stdjelm.scienceandtechnology.com.vn

VNUHCM Journal of

Economics, Law and Management

An official journal of Viet Nam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

ISSN 2588-1051

Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

 Research article

HTML

0

Total

0

Share
Which causes knowledge-sharing and innovative work behavior? The case of Vietnamese university lecturers






 Open Access  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the elements that influence the process of knowledge sharing and the capacity for innovation among university teachers in Vietnam. The covariance-based structural equation model (CB-SEM) was utilized in the process of conducting data analysis, which was carried out with the assistance of SPSS and AMOS software. The research is based on survey data collected from 380 lecturers, all of whom hold at least a master's degree in subjects that are relevant to the courses that they teach their students. There were five primary characteristics that were identified, along with their respective correlation coefficients, regarding the sharing of knowledge and the consequent impact that it has on the innovative capabilities of lecturers. According to the data, there are substantial correlations between knowledge-sharing and a variety of elements, including as trust, the perceived utility of information and communication technology (ICT), pleasure in assisting other people, knowledge self-efficacy, organizational rewards, and the aforementioned. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that the act of knowledge-sharing itself had a significant influence on the innovative behaviors of individual lecturers. It is clear from these findings that it is essential to cultivate an atmosphere that encourages collaboration and trust, as well as to make use of information and communication technology tools in order to make the sharing of information easier. Considering the findings, the research provides recommendations that can be put into practice with the intention of improving the ways in which university instructors in Vietnam share their knowledge. These recommendations place an emphasis on the establishment of supportive corporate cultures, the promotion of trust-building efforts, and the provision of sufficient resources and incentives. Through the implementation of these tactics, lecturers have the ability to not only enhance their practices of knowledge-sharing but also continuously innovate in their teaching methods, thereby contributing to the general growth of higher education in Vietnam.

Introduction

Universities operate as the knowledge-intensive environments and play a central role in knowledge creation through research, knowledge dissemination through publication, and interpersonal interactions 1 . They also play an essential role in knowledge transfer through collaboration between individuals, businesses, and other organizations to support innovation 2 . Thus, how to effectively share knowledge of lecturers in universities in order to create core value as a critical competency. The issue is becoming a concern for many universities globally, particularly in Vietnam. In recent years, the Vietnamese government has continuously introduced policies to facilitate the development of the education sector to meet the human resource needs for the country's economic development. The Vietnamese government believes that education development is a priority among national policies, significantly higher education. In order to higher education, Vietnamese universities try to develop their research capacity and reduce the gaps with other universities worldwide. First, it is necessary to improve the quality of teaching and consolidate many skills for effective teaching, especially among the lecturers. Constantly improve expertise, enhance mutual knowledge-sharing, and contribute to knowledge innovation in line with development trends of countries worldwide.

The Industrial Revolution 4.0 has dramatically impacted the value of human life and production activities. In this context, knowledge is one of the crucial factors, which is the basis for developing all human productivity in depth. According to research by Wright et al. , human resources, including the skills, experience, and knowledge of employees, can form the competitive advantage for an organization or enterprise 3 . Jafari et al. also asserted that knowledge is "the most important resource to implement the organization's strategy" 4 The organization’ s focus on knowledge has many benefits, including reducing time in the workflow, reducing transaction costs, improving customer services, adapting to new changes, and creating a learning environment, thereby contributing to increased productivity and production efficiency 5 . These benefits demonstrate the importance of knowledge in gaining an advantage in a competitive environment. From the early 1990s onwards, researchers and business administrators worldwide have applied and approached the trend in business development as known as knowledge management. Among those activities, knowledge-sharing is considered a core knowledge management activity knowledge-sharing brings three benefits to organizations 6 . First, knowledge-sharing among employees and departments in the organization is necessary to transfer individual and group knowledge into organizational knowledge, leading to the effectiveness of knowledge management. Second, some studies have found that knowledge-sharing is critical to the success of an organization 7 ; when individuals share knowledge, doing it significantly increases an organization's resources, reduces time wasted in trial and error, but reluctantly sharing knowledge will impact the survival of the organization 8 . Many factors affect the desire to share knowledge among employees in an organization 9 , 10 . Some authors have also discussed the factors affecting knowledge-sharing in organizations in general and enterprises in particular, which can be attributed to three main areas such as, individual, organizational and technological capacities 11 . Third, when an individual actively shares knowledge, knowledge is absorbed, thereby creating this condition to promote innovative behavior. These three benefits are the basis for motivating and realizing new insights and knowledge of implementing tasks in the organization. Therefore, the increase of knowledge-sharing will promote employees' innovative behavior, help organizations survive and grow in depth, and improve competitiveness based on existing knowledge and new ideas of human resources.

Most studies on knowledge sharing are concentrated in European and American countries, where knowledge sharing theory was first developed. Research on knowledge-sharing in Asian countries has not been mentioned much, especially in university context 12 . Meanwhile, globalization makes the economy competitive on a large scale; knowledge-sharing has tremendous significance for universities in developing countries 13 .

In Vietnam, numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the impact of knowledge sharing among employees at enterprises and university lecturers. Specifically, studies conducted by Tran Minh Thanh, Nhung and Loan, and Nguyen Tuan Anh, among others 14 , 15 , 16 . These studies have suggested that variables such as trust, school leadership culture, information systems, and reward systems are factors that affect knowledge sharing. The correlation between information sharing and innovation is a pivotal subject of investigation in organizational behavior and management, since it profoundly influences an organization's capacity to adapt and prosper in competitive landscapes. Knowledge sharing denotes the dissemination of information, skills, and experiences among individuals inside an organization, which can cultivate a culture of collaboration and innovation. Studies demonstrate that efficient information dissemination can augment innovation capacities by promoting the exchange of ideas and insights essential for creating new products and services. Diansari et al. discovered that information sharing has a positive correlation with innovation in small and medium companies (SMEs), highlighting that employees who engage in knowledge sharing foster a more inventive organizational culture 17 . Hu and Randel's study indicates that tacit knowledge sharing mediates the connection between explicit knowledge sharing and team creativity, implying that businesses should promote both types of information sharing to optimize inventive results 18 . Zhou and Li assert that internal knowledge sharing is crucial for radical innovation, enabling firms to utilize their pooled experience and market insights 19 . The significance of leadership in cultivating an environment that promotes information sharing is paramount. Transformational leadership has demonstrated the ability to improve information-sharing practices, subsequently enhancing innovation capacities ("Transformational Leadership, Knowledge Sharing and Innovation Capability: An Empirical Study from Lao Firms", 2021) . The relationship between information sharing and innovation is crucial for firms aiming to improve their competitive advantage. By fostering a culture of knowledge sharing and collaboration, organizations may harness the creative potential of their staff, resulting in enhanced innovation outcomes and enduring success in the marketplace.

However, there has been no research conducted in Vietnam to assess the impact of knowledge sharing and its effect on the innovation ability of university lecturers.

Their big question firms have to ask:

  1. What factors affect the knowledge-sharing of Vietnamese university lecturers?

  2. How does knowledge-sharing affect the innovative behavior of university lecturers in Vietnam?

  3. What solutions need to be implemented to enhance knowledge-sharing and thereby promote the innovative behavior of Vietnamese university lecturers?

Stemming from the role of knowledge-sharing and the ability to innovate in-depth development of lecturers, universities, and its operations, this study conduct as follow , section 2 reviews the studies of knowledge-sharing in literature. Section 3 explains the research design and describes the data. Section 4 illustrates the CB_SEM model to demonstrate the analysis. Section 5 discusses the managerial implications and mentions the limitations and potential future research.

Theoretical Background for the Study

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge-sharing is easily recognized as having many concepts. According to Cummings, knowledge-sharing is defined as information provided to people to work together and solve certain problems, develop new ideas, propose initiatives, or implement policies and processes 20 . According to Nguyen et,al., knowledge-sharing is a collection of behaviors related to information exchange or support for others. It is different from sharing the information, where managers provide information about the organization to employees. While knowledge-sharing has the nature of reciprocal theory, information-sharing can be unidirectional and unsolicited 21 .

Knowledge-sharing is also defined as the exchange of knowledge (skills, experience, and understanding) between individuals in an organization. Liu et al. argue that knowledge-sharing can help employees share knowledge and experiences, which aim to help projects and tasks complete quickly and cost-effectively 22 . In addition, knowledge-sharing involves individuals sharing the organization's information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with others. The mechanisms of knowledge-sharing within an organization are also pointed out by the research team such as, the contribution of knowledge to enlarge the organization's database. knowledge-sharing in formal and informal interactions with team members and outside the working group; knowledge-sharing in community activities 22 . In addition, knowledge-sharing is also defined as a deliberate subjective act of making knowledge reused by others through knowledge transfer by Lee and Al-Hawamdeh 23 ; a process of giving and receiving knowledge, in which knowledge creativity and sharing depend on individual conscious efforts to enhance knowledge-sharing by Linh et,al. 24 . As with knowledge, knowledge-sharing can be seen in verbal communication activities, while invisible knowledge sharing can occur in social activities, observations, or counseling activities.

Many organizations have built-in networking systems that allow employees to share, exchange, and access knowledge. However, without a culture of knowledge-sharing, the benefits gained by the organization and for individuals would not be high. Employees in the organization may feel that unfriendly colleagues lead to precautions in sharing imply too complex to find the knowledge they want. When a wary attitude exists, the organization needs to pay attention to the implementation approach of applying behavioral patterns among employees 25 .

Relationship between innovative work behavior and knowledge-sharing

Innovation is crucial for the long-term viability of companies since it enables the development of new business models, management practices, strategies, organizational structures, as well as new products or services 26 . An optimal approach to bolstering an organization's capacity for innovation is to cultivate employees' aptitude for generating novel ideas and fostering creative behavior. Human capital, the foundation for assessing employees' innovative capabilities and fostering innovation, is a crucial technique for administrators to effectively address global competitiveness and environmental uncertainty, and to attain high performance and objectives 27 .

Innovative work behavior (IWB) refers to employees' actions to generate, introduce, and apply novel ideas that positively impact the workplace, group, or organization, thereby enhancing overall performance 28 . This behavior is characterized by deliberate efforts to create and implement advantageous ideas for the benefit of individuals, groups, or organizations 29 . IWB involves a systematic approach to developing new solutions, which includes identifying problems, generating responses, and executing those solutions within an organizational context. Åmo and Kolvereid describe IWB as actively seeking to develop new products, explore new markets, innovate processes, and form novel combinations 30 . As a multifaceted and multilevel process, IWB relates to interactions among individuals, groups, and organizations 31 . At the individual level, IWB encompasses the creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within one’s role to benefit both the individual and the broader organization 32 . Kanter: further posits that IWB at both individual and group levels includes actions such as idea generation, collaboration, execution, and delivery 31 . Additionally, at the group level, IWB involves generating, introducing, and implementing novel ideas within a team, to enhance performance and drive organizational success.

Relationship between innovative work behavior and knowledge-sharing

Innovation is crucial for the long-term viability of companies since it enables the development of new business models, management practices, strategies, organizational structures, as well as new products or services 26 . An optimal approach to bolstering an organization's capacity for innovation is to cultivate employees' aptitude for generating novel ideas and fostering creative behavior. Human capital, the foundation for assessing employees' innovative capabilities and fostering innovation, is a crucial technique for administrators to effectively address global competitiveness and environmental uncertainty, and to attain high performance and objectives 27 .

Innovative work behavior (IWB) refers to employees' actions to generate, introduce, and apply novel ideas that positively impact the workplace, group, or organization, thereby enhancing overall performance 28 . This behavior is characterized by deliberate efforts to create and implement advantageous ideas for the benefit of individuals, groups, or organizations 29 . IWB involves a systematic approach to developing new solutions, which includes identifying problems, generating responses, and executing those solutions within an organizational context. Åmo and Kolvereid describe IWB as actively seeking to develop new products, explore new markets, innovate processes, and form novel combinations 30 . As a multifaceted and multilevel process, IWB relates to interactions among individuals, groups, and organizations 31 . At the individual level, IWB encompasses the creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within one’s role to benefit both the individual and the broader organization 32 . Kanter: further posits that IWB at both individual and group levels includes actions such as idea generation, collaboration, execution, and delivery 31 . Additionally, at the group level, IWB involves generating, introducing, and implementing novel ideas within a team, to enhance performance and drive organizational success.

Relationship between innovative work behavior and knowledge-sharing

Innovation is crucial for the long-term viability of companies since it enables the development of new business models, management practices, strategies, organizational structures, as well as new products or services 26 . An optimal approach to bolstering an organization's capacity for innovation is to cultivate employees' aptitude for generating novel ideas and fostering creative behavior. Human capital, the foundation for assessing employees' innovative capabilities and fostering innovation, is a crucial technique for administrators to effectively address global competitiveness and environmental uncertainty, and to attain high performance and objectives 27 .

Innovative work behavior (IWB) refers to employees' actions to generate, introduce, and apply novel ideas that positively impact the workplace, group, or organization, thereby enhancing overall performance 28 . This behavior is characterized by deliberate efforts to create and implement advantageous ideas for the benefit of individuals, groups, or organizations 29 . IWB involves a systematic approach to developing new solutions, which includes identifying problems, generating responses, and executing those solutions within an organizational context. Åmo and Kolvereid describe IWB as actively seeking to develop new products, explore new markets, innovate processes, and form novel combinations 30 . As a multifaceted and multilevel process, IWB relates to interactions among individuals, groups, and organizations 31 . At the individual level, IWB encompasses the creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within one’s role to benefit both the individual and the broader organization 32 . Kanter: further posits that IWB at both individual and group levels includes actions such as idea generation, collaboration, execution, and delivery 31 . Additionally, at the group level, IWB involves generating, introducing, and implementing novel ideas within a team, to enhance performance and drive organizational success.

Research Model

The author constructs a research model for the paper- based on Lin's research model on knowledge-sharing 8 . This model builds on the overall model of the strategic decision-making process with three aspects: impact factors, processes, and outcomes. It analyzes the influence of three groups of individual factors (interest in helping others, knowledge autonomy), organizational factors (support of senior administrators and organizations), and technology factors (using information and communication technology) on knowledge-sharing and its processes. As a result, there is a relationship with knowledge-sharing.

The author is based on Lin's research model as this model has been verified in many studies, including Podrug et. al. on information and communication technology company employees, and the research of this study is also cited in 1,197 articles on the Google Scholar system 50 . Therefore, it is a trust model that can be used for empirical research on knowledge-sharing in organizations ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 . Proposed Research model

Figure 1 Proposed Research model

[Download figure]

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Hypothesis

Research Methodology

Research des ign

Using two tools: focus group interview and questionnaire test interview 63 . The first phase of this research is to uncover insights into the enjoyment scale, knowledge efficiency, top management support, organizational rewards, use of information and communication technologies, and knowledge-sharing and potential for innovation, and discussion will comment on preliminary scales. The questionnaire was then sent directly to university lecturers in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Variable measurement

The study mainly used a 7-degree Likert scale to measure observation variables, where "1" is " Strongly disagree " and "7" is "strongly agree". The scales are referenced from previous studies in the same field.

The research was conducted in a group discussion with a panel of 08 experts in the field of education management, principals, vice principals, department heads and central directors of universities and colleges located in Ho Chi Minh City.

Scale calibration results

All 8/8 experts interviewed said that the same influencing factors as well as observed variables. However, it is necessary to adjust the subject/name to suit the research objectives at universities in Vietnam ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 Variable measurement

Depending on the complexity of the model and the basic characteristics of the measurement model, Hair et al, propose the following minimum sample sizes: Sample size can affect several aspects. of the SEM, including the model's parameter estimation, suitability, and statistical capacity. In principle, the larger the sample size, the better, but not less than 200 and the minimum for the SEM model will be 5 times the number of observed variables 66 . In the research model of this topic, there are 31 observed variables, so the minimum number of samples must be 200. Based on the overall research in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam has 63 universities (39 public universities, 16 non-public universities and 8 institutes); The author directly distributed 350 questionnaires to the lecturers and staff of universities in Ho Chi Minh City for a period of two weeks to achieve this minimum sample size.

Research results

Demographic analysis result

In the preliminary quantitative study ( Table 2 ), conducting the process with 383 sample questionnaires, the number of votes collected was 361 votes (94.25%), after data processing, the number of votes was used to analyze 350 votes (91.38%), the votes were eligible to perform the standard research set. Statistics of 350 observations in quantitative research show that in the sample of lecturers from universities in Ho Chi Minh City, male and female genders are similar (male accounted for 55.14% and female accounted for 44.85%); in which the majority are in the age group from 36 to 45 (accounting for 33.42%), followed by the age group of 45 and older (accounting for 32.57%); The educational level of the lecturers who participated in the survey mainly graduated with a master's degree or higher (accounting for 95.15 %); the number of trainers with 1 to 5 years of working experience accounted for 26.00% of the total observations, followed by 6 to 10 years of experience accounting for 24.57% of the total observations.

Table 2 Demographic profile of respondents

Reliability analysis result:

The reliability of the questionnaire scale was tested using Cronbach's alpha for the entire 32-item measurement system divided into 8 factors. Cronbach's alpha for scales ranging from 0.771 to 0.861 in the model. Since all measurement confidences are greater than 0.7, all results show that the measurements for the scale are reliable. Therefore, the data were explored to be suitable for further analyses. The results of the reliability analysis for each factor are presented in Table 3 .

Table 3 Reliabilities analysis result

Hypothesis testing result

From the results of performing CFA analysis to assess the suitability of the whole model, the author proceeded to put 32 observed variables that were satisfied into the model for SEM analysis and hypothesis testing. The author performs SEM analysis from the originally proposed research model and then performs model correction to obtain a better model. The official theoretical model proposed by the author includes 6 independent variables: EH, KE, TS, OR, IT, and TR affect an intermediate variable KS, from the variable KS affecting the dependent variable PI.

Figure 2 . SEM Results of the Research Model

Figure 2

[Download figure]

Indicators from the results of the first linear structural model analysis in Figure 2 show that: it can be concluded that the model fits the survey data.

The test results have the following indicators:

Table 4 Hypothesis testing result

Conclusion and discussion

Research summary

Research summary

Research summary

Research summary

Research summary

Research summary

Limitations and directions for further research

Limitations and directions for further research

Limitations and directions for further research

ABBREVIATIONS

SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SEM: Structural Equation Modeling

AMOS: Analysis of Moment Structures

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Author Duong The Duy : Responsible for the content: research ideas, data investigation, data processing.

Author Duong Anh Thy : Responsible for the content: writing the article content.

References

  1. Pham HH, Nguyen TTH, Nguyen VT, Nguyen VM, The Cong P, Vu MC, et al. The impacts of knowledge management enablers and knowledge management processes on university performance in Vietnam. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2022;1-13. . ;:. Google Scholar
  2. Hartley J, Sørensen E, Torfing J. Collaborative innovation: a viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. 2013;73(6):821-30. . ;:. Google Scholar
  3. Wright PM, McMahan GC, McWilliams A. Human resources and sustained competitive advantage: a resource-based perspective. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 1994;5(2):301-26. . ;:. Google Scholar
  4. Jafari M, Fathian M, Jahani A, Akhavan P. Exploring the contextual dimensions of organization from knowledge management perspective. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst. 2008;38(1):53-71. . ;:. Google Scholar
  5. Skyrme DJ. Developing a knowledge strategy: from management to leadership. In: Knowledge Management: Classic and Contemporary Works. 2000. p. 61-83. . ;:. Google Scholar
  6. Oyemomi O, Liu S, Neaga I, Alkhuraiji A. How knowledge sharing and business process contribute to organizational performance: using the fsQCA approach. J Bus Res. 2016;69(11):5222-7. . ;:. Google Scholar
  7. Davenport TH, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 1998. . ;:. Google Scholar
  8. Lin HF. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. J Inf Sci. 2007;33(2):135-49. . ;:. Google Scholar
  9. Ardichvili A, Page V, Wentling T. Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice. J Knowl Manag. 2003;7(1):64-77. . ;:. Google Scholar
  10. Riege A. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. J Knowl Manag. 2005;9(3):18-35. . ;:. Google Scholar
  11. Ford DP, Chan YE. Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study. Knowl Manag Res Pract. 2003;1(1):11-27. . ;:. Google Scholar
  12. Ma WW, Chan A. Knowledge sharing and social media: altruism, perceived online attachment motivation, and perceived online relationship commitment. Comput Human Behav. 2014;39:51-8. . ;:. Google Scholar
  13. Burke ME. Knowledge sharing in emerging economies. Library Rev. 2011;60(1):5-14. . ;:. Google Scholar
  14. Trần MT. Ảnh hưởng của các yếu tố văn hóa tổ chức đến chia sẻ tri thức – Nghiên cứu tại các doanh nghiệp xây dựng TP. Hồ Chí Minh. Luận văn Thạc sĩ, Đại học Kinh tế TP Hồ Chí Minh. 2013. . ;:. Google Scholar
  15. Thị Lan Nhung T, Thị Cẩm Loan N. Ảnh hưởng của các yếu tố cấu thành văn hóa tổ chức đến chia sẻ tri thức của giảng viên trong trường đại học: Nghiên cứu tại trường Đại học Tài chính - Marketing. Tạp Chí Nghiên cứu Tài chính - Marketing. 2021;(52):1-11. . ;:. Google Scholar
  16. Nguyễn AT. Xác định các yếu tố của quản trị tri thức tác động đến sự hài lòng và kết quả hoàn thành công việc của giảng viên Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. Tạp Chí Giáo dục. 2021;1(515):53-9. . ;:. Google Scholar
  17. Diansari NMN, Riana IG, Surya IBK. Knowledge sharing and innovation in small medium enterprises (SMEs) moderated by creative leadership. J Manag Sci Eng Res. 2021;3(2):39-45. . ;:. Google Scholar
  18. Hu L, Randel AE. Knowledge sharing in teams. Group Organ Manag. 2014;39(2):213-43. . ;:. Google Scholar
  19. Zhou KZ, Li CB. How knowledge affects radical innovation: knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strat Manag J. 2012;33(9):1090-102. . ;:. Google Scholar
  20. Cummings JN. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science. 2004;50(3):352-64. . ;:. Google Scholar
  21. Nguyen T, Nguyen K, Do T. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior: The case of Vietnam. Uncertain Supply Chain Management. 2019;7(4):619-34. . ;:. Google Scholar
  22. Liu G, Tsui E, Kianto A. Revealing deeper relationships between knowledge management leadership and organisational performance: a meta-analytic study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2022;20(2):251-65. . ;:. Google Scholar
  23. Lee CK, Al-Hawamdeh S. Factors impacting knowledge sharing. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management. 2002;1(1):49-56. . ;:. Google Scholar
  24. Linh T, Nguyen K, Do T. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior: The case of Vietnam. Uncertain Supply Chain Management. 2019;7(4):619-34. . ;:. Google Scholar
  25. Yiu M, Law R. Factors influencing knowledge sharing behavior: A social-psychological view in tourism. Service Science. 2012;3(2):11-31. . ;:. Google Scholar
  26. McGuirk H, Lenihan H, Hart M. Measuring the impact of innovative human capital on small firms' propensity to innovate. Research Policy. 2015;44(4):965-76. . ;:. Google Scholar
  27. Wisse B, Barelds DP, Rietzschel EF. How innovative is your employee? The role of employee and supervisor Dark Triad personality traits in supervisor perceptions of employee innovative behavior. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;82:158-62. . ;:. Google Scholar
  28. Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2000;73(3):287-302. . ;:. Google Scholar
  29. Bos-Nehles A, Bondarouk T, Nijenhuis K. Innovative work behaviour in knowledge-intensive public sector organizations: the case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2017;28(2):379-98. . ;:. Google Scholar
  30. Åmo BW, Kolvereid L. Organizational strategy, individual personality and innovation behavior. Journal of Enterprising Culture. 2005;13(01):7-19. . ;:. Google Scholar
  31. King WR. Knowledge management and organizational learning. In: King W, editor. Annals of Information Systems. Boston, MA: Springer; 2009. p. 3-13. . ;:. Google Scholar
  32. Connelly CE, Kelloway EK. Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2003;24(5):294-301. . ;:. Google Scholar
  33. Dorenbosch L, Engen ML, Verhagen M. On‐the‐job innovation: The impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2005;14(2):129-41. . ;:. Google Scholar
  34. Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal. 1994;37(3):580-607. . ;:. Google Scholar
  35. De Jong J, Den Hartog D. Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2010;19(1):23-36. . ;:. Google Scholar
  36. Bysted R. Innovative employee behaviour: The moderating effects of mental involvement and job satisfaction on contextual variables. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2013;16(3):268-84. . ;:. Google Scholar
  37. Zhao J, de Pablos PO. Regional knowledge management: the perspective of management theory. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2011;30(1):39-49. . ;:. Google Scholar
  38. Bartol KM, Srivastava A. Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2002;9(1):64-76. . ;:. Google Scholar
  39. Von Krogh G, Ichijo K, Nonaka I. Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. . ;:. Google Scholar
  40. Darroch J, McNaughton R. Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital. 2002;3(3):210-22. . ;:. Google Scholar
  41. Islam T, Asad M. Enhancing employees’ creativity through entrepreneurial leadership: can knowledge sharing and creative self-efficacy matter?. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2021;54(1):59-73. . ;:. Google Scholar
  42. Holub SF. Knowledge sharing is a change-management exercise. Tax Practice Management. 2003;34(6):361-3. . ;:. Google Scholar
  43. Akram T, Lei S, Haider MJ, Hussain ST. Exploring the impact of knowledge sharing on the innovative work behavior of employees: A study in China. International Business Research. 2018;11(3):186-94. . ;:. Google Scholar
  44. Mura M, Lettieri E, Radaelli G, Spiller N. Promoting professionals' innovative behaviour through knowledge sharing: the moderating role of social capital. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2013;17(4):527-44. . ;:. Google Scholar
  45. Wang S, Noe RA. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review. 2010;20(2):115-31. . ;:. Google Scholar
  46. Li W. Virtual knowledge sharing in a cross‐cultural context. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2010;14(1):38-50. . ;:. Google Scholar
  47. Ho LA, Kuo TH, Lin B. How social identification and trust influence organizational online knowledge sharing. Internet Research. 2012;22(1):4-28. . ;:. Google Scholar
  48. Devi NC. Paradoxical leadership and employee creativity: knowledge sharing and hiding as mediators. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2023;28(2):312-40. . ;:. Google Scholar
  49. Jo SJ, Joo B. Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 2011;18(3):353-64. . ;:. Google Scholar
  50. Podrug N, Filipović D, Kovač M. Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability in Croatian ICT companies. International Journal of Manpower. 2017;38(4):632-44. . ;:. Google Scholar
  51. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne. 2008;49(3):182-5. . ;:. Google Scholar
  52. Wolfe C, Loraas T. Knowledge sharing: The effects of incentives, environment, and person. Journal of Information Systems. 2008;22(2):53-76. . ;:. Google Scholar
  53. Al-Qadhi YH, Md Nor K, Ologbo AC, Knight MB. Knowledge sharing in a multi-nationality workforce: examining the factors that influence knowledge sharing among employees of diverse nationalities. Human Systems Management. 2015;34(3):149-65. . ;:. Google Scholar
  54. Al‐Alawi AI, Al‐Marzooqi NY, Mohammed YF. Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management. 2007;11(2):22-42. . ;:. Google Scholar
  55. Islam S, Zeisel A, Joost S, La Manno G, Zajac P, Kasper M, et al. Quantitative single-cell RNA-seq with unique molecular identifiers. Nature Methods. 2014;11(2):163-6. . ;:. Google Scholar
  56. Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly. 2005;29(1):87-111. . ;:. Google Scholar
  57. Hansen S, Avital M. Share and share alike: The social and technological influences on knowledge sharing behavior. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems. 2005;5(1):1-19. . ;:. Google Scholar
  58. Hendriks P. Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management. 1999;6(2):91-100. . ;:. Google Scholar
  59. Coakes E. Storing and sharing knowledge: Supporting the management of knowledge made explicit in transnational organisation. The Learning Organization. 2006;13(6):579-93. . ;:. Google Scholar
  60. Teece DJ. Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review. 1998;40(3):55-79. . ;:. Google Scholar
  61. Conner KR, Prahalad CK. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science. 1996;7(5):477-501. . ;:. Google Scholar
  62. Foss NJ, Minbaeva DB, Pedersen T, Reinholt M. Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human Resource Management. 2009;48(6):871-93. . ;:. Google Scholar
  63. Cooper DR, Schindler PS. Business Research Methods. 12th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2013. . ;:. Google Scholar
  64. Tan NL, Lye YH, Ng TH, Lim YS. Motivational factors in influencing knowledge sharing among banks in Malaysia. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics. 2010;44(8):191-201. . ;:. Google Scholar
  65. Aslam MH, Shahzad K, Syed AR, Ramish A. Social capital and knowledge sharing as determinants of academic performance. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. 2013;15(1):25-41. . ;:. Google Scholar
  66. Hair J, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AY. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 2017;117(3):442-58. . ;:. Google Scholar
  67. Han BM, Anantatmula VS. Knowledge sharing in large IT organizations: A case study. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2007;37(4):421-39. . ;:. Google Scholar
  68. Costa AC, Roe RA, Taillieu T. Trust within teams: the relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2001;10(3):225-44. . ;:. Google Scholar
  69. Zárraga C, Bonache J. Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2003;14(7):1227-45. . ;:. Google Scholar
  70. Radaelli G, Lettieri E, Mura M, Spiller N. Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in healthcare: A micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2014;23(4):400-14. . ;:. Google Scholar
  71. Jaberi E. The effect of knowledge sharing on innovative behavior among employees of Besat hospital in city of Hamedan. International Academic Journal of Accounting and Financial Management. 2016;3(4):41-7. . ;:. Google Scholar


Author's Affiliation
Article Details

Issue: Vol 8 No 4 (2024)
Page No.: 5644-5659
Published: Dec 31, 2024
Section: Research article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32508/stdjelm.v8i4.1416

 Copyright Info

Creative Commons License

Copyright: The Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

 How to Cite
Duy, D., & Thy, D. (2024). Which causes knowledge-sharing and innovative work behavior? The case of Vietnamese university lecturers. VNUHCM Journal of Economics, Law and Management, 8(4), 5644-5659. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32508/stdjelm.v8i4.1416


 Download Citation
 Cited by

Article level Metrics by Paperbuzz/Impactstory
Article level Metrics by Altmetrics

 Article Statistics
HTML = 0 times
PDF   = 0 times
XML   = 0 times
Total   = 0 times