Knowledge sharing practices within organisations to elaborate knowledge management have been recognised as an important research topic (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Engstrom, 2003; Hendriks, 1999). Knowledge sharing among organisational members is of crucial importance to create human intellectual capital leading to higher organisational performance (Du et al., 2007; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Widen-wulff & Suomi 2007). Particularly, knowledge that is created in the minds of individuals is generally of little value and requires knowledge sharing to turn individual experiences and intelligence into an organisational asset (Small & Sage, 2005).
Traditionally, there has been acceptance that knowledge sharing is about a learning process defined by exchanging relevant ideas, knowledge, experiences, and information (Calantone et al., 2002; Lin, 2007b) this process can be unidirectional and unrequested (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Although knowledge sharing is neither prescribed nor required in advance for a job, it significantly increases the resources of an organisation, and reduces time wasted in trial-and-error (Lin, 2007a). In the context of learning, knowledge sharing is the ability of people to transfer their tacit and implicit knowledge to others and the other party’s capability to receive it (Willem & Buelens, 2007).
Some studies differentiate between knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. Knowledge sharing is a broader concept that emphasises social interaction for knowledge exchange and multiple directionality without a specific objective, while knowledge transfer implies focus, clear objectives and unidirectionality (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Kang et al., 2008; Rhodes et al., 2008).
Thus, the knowledge sharing process involves individuals in a mutual exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge and creates new knowledge (Hoof & De Ridder, 2004;
48
Holtshouse, 1998). Tacit knowledge is a product of the learning process. However, some scholars argue that learning does not really occur unless an organisation has an effective and efficient system for sharing and re-examining information (Moorman & Miner, 1998). This applies in particular to tacit knowledge, as this is difficult to transfer and to copy or to imitate since it is built through experiences and embedded as an individual skill (Liebeskind, 1996; Szulanski, 2000). In the learning organisation, sharing knowledge is related to knowledge worker behaviour. Politis (2005) found that the relationship between management dimension with knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing indicates that knowledgeable managers engage in the acquisition and creation of new knowledge. Therefore, managers should provide employees with special knowledge that can encourage and facilitate the specific behavioural skills of knowledge workers that are essential for knowledge acquisition.
The main reason for sharing tacit knowledge is to develop competencies that managers can used in recognising and responding to a problem, as they have the concept of knowing (what to do) rather than only knowledge. Knowing is based on the teaching and learning process, while knowledge as an object can be handled by information technology (Platts & Yeung, 2000; Wasko & Faraj, 2000). To transfer tacit knowledge is actually not to codify it but rather to transfer it through an implicit mode (Schencel & Teigland, 2008).
For these reasons, it is important to understand the mechanism that facilitates the sharing of tacit knowledge (Sun et al., 2007). Riege (2005), Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) proposed that there are important elements of knowledge sharing, which are individuals, structure and technology. In the management literature it has been argued that people are the most important organisational resource and the key to achieving higher performance (Judge & Ilies, 2002; Manolopoulos, 2008; Rainey, 1997) rather than structure and technology. In this view, knowledge management is not only about the latest technology but also about managing knowledge inside the organisation and this becoming a valuable asset for the success of the company (Grayson & O’Dell, 1998; Kermally, 2002). Individuals have been considered to become more important assets through the possession of tacit knowledge; therefore organisations should concentrate on utilising personal practical knowledge, which is tacit knowledge (Riege, 2005). Thus, different initiatives of knowledge sharing have been created to promote social
49
interaction among individuals. These initiatives include community practices such as storytelling, coaching or mentoring and meetings (Bennet & Bennet, 2008; Wiig, 2004). Such initiatives enable employees to disseminate their beliefs, thoughts, and experiences to others, thereby establishing mutual understandings (Yang , 2007).
Although there are various approaches to knowledge sharing, there is not one right way to make people share, but many different ways, depending on the values and style of the organisation (McDermott & O'Dell, 2001). Therefore, this present study holds that the best combination is of human and technological mechanisms because tacit knowledge cannot be shared directly via technology (Cross et al, 2001). According to Hsu (2008), mentoring programmes, work teams, dissemination learning, information technology (IT) systems, knowledge sharing mechanisms, incentives and training and development are all measures of knowledge sharing practices. This study will examine two particular variables, rather than seven, to measure the knowledge sharing practices proposed by Hsu (2008).
This study is interested in examining two elements of knowledge sharing practices: knowledge sharing mechanisms and mentoring programmes in the public sector. This is because studies of knowledge sharing practices focusing on knowledge sharing mechanisms and mentoring programmes in the public sector are scarce, although these programmes exist (Bozeman & Feeney, 2009; Fox and Schuhmann, 2001; Klauss, 1981). According to Kasim (2008) little research has been done to link knowledge management practices and core competencies in the performance of Malaysian government departments. There is limited research focusing on invisible work, particularly how workers think and utilise knowledge when performing tasks (Wiig, 2002). Furthermore, in the psychology and management literature it is suggested that mentoring relationships provide a means for firms to share knowledge, encourage learning and build intellectual capital (Eddy et al., 2005; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Von Krogh, 1998).
However, there is a wide body of research in the other five areas of knowledge sharing practices in the public and private sectors as suggested by Hsu (2008). This includes the following: team work by Syed Ikhsan and Rowland, (2004a) and Ali and Ahmad (2006); dissemination learning by Yusoff (2005); information technology systems by
50
Suhaimee et al. (2006) and Bakar (2001); knowledge sharing mechanisms and incentives by Liebowitz and Chen (2003); and training and development (Baharim, 2008; Healy, 2001; Huque & Vyas, 2008). However, mentoring and knowledge sharing mechanisms is an area rarely explored in the public sector, even though there are mentoring programmes and knowledge sharing activities in government agencies. Indeed, Mohamed and Egbu (2010) indicate that in Malaysian local governments, knowledge sharing happens when individuals, groups or departments exchange or share their knowledge (tacit or explicit) and together create new knowledge or share task- relevant ideas, information and suggestions with each other throughout the whole department or the organisation.
These studies have shown that knowledge sharing is an appropriate mechanism to enable tacit knowledge to be disseminated to others. However, these previous studies do not focus on managerial tacit knowledge by discovering the different levels of tacit knowledge among expert, typical and novice groups in local government. This limitation is addressed in this study through the first research question by examining the current situation of Malaysian local government managers’ use of tacit knowledge in knowledge sharing practices. In order to answer first research question, a group of hypotheses have been developed of which the first is as follows.
H1: There is a positive relationship between knowledge sharing practices and managerial tacit knowledge.
Based on the above discussion, knowledge sharing is seen as a test of human nature (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; French & Raven, 1959). It can be accessed by colleagues but it is difficult to share knowledge with unknown people (Constant et al., 1996). Yao et al. (2007) found strong barriers to knowledge sharing included a lack of awareness about the benefits of sharing power and Ipe (2003) found a perception among individuals that knowledge sharing would lead to loss of power. Hence, knowledge sharing has often seemed not to be successful and organisational performance has not improved. When an organisation requests employees to share their knowledge with others, possible conflicts arise because of different interests (Wang, 2004). Therefore, managerial mechanisms are needed to facilitate knowledge sharing (Hsu, 2006; Husted & Michailova, 2002). Thus, to bring a new dimension into the important field of knowledge sharing and its link with individual performance, empirical research on personality should be carried
51
out in order to obtain systematic results. De Vries et al. (2006), suggest that research should be done on the personality traits closely aligned with eagerness to share knowledge. Ones et al. (1994) and Minbashian et al. (2009) found that the validity of personality constructs as predictors of job performance, and successful managers shared a large number of personality traits regardless of time or organisation (Scroggins et al., 2009).
Several studies (Davenport et al., 1998; Liebowitz & Chen, 2001) suggest that organisational performance can be improved through intermediate or individual outcomes following the implementation of knowledge management or knowledge sharing practices. However, individuals are different in their ability to learn from experience (Easterby-Smith et al., 1999) and acquire tacit knowledge (Matthew & Sternberg, 2009). Barrick and Mount (1991) created the framework of personality as a construct that allows knowledge to be acquired in a meaningful way.