Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In today’s information-based economy, knowledge is considered as a critical and effective resource for assisting businesses in establishing departmental synergies, accelerating innovation, providing value to customers, and increasing revenue through market growth. Knowledge sharing behavior is defined as individual behavior that pertains to the exchange of information, experience, ideas, and skills with other individuals or groups of people inside an organization in order to enhance the company’s sustainability. The purpose of this study is to analyze and obtain empirical evidence of the factors that influence knowledge sharing behavior, which consists of intention to share knowledge, knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others by 297 middle managers in a bank setting. This research is an explanatory research that focuses on the causal relationship among variables. The data were collected through a questionnaire survey and were then analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS) program. The results of this study show that knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others have positive and significant effect on intention to share knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge sharing self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others and intention to share knowledge have positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior. The mediation role of intention to share knowledge is also proven to be significant.

Keywords

knowledge sharing self-efficacy intention to share knowledge enjoyment in helping others knowledge sharing behavior effective institution economic growth

Introduction

Knowledge is seen as a valuable resource in today’s knowledge-based economy (Chang et al., 2015). This might happen because an organization’s readiness to adapt to global developments in terms of knowledge possession is highly influenced by high-quality resources within the company. Some experts have stated that numerous industries will continue to seek, maintain, and grow information, and the efficacy of knowledge management will be assessed by knowledge sharing behavior among corporate personnel (Heisig et al., 2016; Henttonen et al., 2016). Supported by Farooq and Vij (2019) which states that knowledge is considered a source of competitive advantage, and in the face of a dynamic business environment, the organization also needs to focus not only on efficient information processing but also on knowledge creation. If companies wish to gain a competitive advantage, they must manage their knowledge, and those with fascinating and distinctive expertise will have a better chance of entering a competitive industrial market (Mustika et al., 2020). The practice of successful knowledge sharing behavior in a company demonstrates that the company is well-versed in knowledge management (Heisig et al., 2016; Inkinen, 2016).

According to some studies, knowledge sharing behavior is one of the major stages in generating useful knowledge resources for a company’s quality-of-service delivery (Mafabi et al., 2017), and it may be sparked by a desire to share knowledge (Bai et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2018; Mirkovski et al., 2018; Sallam & Algammash, 2016). Intention to share knowledge in an organization refers to the willingness of employees to share knowledge with others that they have acquired or created (El Said, 2015). Meanwhile, the intention to share knowledge indicates how someone has a desire to share knowledge with others and the intention is due to a relationship or relationship interaction between the person and other individuals which is manifested in behavior (Fauzi, 2019). Furthermore, it is well understood that the desire to exchange knowledge is fueled by the presence of knowledge sharing self-efficacy (Zhao et al., 2016). Knowledge sharing self-efficacy is a behavioral control variable that may help people overcome issues in the learning environment connected to knowledge share (Ergün et al., 2018). Knowledge sharing self-efficacy is a marker of knowledge sharing behavior, and a lack of it might prevent knowledge sharing from occurring (Bao & Han, 2019; Zhang et al., 2017).

Another factor that can influence the occurrence of intention to share knowledge is enjoyment in helping others (Rahman & Reynolds, 2016; Wang et al., 2020). Enjoyment in helping others refers to behavior in presenting the perceived pleasure associated with helping others to share knowledge (Lai & Chen, 2011). Several previous studies have stated that enjoyment behavior has benefits for organizations (MacKenzie et al., 1993). Having enjoyment in helping others becomes a desire to improve the welfare of one or more people other than ourselves. According to previous study, the core of altruism is inspiring people to share their expertise with others because they participate in problem solving that is both hard and enjoyable (Okyere-Kwakye, 2011).

This study will examine the middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia who will be involved in the formation of PT Bank Syariah Indonesia Tbk. (BRIS) which is considered to have a significant multiplier effect on the national economy and economic growth by merging three Islamic banks which are members of the Association of State-Owned Banks (Himbara). Bank Syariah Mandiri (BSM) is known to be very aware that the process of distributing knowledge management must be managed in a structured and comprehensive manner, because it can support the dissemination of knowledge management, on the other hand, Bank Syariah Mandiri has carried out knowledge management (KM) activities since 2012. The implementation of knowledge management was marked by the kick off of the knowledge management program which was held on June 19, 2013. Bank Syariah Mandiri has a goal of implementing knowledge management, namely as an innovative and knowledge-based Islamic bank. From this basis, Bank Syariah Mandiri has been able to formulate a roadmap for the implementation of knowledge management with the following description.

The rapid development of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia has made it possible for the role of knowledge sharing self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others, and the intention to share knowledge to drive the success of knowledge sharing behavior in middle managers. Knowledge sharing behavior at Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia is an important behavior for the company’s success because with good knowledge sharing behavior, there can be an exchange of information both among employees and employees with consumers regarding various products and services provided by Bank Syariah Mandiri, or information. related to its function as a Sharia Bank. Knowledge sharing behavior at Bank Syariah Mandiri also needs to be considered carefully, because it will refer to the importance of knowledge to educate the public about the development of Islamic banks in the future. Previous literature has tried to use several theories to understand knowledge sharing behavior (Nguyen, 2020). Among them, the Theory of Planned Behavior is most often used to predict knowledge sharing behavior, because the theory has a solid theoretical framework, and has been considered the basic backbone for examining psychological factors that drive knowledge sharing behavior (Nguyen, 2020). Several previous studies have slightly discussed knowledge sharing among middle managers (Boulila Taktak, 2011; Misman & Ahmad, 2011; Othman & Mersni, 2014; Shahimi et al., 2006; Zoubi & Al-Khazali, 2007). Furthermore, knowledge sharing behavior is crucial for middle managers, according to certain research (Inkinen, 2016; Wang et al., 2016), since they are the driving force in the primary decision makers to foster a culture of knowledge sharing behavior. A middle manager is a person who works in a position between two levels of organizational leadership and two levels of professional personnel (Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997; Jafari et al., 2007). Janczak (2004) in his research discussed the dynamics and new roles of middle managers to create and share knowledge, so it can be concluded that middle managers have three behavioral roles, namely as analytical, intuitive, and pragmatic.

Literature Review

Theoretical Basis

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy

Bandura was the first to introduce the notion of self-efficacy. According to Bandura, self-efficacy is a belief in one’s ability to plan and carry out the activities necessary to control prospective occurrences (Anggarwati & Eliyana, 2015). Self-efficacy is a term used to describe people who believe they have the ability to achieve specific goals in a specific way (Syabarrudin et al., 2020). Self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s capacity to transmit information and the willingness to share it (both online and face-to-face) (Ergün et al., 2018). Furthermore, knowledge sharing self-efficacy is also recognized as a behavioral control variable that may assist the community in overcoming issues connected to knowledge exchange in the learning environment. In knowledge sharing, self-efficacy also refers to one’s confidence in one’s ability to provide meaningful information that might influence or enhance others’ desire to share their experiences and skills (Lai & Chen, 2011). Individuals with high knowledge sharing self-efficacy are more likely to accept any form of instruction since they believe they can achieve with the knowledge they already have.

Enjoyment in helping others

The act of expressing the pleasure associated with assisting others in sharing information is known as enjoyment in helping others (Lai & Chen, 2011). The source of joy in helping others is altruism, which is a kind of unconditional compassion or giving without expecting anything in return (Lin, 2007). One of the intrinsic incentives is the enjoyment of helping others, which refers to employees who are involved in solving tough or hard situations that are nevertheless connected to performance (Lin, 2007). Some people will find it enjoyable to share their knowledge in order to assist others without the expectation of receiving rewards in the future (Moghavvemi et al., 2017). In order to live a tranquil existence, one must enjoy assisting others in the social environment and cultivate human conduct without seeking monetary benefits or acclaim (Enelamah & Tran, 2020; Smith, 2011). According to Hsu and Lin (2008), pleasure is an important component in the process of adopting new work processes. As a result, it may be concluded that individuals only give aid and are glad to do so because they are organically driven to share their knowledge with others and enjoy helping others.

Intention to share knowledge

Many previous studies related to knowledge sharing adopted the theory of planning behavior (TPB) which refers to an intention, as useful for capturing motivational factors that influence behavior (Wang et al., 2014). Individuals who are willing to offer their skills or experience in order to assist their colleagues in the company are referred to as having the intention to share knowledge in the theory of planning behavior (TPB) literature (John, 2013; Liu et al., 2013; Papadopoulos et al., 2013). The preparedness to do an activity is indicated by a person’s intention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), and intention is also an indication of how much a person tries or how much effort is made to display a desired behavior (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Chen & Hung, 2010; Hau et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016). Intention to share knowledge can be done either through communication between individuals or through knowledge archives. Intention to share knowledge is known to be rarely measured in the knowledge management system literature, although it is considered the toughest challenge faced by organizations that want to increase the use of knowledge management systems (El Said, 2015). According to the study, one of the most significant concerns that may help colleagues with planning that emphasizes the work of the unit, and can also assist inspire individuals to utilize the system on a regular basis is the desire to share employee knowledge.

Knowledge sharing behavior

Knowledge sharing is seen as an integral aspect of knowledge management, which is in line with the belief that the effectiveness of knowledge management systems is dependent on knowledge sharing behavior (Rohman et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing is when members of a group act in a way that allows them to receive or provide knowledge, resources, experience, or something beneficial to or from other members (Mustika et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing behavior is also defined as group behavior activities that promote learning and improve their ability to achieve goals that involve the exchange of knowledge, skills, and expertise between employees across departments or organizations (Rohman et al., 2020). With the prospect of external benefits and reciprocity, knowledge sharing behavior will arise (Ergün et al., 2018). When group members think that knowledge sharing leads to mutual benefits or the preservation of reciprocal ties that can improve their job, knowledge sharing behavior is known to be steady and seamless. Knowledge sharing activity will pique the attention of group members since it may help them learn new things, increase interpersonal communication, get access to more relevant resources, increase work performance and problem-solving abilities, and promote professional capabilities (Tseng & Kuo, 2014).

Hypothesis Development

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy and intention to share knowledge

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy is known as an aspect that emphasizes more on the belief that the abilities possessed by individuals can be shared to do useful things related to whether a person is able or not able to complete the task at hand (Hsu et al., 2007). So it can be said that if someone has high self-efficacy, it will be easy to share with others. Furthermore, when employees believe that the rewards or the best results that will be generated through knowledge sharing are important, their intention to share knowledge will increase (Casimir et al., 2012). Individuals can establish their social status through knowledge sharing, and if the employee has high knowledge sharing self-efficacy, they can gain respect or a better image with this knowledge sharing (Chang et al., 2015). Then, they will also be more willing to share knowledge because they feel they have the appropriate abilities. According to Van Acker et al. (2014), people with high self-efficacy are more likely to engage in particular actions because they believe they have the capacity to do so, whereas knowledge sharing self-efficacy refers to someone’s trust in the ability to share information publicly (Mafabi et al., 2017). To have the confidence that comes with knowledge sharing self-efficacy, one must be convinced on the true knowledge that is worth sharing, as well as the ability to deliver that information well. As a result, the desire to impart knowledge will emerge. According to Mafabi et al. (2017) the intention to share knowledge requires an element of ability in an effort to carry out certain behaviors, and the intention to share knowledge is known to be influenced by self-efficacy as a control belief factor under the theory of planned behavior (Liao et al., 2013). Several previous studies have stated that there is a relationship between knowledge sharing self-efficacy and intention to share knowledge, so that if individuals have strong self-efficacy, they will have confidence in their abilities or expertise that can trigger the intention to share knowledge (Chen et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). Conversely, if the individual has weak or low self-efficacy, the individual will find it difficult and there is no desire to share knowledge. Research conducted (Arain et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2019) on middle managers in Islamic banking in Saudi Arabia showed that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a positive influence on the intention to share knowledge, and it has also been proven that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has an influence on knowledge sharing with the intention to share which can be a strong mediation. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H1: Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy has a significant, direct and positive effect on Intention to Share Knowledge

Enjoyment in helping others and intention to share knowledge

Because the process provides pleasure and happiness, enjoyment is misunderstood as the amount to which a person engages in the job, implying that it is a deciding factor of purpose (Moghavvemi et al., 2017). Another definition of enjoyment in helping others is the feeling of pleasure derived from assisting others via the contribution of information acquired because someone is naturally driven to do so. When people are provided suitable opportunities to engage with others through assisting others, the possibility of happiness in assisting others improves, and this may be regarded an opportunity that may be presented through knowledge sharing (Lin et al., 2020). So that someone who is working feels enjoyment in helping others, they will be triggered for the intention to share knowledge. During the knowledge sharing process, people who donate knowledge will feel sincere because they feel the pleasure gained from helping others. In addition, it is known that employees who enjoy helping others will be intrinsically motivated to contribute knowledge because the person is engaged in intellectual pursuits and solving fun challenging problems and because they still feel happy in helping others (Lin, 2007). Knowledge contributors who gain enjoyment in helping others will be more oriented and more inclined to intention to share knowledge. In turn, enjoyment in helping others can significantly affect the use of information systems by knowledge contributors with the intention to share knowledge. Empathy is part of enjoyment and the opposite of selfishness, which shows the individual’s ability to identify the thoughts and feelings of others, so that the intention to share will reduce or eliminate the stress experienced by individuals (Lin & Huang, 2013). Based on previous research (Hoseini et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2016) it has been concluded that enjoyment in helping others has a positive effect on intention to share knowledge. Similar research was conducted by Saide et al. (2019) and Tang et al. (2016) that enjoyment in helping others has a positive effect on intention to share knowledge. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H2: Enjoyment in Helping Others has a significant, direct and positive effect on Intention To Share Knowledge

Intention to share knowledge and knowledge sharing behavior

In companies that stress expertise, such as accounting, finance, or legal firms, the “personal” aspect plays a critical role (Hwang et al., 2018). Knowledge is incorporated in workers’ creative thinking in firms, and people’ desire to use knowledge systems is critical for the success of work systems based on the aim to share knowledge. Individuals are the source of knowledge obtained from organizations, hence focusing simply on the organizational perspective and ignoring the effect of “people” is insufficient from Suh and Wagner (2017). So, to make this happen, individuals should trigger themselves to have the intention to share knowledge in applying knowledge sharing behavior properly. It is known that the determinant of knowledge sharing behavior is in the form of intention, where the intention of the individual will have a great influence on a sharia banking because it does not only understand the field from a general perspective but also in terms of religious rules, so that the intention of middle managers has a good role The intention of the middle manager has a big role to realize the goals of knowledge sharing. Previous research has stated that the intention to share knowledge can be a predictor of knowledge sharing (Ryu et al., 2003), this is also the level of confidence of a person who will be involved in knowledge sharing behavior. Individuals who have a positive view of knowledge sharing activities will have a greater intention to carry out these activities (van den Hooff et al., 2012). As a predictor of knowledge sharing, the intention in a person can be increased by the organization to promote knowledge sharing behavior, so that there is a positive influence of intention to share on knowledge sharing behavior (Reychav & Weisberg, 2010). According to Lin and Lee (2004) intention to share knowledge has an effect on knowledge sharing behavior, this statement supports the results of research conducted by Jeon et al. (2011)) that intention to share knowledge has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H3: Intention to Share Knowledge has a significant, direct and positive effect on Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy and knowledge sharing behavior

Self-efficacy, according to Olatokun and Nwafor (2012), might drive employees to share expertise with coworkers. Knowledge sharing self-efficacy in this situation indicates that employees are aware of their capacity to transfer information to others, and that others require that knowledge to complete particular activities in order to meet personal and organizational performance objectives (Islam et al., 2018). As a result, workers will be more conscientious about the value of their expertise in the growth of organizational performance, as well as proactive in sharing information with colleagues and actively gaining new information for future use and sharing. As a result, employees who have a high level of knowledge sharing self-efficacy are more willing to share their information. People will acquire confidence in what they can accomplish if their knowledge sharing self-efficacy rises, according to Jolaee et al. (2014), and they will believe that their talents can boost job efficiency, which will enhance productivity. As a consequence, it refers to a shift in information sharing behavior, and as a consequence, they will be more motivated to share their information with others. Previous study has indicated that the availability of knowledge sharing self-efficacy, which has been proved to have a major influence on information sharing behavior, is one strategy to drive employees to undertake information sharing activity (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2016; Nguyen, 2020). The Theory of Planned Behavior shows the relationship between belief and behavior, which implies that behavior can be planned and is deliberative, which is the best function of the theory of planned behavior to predict behavior, especially in measuring individual behavioral intentions (Nguyen, 2020). Islamic banking requires individuals who have knowledge sharing self-efficacy which can be manifested in a person’s belief that their knowledge can help solve problems and share work-related ideas. Research that has been carried out by Bilginoğlu and Yozgat (2018), Pan and Zhang (2018), Safdar et al. (2021), and Zhang et al. (2016) showed that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior, this finding provides support that individuals with high self-efficacy tend to try hard in doing tasks and experience better positive emotions (Bandura, 1977). Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H4: Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy has a significant, direct and positive effect on Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Enjoyment in helping others and knowledge sharing behavior

Knowledge sharing behavior is defined as “the act of sharing task information and knowledge with others in order to assist them in creating new ideas, solving issues, or putting rules or procedures in place” (Lin et al., 2020). Because knowledge sharing entails a reciprocated exchange of knowledge and abilities (Moghavvemi et al., 2017), which is a sort of social exchange that allows individuals to engage and obtain external rewards such as mutual benefits and suitable connections (Moghavvemi et al., 2017). According to Islam et al. (2018) employees become motivated to show knowledge sharing behavior when they realize that knowledge sharing helps others to solve certain problems and work better. This is known to work well when the individual gives a feeling of pleasure which always motivates them to share their intellectual knowledge which is triggered by the feeling of enjoyment in helping others. The results of previous research conducted by Phung et al., 2019 and Whitener et al. (1998) have shown that enjoyment in helping others has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. According to the study, when people are happy to share their knowledge in order to help others, they are more motivated to do so. The study also highlights altruism as a motivator for knowledge sharing behavior. The study also provides positive evidence that people who enjoy helping others will provide more useful knowledge, as previous research has suggested (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Thus, this study hypothesizes that:

H5: Enjoyment in Helping Others has a significant, direct and positive effect on Knowledge Sharing Behavior

The above-mentioned hypotheses are conceptualized in the following framework (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Research Method

Research Approach

This type of research includes research with a quantitative approach, which is carried out for testing theories by means of measurements that emphasize numerical data (on the variables studied and then analyzed using statistical test tools. This study uses a sample survey of a population with a questionnaire as a research tool in collecting data and analyzing respondents as research subjects. The data that has been obtained are tabulated and then processed using a statistical test of structural equation modeling (SEM – Amos). Measurement of knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1), enjoyment in helping others (X2), intention to share knowledge (Y1) and knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) variables were measured using a Likert scale. Sekaran and Bougie (2016) explained that the Likert Scale was used to test how strong the responses of agreeing or disagreeing were given by respondents to the statements presented. The Linkert scale used in this study has five scales with 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) which is described as follows, Strongly Agree (SS) = 5, Agree (S) = 4, Quite Agree, (CS) = 3, Disagree (TS) = 2, and Strongly Disagree (STS) = 1.

Measurement

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) in this study is defined as the confidence of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia in their ability to share knowledge related to activities, products, and services. The indicators of knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) in this study use an instrument developed by Lin et al. (2009).

Enjoyment in helping others

Enjoyment in helping others (X2) in this study is defined as the feeling of pleasure in the middle manager of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia in helping members or individuals related to knowledge. The indicators of enjoyment in helping others in this study use an instrument by Yan and Davison (2013).

Intention to share knowledge

Intention to share knowledge in this study is defined as the intention of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia to share knowledge related to various activities, products and services at Bank Syariah Mandiri. The indicators of intention to share knowledge (Y1) in this study use an instrument by Chatzoglou and Vraimaki (2009).

Knowledge sharing behavior

Knowledge sharing behavior in this study is defined as the behavior of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia in sharing their knowledge with their colleagues, both within divisions or in different divisions. The indicators of knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) in this study use an instrument by Lin and Lee (2004).

Data and Sample Collection Techniques

The participants in this study are middle managers from Bank Syariah Mandiri sub-branches in Indonesia who have held a supervisory position for at least 2 years, have never received a red card in the previous 2 years, have a thorough understanding of all Bank Syariah Mandiri products, and have participated in 1 year of training held every 3 months with no absence. The sampling technique of this research is using the census, meaning all members of the population are used as samples. In this study, an error tolerance level of 5% (0.05) was used, so the calculation using the Slovin formula for middle managers is as follows:

$\begin{array}{l} n = N / (1 + N . e^{2}) \\ = 389 / (1 + 389 X {0.05}^{2}) \\ = 389 / 1.3225 \\ = 197.211 r o u n d e d t o 197 \end{array}$

Based on the results of the calculation of the Slovin formula, a sample of 197 was obtained while the number of questionnaires collected was 297. Thus, the number of questionnaires collected has met the criteria of the Slovin formula and the assumptions in SEM (the assumption that SEM requires a sample of at least five times the number of indicator variables).

Data Analysis Techniques

The analytical technique used in this study is structural equation modeling (SEM) using the Amos 22 software program. Structural equation modeling can be a multivariate analysis technique that is able to analyze a series of multiple dependence relationships between latent variables simultaneously so that statistically it will produce more efficient results.

Data Analysis

The variable assessment was carried out by the middle manager of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia by answering various statements contained in the questionnaires that had been distributed. Common method bias can occur for several reasons, such as subjective perceptions of respondents, where each respondent has a different perception of the instrument used. This can also happen when respondents give incorrect answers to questionnaires, either over-reported or under-reported answers (Jordan & Troth, 2019). There are several procedural strategies that can be used to minimize common method bias, some of which were carried out by this study, namely by providing clear information about the objectives and benefits of research for respondents, providing technical instructions that facilitate and also guaranteeing the confidentiality of respondents’ identities (Jordan & Troth, 2019).

Table 1.

Respondent Demographics.

N = 297	Frequency	Percentage	Total%
Gender
Male	233	78.5	78.5
Female	64	21.5	100
Age
<30 years old	58	19.5	19.5
31–40 years old	182	61.3	80.8
41–50 years old	42	14.1	94.9
51–60 years old	15	5.1	100
Education
Bachelor	101	34.0	34
Master	168	56.6	90.6
Doctor	28	9.4	100
Tribe
Java	87	29.3	29.3
Sunda	60	20.2	49.5
Batak	15	5.1	54.6
Betawi	31	10.4	65
Bugis	21	7.1	72.1
Malay	25	8.4	80.5
Banten	23	7.7	88.2
Banjar	35	11.8	100

Table 1 shows four demographic variables that show the data as Gender, Age, Education, and Tribe of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia.

Table 2.

Analysis Results Description.

Indicator	Mean	Category
Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy
X1.1: Confidence in the ability to share knowledge	4.15	High
X1.2: Confidence in expertise to share knowledge	4.02	High
X1.3: Confidence in experience to share knowledge	4.02	High
X1.4: Confidence in your insights	4.09	High
X1.5: Confident in sharing knowledge	4.10	High
X1.6: Ability to give advice	3.96	High
Total mean	4.06	High
Enjoyment in Helping Others
X2.1: Enjoy doing knowledge sharing	4.03	High
X2.2: Enjoy helping colleagues	4.07	High
X2.3: Self pleasure in helping	4.29	Very high
X2.4: There is self-satisfaction in helping	4.25	Very high
Total mean	4.16	High
Intention to Share Knowledge
Y1.1: Intention to always do knowledge sharing	4.15	High
Y1.2: Always want to try doing knowledge sharing	4.22	Very high
Y1.3: Want to try to be more effective in knowledge sharing	4.18	High
Y1.4: Intention is always willing to do knowledge sharing	4.08	High
Y1.5: Inten to share knowledge	4.10	High
Total mean	4.15	High
Knowledge Sharing Behavior
Y21: Always share knowledge	4.03	High
Y2.2: Always share information	3.99	High
Y2.3: Always sharing insights	4.18	High
Y3.4: Always share skills	4.16	High
Total mean	4.09	High

Based on the table 2, it shows that the descriptions of respondents’ answers to all variables used, such as Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy, Enjoyment in Helping Others, Intention to Share Knowledge, and Knowledge Sharing Behavior have high categories.

Table 3.

Test Results of Measurement Model Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy and Enjoyment in Helping Others.

Criteria	Cut-off value	The calculation results
Chi-Square	Expected small	151.578
Significance Probability	<0.05	0.000
CMIN/DF	<2.0	4.458
RMR	Kecil	0.033
AIC	Kecil	193.578
RMSEA	<0.08	0.108
GFI	>0.9	0.902
AGFI	>0.9	0.842
TLI	>0.9	0.914
CFI	> 0.9	0.935

Table 3 and Figure 2 show that the exogenous measurement model of absolute fit Indices criteria with parameters RMR, GFI and incremental fit indices with parameters TLI and CFI in this study, provides a suitability index that is in accordance with the recommended limits. Meanwhile, there are other fit parameters which are not fit for the RMSEA and AGFI parameters. From the results of the measurement model in this study, it serves to ensure whether there are indicators that exceed the limit.

Table 4.

Test Results of Goodness of Fit Measurement Model Intention to Share Knowledge and Knowledge Sharing Behavior.

Criteria	Cut-off Value	The calculation results
Chi-Square	Expected small	141,912
Significance Probability	<0.05	0.000
CMIN/DF	<2.0	5.458
RMR	Kecil	0.030
AIC	Kecil	179.912
RMSEA	<0.08	0.123
GFI	>0.9	0.898
AGFI	>0.9	0.823
TLI	>0.9	0.895
CFI	>0.9	0.924

Based on Table 4 and Figure 3, the calculations for the endogenous measurement model of absolute fit indices criteria, namely RMR and incremental fit indices with CFI parameters in this study provide a suitability index that is in accordance with the recommended limits. While other fit parameters are moderate, namely GFI, TLI. Meanwhile, those who do not fit the RMSEA and AGFI parameters. From the various conformity indices in this study, it can be concluded that the measurement model on the proposed exogenous and endogenous constructs is fit or has a good suitability because there are two endogenous goodness of fit criteria and four goodness of fit criteria have been fit so there is no need for elimination. indicators of each—each variable.

Table 5.

Test Results of Contract Validity, AVE, and Reliability.

Variables	Code	Standar Loading Konvergen)				AVE	AVE. Root	CR
Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy	X_1.1	.790				.577	.760	.891
	X_1.2	.807
	X_1.3	.760
	X₁.₄	.723
	X₁.₅	.721
	X₁.₆	.753
Enjoyment In Helping Others	X₂.₁		.715			.608	.779	.861
	X₂.₂		.794
	X₂.₃		.817
	X₂.₄		.788
Intention to Share Knowledge	Y₁.₁			.739		.582	.763	.874
	Y₁.₂			.773
	Y₁.₃			.755
	Y₁.₄			.767
	Y₁.₅			.779
Knowledge Sharing Behavior	Y₂.₁				.746	.549	.741	.830
	Y₂.₂				.709
	Y₂.₃				.747
	Y_2.4				.762

As shown in Table 5 and Figure 4, X1—Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy, X2—Enjoyment in Helping Others, Y1—Intention to Share Knowledge, and Y2—Knowledge Sharing Behavior. Based on the table, it is known that the results of the Validity and Reliability Test in this study have shown that all indicators used have met the research requirements, and it is stated that all indicators in this study affect the latent variables used. This can happen because the results of the Validity and Reliability Test have met the validity and reliability requirements for the study (Loading factor > .6, the average variance extracted value >.5, and the CR value > .7).

Table 6.

Model Fit Index on Structural Model.

Goodness of Fit Measure	Indeks	Cut off	Information
Chi-square	456.232		Unwell
Probabilitas	0.000	>0.05	Unwell
CMINDF	3.125	≤2	Unwell
RMR	0.030	Kecil	Fit
RMSEA	0.085	<0.1	Fit
GFI	0.846	≥0.9	Unwell
AGFI	0.800	≥0.9	Unwell
TLI	0.906	≥0.9	Fit
CFI	0.920	≥0.9	Fit

Based on Table 6, there are four criteria for the model suitability index that are below the standard cut off value, namely RMSEA, RMR, TLI, CFI. Meanwhile, those that do not meet the model fit assumptions are the chi square index, GFI and AGFI. Based on the parsimony rule, if one or two of the fit criteria for the model have been met, the model has been declared fit. From the various conformity indices, it can be concluded that the structural model or structural model on the proposed endogenous construct fits or has a good fit. The overall fit can be assessed using the same criteria as the measurement model: using the χ² value for the structural model and at least one absolute index and one incremental index (Hair et al., 2014, p. 587). While parsimony fit indices are not useful in assessing the fit of a single model, but are quite useful in comparing the fit of two models, one more complex than the other (Hair et al., 2014, p. 581). In this study, the sample size is 297 and the number of indicators is 19. Hair et al. (2014, p. 584), model with N > 250 and number of indicators 12 to 30:

• χ²: significant p-values expected.

• CFI or TLI above .90.

Model fit result: χ² is a good fit, at least one absolute index (SRMR) and one incremental index (CFI or TLI) are a good fit.

Figure 2.

Exogenous variable measurement model.

Figure 3.

Measurement model of endogenous variables.

Figure 4.

Structural model.

Results and Discussion

The results of this study have shown the results of SEM testing with standardize coefficient values for each variable. Based on Table 7, it is stated that knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) has a positive and significant effect on the intention to share knowledge (Y1). It can be seen that the path coefficient value which is positive is .524 and the critical ratio value is 3.813 with a significant value of .000 (p < .05). So that the first hypothesis which states that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on the intention to share knowledge is accepted. Thus, every time there is an increase in the knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia, the intention to share knowledge (Y1) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will also increase. In line with some previous research on middle managers in Islamic banking in Saudi Arabia, the results show that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a positive influence on the intention to share knowledge (Arain et al., 2019; Bai et al., 2019). The results of this study indicate that the knowledge sharing self-efficacy of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia makes them believe that they have actual knowledge that deserves to be shared and also have the skills to provide information properly which makes them increase their intention to share knowledge.

Table 7.

Coefficient Value, Direct Effect Path Hypothesis.

Relationship between variables			Direct path coefficient	CR	Sig
Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy	→	Intention to sharing knowledge	0.524	3.813	.000
Enjoyment in helping others	→	Intention to sharing knowledge	0.413	3.033	.002
Intention to sharing knowledge	→	Knowledge sharing behavior	0.347	2.782	.005
Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy	→	Knowledge sharing behavior	0.334	2.935	.003
Enjoyment in helping others	→	Knowledge sharing behavior	0.350	2.718	.007

Note. Based on the table, it shows that the parameter whether there is a partial effect can be known based on the CR value (critical ratio) which is >1.96, to determine whether there is an effect of exogenous variables on endogenous and endogenous on endogenous using the CR significance value. While the provisions for acceptance of the research hypothesis are if the significance value is .05 and the direction of the path coefficient is positive then H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, and if the significance value is >.05 or significance ≤.05 but the path coefficient direction is negative then H0 fails to be rejected and H1 rejected.

The results of this study have shown the results of SEM testing with standardize coefficient values for each variable. Based on Table 7, it is stated that enjoyment in helping others (X2) has a positive and significant effect on the intention to share knowledge (Y1). It can be seen that the path coefficient value which is positive is .413 and the critical ratio value is 3.033 with a significant value of 0.002 (p < .05). So that the second hypothesis which states enjoyment in helping others has a significant positive effect on the intention to share knowledge is accepted. Thus, every time there is an increase in enjoyment in helping others (X2) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia, the intention to share knowledge (Y1) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will also increase. In line with previous research, it has been concluded that enjoyment in helping others has a positive effect on intention to share knowledge (Hoseini et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2016). The results of this study indicate that the perception of pleasure in Bank Syariah Mandiri middle managers through enjoyment in helping others obtained from helping others leads to the contribution of their knowledge because they are intrinsically motivated to contribute knowledge. So that enjoyment in helping others for middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia increases, and makes them motivated to share knowledge.

The results of this study have shown the results of SEM testing with standardize coefficient values for each variable. Based on Table 7, it is stated that the intention to share knowledge (Y1) has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior (Y2). It can be seen that the path coefficient value which is positive is .347 and the critical ratio value is 2.782 with a significant value of .005 (p < .05). So, the third hypothesis which states that intention to share knowledge has a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior is accepted. Thus, every time there is an increase in the intention to share knowledge (Y2) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia, the knowledge sharing behavior (Y1) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will also increase. In line with previous research according to Lin and Lee (2004) intention to share knowledge has an effect on knowledge sharing behavior, this statement supports the results of research conducted by Jeon et al. (2011) that intention to share knowledge has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. The results of this study indicate that the intention to share knowledge of middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia triggers the knowledge embedded in their creative thinking, and the willingness to use knowledge systems which are very important for the success of the work system. Furthermore, their behavior through the intention to share knowledge will realize this in applying knowledge sharing behavior properly.

The results of this study have shown the results of the SEM test with standardize coefficient values for each variable. Based on Table 7, it is stated that knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior (Y2). It can be seen that the path coefficient value which is positive is .334 and the critical ratio value is 2.935 with a significant value of .003 (p < .05). Therefore, the fourth hypothesis which states that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior is accepted. Thus, every time there is an increase in the knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia, the knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will also increase. In line with the research that has been carried out by Bilginoğlu and Yozgat (2018), Chen and Hung (2010), Hsu et al. (2007), Kwahk & Park (2016), Pan and Zhang (2018), Safdar et al. (2021), Islam et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2016) show that knowledge sharing self-efficacy has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. The results of this study indicate that the middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia through their knowledge sharing self-efficacy will gain confidence in what they can do and they will think that their expertise can improve work efficiency which can increase productivity. Furthermore, it refers to knowledge sharing behavior that will change and as a result middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will be more inclined to share knowledge with other people.

The results of this study have shown the results of SEM testing with standardize coefficient values for each variable. Based on Table 7, it is stated that enjoyment in helping others (X2) has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior (Y2). It can be seen that the path coefficient value which is positive is .350 and the critical ratio value is 2.718 with a significant value of .007 (p < .05). Thus, the fifth hypothesis which states enjoyment in helping others has a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior is accepted. Thus, every time there is an increase in enjoyment in helping others (X2) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia, the knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will also increase. In line with previous research conducted by Okyere-Kwakye (2011), Phung et al. (2019), Liu and Lee (2012), and Whitener et al. (1998) has shown that enjoyment in helping others has a positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior. The results of this study indicate that enjoyment in helping others at the middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri makes them feel happy which always motivates them to share their intellectual knowledge. Furthermore, they will become motivated to exhibit knowledge sharing behavior when they realize that knowledge sharing helps others to solve certain problems and perform better.

The results of this study have shown the results of the indirect effect testing carried out using the Sobel Test. Based on Table 8, it is stated that Knowledge sharing self-efficacy (X1) has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) through intention to share knowledge (Y1) with a coefficient value of .175 and a value of t = 2.326 with a significance value of .020 (p .05). This means that there is a significant indirect effect of knowledge sharing self-efficacy on knowledge sharing behavior through the intention to share knowledge of Bank Syariah Mandiri. In line with research conducted by Liou et al. (2016), Rahman et al. (2017), and Zhang et al. (2016) that the intention to share knowledge fully mediates between knowledge sharing self-efficacy and knowledge sharing. behavior. The results of this study indicate that intention to share knowledge is a good predictor of middle managers of Bank Syariah regarding future behavior or is the intention of middle managers to do something right. This can trigger an initiative from the middle manager because at a certain level this leads to knowledge sharing self-efficacy by forming confidence in themselves which is important for the realization of good knowledge sharing behavior.

Table 8.

Coefficient Value, Indirect Effect Path Hypothesis.

Relationship between variables	Indirect path coefficient	CR	Sig
Knowledge Sharing Self Efficacy → Intention to sharing knowledge → Knowledge sharing behavior	.175	2.326	0.020
Enjoyment in helping others → Intention to sharing knowledge → Knowledge sharing behavior	.138	2.109	0.035

Note. Table shows that the indirect effect test is carried out using the Sobel Test. Sobel test is a test by entering the value of the unstandardized path coefficient and the standard error value (p .05, indicating a significant effect).

The results of this study have shown the results of the indirect effect testing carried out using the Sobel Test. Based on Table 8, it is stated that enjoyment in helping other (X2) has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior (Y2) through intention to share knowledge (Y1) with a coefficient value of .138 and a value of t = 2.109 with a significance value of .035 (p .05). This means that there is a significant indirect effect of enjoyment in helping others on knowledge sharing behavior through the intention to share knowledge of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia. In line with research conducted by Chang and Chuang (2011), Hau and Kang (2016), and Lefebvre et al. (2016), with a strong intention it will facilitate one’s desire to help others so that it will create knowledge sharing behavior. The results of this study indicate that enjoyment in helping others at the middle manager of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia will form pleasure and willingness to help others without expecting a reward with a useful purpose for the actions taken which are triggered by the intention to do so. This will lead to an increase in knowledge sharing behavior among middle managers of Bank Syariah Mandiri in Indonesia.

Conclusion

General Conclusion

The results show that knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others have positive and significant effect on intention to share knowledge; knowledge sharing self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others and intention to share knowledge have positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior; knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others have significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior mediated by intention to share knowledge. Based on the discussions, it can be concluded that the reality of internal and individual motivation, specifically the existence of knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in assisting others, plays a significant role in knowledge sharing intention and behavior. According to Mafabi et al. (2017) knowledge sharing behavior is one of the key processes in building knowledge resources that are useful for the quality-of-service delivery in an organization. This is very much needed in achieving the company’s goals properly, and being able to create a company that is more effective and also able to influence the national economy and economic growth in Indonesia. The company has been proven to be able to influence knowledge sharing behavior well through knowledge sharing self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others, and the intention to share knowledge among middle managers.

Implication

Theoretical implication

This study focuses on the knowledge sharing behavior of employees as an important resource for organizational success. The research model in this study enriches the literature by developing variables whose ultimate goal is to make employees achieve a competitive advantage so that they have the opportunity to enter the industry better and more usefully. This research model is strengthened by knowledge sharing self-efficacy which helps employees’ confidence in overcoming problems by exchanging knowledge in a learning environment. Then the role of enjoyment in helping others is as an intrinsic motivation which is also useful for finding solutions to challenging problems. The research was expanded by the intention to share knowledge which acts as a mediation. The presence of communication between individuals with knowledge will refer to a better intention to share knowledge for the willingness of employees to feel knowledge sharing self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others which are important to realize positive knowledge sharing behavior.

Practical implication

The results of this study can be taken into consideration for employees and managers in creating and improving knowledge sharing behavior in the workplace. It is hoped that the middle manager of an independent Islamic bank will be able to maintain the knowledge sharing factor of self-efficacy and enjoyment in helping others so as to realize a strong intention, because the middle manager is the center of an organization that must be able to influence other individuals or groups. This is necessary because a strong belief will create an easy sharing of knowledge sharing both in terms of independent Islamic banking products or services as well as knowledge related to the existence of a merger. Based on the discussion and conclusions that have been described in this study, this research can also be used as a recommendation for company management to measure the effect of knowledge sharing self-efficacy, enjoyment in helping others on knowledge sharing behavior with intention to share knowledge as an intervening variable in middle managers. This is known to be able to influence in controlling behavior that is able to help in overcoming problems they encounter related to the exchange of knowledge in the learning environment, forming a peaceful life in the process of participating in adopting new work procedures, having a willingness to share skills or expertise possessed in order to be able to work together. helping colleagues in the organization, and increasing the behavior displayed by group members to receive or provide knowledge, resources, experiences or something positive to or from other members.

Limitations and Suggestions

Several limitations of this study need to be addressed. First, this study only considers the responses of respondents who work at Bank Syariah Indonesia; therefore, it is recommended in future research to cover different populations such as in other banking contexts or other public services. Second, data were collected at the same time for this study. The use of further research can use longitudinal research to support associations developed through data collection at different times so that research results are more accurate. Third, the assessment in this study uses a quantitative approach. To get a broader answer, it is recommended to continue research with a qualitative approach. Fourth, this study does not use control variables such as company size, company age and type of industry as part of the study. So, it would be better if further research uses control variables to enrich the findings. Moreover, examination of different mediating variables should be considered in future studies to enrich knowledge in this area.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iD

Anis Eliyana

References

Amichai-Hamburger

Gazit

Bar-Ilan

Perez

Aharony

Bronstein

Sarah Dyne

(2016). Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Anggarwati

Eliyana

(2015). The influence of creative self-efficacy towards creativity with job satisfaction as intervening variable at PT. Smile island surabaya. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, III(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/65

Arain

G. A.

Bhatti

Z. A.

Hameed

Fang

Y. H.

(2019). Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): A three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-11-2018-0687

Bai

Lin

Liu

J. T.

(2019). Leveraging the employee voice: A multi-level social learning perspective of ethical leadership. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(12), 1869–1901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1308414

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bao

Han

(2019). What drives users’ participation in online social Q&A communities? An empirical study based on social cognitive theory. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(5), 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-01-2019-0002

Bilginoğlu

Yozgat

(2018). Türkiye Bankacılık Sektörü Çalışanlarında Algılanan Eğitim Yoğunluğu ve Bilgi Paylaşımı: İçsel Motivasyon ve Özyeterliliğin Düzenleyici Rolünün İrdelenmesi. Yaşam Becerileri Psikoloji Dergisi, 2(4), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.31461/ybpd.486928

Boulila Taktak

(2011). The nature of smoothing returns practices: The case of Islamic banks. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 2(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/17590811111170548

Casimir

Lee

Loon

(2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 740–753. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781

10.

Chang

H. H.

Chuang

S. S.

(2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information and Management, 48(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2010.11.001

11.

Chang

Y. W.

Hsu

P. Y.

Shiau

W. L.

Tsai

C. C.

(2015). Knowledge sharing intention in the United States and China: A cross-cultural study. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(3), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.28

12.

Chatzoglou

P. D.

Vraimaki

(2009). Knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees in Greece. Business Process Management Journal, 15(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150910949470

13.

Chen

C. J.

Hung

S. W.

(2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information and Management, 47(4), 226–236.

14.

Chen

S. S.

Chuang

Y. W.

Chen

P. Y.

(2012). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate. Knowledge-Based Systems, 31, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.02.001

15.

Dutton

J. E.

Ashford

S. J.

(1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 397–428. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.9309035145

16.

El Said

G. R

. (2015). Understanding knowledge management system antecedents of performance impact: Extending the task-technology fit model with intention to share knowledge construct. Future Business Journal, 1(1–2), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbj.2015.11.003

17.

Enelamah

N. V.

Tran

(2020). Dimensions of altruism behaviors among Americans in the general social survey. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(2), 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2019.1673274

18.

Ergün

Avcı

Ü.

Journal

July

Ergün

Avcı

. (2018). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society knowledge sharing self-efficacy, motivation and sense of community as predictors of knowledge receiving and giving behaviors. Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 60–73.

19.

Farooq

Vij

(2019). Does market orientation mediate between knowledge management orientation and business performance? Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 18(4), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219649219500394

20.

Fauzi

M. A.

(2019). Knowledge sharing in Asia Pacific via virtual community platform: A systematic review. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 15(4), 368–394. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijwbc.2019.103186

21.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

22.

Floyd

S. W.

Woolridge

(1997). Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational, performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485.

23.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

24.

Hau

Y. S.

Kang

(2016). Extending lead user theory to users’ innovation-related knowledge sharing in the online user community: The mediating roles of social capital and perceived behavioral control. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 520–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.008

25.

Hau

Y. S.

Kim

Lee

Kim

Y. G.

(2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.009

26.

Heisig

Suraj

O. A.

Kianto

Kemboi

Perez Arrau

Fathi Easa

(2016). Knowledge management and business performance: Global experts’ views on future research needs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1169–1198. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-12-2015-0521

27.

Henttonen

Kianto

Ritala

(2016). Knowledge sharing and individual work performance: An empirical study of a public sector organisation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2015-0414

28.

Hoseini

Saghafi

Aghayi

(2019). A multidimensional model of knowledge sharing behavior in mobile social networks. Kybernetes, 48(5), 906–929. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-07-2017-0249

29.

Hsu

C. L.

Lin

J. C. C.

(2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information Management, 45(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.11.001

30.

Hsu

M. H.

T. L.

Yen

C. H.

Chang

C. M.

(2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 65(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003

31.

Hwang

Lin

Shin

(2018). Knowledge system commitment and knowledge sharing intention: The role of personal information management motivation. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 220–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.009

32.

Inkinen

(2016). Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 230–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2015-0336

33.

Islam

M. A.

Jantan

A. H.

Khan

A. M.

Rahman

M. H.

Monshi

(2018). Impact of motivational factors on knowledge sharing behaviour of managers in ready made garments (RMG) industry of Bangladesh. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 13(1), 179–189.

34.

Jafari

Fathian

Akhavan

Hosnavi

(2007). Exploring KM features and learning in Iranian SMEs. VINE, 37(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720710759973

35.

Janczak

(2004). The strategic decision-making process in organizations. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 3(3), 58–70.

36.

Jeon

Kim

Koh

(2011). An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of-practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119682

37.

John

N. A.

(2013). The social logics of sharing. Communication Review, 16(3), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2013.807119

38.

Jolaee

Md Nor

Khani

Md Yusoff

(2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. The International Journal of Educational Management, 28, 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-03-2013-0041

39.

Jordan

P. J.

Troth

A. C.

(2019). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976

40.

Kankanhalli

Tan

B. C. Y.

Wei

K.-K.

(2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148670

41.

Kwahk

K. Y.

Park

D. H.

(2016). The effects of network sharing on knowledge-sharing activities and job performance in enterprise social media environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 826–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.044

42.

Lai

H. M.

Chen

C. P.

(2011). Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs. Computers & Education, 56(4), 948–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.010

43.

Lefebvre

V. M.

Sorenson

Henchion

Gellynck

(2016). Social capital and knowledge sharing performance of learning networks. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.11.008

44.

Liao

P. L.

Hsu

F. C.

(2013). Exploring knowledge sharing in virtual communities. Online Information Review, 37(6), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-11-2012-0196

45.

Lin

C. Y.

Huang

C. K.

C. J.

(2020). The impact of perceived enjoyment on team effectiveness and individual learning in a blended learning business course: The mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4446

46.

Lin

Huang

(2013). Why people share knowledge in virtual communities?: The use of Yahoo! Kimo knowledge+ as an example. Internet Research, 23(2), 133–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241311313295

47.

Lin

(2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272

48.

Lin

H. F.

Lee

H. S.

Wang

D. W.

(2009). Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Information Science, 35(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508091310

49.

Lin

Lee

(2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour. Management Decision, 42(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410510181

50.

Lin

K. J.

Hsieh

Y. H.

Lian

W. S.

(2018). Knowledge sharing and personality traits moderated by transformational leadership. Human Systems Management, 37(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.3233/hsm-171615

51.

Liou

D. K.

Chih

W. H.

Yuan

C. Y.

Lin

C. Y.

(2016). The study of the antecedents of knowledge sharing behavior: The empirical study of Yambol online test community. Internet Research, 26(4), 845–868. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-10-2014-0256

52.

Liu

Cheung

C. M. K.

Lee

M. K. O.

(2016). An empirical investigation of information sharing behavior on social commerce sites. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 686–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.03.013

53.

Liu

S.-H.

Lee

G.-G.

(2012). Knowledge sharing behavior in e-learning materials developing team. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.080

54.

Liu

Zhang

Guo

(2013). Full-text citation analysis: A new method to enhance scholarly networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64, 1852–1863. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22883

55.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Fetter

(1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 70–80.

56.

Mafabi

Nasiima

Muhimbise

E. M.

Kasekende

Nakiyonga

(2017). The mediation role of intention in knowledge sharing behavior. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 47(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/vjikms-02-2016-0008

57.

Mirkovski

Jia

Liu

Chen

(2018). Understanding microblogging continuance intention: The directed social network perspective. Information Technology and People, 31(1), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-07-2015-0168

58.

Misman

F. N.

Ahmad

(2011). Loan loss provisions: Evidence from Malaysian islamic and conventional banks. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(4), 94–103.

59.

Moghavvemi

Sharabati

Paramanathan

Rahin

N. M.

(2017). The impact of perceived enjoyment, perceived reciprocal benefits and knowledge power on students’ knowledge sharing through Facebook. International Journal of Management in Education, 15(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.11.002

60.

Mustika

Eliyana

Agustina

T. S.

Ratnasari

R. T.

(2020). Knowledge sharing behavior between self-leadership and innovative behavior. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 9, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2020.9.m(12)

61.

Nguyen

T. M.

(2020). Do extrinsic motivation and organisational culture additively strengthen intrinsic motivation in online knowledge sharing? An empirical study. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 50(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/vjikms-02-2019-0019

62.

Okyere-Kwakye . (2011). Individual factors and knowledge sharing. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajebasp.2011.66.72

63.

Olatokun

Nwafor

C. I.

(2012). The effect of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing intentions of civil servants in Ebonyi state, Nigeria. Information Development, 28, 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666912438567

64.

Othman

H. B.

Mersni

(2014). The use of discretionary loan loss provisions by Islamic banks and conventional banks in the Middle East region: A comparative study. Studies in Economics and Finance, 31(1), 106–128. https://doi.org/10.1108/sef-02-2013-0017

65.

Pan

Zhang

(2018). Withholding knowledge in teams: An interactionist perspective of personality, justice, and autonomy. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(12), 2009–2024. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7390

66.

Papadopoulos

Stamati

Nopparuch

(2013). Exploring the determinants of knowledge sharing via employee weblogs. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.08.002

67.

Phung

V. D.

Hawryszkiewycz

Chandran

(2019). How knowledge sharing leads to innovative work behaviour: A moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 21(3), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsit-11-2018-0148

68.

Rahman

Reynolds

(2016). Predicting green hotel behavioral intentions using a theory of environmental commitment and sacrifice for the environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.09.007

69.

Rahman

M. S.

Daud

N. M.

Hassan

(2017). Generation X and Y knowledge sharing behaviour: The influence of motivation and INtention on Non academic staff of higher learning institutions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(2), 325–342.

70.

Reychav

Weisberg

(2010). Bridging intention and behavior of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011032418

71.

Rohman

Eliyana

Purwana

Hamidah

(2020). Individual and organizational factors’ effect on knowledge sharing behavior. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(3)

72.

Ryu

S. H.

Han

(2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113–122.

73.

Safdar

Batool

S. H.

Mahmood

(2021). Relationship between self-efficacy and knowledge sharing: systematic review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 70, 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-11-2019-0139

74.

Saide

Astuti

E. S.

Indrajit

R. E.

Trialih

Diniaty

Dewi

Herzavina

(2019). What we give, we get back: Investigating the dimensions that influence knowledge sharing on profit enterprise in Indonesia. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(5), 1047–1062. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstpm-06-2018-0056

75.

Sallam

M. A.

Algammash

F. A.

(2016). The effect of attitude toward advertisement on attitude toward brand and purchase intention. International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management United Kingdom, 4(2), 21–29.

76.

Sekaran

Bougie

(2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

77.

Shahimi

Ismail

A. G.

Ahmad

(2006). Panel data analysis of fee income activities islamic banks. Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Islamic Economics, 19(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.4197/islec.19-2.2

78.

Smith

R. J.

(2011). Does job resource loss reduce burnout and job exit for professionally trained social workers in child welfare? Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 1950–1959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.026

79.

Suh

Wagner

(2017). How gamification of an enterprise collaboration system increases knowledge contribution: An affordance approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0429

80.

Syabarrudin

Eliyana

Naimah

(2020). Does employees’ self-efficacy drive their organizational commitment? Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(4), 135–141. https://doi.org/10.31838/srp.2020.4.21

81.

Tang

J. H.

Chen

M. C.

Yang

C. Y.

Chung

T. Y.

Lee

Y. A.

(2016). Personality traits, interpersonal relationships, online social support, and facebook addiction. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.003

82.

Tseng

F. C.

Kuo

F. Y.

(2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers and Education, 72, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005

83.

Van Acker

Vermeulen

Kreijns

Lutgerink

van Buuren

. (2014). The role of knowledge sharing self-efficacy in sharing open educational resources. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.006

84.

Van den Hooff

Schouten

A. P.

Simonovski

(2012). What one feels and what one knows: The influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198990

85.

Wang

H. K.

Tseng

J. F.

Yen

Y. F.

(2014). How do institutional norms and trust influence knowledge sharing? An institutional theory. Innovation, 16, 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2014.11081994

86.

Wang

Wong

P. P. W.

Narayanan Alagas

(2020). Antecedents of green purchase behaviour: An examination of altruism and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, 14(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcthr-02-2019-0034

87.

Wang

Sharma

P. N.

Cao

(2016). From knowledge sharing to firm performance: A predictive model comparison. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4650–4658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.055

88.

Whitener

E. M.

Brodt

S. E.

Korsgaard

M. A.

Werner

J. M.

(1998). Managers As initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.

89.

Yan

Davison

R. M.

(2013). Exploring behavioral transfer from knowledge seeking to knowledge contributing: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of the American for Information Science and Technology, 64(6), 1144–1157. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22820

90.

Zhang

Liu

Chen

Gong

(2016). Social capital, motivations, and knowledge sharing intentions in health Q&A communities. Management Decision, 66(12), 2494–2510.

91.

Zhang

Liu

Chen

Gong

(2017). Social capital, motivations, and knowledge sharing intention in health Q&A communities. Management Decision, 55(7), 1536–1557. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2016-0739

92.

Zhao

Detlor

Connelly

C. E.

(2016). Sharing knowledge in social Q&A sites: The unintended consequences of extrinsic motivation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(1), 70–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1172459

93.

Zoubi

T. A.

Al-Khazali

(2007). Empirical testing of the loss provisions of banks in the GCC region. Managerial Finance, 33(7), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074350710753771

Testing the Determining Factors of Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Basis

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy

Enjoyment in helping others

Intention to share knowledge

Knowledge sharing behavior

Hypothesis Development

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy and intention to share knowledge

Enjoyment in helping others and intention to share knowledge

Intention to share knowledge and knowledge sharing behavior

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy and knowledge sharing behavior

Enjoyment in helping others and knowledge sharing behavior

Research Method

Research Approach

Measurement

Knowledge sharing self-efficacy

Enjoyment in helping others

Intention to share knowledge

Knowledge sharing behavior

Data and Sample Collection Techniques

Data Analysis Techniques

Data Analysis

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

General Conclusion

Implication

Theoretical implication

Practical implication

Limitations and Suggestions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References