Correlates of Organizational Commitment and Knowledge Sharing via Emotional Intelligence: An Empirical Investigation Dr. Silva Karkoulian, Nour Al Harake, and Dr. Leila Canaan Messarra Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon ABSTRACT ‘This study investigated the relationship between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing via emotional intelligence. Participants were 120 individuals working in medium size enterprises in Lebanon, The ‘overall results supported the idea that commitment (affective and normative) to the organization has & positive effect ‘on knowledge sharing. However, emotional intelligence mediated the relationship between them such that the relationship between normative commitment and knowledge sharing remained positive, but affective commitment ‘was not 2 function of knowledge sharing anymore, INTRODUCTION In today’s “knowledge-intensive oconomy”, the available Inowledge in an organization is an important asset. Thus, knowledge sharing between departments and individuals is a critical process (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; O'Dell and Grayson, 1998), and the organization can only start to efficiently manage this resource when group and individual knowledge is transformed into organizational knowledge. Knowledge shating is perceived as crucial for the success of an organization (Chow et al., 2000; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nevis et al, 1995; Drucker, 1993; It is then imperative that we understand the various factors that influence knowledge sharing behaviors (Mooradian et al, 2006). However, in order to share knowledge, itis ‘important to change employees’ behaviors and attitudes so that they will willingly share their knowledge (Mofiet et al, 2003; Lee & Choi, 2003; Jones et al., 2006). Given the above, we eun expect emotional intelligence to play a key role. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the “ability to sense, understand and effectively apply the power and acumnea of emotions asa source of human energy, information, connection, and influence” (Cooper and Sawaf, 2000, p.13) Past rescarch has related knowledge sharing to a variety of managerial and organizational factors and to transient, sitution-specific attitudes and motives (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Levin and Cross, 2004). Knowledge sharing was also related to organizational commitment and a positive relationship was found between them. Nevertheless, no study to the researchers” knowledge has tested the impact of Emotional Intelligence (EI) on knowledge sharing.The present research provides an interactive perspective in which it proposes that emotional intelligence moderates the relationship between organizational commitment (affective and normative commitment) and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing is defined as a set of behaviors that involve the exchange of information or assistance to others (Conneily & Kelloway, 2003). This is an important organizational activity which involves the transfer of knowledge from a person/group to another person/group in order to exeate new knowledge, According to Steven Walczak (2008), there are two types of knowledge: tacit and expli ‘Tacit knowledge is the knowledge “locked into the human mind” (Kim and Mauborgne, 1998, p. 323), such as cognitive leaning. mental models and technical skills. However, this type of knowledge requires the willingness of empioyees to share and communicate (Robertson and O’Maliey Hammersley, 2000; Flood et al, 2001; Kim and Mauborgne, 1998; Willman er a, 2001; Empson, 2001). On the other hand,, explicit knowledge is the knowledge transferred into external medi, such as papers, electronic databases, documents, and operating procedures. In sum, knowledge sharing is the provess where individuals mutually exchange their (implicit and explicit) knowledge and jointly create new knowiedge. This process is very important in order to transform individual knowledge 10 ‘organizational knowledge. ‘The knowledge sharing process includes both the supply and the demand for new knowledge Its two main components are: (a) knowledge collecting ie. consulting with colleagues to get them to share their intellectual capital, and (b) knowledge donating which entails communicating to others what one's personal intellectual capital ‘The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol.15 * Num." Summer * 2010 80is (Ardichvili et al, 2003), However, this research will facus on the “give side’ of knowiedge sharing, ie. the individuals provision of knowledge. Knowledge sharing is associated with many organizational outcomes such as task completion time, productivity, orgtnizational learning and innovativeness (Hansen, 2002; Argote, 1999; Curamings, 2004; Argote et al, 2000), Nevertheless, the presence of knowledge sharing technology in an organization boosts the employees" perceptions of a positive knowledge sharing culture (Connelly and Kelloway, 2003) in otder to develop innovative Solutions for business problems. Still, knowledge sharing can be a demanding and an uncertain process; at the individual level, it may evoke perceptions of conflict of interest or vulnerability. For example, Ardiehvili et al (2003) found that ‘fear of eritcism’ and ‘fear of unientionaly misleading others" can inhibit knowledge sharing ‘That is why an individuals personality can be an important factor for knowledge sharing, Emotional Intelligence: Daniel Goleman (1998, p. 317) define emotional intelligence as “the capacity for recognizing our own feclings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in out ‘elationships” Coleman and his followers believe that higher levels of emotional intelligence can boost individual, team, and organizational effectiveness, According to Goleman (1998), emotional intelligence has four dimensions: self-awareness and self. management. Together, they constitute the personal competence side. While both social awareness and relationship ‘management. or social skill, eed the social competence. Self-awareness or knowing what one feels is the frst step (0 being able to manage our interactions with others. It is being aware of our emotions, understanding their cause an reflecting on the pattems of behavior which ‘We display as a consequence of that emotion (Garner & Associates 2009; Goleman, 1995). While, self management is more than resisting explosive or problematic behavior, itis puting your momentary needs on hold, to pursue your larger and more important goals (Gamer, 2009) ie. itis the ability to regulate distressing eifects like anxiety and anger, and (o inhibit emotional impulsivity (Goleman,1995). On the other hang, social awareness which encompasses the competency of empathy isthe ability to read nonverbal exes for negative emotions, particularly anger and fear, and to judge the trustworthiness of others, Tris about understanding other's feelings, not experiencing them (Gamer, 2009), While, relationship management is how the effectiveness of our relationship skills hinges on our ability to attune ourselves to, or influence ‘he emotions of nother person. Tt is the specific skils of influencing and persuading othe:s, managing and improving, the Performance of others, utilizing and managing the diverse sirengths of a team and negotiation as well as conflict handing skills (Garner, 2009), It is useftl and interesting to consider how significant emotional ineligence is for effective performance at work because a person's ability to perceive, identify, and manage his/her emotions are the origin of social and emotional competencies which are important for success in almost any job Organizational Commitment: Organizational commitment is "the relative strength of an individual’ identification with and involvement ina particular organization” (Mowday, et a., 1979, p. 226). Thus, itis an important variable that has an influence on employees attitudes and affects their degree of loyalty to their organizations. According to Shepherd and Mathews (2000), commitment towards the organization increases employee ioyalty which in tura leads to less absentecisin and turnover, Riketts, (2002), and Chen, Silverihome, and Hung (2008) concluded thet it is positively related to Performance. Meyer and Allen (1997) distinguished three different forms of commitment: Affective Commitment fepresents the involvement, participation and emotional attachment and identification with the organization that leads to remaining at the organization (feelings of loyalty). Normative Commitment is an emotional obligation towards te organization ic. a person should continue employment. Continuance Commitment is when employees believe it isin their own personal interest to remain with the organization, therefore creating a desire to continue employment since itis costly to quit. This form of commitment plays a minimal role in the conceptualization of commitment as it oecurs when there is a profit associated with continued participation and a cost associated with, leaving (Kanter (968), ‘Knowledge sharing and organizational commitment Commitment impacts organizational knowledge sharing in two ways: first, it affects the willingness of ‘workers to share their knowledge. According to Hinds and Pfeffer (2008) an individual who is more committed to iness Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num.1 * Summer * 2010 90, }the organization, and has more tust in both management and coworkers, is more likely willing to share his/her knowledge. Second, lack of commitment can lead toa high turnover level (Simons and Roberson, 2003; Pieree and Dunham, 1987) which in turn can lead to loss of significant amounts of important knowledge forthe organization. Kelloway and Barling’s (2000) research reported a number of empirical studies which confirm that affective commitment is a predictor of performance and is based on @ reciprocal relationship whereby the individual offers his/her talents to the organization in exchange for the rewards of organizational membership, Based on these studies, they present a model in which affective commitment is positively related to knowledge work. Thus we propose a positive relationship between affective commitment and the willingness to donate knowledge. Thus, the researchers predict FIL Affective commitment is postively related to knowledge sharing In the normative approach, commitment is viewed as a” belief about one's responsibility to the organization”, Wiener (1982, p. 471) refers to ikas the “totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way which meets organizational goals and interests”, and suggests that individuals exhibit behaviors solely because “they believe itis the "right" and moral thing to do"(p. 421). Thus, itis expected that individuals high in nonnative commitment would be mote willing to share knowledge if they beliove it is the normal thing to do to meet als, Thus we propose: organizational H2: Nommat ‘omimitmen i positively related to knowledge sharing wowledge Sharing and Emotional Intelligence Gathering knowledge is easy, but sharing it is difficult, Many firms are starting to realize that knowledge shared is knowledge smartly deployed and leveraged (Dixon 2002), However, the key success factor remains the human factor, and s person’s identity is fundamental to hissher motivation and commnitinent, It drives heishe feels is important knowledge, what, bow and with whom he/she will share that knowledge, and how he/she values hissher contribution to colleagues and to the organization. Thus, if we know more about the relationship between personality and knowledge sharing, we will be able to better handle questions about knowledge sharing and encourage it. In this research, we focus on the personality determinants of emotional intelligence and how it relates ‘w the individual's knowledge sharing. We propose: 3: Emotional Intelligence is positively related to knowledge Shating, Emotio | Intelligence and Organizational Commitment According to Robinson and Rousseau (1994), job insecurity can lead to reduced commitment and high tumover intentions which might threaten otganizational stability, Accordingly, we propose that individuals who have high levels of emotional intelligence will be able to ameliorate the essence of job insecurity on their affective ‘commitment and that emotionai intelligence have a moderating influence. This is because employees need first to be ‘aware of the emotions they are expeticucing as a result of their perceptions of job insecurity. Employees high in the perception factor of emotional intelligence can therefore be expected to be able to assess the emotions they are feeling to confirm if their perceptions are correct or not. Further, employees high in the self management component cof emotional intelligence should be able to prioritize the information that is most important to their feelings of insecurity and then to adopt multiple perspectives to determine if their feelings are aecurate and reasonable (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), As for the understanding component of emotional intelligence, emotionally intelligent employees ate likely to foresee possible complex emotions that will emerge fiom this situation, including whether they have mixed feelings of loyalty and betrayal and how anxiety about their insecurity may lead to feelings of frustration and anger. Employees with high ability to manage their emotions will be more likely than their low ability counterparts to ccontroi their initial emotional reaction to perceptions of job insecurity, This is especially tac if they consider these reactions to be unproductive. In this case, management of felt emotion may result in employees increasing their affective commitment to ihe organization by generating enthusiasm for their work (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Alternatively, employees high in their ability to manage emotions may decide tbat itis in their personal interest to suppress their feelings of insecurity and merely to increase their normative commitment to the organization for the duration of their employment, Inrespective of which path is adopted, the central issue is the employee's ability to exert emotional control, Thus, we propose that Emotional Intelligence will moderate the effect of perceptions of job the Business Keview, Cambridge * Voi.ig © Num.i > Summer” 2010 95insecurity on affective commitment. Compared with high emotional intelligence employees, low emotional intelligence employees witl manifest lower affective commitment in response to job insecurity, Thus, 4: Emotional intelligence is positively related to Asctive commitment HS: Emotional Intelligence las 2 positive relationship with Normative commitment The purpose of this tescarch is 10 investigate if « relationship exists between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing vie emotional intelligence. Thus, the researchers will examine whether the findings from the above hypothesis still hold ue when Elis introduced as a mediator between Affective commitment and knowledge sharing, and Normative commitment and knowledge sharing. METHODOLOGY ‘The research questionnaire had three nyain parts: The fist part measured knowledge sharing using Cumming’s (2004) sharing scale, The second part measured the five dimensions of emotional intelligence er emotional quotient (EQ) developed by Goleman (1995) ie, self-awareness, self regulation, self motivation, and relationship & social skills. The third part measured the two components of commitment (affective and tiormative) developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). For both knowledge sharing and organizational commitment, the questionnaire used a Likert scale ranging between | for strongly agree and 5 for strongly disagree. While, the scale for the emotional intelligence questions ranged from 1-4. 1 meant always, 2 sometimes, 3 rarely and 4 never, To test our hypotheses, 200 questionnaires were distributed by hand or by e-mail to employees working in ‘medium size enterprises in Lebanon, The questionnaire included a letter indicating the purpose of the survey and the assurance of anonymity. The overall response rate was 60% or 155 employees, Results To test the reliability of our questionnaire, we measured the eronbach alpha for the different parts, ie Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Commitment (Affective & Normative) and Emotional Intelligence (Self Avvareness EQ, Self Regulation EQ, Self Motivation EQ, Relationship & Social Skills EQ, and Coaching & Empathy EQ) (See Table-1 below), ‘Apia @) Keowledge Siatag [859 ‘Oxgizationsl Commitmait 1-02 ‘Ateetive Commimiit 085 ‘Nermative Conunitnent 0.505 et SeiF Regul Et ‘ot [Seif Monvaion FO ‘0209 Ressionship & Sool Ss BQ | 0.742 ‘Coaching & Enpally E Oss Descriptive Statist Table-2 presents the mest, median, standard deviation, and variance for knowledge sharing, organizational commitment and emotional intelligence. Table-2 Descriptive Statistiss ‘Mesa [ Median | Su, Devi Variance) Rpowledge Sai [st Tis Dt Ost ‘Onmanzatonal commimnsat 27 Tat iis 0.05 i Affective Cammitinent 2707356 090 Oa) ‘Normative Commins aa 056 0328 Sele Anarene EQ a O58 O36 Seif Regulation BO 7 a 3.00 To 936} Self Motivation EO) [303.50 06 om Relationship & Sonal Salis EO) 350.00, 039 038 ‘Conching & Eapay Et Sadao O58 ae From the above we can deduce that Lebanese employees working in medium size enterprises possess Higher levels of emotional inteligence and medium levels of organizational commitment, but ae low on knowedge Review, Cambridge * Vol.15 * Num.1 * Summer * 2010 ozsharing. Results also indicate that the highest standard deviation is that of affective commitment and knowledge shaving, whieh implies a high variation in their level among participants Regression Analysis: Regression Results for Knowledge Sharing with Affective & Normative Commitment The analysis ofthese findings generated the following linear regression equation: .06 + 0.218 Affective commitment 0.013 sig ‘The result of ANOVA with an F-value of 7.01 and a significance of 0,013 at 0.05 significant level. Equation 1: Knowledge Sharing 4 + 0.639 Normative commitment 0.000sig Equation 2: Knowledge Shari ‘The result of ANOVA with an F-value of 10.89 and'2 significance of 0.00 a 0.05 significant lev Thus, the results support hypothesis 1 and 2 ie, affective and normative commitments are positively related 10 knowledge sharing Regression Results for Knowledge Sharing with EQ: ‘The analysis of these findings generated the following linear regression equation Equation 3: Knowledge sharing = 3.634 + 3.148 EQ 0.009 The result of ANOVA with an F-value of 7.07 and o significance of 0.009 at 0,05 significant level. Thus, the result supports Hypothesis 3, ie. EL is positively related to knowledge sharing. Regression Results for EQ with Affective Commitment: ‘The unalysis ofthese findings generated the following linear regression equation: Equation 4: Affective commitment ~0.881 + 1,033 EQ 0.000sig, ‘The result of ANOVA showed an F-value of 16.293 and a significance of 0.000 at 0.05 significance level. Thus, the ‘result supports Hypothesis 4, ic. Elis positively related to affective commitment, Regression Results for EQ with Normative Commitment ‘The result did not support Hypothesis 5 which proposed that emotional intelligence has a positive relationship with normative commitment; EQ had na significant relation with normative commitment, Regression Results for EQ as a Mediator Between Affective and Normative Commitmnents, and Knowledge Sharing: “The analysis ofthese findings generated the following linear regression equation: Equation 5: Knowledge sharing = 10.822 +2.847 EQ + 0.301 Normative commitment 0.018 sig 0.000sig, ‘The result of ANOVA with an F-value of 12.152 and a significance of 0,000 at 0.05 significant level, This indicates that the telationship between normative commitment and knowledge sharing via EQ remained positive However, when BQ was introduced as a mediator between affective commitment and knowledge sharing, Affective commitment was nota function of knowledge sharing anymore DISCUSSION The research objective was to assess the impact of commitment on knowledge shaving via EI which no previous research has examined. Our results demonstrate overall swong empirical evidence that a relationship exists between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing via emotional intelligence, The results supported Hypothesis 1 which positively linked affective commitment with knowledge sharing, This is in agreement with Hisplo (2002), Kelloway and Barling (2000), Scarbrough (1999), and Smith and McKeen (2002), Affective commitment positively influences the extent to which people share their knowledge. Our results also confirmed our proposed hypothesis 2 that normative commitment is positively related to knowledge sharing ‘The bosiness Review, Combridge * Voi. Num: * Summer * 2010 93 RA: aOR A meFurther research is needed to verify whether this relationship holds true in similar studies and different culture, Our results also confitmed our predictions in hypothesis 3 that emotional intelligence is positively related to knowledge sharing. This expands Othman, Abdullah, and Abmad’s (2008) research that hinted to. such relationship by concluding from their research that employees with high EQ are able to put aside theie personal interest for the sake of team effectiveness by sharing their personal experiences when dealing with coworkers, Hypothesis 4 which proposed that emotional intelligence is positively related to affective commitment was also confirmed. The identified relationship between them suggests that those with lowrhigh levels of El are likely to display lowevhhigher degrees of affective commitment at work. However, our results did not support Hypothesis 3 ‘which proposed that E] has a positive relationship with normative commitment. EL had ao significant relationship ‘with normative commitment, ‘When EI was introduced as a mediator between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing, results ‘were as follows: (a) affective commitment was not a significant predictor of knowledge sharing anymore: (b) the relationship between normative commitment and knowledge sharing remained positive. Results suggest that ‘normative commitment enhances knowledge sharing willingness via emotional intelligence. CONCLUSION Our results supported the idea that commitment to the organization has an effect on knowledge sharing. This is in line with previous research which related affective commitment to enhanced willingness to contribute to the organization's functioning and performance ~ in this ease, contribute one's intellectual capital. However, this research pointed (0 the importance of a personality based measure in the prediction of knowledge sharing in the workplace. The overall result suggests that managers may predict employees’ knowledge sharing willingness based (on their emotional intelligence. It is recommended that managers need not spend their time trying to enhance their employees’ affective commitment in order to increase their knowledge staring willingness, but simply by selecting employees with high emotional intelligence or work on boosting their El, knowledge sharing can be cthanced. According 10 Goleman (1998), emotional intelligence is not fixed genetically, but is to a large extent leamed and continues to develop with new experiences. It is important to point out that we do not wish fo advance the notion ‘that high emotional intelligence employees are superior, superhuman, or inherently altruistic and ethical, Aft employecs ave subject to emotional ups and downs (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), and, as we have noted, high emotional intelligence individuals are not immune to negative feelings associated with job insecurity, However, we argue that emotionally intelligence employees are more likely able to break the sequence of effects linking perceived Jeb insecurity and negative behaviors, although the precise lacation at whieh the moderating effects will occur is likely to vary among individuals. Some empioyses may be better at controlling theit initial emotional reaction, whereas others will be better et dealing with the emotions once they occur. This is another area where empirical research is likely to be fruit No study is without limitations, Some of the limitations in this study is that results cannot be generalized because of the sample size, the cross-sectional nature, and the use of a single method for data collection ie. questionnaire. Even though assertions on causality are not allowed by cross-sectional research, Davis (1985) argues that the criterion of temporal stability can give the rescarchers confident when they decide on causality relationships, Another limitation is linked to the type of the knowledge shared. Knowledge sharing is limited to processes that share ‘already existing knowledge, thus favoring stable over dynamic environments (Holdt, 2007). It is recommended that by replicating the current relationship in large and diverse samples, future research could enrich the understanding of these relationships. Future studies could inclade other mediating variables, and the third ‘component of organizational commitment ie. continuance commitment Works Cited ‘There are no sources in the eurent document MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS. ‘These findings hold their refevant importance in their enrichment of the knowledge management literature, Which bas been studying the environmental (mainly the managerial) impact on knowledge sharing (Nonaka & Takeushi, 1995; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002) by studying the effect of personal dispositions on knowiedge sharing ‘The Business Review, bridge * Vol.ig * Num.1 = Summer * 2010 4‘This study contributes to research on management and managerial functions sueh as in employee selection since it helps in identifying the ideal candidate for an interactive job requiring knowledge sharing behaviors. It is recommends that managers, especially human resource managers, focus on the personality traits of the candidate ‘They should also identify those employees who have reservations about sharing their knowledge and those who may ‘need specific coaching and attention in their knowledge sharing behaviors REFERENCES ‘Acdishvli, A Page, Vand Wenting, (2008), Motivation and Baier to Participation in Virtal Knowledge shoring Communities of Practice, Jounal of Koawldge Managemsnt, 71), 64-7 ‘Argts, (1999) Organizational Louming: Crouieg, Resiaiay and Transfering Krowledae, Boston, Ma: Klar Academie Publishers ‘Argos, Cy Ingram, Py Levin, J. M.ané Moreland, RL. (2000), Knowledge Transfer in Orgonzations, Organizational Belavie and Hurst Dession Brocesses, 82 (i) 1-8 Gruchfet,D. and Naguin, C: (2001), Group larting in Organizations ia MLE. Tum (ed) Groups a work: Theory and Reseach 36-411, Makvab, ND Edbaur, a CCabrre, A and Cabrera, EF (2002), Knowledgesbarng Dileumas, Organization Seadies 23 (5), 687-710 Chen, 1, Silvertbowe & J. Hung (2006). Organization Communication, Job Stzess, Organizational Commaisnent and Job Performance of ‘Accounting Professionals in Taiwan ané Amica, Leadership & Organization Development Joural, 27 (4), 242-248 Chow, C.W., Deng, Fl. and Ho, 11, 2000), The opeates of knowledge shay within organization: a comparatve Stdy of he United States abd the People's Republic of China, Jounal of Manegcmnent Accounting Research, (2 (1), 68-98 CConneily, Cand Kellonay, EK. 2003). Predictor of Employees" Perceptions of Knowledge Sharing Cultures. Lendersip and organizations] ‘evelopment joumal 246), 23430 Conner, KR and Praalad, CK. (1996). resource-based thexy of the Fim: knowledge versus opportanism, Organization Seence, 7 (3), 477 ser Cooper, Rand Savat, A. (2000), Executive BQ, Texee Polishing Lt, London Cummings, 1'N. 200), Work Groups, Senral Divesity and Keawledge Sharing sa Global Organization, Management Science, (3), ‘sos Davenport EH. and Prsak, (1998). Working Knonledge: How Organizations manage what they know, Harvard Business Schock Press, Howton, MA. Davis, J. (1885). The Logic of Causal Order, Sie, Bevey Hills, CA, De Vies, RE, Van Den Hoof, B, Rida, JA. (2005). Explaining knwlede sharing’ te foe of tm communication tye, jb satstacion, snd perormance belies, Communication Resear, 33 (2), 115-135, Disks, KT. and Feri, D-L (2001), The Role of Trust in Organizational Setings, Organization Scince 12, 480-67, Dixon, N, 2002), The neglected receiver of knowledge sang, ley Hosinss Journal 6 (2), 35-40, Deuchr, . (1993). The Pose Capitalist Society, Butorvorh- Heenan, Oxford ‘Epson, L200], Fear of exploitation and far of costainaton: npadiments to knowledge tansfe in mergers between profesional service rms, Huma Relations, $4(7), 839-2 Fld, P, Turner, T Rarer, N. asd Peursn, J (200%), Causes and consequences of paychological canvacts among lowledge workers inthe high eshnology and financial services industry, International Jouaa of Human Resource Management, 12 (7), 1152-6 ‘Gamer, §. 20d Asncests (2009), Brotonl Inalligence in the Workplace A Gace for Manages: Adviscs and Resources, valable a shan shonsgamer co udeermorcForareas-oeo on i 5 seceses November 2, 2008, Goleman, D.(2998). Working ith Emotionl laeligence New York Barta Books. Heil H. (2001, Inpuesiendines: motivating knowiedge sharing across intanets, Jounal of Iformation Scien, 27 (3), 139-46 Hansen, M, Nef Naud Tiey,T. 1999). What's your strategy fr managing knowiedge?, Harvard Business Review, Mach-Apel, 106-16 Hansen, MT. 2002), Knonludge Networks Explaining Eeive Saowledge Staring in Molitnt Companies, Organization Science, 13), is ‘nds, Pana Pit, J. 2003). Why organizations don't now what thy kaow: cognitive ard mativationa ctor affecting the wanster of pets. i Ackerman, M. Pipe, Vand Wall V. (Eds), Beyond knowledge Management: shating Expense, MIT Pres, Cambridge, MA, “isplo, D. 2002), Mstaging knowledge ané she problem of commitment, Proceedings ofthe 3% European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, tearing and Capebilies, ALBA, Athen. Hold, © P, (207), Knowledge staring moving wxay fom the obsession with het practices, Jounal of Knowladye Managernent, (1), 6 a Jones, Macy C, & Cline M, & yaa S., 2005), Explriog Knowle Sharing in ER? implementation: an Organizational Cuitre Framework Decision Support Systems, 1 (2, 311-434 ‘Kamer, RM. (1968), "Commitment apd social organization: a stuyof mechanisms in utpian coramunitis", American Socioigical Review, 3, 490.517 Kelloway, E.Kand Baring, J (2000), Knowledge wok a organizational bevior, Framework paper 0003, Queen's Management Research Conor fo mowiedge-Basod Enterprises, Kington, Canada, avalablo a: wove. business queensi.ca be accesses October 2002 ‘Kim, W. and Mauborane, R- (1998), Procedural justice, satege decisionmaking, andthe knowledge economy, Strategie Management Jour, 19,32338 ‘Lee, Hand B’ Choi 2003), Knowledge Management Enables, Procosse, und Organizational Perfomance: An Inegratve View and Eopitca) Esamipation."Toamal of Managerneatinfeemation Systems 20 (I) 17.238 Levin, D.Z. and Cross, 8 (2004), The Stength of Weak Ties You Can Trt: The Mediating Role of Trust in Bective Knowlodge Treaster’, “Managernoee Seience $0 (11) 1477-90, ‘Mayer J.D. Solovey,P (1997). What emotional ingligence? InP, Selovey &D. J Suytr (Eds), Enetional development and emotional ‘nelligence:Eucatonat implications: 3-31, New York: Basie Books, Meyer, JP Allan, N.J(1997} Consaitment in the weeplace: Theory, serch, and applicaon. Newbury Pak, CA: Sage gots, nner tae ‘The Business Review, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num.1 * Summer * 2010 O5a a ea a SL ; asd Moorsdia, A and. M, Over (1997), leant geo satiiction: Te impact of peronaity and emotion on posspurehase processes, Psychology & Marketing 4 (4) 379-393, ‘Moor, T, Rena B Mate, K., (2008), Who rusts? Prsonsity, Tas and Knowledge Sharing Management Leaing, 37 523-540, Mote, SR Medd and. Parkinson (2003). An Exprel Anas a Knowledge Management Appietons, Soul of Reve ase ‘Management 7 (3), 6-26 Mossy, RT. Stet, RM. & Porter, LW. (1979) The measurement of organiaioal comment, Joumalof Vocational Beavir, 4,224 207 Nabapet J. and Ghost, 8. (1998), Socal capita, intellectual capital, and he erginistonal advantage, Academy of Management Re (2), 242-56. Nevis B.C, DiBels A. and Gould, 2M, (1998). Understanding ognizations a aang systems, loan Managemett Review, 36 Q), 7:48 Nonaka, I and Takeshi 1.1995), The Kaowiedge-Creating Company—How lapansse Companies Crate the Dnnce af movoton New ‘York: Oxford Universi Press. O'Dell, . and Grayscn, C.J. (1998) fanly we ke what we know idenction and transfer of intemal best practices, Califia Management Review, 0'3), 13478 (Ouest, M, and rey, BS, (2000), Motivasion, Knowledge wansfer, and ongrizatonl forms, Orgenization Science, 1 (8), $3850 Otenan, AK. and Absull HS. Amd, 2. 2008) Exotional Ilgenes, Emotional Labour, and Work Etlethenes evento, ‘Orsansatins: A propose Move, The Journal of Business Pespestive, 13/1) ava at Ppa nut n/imagesinddfle/Vision pf aoesses Decsmber 1, 2009 Pasco, C. All TM, Wane, (2002) Yet enter rf for jb stiston and week. tivation enabler of knowledge cretion and ‘knorledge sharing Ta: Proceedings f the Informing Senos Education Confers, 1233. 134 Piers, 11 stl Dasha, RB. (Spring, 1987), Ongantaatonsl Conumitnent PreEimplovteot Propensity and ini! Work Experiences, Joumal ‘of Management, 15.17 ikea, M. (2002), Auindinal Organizational Commitment and Job Perfmance: A Meta-Analysis, fours of Ongonizstional Bebavior, 23 (3), 257-266, Reteraon, M. and O'Mley Hammesiey, G. 2000), Knowisge management practices within aknawiedge-inensive fam the significance of the peonle management mension” Journal of Europea Indusal Tani. 24 (2-4), 241-33 Robinson. 5. & DM, Rouen (1994) Violating the Peycbolopcal Contact: Nol the Exception butte Narm,Jouoa of Organizatonl Betaviog (5, 245-259, Shepherd 1 and Mathews B P2000, Employee comment academic vs practitioner perspectives, Faplyoe Relations, 22 (6, 555-575 ‘Sovih, HA: ené MeKsen, 1D. 202), failing tsowiedgesharng cults, Pracsedngs of the nd Eupeun cnfsence ov nosavraton! Knowledge, Learning and capabilites, ALBA, Aliens ‘Smmy, 3K & Vatlant GE (1985), How lower and working-class youh became middlecas adults: The association between ego defense mechanisms ind upward scial mebiiy. Child Development 56 (4), 890-910. Scarbrough H (1990), Kaowge as work: coats in he anagement of Enowisdge woke, technslogy Analysis and stege Management, 110,56 ‘Scarbrough, Hand Cater, C. 2000), lnvestgning Kaowledye Management, London: CIPD, Storey Jan Barat, E. (2000), Knowledge management isis: earuing from fur, Joural of knowledge Management, (2), 14-46 “esi M200) Sooiat Suture of “Competition win Multint Organ cordate, compton ad nesta oetige shiring, Orgmnization Science 13 2) 173-90, ‘inons,T- and Roberson, Q. (208), Why Managers Should Care About aims The Etivs of Aggregate Justice Perceptions on Organizational Outcome, Journal oF Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 32-443, Waleza, S. (2008), Knowledee managstent and organizational lenin, The Learing Orgcization, (5 (6), 486-494 ‘Wasko, MM, and Fara S. 2005), Why Should T Share? Examinang Social Capit and Knowledge Coot foi tectonic Networks of Practice, MIS Quaraly 28 (1) 38-7, ‘Weis, HM. Cropanzan,R (1996), Afetve events theory: A theortea! discussion ofthe src, causes ad consequences of affective ‘xpericnces at work Research in Organizational Bebavion, 18. 1-74 ‘Wiener, ¥. (1982), Conmitent in organizations: normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428 ‘Wilma, P- Futon Crees, M Nicholson N, and Soane (2001), Raowing this tory and eetce mance ding” Human Relations, 58 7), 887-910 40 ‘The Business Keview, Cambridge * Vol. 15 * Num.1 > Summer * sore 96