case study
design that triangulated interviews and questionnaires was used in this study. Quantitative data was
processed using software packages. Data from the interviews was analyzed through content analysis
based on the objectives of the study. This study established that staff recognized the need to share
knowledge. However, knowledge sharing occurred on an ad hoc basis. There was a limited use of
technology-based and human-based mechanisms of sharing knowledge. The study suggests practical
knowledge-sharing practices that may contribute to improved service delivery in a library setup. As
a case study, the study may also contribute to the development of theory about the phenomenon.
Academic Library, Knowledge Circulation, Knowledge Loss, Knowledge Management, Thomas Mofolo Library
Traditionally, academic libraries are established with the aim to collect, process, disseminate, store
and utilize information to provide a service to their research community and advance the wellbeing
of mankind (Rajurkur, 2011; Wen, 2005). As service providers, academic libraries are established
for the provision of related information resources and quality services in order to satisfy their users’
information needs (Andeniran, 2011). Meeting the information needs of clients is no longer a choice
for libraries, but an obligation that libraries should achieve in the knowledge-based economy.
However, due to political, economic, social and technological (PEST) factors, including the
demands of the knowledge economy, the environment in which academic libraries function today is
shifting and unstable. The resultant instability has compelled academic libraries to deal with issues of
reduced budgets against increased demand from the faculty and the student community to respond to
the diverse challenges of the knowledge economy (Rajurkur, 2011). Nonetheless, academic libraries
still have to deliver on their mandate and maneuver the rocky terrain by reengineering, repositioning
and reinventing themselves to deal with the ever-changing situation. If they do not adapt, they are
likely to cease to be visible and valuable.
Volume 18 • Issue 1
2
One of the strategies that academic libraries can use, not only to survive but also to grow and
be sustainable in the knowledge era, is to improve the quality of services and products provided to
users who are at the center of their existence. Their success partly depends on their ability to utilize
information and the knowledge of staff to better serve the needs of the academic community. Maponya
(2004) and Rao (2018) identified knowledge sharing as one of the feasible strategies which libraries
may employ to improve their services in the knowledge economy by exploiting the often-disregarded
capabilities of their employees. Lessons learned from past failures and successes for its members can
be shared to achieve the vision of the organization and improve the delivery of services.
Knowledge sharing contributes to improving the quality of service delivery of an organization.
The following questions need to be asked if one is to determine the existence of knowledge sharing
in the context of academic libraries: (i) Are academic librarians encouraged to share knowledge?;
(ii) Are the skills and competencies in the academic library identified and shared?; (iii) How is the
knowledge shared?; and (iv) Does the working environment support a knowledge-sharing culture?
(Maponya, 2004).
Given the challenges posed by the PEST environment, knowledge sharing holds promise as a
tool that can be used to strengthen the knowledge and skills levels of practitioners at a lower cost in
support of service delivery. The value of knowledge increases when it is shared (Dube & Ngulube,
2012). Smith and McKeen (2009) underscored the fact that the value of knowledge increases when
it has a key purpose and focuses on missions, core values and strategic priorities.
The origins of the National University of Lesotho (NUL) can be traced to the establishment of Pius
XII University of Basutoland, Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland in 1964. It was renamed
the University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland in 1966 at the end of colonial rule in the three
countries (Hundie, 2001).
NUL was established as a separate entity in 1967. NUL is still located in Roma, Maseru in the
capital of the kingdom of Lesotho and uses the same premises as its predecessors. The institution seeks
to advance human development and to respond to national and regional needs through knowledge
creation, dissemination as well as community engagement, employing technologically innovative
strategies (National University of Lesotho strategic plan 2015-2020, 2016). All the activities partly
depend on the services provided by the library.
It is apparent that expertise exists in people. However, much of the knowledge is implicit rather than
explicit in nature and this makes it complicated to transfer. Jeung, Yoon and Choi (2017) defined
knowledge sharing as the process through which knowledge, information, skills and expertise are
transferred and shared amid people, friends, families, organizations and societies. Knowledge sharing
may also be defined as the desire of an organisational employee to provide other employees with the
knowledge that he or she has created or acquired (Castaneda & Toulson, 2021). Oyemomi, Liu and
Neaga (2015) contended that the importance of knowledge sharing is so highly rated to an extent that
some researchers have concluded that KM exists in order to support knowledge sharing. They argued
further that “organization that supports information sharing and knowledge production among its
staff members can lead to effective and efficient processes and improve organizational performance”
Dube and Ngulube (2012) as well as Castaneda and Toulson (2021) argued that knowledge
sharing could give an organization a competitive advantage. The people engaged in the process of
knowledge sharing may enhance their performance through exploiting their collective intellectual
capital (Dube & Ngulube, 2012; Castaneda & Toulson, 2021). Similarly, Brčić and Mihelič (2015)
Volume 18 • Issue 1
3
posited that knowledge is regarded as the most important resource for the economy’s and a company’s
principal source of production and value. They caution however, that in order to benefit from it, the
knowledge has to be shared among employees.
Jantz (2001) and Marouf (2017) opined that by using and sharing knowledge, libraries will improve
their services. Nevertheless, given the library’s dwindling budgets, academic libraries are compelled
to increase their operational efficiency in order to meet the challenge. One such management tool that
may be employed to help in this regard is the knowledge management process of knowledge sharing
(Wen, 2005; Marouf, 2017). Furthermore, Burnette (2017) remarked that a profound comprehension
of circumstances and triggers of knowledge exchanges between librarians, and the types of knowledge
they share, contributes to the development of effective processes and conditions for capturing critical
knowledge. If knowledge sharing is practiced in libraries, personal knowledge may be turned into
corporate knowledge that can be widely shared throughout the library and applied appropriately.
Knowledge sharing enables the organization to assimilate both internal and external knowledge, detect
opportunities and obtain more advantageous positions linked to the organisation’s innovation and
performance (Lekhawipat, Wei & Lin, 2018; Ta & Zyngier, 2018; Todorova & Mills, 2018). Asogwa
(2012) explained that knowledge-sharing practices in libraries become important in harnessing the
wealth, wisdom, expertise and experiences the retiring employees.
Knowledge sharing may be practiced through the adoption of human and technology-based
strategies. However, Davenport, De Long and Beers (1998) as well as Zenk, Hynek, Edelmann, Virkar,
Parycek and Steiner (2021) cautioned that there is no amount of technology, knowledge content or
even good project management practices would make knowledge sharing achievable if the cultural
soil is not fertile. Knowledge sharing may be achieved through the use of non-technological strategies
including mentoring, exit interviews, communities of practice (CoPs), job shadowing, storytelling and
job rotation (Malinski, 2002; Colon-Aguirre, 2015; Kim, 2015; Daland, 2016). This can be partly be
achieved through brainstorming, open discussions and provision of suitable or conducive grounds for
creativity, sharing of ideas, organizing workshops, conferences, mentoring, web archiving, digitizing,
identification and collectively addressing problems and finding solutions (Asogwa, 2012).
Knowledge sharing may also be successfully achieved through the usage of enabling technologies
including email, intranet, data mining, data warehousing, social media mechanisms (web 2.0) and
other collaborative technologies (Bhojaraju, 2005; Jain, 2013). Hosseini and Hashempour (2012)
and Castanada and Toulson (2021) explained that the advancement in modern information tools has
allowed knowledge workers to collaborate and participate more and share knowledge by means of
web 2.0 tools. These tools have enabled information professionals to share their knowledge with their
colleagues in order to meet the needs of their users effectively and efficiently (Hosseini & Hashempour,
2012). For instance, Intranets are becoming a common feature in many organizations (Averweg,
2008). With the increasing use of a technology infrastructure such as the intranet in organizations,
there is a continuous challenge for employees to take advantage of the technology to contribute their
knowledge willingly and to make use of knowledge sharing among employees. Emails and blogs
alike can be very powerful tools for transferring tacit knowledge in organizations with the necessary
technological infrastructure. Blogs are easy to create, maintain and use and thus reduce the technical
skills required from the users to exploit its features.
Knowledge sharing may occur if some mechanisms are in existence. Knowledge retention
mechanisms include trust, communication, leadership, management support, and organizational
structure and reward systems (Islam, Ahmed, Hasan, & Ahmed, 2011). Members of an organization
need to trust one another to be honest, capable and committed to join arms in order to create and
share knowledge (Ngulube, 2005; Burnette, 2017; Gerbin &Dornovsek, 2020). According to Tan
Nya Ling (2011), despite the fact that knowledge sharing is important, workers may be still skeptical
of those they have to share knowledge with. A lack of trust among employees may be inimical to
knowledge sharing in an organization (Ngulube, 2005, Burnette, 2017; Gerbin & Drnovsek, 2020).
Communication contributes to knowledge sharing as it is related to trust in different inter-organizational
Volume 18 • Issue 1
4
relationships. Davenport & Prusak (1997), Islam et al, (2011) as well as Sanford, Schwartz and Khan
2020) stated that organizations that encourage knowledge sharing and knowledge integration into the
organization create a floor for open discussion and debate and this motivates individuals at various
levels to freely give their opinions and views on different issues.
Furthermore, the provision of support by the management has been closely linked with employees’
perceptions of a knowledge-sharing culture and willingness to share knowledge (AlShamsi & Ajmal,
2018). Top management support affects both the level and quality of knowledge sharing by inñuencing
employee commitment to knowledge management (AlShamsi & Ajmal, 2018). The aptitude of
management should be supported by a reward system. The absence of incentives has been suggested
to be a main obstacle to knowledge sharing across cultures (Arzi, Rabanifard, Nassajtarshizi, &
Omran, 2013; Wang and Noe, 2010; Zenk et al.,2021). Incentives, including recognition and rewards,
have been suggested as interventions to ease knowledge sharing and help build a supportive culture
(Wang & Noe, 2010). The structure of the organization also plays a role in knowledge sharing.
Organizational demographics, especially large size and formal status differentials, have a negative
influence on knowledge sharing (Ramirez, 2007). Tagliaventi and Mattarelli (2006), Wang and Noe
(2010) and Alawamleh and Kloub, (2013) opined that a functionally segmented organization is likely
to impede knowledge sharing across functions and communities of practice.
A number of obstacles to knowledge sharing are well documented. An understanding of the
obstacles to knowledge sharing in organizations is vital in order to explore strategies to encourage
knowledge sharing. Information or knowledge is power; inequalities in status and perceived lack of
job security are potential barriers to knowledge sharing (Ramirez, 2007; Riege, 2005; Mat Nor, Mat
Khairi, Rosnan, Maskun, & Johar, 2020). In the old school of thinking where profitability was reflected
by an organization’s output, knowledge hoarding rather than sharing was believed to benefit career
advancement. A lack of trust among employees may also be detrimental to knowledge sharing in an
organization (Ngulube, 2005; Raman, Mannan, Hossain, Zaman and Hassan, 2018; Ta & Zyngier,
2018; Mat Nor, Mat Khairi, Rosnan, Maskun, & Johar, 2020).
Knowledge sharing plays an important role in organizational processes because it helps organizations
to transfer new ideas or solutions (Tan Nya Ling, 2011). Furthermore, the implications of knowledge
loss are dire, and include attrition of organizational memory, knowledge gap, lack of continuity and
the economics of knowledge loss. Knowledge sharing implies that all the pockets of excellence among
the employees are pulled together to improve the services to the clientele.
Mavodza and Ngulube (2011) noted that some academic libraries in the developed world have
significantly developed because of the adoption and use of knowledge management (KM) principles
and practices in the provision of library services. However, little is known about how information
professionals at TML practice knowledge management activities such as knowledge sharing. Librarians
at TML have different sets of skills which, if combined, may improve service delivery. The study was
guided by the following research questions:
1. What is the understanding of knowledge sharing at TML?
2. What are the perceptions of librarians at TML about sharing knowledge?
3. What tools are used for sharing knowledge?
4. What are the critical success factors for sharing knowledge?
5. What obstacles are related to knowledge sharing?
Volume 18 • Issue 1
5
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed within a case study design in order
to facilitate multiple methods of data collection. Triangulation of data sources enhances the validity
of research results. Data was collected by means of questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires
were administered to all librarians and purposive sampling was used to determine the five interview
participants at senior management level.
Out of the 25 questionnaires administered, 15 were returned, providing a response rate of 60%. The
data collected by means of questionnaires was processed using Microsoft Access and analyzed using
the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software (Version 17). The results of analysis were
exported into Microsoft Excel for visual presentation and reporting of the results. The data from the
interview sessions was analyzed manually by content analysis, using the notes that were taken by the
researcher from the respondents during the interview sessions. A descriptive account of the findings
is presented and discussed below using references to the reviewed literature that framed this study.
This section presents the study findings as informed by the objectives of the study.
To find out if TML staff understood the concept of knowledge sharing, respondents were asked about
their general opinion on knowledge sharing. The results show that 9 (60%) out of 15 respondents
thought knowledge sharing was important to service delivery. This is in line with what Maponya
(2004) noted when she asserted that knowledge sharing is one of the viable means in which academic
libraries could improve their services in the age of knowledge workers. On the other hand, another six
(40%) respondents were of the opinion that knowledge sharing provided advantages to organizations.
This also corresponds to the findings of Kamal, Manjit and Gurvinder (2007), which demonstrated
the role of knowledge in driving the economy in a knowledge economy landscape.
On further soliciting respondents’ views on knowledge sharing, respondents were asked if they
thought knowledge sharing may help other TML staff to solve problems. A total of 14 (93.3%)
respondents were of the opinion that knowledge sharing may assist other TML staff to solve problems,
compared to 1 (6.7%) respondent who did not answer this question. The fact that the majority of
respondents are of the view that knowledge sharing may help them solve problems at the library is
in line with what Christensen (2007) alluded to when he stated that if knowledge is not shared, then
there is a risk of reinventing the wheel when dealing with problems. In a library environment, this
may happen when, for example, services providers in the evening shift make the same mistakes that
service providers in the day shift have already made.
The respondents who thought that knowledge sharing may assist other TML staff in solving
problems were requested to further explain how knowledge sharing may assist TML staff in solving
their problems. Table 1 below summarizes some of their responses.
Although some of the respondents understood the advantages of knowledge sharing, it was
formalized according to eight (53.3%) respondents. This was contrary to suggestions in the literature
(Maponya, 2004) that revealed that knowledge sharing in academic libraries happened in an ad hoc
manner, a great deal of knowledge sharing was utterly uncoordinated, and any sharing of knowledge
was on an informal basis and usually based on conversations.
On the importance of making knowledge sharing formal at TML, all the respondents indicated
it is important to formalize knowledge sharing. They even suggested to the researchers that the
introduction of a knowledge management position in the Library to deal with all the knowledge
management issues may go a long way in addressing knowledge loss at TML. Of particular importance
to the formalization of knowledge management is the following responses from two respondents.
Volume 18 • Issue 1
6
Respondent 1: I think one of the reasons why knowledge sharing is not formalized at TML is maybe
it was not emphasized even during our formal training period at different universities. I think it
is only lately that it is being emphasized.
Respondent 2: I think knowledge sharing is not formalized because no one really knows and
understands it.
Even if the respondents understand the need to share knowledge there is a need to formalize the
process through establishing the requisite structures. The fact that only eight reported that knowledge
sharing was formalized is revealing. Our suspicion that knowledge was shared on an ad hoc basis
was corroborated by interview data from senior management staff as the two responses captured
above illustrate.
The researchers further sought to find out the extent to which the respondents shared knowledge
on work-related matters. The largest number of respondents, 11 (73.3%), agreed that they shared
knowledge, with 5 (33.3%) strongly agreeing. A small number of respondents, two (13.3%), disagreed,
which was at equilibrium with the respondents who were not sure. The fact that the majority of the
respondents agreed that librarians shared information and knowledge about work issues is indicative
that knowledge was shared, albeit in an informal way. According to Ramirez (2007) and Ta and
Zyngier (2018, knowledge sharing enables employees to share their insights and experiences in order
to allow faster and more cost-effective project completions. Employees can draw upon the experiences
of others in their pursuit of finding solutions to problems. In turn this may lead to efficient service
delivery as expertise would be shared to achieve a common goal.
One of the study objectives was to identify tools for knowledge sharing.
The researchers asked if TML staff were using various technology-based knowledge-sharing tools,
and multiple responses to the question item were possible. Figure 1 summarizes their responses.
Despite the fact that they did not use these technology-based platforms to share knowledge as
revealed in their responses, it is important that they exist. When fully exploited, these technologies
may be the enablers of knowledge sharing. The application of information technologies enlarges the
scope of knowledge acquisition, which is a key process in managing knowledge (Shanhong, 2000).
Ramirez (2007) concurred with Shanhong (2000) and stated that information technology makes
Table 1. How knowledge sharing may assist TML staff
Explanations Number of respondents
Enhancing, supplementing or building up one’s own knowledge with that of
others; providing synergy on what is lacking or on what is already existing;
allowing diffusion at various levels
1
Staff will be able to work efficiently and learn from others 1
By copying from others who have experience 1
By sharing activities and knowledge through which skills and expertise could be
exchanged among organizations and co-workers
1
Sharing something that has to be known by all at TML to ensure that serving
TML users run smoothly
1
Volume 18 • Issue 1
7
probable the connections that enable knowledge sharing, although it does not motivate staff to share
their knowledge. Given the importance of these technologies and the fact that TML already has
them, using these technologies may go a long way in harnessing what they already have in relation
to knowledge sharing.
The question item on human-based knowledge-sharing tools sought to find out those that were in use
at TML. From the categories that included communities of practice (CoPs), mentorship programs,
job rotation, the use of storytelling, face-to-face conversations and job shadowing, only two of these
mechanisms were selected with two (13.3%) respondents reporting that mentorship programs were
in use and six (40%) indicated the use of job rotation for knowledge sharing. Despite the fact that the
literature (Ramirez, 2007) showed that face-to-face or telephone conversations enable knowledge to
be shared socially, the respondents did not select this option even if multiple responses were possible.
Knowledge sharing as a social process requires that a space should be created to enable the interaction
of employees. Organizational efforts should be focused on creating opportunities for employees to
interact, whether formally or informally, to nurture knowledge sharing. The existence of a mentorship
program demonstrates that there was a potential for employees to transfer subtle and private skills
and experiences to others.
Respondents were required to indicate the extent to which they viewed the listed statements on
knowledge-sharing processes. Table 2 presents views from the respondents.
The responses revealed that there were no uniform processes of sharing knowledge among staff.
A lack of formal knowledge-sharing processes is inimical to the optimum utilization of knowledge
with negative results for service delivery.
There was also a question to the interviewees about the circulation of knowledge at TML where
the researchers wanted to find out the extent to which knowledge was lost at TML. Particularly,
the respondents were asked if any of either the retired employees or employees who resigned, were
Figure 1. Technologies in use at TML
Volume 18 • Issue 1
8
recalled to assist the library because their knowledge had not been captured when they left. All the
interviewees answered in the affirmative. The fact that the interviewees felt their colleagues who
resigned were not interviewed is very disturbing as they may have left with valuable knowledge that
they acquired during their stay at TML. The following responses demonstrate that organizations
should have processes of capturing the knowledge of those who would be leaving the organization.
Respondent 1: Right now as we speak, there is someone who has been recalled to come and assist
I am not sure with what and in fact this is the second time that she is being recalled. The first
time she was called she was even assigned mentees in order to transfer that knowledge to them.
So it would seem to me that the skill was not transferred.
Respondent 2: Currently we have someone who is recalled. Unfortunately, this is the second time
she is called because we had incidences of deaths in the library of people she mentored so she
had to be recalled. Also during the University restructuring excise, we lost a number of skilled
personnel through voluntary resignations and their departure was not effectively planned in
terms of skills transfer.
Having knowledge-sharing processes has the potential of facilitating the optimal use and
application of knowledge in an organization and improving service delivery to the clientele.
The critical success factors of knowledge sharing are those factors that make it easy for people to share
their knowledge in an organization. In that regard, the respondents were asked if the organizational
structure of TML allows for ease of knowledge sharing. A total of six (40%) respondents agreed
with the statement that their organizational structure facilitated knowledge sharing, with one (6.7%)
respondent agreeing strongly. While four (26.7%) respondents were not sure, two (13.3%) disagreed
Table 2. Knowledge-sharing processes
Statement Agree Strongly agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree
Whenever new employees are hired at
TML, they are allocated a mentor. 2(15.4%) 2(15.4%) 4(30.8%) 1(7.7%) 4(30.8%)
Has any of the employees who
resigned ever been recalled to assist
with library activities because no one
in the library knew how to do it? 6(50%) 2(16.7%) 2(16.7%) 2(16.7%) -
Has any of the retired employees ever
been recalled to assist with library
activities because no one in the
library knew how to do it? 5(41.7%) 4(33.3%) 1(8.3%) 2(16.7%) -
You belong to a formal grouping in
the library where you share work
-related activities. 6(42.9%) 5(35.7% 2(14.3%) 1(7.1%) -
TML librarians are usually rotated
in various department such as
cataloguing, technical services and
others. 6(46.2%) 4(30.8%) 2(15.4%) 1(7.7%) -
Librarians at TML share knowledge
by way of blogging. 1(8.3%) 4(33.3%) 3(25%) 4(33.3%) -
Librarians at TML share knowledge
by way of Facebook. 2(14.3) 5(35.7%) 3(21.4%) 4(28.6%) -
Volume 18 • Issue 1
9
and two (13.3%) strongly disagreed with the statement. Tagliaventi and Mattarelli (2006) stated that
knowledge sharing may be facilitated by having a less centralized organizational structure. Although
TML was fairly centralized, it was small in size. The size of the organization provided a fertile
ground for knowledge sharing. Organizational demographics, particularly large size and formal status
differentials have a negative influence on knowledge sharing (Ramirez, 2007; Wang & Noe, 2010).
This implies that staff at TML have an opportunity to share knowledge by virtue of their size and
that may make them efficient and help them deliver good services.
With regard to the provision of incentives, respondents held different views on whether or not
incentives to share knowledge were provided at TML. For instance, four (26.7%) of the respondents
agreed that the incentives for knowledge sharing existed. The second group of three (20%) respondents
disagreed and an additional three (20%) strongly disagreed. However, one (6.7%) respondent indicated
that they agreed with the statement, one was not sure, and three (20%) remained mute. The reviewed
literature suggested that the absence of incentives is directly linked to knowledge hoarding (Arzi,
Rabanifard, Nassajtarshizi, & Omran, 2013). Incentives, including recognition and rewards, have
been suggested as interventions to ease knowledge sharing and help build a supportive culture (Islam,
Ahmed, Hasan, and Ahmed, 2011, Arzi, Rabanifard, Nassajtarshizi, & Omran, 2013).
The respondents were finally requested to indicate which of the provided knowledge-sharing obstacles
applied to their library and multiple responses were possible. Table 3 presents the results.
It is clear that the respondents held different views on the obstacles to knowledge sharing. A lack
of trust among employees was the greatest obstacle to knowledge sharing highlighted by six (40%)
respondents. The second greatest obstacle to knowledge sharing as held by four (26.7%) respondents
was a lack of participation and differences in qualifications. Another four (26.7%) respondents
believed that the “knowledge is power” mentality also hindered knowledge sharing. Age difference and
differences in qualifications were viewed as obstacles to knowledge sharing at TML by three (20%)
respondents. One respondent pointed out a lack of rewards as an obstacle to knowledge sharing. The
other two respondents selected the category “other’’ and were of the opinion that the mentees had a
negative attitude towards their mentors and that TML staff seem to be selfish.
As can be noted from the statistics above, the majority of respondents held the view that trust
seems to be a major obstacle of knowledge sharing at TML. These findings are, therefore, in agreement
with, for example, Ngulube (2005) and Zenk, Hynek, Edelmann, Virkar, Parycek and Steiner (2021)
Table 3. Obstacles to knowledge sharing
Obstacles Number of respondents
“Knowledge is power” mentality 4
Age difference 3
Difference in experience 3
Difference in qualifications 4
Lack of trust 6
Lack of rewards 1
Lack of participation 4
Other 2
Volume 18 • Issue 1
10
who postulated that as a result of a lack of trust among employees there may be hostility to knowledge
sharing in an organization. Riege (2005) also pointed to a number of other knowledge-sharing
obstacles, which were also in agreement with the findings of this study, among which are differences
in experience levels, age differences and differences in education levels, and a lack of trust in people
because they may misuse knowledge or take unjust credit for it.
A significant number of respondents also held the view that the “knowledge is power” adage
hindered knowledge sharing. This is in line with the suggestion made by Ramirez (2007) that the
“knowledge is power” struggle creates inherent tensions between workers and the organization for
which they work over who owns and controls their knowledge. This tension stems from the idea that
knowledge is a resource with a significant amount of possible status and power and results in turf
wars (Ramirez, 2007).
Organizations should strive to reduce obstacles to knowledge sharing so that the employees may
operate efficiently and improve services to the clientele.
Knowledge sharing in academic libraries may result in improved services and innovativeness in
fulfilling their mandate. This study provides empirical evidence on knowledge sharing at an academic
library, which contributes to the growing knowledge on knowledge sharing and its role in supporting
service delivery. In summary, this study intended to find out if knowledge sharing can be used as
a tool to improve service delivery in the National University of Lesotho Library. In line with the
objectives of this study, it is concluded that although knowledge sharing is not formalized at TML,
it is considered important to service delivery. TML staff did not use technology-based tools for
knowledge sharing, although some of the tools exist. Regarding the human-based knowledge-sharing
mechanisms, the results of the study showed that only job rotation and mentorship programs were in
use. Other human-based knowledge-sharing tools such as CoPs, job shadowing and storytelling did
not exit. Furthermore, it was apparent from the study results that the library did not have a system
for managing knowledge-sharing processes. The results indicated a lack of trust among colleagues
and their difference in qualifications were some of the obstacles to knowledge sharing, including
the “knowledge is power mentality” and a lack of rewards. This case study has implications for
understanding knowledge sharing in support of service delivery in a library context. A theory on the
phenomenon may be developed if more case studies are conducted to understand knowledge sharing
and its role in service delivery.
Volume 18 • Issue 1
11
Alawamleh, H. S., & Kloub, M. A. (2013). Impact of organizational structure on knowledge management in
the Jordanian insurance companies: From the perspective of the supervisory leadership. International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 82–96.
AlShamsi, O., & Ajmal, M. (2018). Critical factors for knowledge sharing in technology-intensive organizations:
Evidence from UAE service sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 384–412. doi:10.1108/JKM-
05-2017-0181
Andeniran, P. (2011). User satisfaction with academic libraries services: Academic staff and student perspectives.
International Journal of Library and Information Science, 3(10), 209–216.
Arzi, S., Rabanifard, N., Nassajtarshizi, S., & Omran, N. (2013). Relationship among reward system, knowledge
sharing and innovation performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(6), 1–27.
Asogwa, B. (2012). Knowledge management in academic libraries: Librarians in the 21st century. Journal of
Knowledge Management Practice, 13(2), 1–11.
Averweg, U. R. (2008). Developing an intranet towards knowledge sharing: A practitioner-based inquiry. South
African Journal of Information Management, 10(1), 1–13. doi:10.4102/sajim.v10i1.7
Bhojaraju, G. (2005). Knowledge management: Why do we need it for corporate? Malaysian Journal of Library
and Information Science, 10(2), 37–50.
Brčić, Z. J. & Mihelič, K.K. (2015). Knowledge sharing between different generations of employees: an example
from Slovenia. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 853-867.
Burnette, M. (2017). Tacit knowledge sharing among library colleagues: A pilot study. RSR. Reference Services
Review, 4(3), 382–397. doi:10.1108/RSR-11-2016-0082
Castaneda, D.I. & Toulson, P. (2021). Is it possible to share tacit knowledge using information and communication
technology tools? Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 1-11.
Christensen, P.H. (2007). Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 11(1), 36:47.
Colon-Aguirre, M. (2015). Knowledge transferred through organizational stories: A typology. Library
Management, 36(6/7), 421–433. doi:10.1108/LM-06-2014-0073
Daland, H. (2016). Managing knowledge in academic libraries are we? Should we? LIBER Quarterly, 26(1),
28–41. doi:10.18352/lq.10154
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Retrieved
May 13, 2014, from https://sloanreview.mit.edu
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1997). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Harvard
Business School Press.
Dube, L., & Ngulube, P. (2012). Knowledge sharing in a multicultural environment: Challenges and opportunities.
South African Journal of Library and Information Science, 78(1), 68–77. doi:10.7553/78-1-48
Gerbin, A., & Drnovsek, M. (2020). Knowledge-sharing restrictions in the life sciences: Personal and context-
specific factors in academia–industry knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1533–1557.
doi:10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0651
Hosseini, E., & Hashempour, L. (2012). The status of librarians’ knowledge sharing by the usage of web 2.0
tools: A case study of central libraries of Tabriz governmental universities. Retrieved April 9, 2014, from http://
by2012.bilgiyonetimi.net/proceedings/hosseini_hashempour.pdf
Hundie, K. (2001). Retrospective conversion of card catalogue at the National University of Lesotho Library.
African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 11(2), 149–157.
Islam, M. Z., Ahmed, S. M., Hasan, I., & Ahmed, S. U. (2011). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing:
Empirical evidence from service organizations. African Journal of Business Management, 5(14), 5900–5909.
Volume 18 • Issue 1
12
Jain, P. (2013). Knowledge management in academic libraries and information centres: A case of University
libraries. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 12(4), 1–13. doi:10.1142/S0219649213500342
Jantz, R. (2001). Knowledge management in academic libraries: Special tools and processes to support information
professionals. Journal of Reference Service Review, 29(1), 33–39. doi:10.1108/00907320110366778
Jeung, C. W., Yoon, H. J., & Choi, M. (2017). Exploring the affective mechanism linking perceived organizational
support and knowledge sharing intention: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Knowledge Management,
21(4), 946–960. doi:10.1108/JKM-12-2016-0530
Kamal, K. J., Manjit, S. S., & Gurvinder, K. S. (2007). Knowledge sharing among academic staff: a case study
of business schools in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Retrieved July, 18, 2014, from https://www.ucsi.edu.my/cervie/
ijasa/volume2/pdf/08A.pdf
Kim, J. (2015). Integrating communities of practice into library services. Collabora, 7(2), 47–55.
Lekhawipat, W., Wei, Y., & Lin, C. (2018). How internal attributions affect knowledge sharing behavior. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 22(4), 867–886. doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2017-0081
Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge management, knowledge organizations and knowledge worker: a review from
the frontlines. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from www.brint.com/interview/maeil.htm
Malinski, R. M. (2002). Job rotation in an academic library: Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Library
Trends, 50(4), 673–680.
Maponya, P. (2004). Knowledge management practices in academic libraries: a case study of the University of
Natal, Pietermaritzburg libraries. Retrieved September 12, 2013, from http://mapule276883.pbworks.com/f/
Knowledge+management+practices+in+academic+libraries.pdf
Marouf, L. (2017). Are academic libraries ready for knowledge management? The Electronic Library, 35(1),
137–151. doi:10.1108/EL-01-2016-0008
Mat Nor, N., Mat Khairi, S. M., Rosnan, H., Maskun, R., & Johar, E. R. (2020). Establishing a knowledge-based
organisation: Lesson learnt and KM challenges in Malaysian organisation. Innovation & Management Review,
17(3), 235–249. doi:10.1108/INMR-05-2019-0065
Mavodza, J., & Ngulube, P. (2011). Exploring the use of knowledge management practices in an academic
library in a changing information environment. South African Journal of Library and Information Science,
77(1), 15–25. doi:10.7553/77-1-63
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming culture barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 76–85. doi:10.1108/13673270110384428
Ngulube, P. (2005). Improving the quality of research outputs in higher education through knowledge sharing
and collaboration: A case study. Mousaion, 23(1), 39–61.
Oyemomi, O., Liu, S., & Neaga, I. (2015). The contribution of knowledge sharing to organizational performance:
an integrative knowledge framework for sharing performance organizational decision making. Retrieved January
28, 2019, from, www.researchgate.net
Rahman, M. S., Mannan, M., Hossain, M. A., Zaman, M. H., & Hassan, H. (2018). Tacit knowledge-sharing
behavior among the academic staff: Trust, self-efficacy, motivation and big five personality traits embedded
model. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(5), 761–778. doi:10.1108/IJEM-08-2017-0193
Rajurkur, M. (2011). Knowledge management in academic libraries. International Journal of Parallel and
Distributed System, 2(11), 321–323.
Ramirez, A. (2007). To blog or not blog: Understanding and overcoming the challenge of knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 8(1), 1–17.
Rao, K. (2018). Application of knowledge management in libraries. Retrieved January, 28th, 2019, from, https://
www.researchgate.net
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(3), 18–35. doi:10.1108/13673270510602746
Volume 18 • Issue 1
13
Sanford, S., Schwartz, B., & Khan, Y. (2020). The role of tacit knowledge in communication and decision-
making during emerging public health incidents. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101681 PMID:32834974
Shanhong, T. (2000). Knowledge management in libraries in the 21st century. Paper presented at the 66th IFLA
Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel. Retrieved January 5, 2014, from http://ifla.inist.fr/IV/ifla66/
papers/057-110e.htm
Smith, H. A., & McKeen, J. D. (2009). Instilling a knowledge sharing culture. Retrieved September 11, 2013,
from http://apollon1.alba.edu.gr/oklc2002/proceedings/pdf_files/id25.pdf
Ta, C. V., & Zyngier, S. (2018). Knowledge sharing barriers in Vietnamese higher education institutions (HEIS).
International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51–69. doi:10.4018/IJKM.2018010104
Tagliaventi, M. R., & Mattarelli, E. (2006). The role of networks of practice, value sharing and operational
proximity in knowledge flows between professional groups. Journal of Human Relations, 59(3), 291–319.
doi:10.1177/0018726706064175
Tan Nya Ling, C. (2011). Culture and trust in fostering knowledge. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,
9(4), 328–339.
Todorova, N., & Mills, A. M. (2018). Why do people share? A study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to
share knowledge in organisations. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 1–20. doi:10.4018/
IJKM.2018070101
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource
Management Review, 20(4), 115–131. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Wen, S. (2005). Implementing knowledge management in academic libraries: a pragmatic approach. Retrieved
March 12, 2015, from https://www.whiteclouds.com/iclc/cliej/cl19wen.htm
Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Edelmann, N., Virkar, S., Parycek, P., & Steiner, G. (2021). Exploring motivation to engage
in intraorganizational knowledge sharing: A mixed-methods approach. Kybernetes, 1–28.
Tšeole Emmanuel Tahleho is a System Librarian at National University of Lesotho in Lesotho. His research interest
is in knowledge management.
Patrick Ngulube, PhD, is a professor of information science and interdisciplinary research at the University of
South Africa. His research interests as in records and archives, e-government, application of information and
communication technologies, research methods and knowledge management, including indigenous knowledge
systems.
Content uploaded by Tahleho Tseole
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tahleho Tseole on Dec 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
