Understanding the Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing: An Organizational Justice Perspective

Introduction The informing science framework considers three distinct areas: the informing environment, the delivery system, and the task-completion system. At the foundation of informing science is the notion that data, information and knowledge are interdependent entities that continuously interact with each other (Gackowski, 2012). Nevertheless, there are different views on the nature of knowledge, and these varying perspectives have different implications for organizations seeking to gain a competitive advantage. If knowledge is viewed as a resource, then the organizational efforts focus on 'managing' knowledge similar to managing other factors of production, for example inventory control levels or scheduling deliveries. On the other hand, the process perspective of knowledge includes managing the human side of the equation and identifying ways of facilitating knowledge exchange. If it is not a resource to be stockpiled as a factor of production, but rather a meaning to be achieved through sharing in a community (Boland, 1987), then it is imperative to identify factors that contribute to enhancing the informing environment. This study takes this later perspective and explores the individual motivations for knowledge sharing. Specifically, the current research proposes and empirically tests a model that combines the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) with Organizational Justice Theory and argues that perceptions of organizational justice are crucial building blocks of the knowledge-sharing environment. Prior research found that TRA developed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1973) is useful in predicting the intention to share knowledge and that social-psychological and sociological factors are crucial to knowledge sharing (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Applying organizational justice components to knowledge sharing processes, this study posits that knowledge sharing will occur when parties engaged in the process feel that (1) their inputs into the exchange relationship are adequately rewarded by benefits gained, (2) the procedures are fair and just, and (3) they are treated with dignity and respect by other parties. These distributive, procedural, and interactional factors will determine the willingness to engage in the knowledge-sharing partnership. The overall research question is: What impact do the perceptions of organizational justice have on individual attitude, subjective norm, and intentions to share knowledge? A key contribution of this study is the creation of a theoretical model combining organizational theory and TRA concepts to investigate knowledge sharing behaviors through the lens of equity. Review of the literature shows that this was not previously done. This research provides empirical evidence to support the theoretical argument of the importance of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice to the perception of subjective norms that influence attitudes and intentions to share knowledge. Cohen's (2009) updated informing science framework highlights the fact that the informer is influenced by his or her psychological "fragilities," operating within, and influenced by, the environmental context. This study significantly contributes to the literature by investigating these complexities. The current research shows that the informer (the individual sharing knowledge) is influenced indeed by his or her psychological fragilities in the form of attitudes and subjective norms. The environmental context, in terms of organizational justice, is important in shaping attitudes and influencing knowledge sharing behavior. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: theoretical background and previous research on knowledge sharing, TRA and Organizational Justice are presented first, followed by the research model and hypotheses, proposing specific relationships between TRA and Organizational Justice constructs and knowledge sharing. Research methodology and data analysis are followed by discussion and implications for practice and research along with conclusions for the paper. …

[1]  Peter Jean-Paul,et al.  An empirical study on the combined effects of KM Enablers and KM Strategies Organizational Performance: A Case Study of Taiwan ICDF , 2011 .

[2]  E. Fehr,et al.  Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity , 2000, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[3]  Ehsan S. Soofi,et al.  Multiple Conceptualizations of Small Business Web Use and Benefit , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[4]  Timothy Paul Cronan,et al.  Equity perceptions as a deterrent to software piracy behavior , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[5]  Eli B. Cohen,et al.  Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline a Philosophy of Informing Science , 2022 .

[6]  Xianggui Qu,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis , 2007, Technometrics.

[7]  C. Coogler,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research 2nd ed , 1974 .

[8]  Chin-Lung Hsu,et al.  Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation , 2008, Inf. Manag..

[9]  Chandler Stolp,et al.  The contribution of organizational justice in budget decision-making to federal managers' organizational commitment , 2003 .

[10]  Thurasamy Ramayah,et al.  Understanding Consumer Intention with Respect to Purchase and Use of Pirated Software , 2011, Inf. Manag. Comput. Secur..

[11]  Howard B. Lee,et al.  Foundations of Behavioral Research , 1973 .

[12]  B. Charles Tatum,et al.  Leadership, decision making, and organizational justice , 2003 .

[13]  Terry A. Beehr,et al.  Perceptions of Reasons for Promotion of Self and Others , 2004 .

[14]  Marc T. Braverman Sources of survey error: Implications for evaluation studies , 1996 .

[15]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[16]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behavior. , 1973 .

[17]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  The Fairness of Decision Rules , 2004 .

[18]  Zbigniew J. Gackowski The Helix of Human Cognition: Knowledge Management According to DIKW, E2E, and the Proposed View , 2012, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[19]  Denise M. Rousseau,et al.  New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts , 1990 .

[20]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Information Security Policy Compliance: An Empirical Study of Rationality-Based Beliefs and Information Security Awareness , 2010, MIS Q..

[21]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Factors, and Organizational Climate , 2005, MIS Q..

[22]  S. West,et al.  The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. , 1996 .

[23]  Robert H. Moorman,et al.  Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors : do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship ? , 1991 .

[24]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[25]  Pei-Lee Teh,et al.  Knowledge Sharing in is Personnel: Organizational Behavior's Perspective , 2011, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[26]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. , 1996 .

[27]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. , 1993 .

[28]  Sharon Foley,et al.  Linking employees' justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support , 2006 .

[29]  Che-Jen Su,et al.  An Empirical Study on the Effect of Individual Factors on Knowledge Sharing by Knowledge Type , 2007 .

[30]  Kwok Kee Wei,et al.  What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[31]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  Peter Y. Chen,et al.  Using Social Exchange Theory to Distinguish Procedural from Interactional Justice , 2002 .

[33]  Jr. R. J. Boland The in-formation of information systems , 1987 .

[34]  Jerald Greenberg,et al.  Handbook of Organizational Justice , 2005 .

[35]  Edward C. Taylor,et al.  Relationships among Supervisors' and Subordinates' Procedural Justice Perceptions and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors , 2003 .

[36]  Dimitra Dodou,et al.  Factor recovery by principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood factor analysis as a function of factor pattern and sample size , 2012 .

[37]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  Social Capital and Knowledge Integration in Digitally Enabled Teams , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  M. McLure Wasko,et al.  "It is what one does": why people participate and help others in electronic communities of practice , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[39]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Vicious and Virtuous Circles in the Management of Knowledge: The Case of Infosys Technologies , 2005, MIS Q..

[40]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation , 2005, MIS Q..

[41]  R. Eisenberger,et al.  Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[42]  B. Frey,et al.  Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms , 2000 .

[43]  Marc Spaniol,et al.  Informing Science : the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline , 2005 .

[44]  Douglas H. Flint,et al.  Perceptions of distributive and procedural justice in employee benefits: flexible versus traditional benefit plans , 2004 .

[45]  Charles D. Barrett Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[46]  Steve Williams,et al.  Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intentions: Fair Rewards Versus Fair Treatment , 2002, The Journal of social psychology.

[47]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Identifying a missing link between participation and satisfaction : The mediating role of procedural justice perceptions , 1999 .

[48]  R. H. Moorman,et al.  JUSTICE AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHODS OF MONITORING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR , 1993 .

[49]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  Consistency Criteria and Unidimensionality: an Attempt At Clarification , 1989 .

[50]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[51]  Lee Sproull,et al.  What's Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[52]  Eric T. G. Wang,et al.  Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[53]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[54]  Daniel G. Bachrach,et al.  Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research , 2000 .

[55]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Organizational Practices That Foster Knowledge Sharing: Validation across Distinct National Cultures , 2010, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..