Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
http://jlo.sagepub.com/

Knowledge Sharing: The Influences of Learning Organization Culture, Organizational Commitment, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
Sung Jun Jo and Baek-Kyoo Joo
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2011 18: 353 originally published online 16 May 2011
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811405208
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/18/3/353

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Midwest Academy of Management

Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jul 17, 2011

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 16, 2011
What is This?

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

405208
JooJournal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
Baker College 2011

JLOs18310.1177/1548051811405208Jo and

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Knowledge Sharing: The Influences

of Learning Organization Culture,
Organizational Commitment, and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies
18(3) 353364
Baker College 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1548051811405208
http://jlos.sagepub.com

Sung Jun Jo1 and Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo2

Abstract
This study investigated cultural (learning organization culture), psychological (organizational commitment), and behavioral
(organizational citizenship behavior) antecedents of knowledge-sharing intention of employees. The authors structural
equation model using data collected from 452 Korean workers showed that learning organization culture was significantly
associated with organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and knowledge-sharing intention.
Organizational citizenship behavior turned out to fully mediate the relationship between organizational commitment and
knowledge-sharing intention. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research
are discussed.
Keywords
knowledge transfer, organizational commitment, organizational culture
Organizations have sought knowledge management as an
increasing number of theorists and practitioners have insisted
that organizational knowledge is a major source of competitive advantage (De Long & Fahey, 2000). Knowledge sharing has also received much attention for the past two decades
based on the assumption that the knowledge possessed by
individuals can hardly be converted into organizational
knowledge before it is shared with others.
Knowledge sharing is perceived as an indicator of an
organizations accumulation of social capital because knowledge possessed by one member of an organization can be
shared easily and efficiently if there is sufficient social capital (Collins & Hitt, 2006). The willingness to share knowledge
among organizational members depends on the resources
embedded in the organizations social relations and structures (Lin, 1999; von Krogh, 2003). The accumulated social
capital in an organization facilitates the exchange of knowledge within organizations by providing parties with access
to knowledge, the anticipation of the value of knowledge,
the motivation to exchange knowledge, and the combination
capability of the organization (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Social capital creates a set of organizing principles that act
as mechanisms by which an individuals knowledge of a
common language makes the knowledge accessible to a
group of individuals (Makino & Inkpen, 2003). Social capital also enhances the efficiency of the actions of both the
sources and recipients of knowledge. As a result, the probability of opportunistic behavior, the need for costly

monitoring processes, and the costs of transactions are

reduced (Makino & Inkpen, 2003; von Krogh, 2003).
Social capital resides in relationships between individuals
and their organizations. Social capital among individuals can
be accumulated through trust, perceived obligation, norms,
and identification to a group (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).
Emotional bonding to organization enhances perceived similarities among individuals who share membership because
identification intensifies the sense of oneness (Kramer,
Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). The more individuals are psychologically attached and identified with an organization, the
more likely they are to trust and interact with organizational
members, and make it comfortable to share knowledge.
Social factors are more deterministic than extrinsic benefits
in knowledge-sharing behaviors (Bock, Lee, Zmud, & Kim,
2005). Thus, knowledge sharing requires an adequate norm
of organization (organizational culture), a sense of identification (organizational commitment), and voluntary altruism
(organizational citizenship behavior [OCB]).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects
of cultural (learning organization culture), psychological
(organizational commitment), and behavioral (OCB)
1

Utica College, Utica, NY, USA

Winona State University, Winona, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:
Sung Jun Jo, Utica College, 1600 Burrstone Road, Utica, NY - 13502-4892
Email: sungguri@gmail.com

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

354

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

antecedents on knowledge sharing. More specifically, the

main research question is the following: What are the relationships of learning organization culture, organizational
commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior
with knowledge-sharing intention of employees?

conceptual model based on a comprehensive literature

review, lack of details regarding the interactions among
these four factors and the relative importance of each factor
should be pointed out as limitations.

Learning Organization Culture

Theoretical Framework
and Hypotheses
The concepts of knowledge sharing, learning organization
culture, organizational commitment, and OCB as well as
the relationships among these constructs are reviewed. Six
hypotheses are suggested, based on a literature review.

Research on Knowledge Sharing

A number of studies have attempted to discover significant
factors that facilitate or impede knowledge sharing.
Broadly, such studies have been conducted in two directions. First, some studies have suggested several primary
critical factors to facilitate knowledge sharing: the properties of shared knowledge (Collins & Hitt, 2006), individual
motivation (Osterloh, Frost, & Frey, 2002), beliefs and
attitudes (Kolekofski & Heminger, 2003), and culture
(Barua, Ravindran, & Whinston, 1997; Husted &
Michailova, 2002).
However, knowledge sharing is too complex of a process
to be explained by one single factor or a few factors. Hence,
the other group of studies has attempted to create a conceptual model, combining multiple factors and/or clarifying
the relationships among these factors from an integrative
and comprehensive perspective (Bock et al., 2005; Hendriks,
1999; Ipe, 2003). For example, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998)
suggest three dimensions of social capital: relational, structural, and cognitive. Diffusion of knowledge is expedited by
mutual trust among knowledge-sharing partners (relational),
effective system for communication (structural), and shared
norms across an organization (cognitive).
Bock et al. (2005) constructed and tested their structural
framework, adopting the theory of reasoned action, and
found that an individuals intention to share knowledge is
influenced by his or her attitudes and subjective norms (as
well as organizational climate), which subsequently influence that individuals attitude toward sharing knowledge.
An additional finding in this study maintains that anticipated
reciprocal relationships affect an individuals attitude toward
knowledge sharing, whereas both a sense of self-worth and
the organizational climate affect subjective norms.
Ipe (2003) provides a comprehensive literature review
on knowledge sharing in organizations. She identifies four
major factors affecting the knowledge sharing of individuals
including the nature of knowledge, individual motivation to
share, opportunities to share, and the culture of the work
environment. Although her study provides a well-integrated

Schein (1988) defines culture as a pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a given group
(p. 7). An organizational culture creates high levels of
behavioral consistency in members through social norms,
shared values, and a shared mental model (Dalkir, 2005).
Organizations that pursue to be learning organizations need
to develop suitable attributes to facilitate organization-wide
learning practices.
Learning organization refers to an organization skilled
at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at
modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and
insights (Garvin, 1993, p. 80). A learning organization
involves an environment in which organizational learning in
an organization is structured so that teamwork, collaboration, creativity, and knowledge processes have a collective meaning and value (Confessore & Kops, 1998).
Watkins and Marsicks (1997) framework for a learning
organization has served as a theoretical base for this
study. Their instrumentation of Dimensions of Learning
Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) includes positive
nature and cultural aspects of supportive learning organizations that encourage a dynamic organizational learning
process at two levels: organizational structure level and
peoples collaborative learning level (Song, Joo, & Chermack,
2009). The subdimensions of DLOQ present seven key
characteristics of a learning organization: (a) continuous
learning, (b) inquiry and dialogue, (c) team learning,
(d) embedded systems, (e) empowerment, (f) connection to
environment, and (g) strategic leadership. Table 1 summarizes these seven cultural characteristics of learning
organization.

Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength
of an individuals identification with and involvement in a
particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979).
Organizational commitment is conceived as the psychological attachment felt by a person for an organization,
reflecting the degree to which the individual internalizes
and adopts characteristics or perspectives of the organization (OReilly & Chatman, 1986). When an individual is
committed to a certain organization, she or he accepts and
believes in the organizations goals and values, is willing to
exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and
wants to maintain membership in the organization (Burud
& Tumolo, 2004).

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

355

Jo and Joo
Table 1. Characteristics of a Learning Organization
Dimension
Continuous learning
Inquiry and dialogue
Team learning
Embedded system
Empowerment
Connection to environment
Strategic leadership

Description
Learning is designed into work so that people can learn on the job; opportunities are provided for
ongoing education and growth.
People gain productive reasoning skills to express their views and the capacity to listen and inquire into
the views of others; the culture is changed to support questioning, feedback, and experimentation.
Work is designed to use groups to access different modes of thinking; groups are expected to learn
together and work together; collaboration is valued by the culture and rewarded.
Both high- and low-technology systems to share learning are created and integrated with work; access is
provided; systems are maintained.
People are involved in setting, owning, and implementing a joint vision; responsibility is distributed close to
decision making so that people are motivated to learn toward what they are held accountable to do.
People are helped to see the effect of their work on the entire enterprises; people scan the
environment and use information to adjust work practices; the organization is linked to its
communities.
Learning model, champion, and support learning; leadership uses learning strategically for business
results.

Note. Adapted from Marsick and Watkins (2003), p. 139.

Organizational commitment has been widely regarded as

a multidimensional concept (Bartlett, 2001). Mowday et al.
(1979) distinguish between attitudinal and behavioral commitment. They view attitudinal commitment as addressing
the process by which people come to think about their relationships with an organization, although they view behavioral commitment as the process by which individuals
become locked into a certain organization. Meyer and Allen
(1991) identified three dimensions of commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment
refers to an employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in an organization. Continuance
commitment is presented when employees feel a certain
need to link to and stay with an organization, and normative
commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue
employment (Meyer & Allen, 1991).
Organizational commitment is a construct of high interest,
as a number of studies have reported positive consequences
with regard to employee behavior and desirable work outcomes from organizational commitment (Bartlett, 2001).
For example, one meta-analytical study shows that organizational commitment is largely and negatively correlated
with withdrawal behaviors, such as absenteeism, intentions
to search for alternative jobs, and turnover (Mathieu &
Zajac, 1990). Organizational commitment is also an indicator of pro-organizational behaviors. The more a worker is
committed to an organization, the less the likelihood he or
she is to shirk job duties or leave that organization (Watson
& Papamarcos, 2002). Increases in organizational commitment reduce transaction costs in organizations and, in
turn, these reduced transaction costs create competitive
advantages that accrue for the organization (Watson &
Papamarcos, 2002).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCB refers to employee behaviors that are discretionary,
beyond the call of duty, and not rewarded in the context of
an organizations formal reward structure (Konovsky &
Pugh, 1994; Organ, 1988). Discretionary behavior, according
to Organ (1988),
is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the
job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms
of the persons employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal
choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable. (p. 4)
OCB is vital for productivity but organizations cannot forecast
the entire spectrum of subordinate behaviors needed for achieving goals through stated job descriptions (Deluga, 1994).
Organ (1988) identified the following five categories
of OCB:
Altruism: discretionary behaviors that have the
effect of helping another specific person with an
organizationally relevant task or problem.
Conscientiousness: discretionary behaviors on the
part of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization in the
areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations,
taking breaks, and so on.
Sportsmanship: willingness of the employee to
tolerate less-than-ideal circumstances without complaining to avoid grumbling about petty grievances
and railing against real or imagined slights.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

356

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Courtesy: discretionary behavior on the part of an

individual aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring.
Civic virtue: behavior on the part of an individual
indicating that she or he responsibly participates
in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of
the company.
Bolino, Turnley, and Bloodgood (2002) suggest that
OCBs play an important role in the development of social
capital in organizations. Their conceptual framework indicates that OCBs include loyalty, obedience, and participation, all of which contribute to the creation of the structural,
relational, and cognitive aspects of social capital (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998). OCBs are expected when the actors are
more emotionally attached to an organization with which
they have membership. As Lewicki and Bunker (1996) suggest, salient identification enhances frequency of cooperation and cooperative behaviors. When individuals identify
with their organizations, they are more willing to engage in
cooperative, altruistic, and spontaneous unrewarded citizenship behavior (Mowday et al., 1979; OReilly &
Chatman, 1986).

Research Model and Hypotheses

Although there is a possible close link between learning
organization culture and organizational commitment, few
studies have investigated the relationship between the two
constructs. There is need for further studies, since organizational characteristics can enhance organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Lim (2003) reported that
there were moderate but significant correlations between
affective organizational commitment and subconstructs of
organizational learning. Joo and Lim (2009) also found that
perceived organizational learning culture was significantly
associated with organizational commitment. Thus, the more
employees perceive that an organization possesses characteristics of learning organization (continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, established system,
empowerment, system connection, and strategic leadership),
the stronger their psychologically attachment to their organizations is.
Hypothesis 1: Learning organization culture will be
positively related to organizational commitment.
Based on previous studies, we hypothesized a positive
association between learning organization culture and OCB.
Existing studies have consistently shown that organizational
culture is associated with OCB (Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2004; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997; Werner, 2000).
Werner (2000) postulates that organizational culture
influences the extent to which employees are engaged in

contextual performance, which is defined as individual

efforts that are not directly related to their main task functions but are important because they shape the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the
critical catalyst for task activities and processes (pp. 4-5).
Through their quantitative study, Wayne et al. (1997) conclude that employees perceptions of a supportive culture in
their organizations are positively related to OCB. According
to social exchange theory, employees who feel that they are
supported by their organizations tend to reciprocate by performing citizenship behavior.
Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2004) indicated that learning organization creates an environment in which people
widen their focus from the immediate outcomes of their
performance to continuous learning by the organization as a
whole. Organizational learning values expand employees
perspectives beyond their formal tasks and further encourage organizational members to help their colleagues in circumstances when the organizational performance level is
threatened in order to achieve an organizational goal. The
significant relationship between these two constructs suggests that an organization can improve OCB by paying attention to specific characteristics of its learning culture.
Hypothesis 2: Learning organization culture will be
positively related to OCB.
Literature has suggested that psychological variables are
antecedents of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Haslam,
2004; OReilly & Chatman, 1986; Van Dick et al., 2004;
Williams & Anderson, 1991). Efraty and Wolfe (1988)
found a positive relationship between behavioral work performance and an emotional attachment to an organization.
Given that psychological attachment involves bridging
individuals and other social members, it will likely promote
a positive influence on pro-OBs. Thus, OCB is a product of
an individuals commitment to the organization. Workers
who are committed to and internalized with their companies
are more likely to cooperate with other members in order
to achieve collective goals (Bolino et al., 2002; Jackson &
Smith, 1999; OReilly & Chatman, 1986; Williams &
Anderson, 1991).
Hypothesis 3: Organizational commitment will be
positively related to OCB.
Although few studies have shown a direct association
between organizational culture and employees knowledgesharing behaviors, the importance of the cultural aspect in
knowledge management is significant. Organizational culture is an important factor to create, share, and use knowledge in that it establishes norms regarding knowledge
sharing (De Long & Fahey 2000) and creates an environment in which individuals are motivated to share their

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

357

Jo and Joo

Organizational
Commitment
H1

H5

H3

Learning
Organization
Culture

Knowledge
Sharing
Intention

H4
H2
Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

H6

Figure 1. The research model of the study

knowledge with others (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Nonaka

and Takeuchi (1995) indicated that a hypertext organizational culture, characterized as flexible opposed to bureaucratic, facilitates sharing of individuals tacit knowledge
and converts it into explicit knowledge. Robertson and
Hammersley (2000) also insisted that a working environment where the notion of egalitarianism and autonomy was
entrenched produced a significant contribution to knowledge creation and sharing within the organization.

sharing without explicit financial incentives because they

perceived that knowledge sharing would increase the scope
and depth of association among organizational members.
Both studies suggest that a deliberate strategy to use OCB
can shape employees motivation to voluntarily participate
in knowledge sharing in organizations.

Hypothesis 4: Learning organization culture will be

positively related to knowledge-sharing intention.

Integrating the hypotheses established above, Figure 1

illustrates the research model of this study.

There is an expected positive relationship between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing. Hislop (2003)
suggests that both an attitudinal factor (organizational commitment) and behavioral factor (OCB) are linked with the
willingness to share knowledge. Workers with high levels of
organizational commitment are more likely to be highly motivated to participate in knowledge management and knowledgesharing activities within an organization.
Hypothesis 5: Organizational commitment will be
positively related to knowledge-sharing intention.
A positive relationship between OCB and knowledgesharing intention was expected as studies perceive knowledgesharing behavior as a display of OCB. As an example, Yu
and Chu (2007) consider knowledge sharing to be a form of
OCB in that the knowledge-sharing process involves automatic, discretionary, and altruistic behaviors that are not
requested. They conclude that an effective environment can
be created to share knowledge via OCB. Bock and Kim
(2002) also view knowledge-sharing behavior as an outcome of the rendering of OCB. They discovered that experienced workers were likely to be involved in activities
not specified in their job descriptions such as knowledge

Hypothesis 6: OCB will be positively related to

knowledge-sharing intention.

Method
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a survey study to
measure learning organization culture, organizational
commitment, OCB, and knowledge-sharing intention. The
survey was administered to employees serving Korean
companies in various industries. This study employed
descriptive statistics, Harmans test, confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM)
to validate and analyze the data.

Sample and Demographic Information

The target population of this study was nonexecutive or
executive-level employees serving for-profit organizations in Korea. Temporary workers were excluded from
the study because obtaining valid data of organizational
outcome variables such as organizational commitment
and OCB from temporary workers is unlikely due to
their unstable employment status. This study applied a
survey research method to collect data from multiple
(31) organizations. Sampling at multiple sites is beneficial to increase the studys external validity (Levin &
Cross, 2004).

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

358

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Table 2. Distribution of Participating Companies and Samples

Manufacturing
Non-manufacturing

Large sized

Mid- or Small Sized

10 (159)
13 (202)

2 (36)
6 (55)

Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of samples collected

from companies in each category.

Participants were approached and recruited through the

researchers personal contacts. Before agreeing to participate, potential participants were instructed to read the information printed on the cover page of the survey describing
the researchers biography, purpose of the study, potential
risks of participating in the study, and study procedures to
ensure confidentiality and to protect participants privacy.
Participation in this study was voluntary without any
enforcement, threat, or enticement with financial benefits.
Table 2 presents the distribution of participating companies
and participants across sizes and industries.
Questionnaires were translated into Korean and distributed to 1,020 workers, and a total of 488 responses (47.8%)
were returned. This response rate is substantially higher than
that of similar studies (e.g., Higgins & Thomas, 2001; van
Emmerik, 2004). Out of the 488 responses, 36 responses
(7.4%) contained incomplete data so they were eliminated
from further analysis (N = 452).
Respondents were asked to report demographic information including gender, age, affiliation, years of employment
with their current employer, years of work experience in
their career, job position, and job function. Among the 452
respondents, 336 were male (74.3%) and 116 were female
(25.7%). The majority of the participants were aged between
30 and 39 years (69.9%), 15.3% between 20 and 29 years,
13.1% between 40 and 49 years, and 1.8% more than 50 years.
In terms of the tenure of the current employer, most of the
participants (85.4%) had less than 10 years of experience
with their current employers.

Measures
A self-reporting survey with 24 questions was administered
to each participant to measure the perceptions of the companys learning organization culture, organizational commitment, OCBs, and knowledge-sharing intention. All
these four instruments were originally developed and validated in the U.S. context, and we prepared Korean-version
questionnaires based on translationback-translation procedures. All four variables were measured using a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
Learning organization culture. This study used seven items
from Yang, Watkins, and Marsicks (2004) shortened version of the DLOQ, originally developed by Watkins and

Marsick (1997). The seven items represent each subconstruct

(i.e., continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, empowerment, embedded system, system connection,
and strategic leadership). In effect, this instrument treats
learning organization culture as a single (unidimensional)
construct. Coefficient alphas for the seven dimensions
ranged from .68 to .83 (Yang et al., 2004). Since this study
investigates the perception of employees on organizational
learning culture, it will be based on an individual (perception)
level of analysis. In this study, the reliability of the seven
items was .82. A sample item included: In my organization,
whenever people state their view, they also ask what others
think.
Organizational commitment. To measure organizational
commitment, this study used the six-item scale developed
by Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993). Among the three
dimensions of organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen,
1991), we selected affective commitment that explains the
overall organizational commitment better than the other
two dimensions that measure behavioral aspect (Ketchand
& Strawser, 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Cronbachs alpha
coefficients of this measure ranged from .84 to .86 in previous studies (Feather & Rauter, 2004; Lee & Bruvold, 2003).
The reliability coefficient was .90 in this study. A sample
item included: This organization has a great deal of personal
meaning for me.
Organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) conceptualized OCB as five dimensions: altruism, consciousness,
courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) developed a measuring scale based on those five dimensions of OCB. In this
study, however, instead of using the full-item model developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990), we used 16 items excluding five items of altruism because altruism dimension, by
definition, represents behaviors that are directed to help
specific persons rather than toward an organization, which
did not match with the purpose of this study. In addition,
because Podsakoff et al.s (1990) measure was designed to
be administered to colleagues and supervisors, three items
that are less appropriate for a self-report survey were not
included. The reliability of the 16-item model was .84 in
this study. We used the averaged scores of each dimension
of OCB. A sample item included: [I] consider the impact
of my actions on coworkers.
Knowledge-sharing intention. Knowledge-sharing intention
was measured by using Bock et al.s (2005) instrument.
This measuring instrument consists of five items with two
subconstructs: tacit knowledge-sharing intentions and
implicit knowledge-sharing intentions. Tacit knowledge is
expressed as work experience and know-how, and explicit
knowledge is expressed as work reports and documents
(Bock et al., 2005). Cronbachs alphas of both categories
range from .92 to .93 (Bock et al., 2005). The reliability of
these items was .88 in this study. A sample item included:

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

359

Jo and Joo
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities

1. Learning organization culture

2. Organizational commitment
3. Organizational citizenship behavior
4. Knowledge-sharing intention

Mean

SD

3.47
3.42
3.68
3.80

0.60
0.68
0.37
0.61

(.82)
.57
.51
.45

(.90)
.55
.44

(.84)
.54

(.88)

Note. N = 452; all correlations are significant (p < .01). Numbers on the diagonal and in parentheses indicate reliabilities (Cronbachs alpha).

I frequently share my experience or know-how from work

with other members in my organization.

Results
The results of the study are reported in three parts. First, the
construct validity of each measurement model is examined
by CFA. Second, the descriptive statistics, correlations, and
reliabilities of the reduced measurement model analyses are
reported. Third, the SEM method was used to analyze the
data and address the results of hypothesis testing. SEM was
employed as a primary statistical method to test CFA and
the hypotheses. SEM, an increasingly popular statistical
procedure in the behavioral sciences for testing the validity
of a theory about the causal links among variables (Burnette
& Williams, 2005), provides a comprehensive approach to a
research question for assessing and modifying theoretical
models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). CFA was based on the
covariance matrix and used maximum likelihood estimation
as implemented in LISREL 8.8. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities were conducted with SPSS 16.0.

Harmans Test and Validity Test

We first checked for possible common method variance
with Harmans single-factor test because the data were
collected through a cross-sectional, self-reported survey
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). An
exploratory factor analysis of all our scale items exhibited
three factors with eigen values that were higher than 1,
explaining 56.55% of the variance in our study, with the
first factor explaining 39.31% and the last factor explaining
7.31% of the total variance. This result suggested that our
data sample was not seriously contaminated by common
method bias.
After testing for the possibility of common method bias,
we conducted CFA to estimate the quality of the factor
structure and designated factor loadings by statistically testing the fit between a proposed measurement model and the
data (Yang, 2005). All factor loadings between each latent
variable and its measuring items were computed. CFA estimated convergent and discriminate validity of indicators of
the four constructs: learning organization culture, organizational commitment, OCB, and knowledge-sharing intention.

The results of the CFA offered further validity for the instrument and model.
Table 3 presents respective internal consistency reliabilities as well as correlations among the four variables in this
study. All the correlations indicated positive and ranged
from .44 to .57. The relationship between learning organization culture and organizational commitment was the highest
(r = .57). All measures demonstrated adequate levels of reliability (Cronbachs = .82-.90) and assured the convergent
and discriminant validities of the constructs used.

Structural Model Assessment

The purpose of the structural model analysis is to determine
whether the theoretical relationships specified at the conceptualization stage are supported by the data (Diamantopoulos
& Siguaw, 2000). The adequacy of the structural model was
estimated by comparing the goodness of fit to the hypothesized model and an alternative nested model. The final
model was determined based on three criteria: (a) goodness
of fit, (b) estimated parameters (i.e., standardized path coefficient) with theoretical relationships, and (c) the law of
parsimony. The hypotheses were examined by investigating
the path coefficients and the total effect sizes of the constructs in the final model. Figure 2 illustrates the strengths
of the relationships among the constructs, showing path
coefficients and the overall model fit of the hypothesized
structural model. The hypothesized model indicated a good
fit in all indices, 2(203) = 527.20, p = .00, root mean square
of approximation (RMSEA) = .060, nonnormed fit index
(NNFI) = .97, comparative fit index (CFI) = .98, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .056. All the
hypotheses except one (Hypothesis 4) were significant.
In addition to the hypothesized model, an alternative
model was tested. This nested model excludes a path from
organizational commitment to knowledge-sharing intension, which turned out to be nonsignificant (see Figure 3).
Thus, organizational commitment was fully mediated by
OCB. This model exhibited an equivalent fit to the data,
2(204) = 527.04, p = .00, RMSEA = .059, NNFI = .97,
CFI = .98, SRMR = .056. To conclude, the alternative
model was accepted as the final model in this study, because
it is more parsimonious and indicates an equivalent fit to
the hypothesized model.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

360

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

Figure 2. Structural equation modeling results of the hypothesized model

11 =.65
t = 10.63

Organizational
Commitment
21 =.41
t = 5.50

Learning
Organization
Culture

Knowledge
Sharing
Intention

31 =.19
t = 3.09
21 =.34
t = 4.63

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

Significant path; p < .05 (t > 1.96)

32 =.56
t =7.21

SMC =.48

Non-significant path

Figure 3. Structural equation modeling results of the alternative model

Hypotheses Testing
As the results of the SEM analyses, all the research hypotheses (Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6), except for Hypothesis 5
were supported, showing statistically significant path coefficients (t > 1.96, p < .05). The only exception was the
relationship between organizational commitment and
knowledge-sharing intention, which was not significant
(Hypothesis 5: path coefficient = .04, t = 0.54). Based on

the final model, learning organization culture was found to

be significantly associated with organizational commitment
(Hypothesis 1: path coefficient = .65, t = 10.63). Learning
organization culture was also significantly related to OCB
(Hypothesis 2: path coefficient = .34, t = 4.63). Organizational
commitment was significantly associated with OCB
(Hypothesis 3: path coefficient = .41, t = 5.50). Learning
organization culture was significantly related to knowledgesharing intention (Hypothesis 4: path coefficient = .19, t = 3.09).

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

361

Jo and Joo
Finally, OCB was positively associated with knowledgesharing intention (Hypothesis 6: path coefficient = .56,
t = 7.21). The results suggest that the three antecedents
explained 48% of the variance in knowledge-sharing intention.

Discussion
In this section, the findings of this study are discussed in
detail, followed by the implications of this study for research
and practice in the field of human resources (HR) and OB.
The limitations of this study and recommendations for
future research are also presented.

Research Findings
This study mainly attempted to test if the perception, attitude, and behavior of employees toward their organizations
contribute to knowledge-sharing intention. Through the
quantitative research described in previous sections, we were
able to obtain the following findings.
First, the participants exhibited a higher level of knowledgesharing intention when they perceived a higher level of
learning organization culture and when they demonstrated a
higher level of OCB. These results were consistent with the
findings of previous literature (e.g., Bock & Kim, 2002;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Second, the direct link between organizational commitment and knowledge-sharing intention was nonsignificant,
and thus OCB was found to fully mediate the relationship
between organizational commitment and knowledge-sharing
intention. This result contradicts Hislops (2003) finding
that suggested both organizational commitment and OCB
jointly contribute to knowledge-sharing intention.
Third, supporting the findings of the previous research,
this study found that learning organization culture is significantly associated with organizational commitment, OCB,
and knowledge-sharing intention. It is evident that organizational culture shapes the contexts where knowledge is
created, shared, diffused, and used in an organization (De
Long & Fahey, 2000).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

With regard to theoretical implications, this study integrated
cultural, psychological, and behavioral aspects of knowledge sharing of employees. Contributing in understanding
the nature of knowledge sharing in organization, the findings of this study provide several implications to HR and
OB fields.
First, this study supports the perspective that citizenship
behaviors observed within an organization are the products
of social collectivity (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Employees
are willing to sacrifice their own goals for the collective
value of the organization when group solidarity is strong.

This study provides evidence that organizational solidarity

is affected by an organizational culture that promotes learning and by employees psychological attachment to the
organization.
Another implication of this study is that it reiterates the
significant impact of organizational culture on knowledge
sharing. Organizational culture influences employees perceptions and behaviors that are central to knowledge creation, sharing, and use (De Long & Fahey, 2000). This
study reveals that a learning organization culture is not only
linked directly to knowledge-sharing intention but is also
associated with organizational commitment and OCBs that
constitute a condition that enhances knowledge-sharing
intention. These results affirm that organizational culture is
an overarching factor that affects the other contributors to
knowledge sharing (Ipe, 2003).
Whereas this study confirmed the role of organizational
culture that encourages and emphasizes the growth through
learning in disseminating knowledge, this was the first
study that specifically focused on the role of OCB in knowledge sharing. We believe that sharing knowledge could be
detrimental for the knowledge owner, because it is the
behavior that abandons a monopoly of the knowledge. The
deep relationship between OCB and knowledge-sharing
intention demonstrates that employees are willing to share
their knowledge voluntarily with others without any explicit
pressure or benefits. The role of OCB in facilitating knowledge sharing and building a learning organization need to
be further examined.
This study also emphasized the importance of social factors in knowledge sharing. To facilitate knowledge sharing,
HR professionals need to focus more on the social relationships among people in the organization. Since knowledge
sharing is social in nature, even adopting elaborate technology to develop knowledge management systems and implementing new policies to improve individual motivation to
share knowledge might not be successful if the management fails to build cooperative relationships among employees (Hendriks, 1999). Thus, it is not surprising that in this
study learning organization culture has significant relationships with organizational commitment and OCB as well as
knowledge-sharing intention. To conclude, HR practitioners can enhance knowledge sharing in their organizations
not only by developing mutual trust and securing reciprocity
but also by developing an environment that enhances and
facilitates learning in organization.

Limitations and Recommendations

for Future Research
In terms of methodology, there are several limitations. First,
this study relied on volunteer participants self-reporting of
the indicators of the constructs used in this study. This could
weaken the generalizability of the study results. For example,

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

362

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

as seen from Table 2, the samples were unevenly collected

from large-sized companies. In addition, the amount of data
from males overwhelmingly exceeded that from females.
This uneven distribution could produce large firm-oriented
and male-oriented biases. Biased data prevent researchers
from conducting comparison analyses between groups and
from generalizing the results of studies to all contexts.
Another limitation is that this empirical study confines itself
to a cross-sectional survey method, which leaves room for
speculation with regard to causality among the variables. In
addition, the study sample was somewhat restricted to a
group with similar demographic characteristics: employees
in the private sector in a Korean cultural setting.
To overcome these limitations, further research needs to
be based on longitudinal data because a cross-sectional survey method restricts researchers ability to test causalities
among variables. In addition, to increase the generalizability of the present study, sources of data should be distributed to proportionally match the target population. Thus,
establishing a sampling strategy in a rigorous way is critical
to improving generalizability so that convenient sampling
can be avoided. Including participants with more diverse
demographic backgrounds, locations, cultures, and work
settings is recommended.

Conclusion
In this knowledge-based economy, knowledge is one of the
major sources of sustainable competitive advantage for
an organization. Knowledge sharing is significant in that
knowledge held by individuals cannot become organizational knowledge until it is shared throughout the organization. Thus, knowledge sharing requires an organization-wide
culture that integrates people and the organizations structure to move the organization in the direction of continuous
learning and change (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004). It is
particularly imperative that organizations facilitate OCB
to enhance knowledge sharing. To enhance organizational
commitment and OCB, it is also critical to foster the organizations learning culture. This study demonstrates that
organizational culture shapes conditions and contexts to
facilitate socially driven attitudes and behaviors. Finally, it
is hoped that this study will encourage researchers to pay
more attention to the effects of cognitive factors in knowledge management and to conduct more cross-cultural studies in the future.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Bartlett, K. R. (2001). The relationship between training and
organizational commitment: A study in the health care field.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 335-352.
Barua, A., Ravindran, S., & Whinston, A. B. (1997). Effective
intra-organizational information exchange. Journal of Information Science, 23, 239-248.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards:
An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing.
Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21.
Bock, G., Lee, J., Zmud, R., & Kim, Y. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of
extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-111.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522.
Burnette, J., & Williams, L. J. (2005). Structural equation modeling
(SEM): An introduction to basic techniques and advanced issues.
In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 143-160). San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Burud, S., & Tumolo, M. (2004). Leveraging the new human capital.
Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas.
Organization Studies, 23, 687-710.
Collins, J. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2006). Leveraging tacit knowledge
in alliances: The importance of using relational capabilities to
build and leverage relational capital. Journal of Engineering
and Technology Management, 23, 147-167.
Confessore, S. J., & Kops, W. J. (1998). Self-directed learning and
the learning organization: Examining the connection between
the individual and the learning environment. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 9(4), 365-375
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice.
Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to
knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive,
14(4), 113-127.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member
exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67,
315-332.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL.
London, England: Sage.
Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. (1988). The effect of organizational identification on employee affective and performance responses.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 3, 105-112.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

363

Jo and Joo
to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 15, 279-301.
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work
values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
77, 81-94.
Garvin, A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78-84.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social
identity approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT
on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and
careers: Toward understanding the effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 223-247.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research
agenda. Employee Relations, 25, 182-202.
Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting
knowledge-sharing hostility. Organizational Dynamics, 31,
60-73.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2,
337-359.
Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different
dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
120-135.
Joo, B., & Lim, T. (2009). The impacts of organizational learning
culture and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic motivation: The mediating role of perceived
job complexity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 15, 48-60.
Ketchand, A. A., & Strawser, J. R. (2001). Multiple dimensions of organizational commitment: Implications for future
accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13,
221-251.
Kolekofski, K. E., & Heminger, A. R. (2003). Beliefs and attitudes
affecting intentions to share information in an organizational
setting. Information & Management, 40, 521-532.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior
and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
656-669.
Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective
trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social
decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. M. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114-139).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees:
Investment in employee development. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 981-1000.

Levin, D., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can
trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer.
Management Science, 50, 1477-1490.
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. M. Tyler
(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research
(pp. 114-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lim, T. J. (2003). Relationships among organizational commitment, learning organization culture, and job satisfaction in
one Korean private organization (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28-51.
Makino, S., & Inkpen, A. (2003). Knowledge seeking FDI and
learning across borders. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge
management (pp. 233-252). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value
of an organizations learning culture: The Dimensions of the
Learning Organization Questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 132-151.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis
of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Meyer, J., Allen, N., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of three-component
conceptualization. Journal of Allied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 14, 224-247.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 242-266.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
OReilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance,
identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Osterloh, M., Frost, J., & Frey, B. (2002). The dynamics of motivation in new organizational forms. International Journal of the
Economics of Business, 9, 61-77.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012

364

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(3)

followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Robertson, M., & Hammersley, G. (2000). Knowledge management
practices within a knowledge-intensive firm: The significance
of the people management dimension. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 24, 241-253.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational culture. Retrieved from
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/2224/1/SWP-208824854366.pdf
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational perspective:
The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, 281-298.
Song, J. H., Joo, B., & Chermack, T. J. (2009). The dimensions
of learning organization questionnaire (DLOQ): A validation
study in Korean context. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 43-64.
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O.,
Grubba, C., . . . Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or
should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational
identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management, 15, 351-360.
van Emmerik, I. (2004). The more you can get, the better: Mentoring constellations and intrinsic career success. Career Development International, 9, 578-594.
von Krogh, G. (2003). Knowledge sharing and the communal
resource. In M. Easterby-Smith & M. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational learning and knowledge management
(pp. 372-392). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning
Organization.
Watson, G. W., & Papamarcos, S. D. (2002). Social capital and
organizational commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 537-552.

Wayne, S., Shore, L., & Liden, R. (1997). Perceived organizational

support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82-111.
Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for Human Resource Management. Human Resource
Management Review, 10, 3-24.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
Yang, B. (2005). Factor analysis methods. In R. A. Swanson & E.
F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations
and methods of inquiry (pp. 181-199). San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler.
Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of
the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 31-55.
Yu, C., & Chu, T. (2007). Exploring knowledge contribution
from an OCB perspective. Information & Management, 44,
321-331.

Bios
Sung Jun Jo is an assistant professor of management at Utica
College. He received his Ph. D. in human resource development at
the University of Minnesota. He is certified as Senior Professional
in Human Resources (SPHR) and his areas of research interest
include employee training, organizational learning, mentoring, social
network analysis, and historical aspect of management.
Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo is an assistant professor of human
resources management at Winona State University, Minnesota. He
received his Ph.D. in human resource development at the
University of Minnesota, and a M.A. in human resources and
industrial relations from the Carlson School of Management at the
University of Minnesota. His current research interests include
creativity, organizational learning, commitment, authentic/transformative leadership, and employee development.

Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on February 23, 2012