The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions

Mutahar, Yaser et al. Article The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Mutahar, Yaser et al. (2022) : The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 9, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/288433 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions Yaser Mutahar, Mazen Mohammed Farea, Mohammed Abdulrab, Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary, Adel Abdulmhsen Alfalah & Mohieddin Grada To cite this article: Yaser Mutahar, Mazen Mohammed Farea, Mohammed Abdulrab, Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary, Adel Abdulmhsen Alfalah & Mohieddin Grada (2022) The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions, Cogent Business & Management, 9:1, 2038762, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 21 Feb 2022. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2909 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 7 View citing articles MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions Yaser Mutahar 1,2 *, Mazen Mohammed Farea 2 , Mohammed Abdulrab 1,3 , Yaser Hasan AlMamary 1,4 , Adel Abdulmhsen Alfalah 4 and Mohieddin Grada 4 Abstract: Knowledge sharing within the academic community is necessary for achieving academic excellence in today’s knowledge-based environment. Knowledge sharing requires teamwork in research, collaboration and joint publications, which suggests building trust among academics. Thus, the present study develops a model based on the Theory of Social Exchange that addresses the contribution of trust to knowledge sharing. The study adopted a quantitative research design in collecting and analyzing data from 380 respondents who are academics in the five Malaysian research institutions. Structured equation modelling (SEM) via SmartPLS software was utilized to examine the study hypothesis. The results showed that trust (TR) has a positive and significant relationship with knowledge sharing (KS). Furthermore, trust significantly predicts organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), which was found to influence KS significantly. Moreover, the study results show an indirect relationship between TR and KS. OCB variable’s mediation effect is statistically significant. The current study establishes a link between trust and knowledge sharing. This area of research is limited in Malaysia, ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mr. Yaser Mutahar is currently a Teacher Assistant in Al-Razi University, Yemen, & he is a PhD student in Al-Madinah International University. His areas of interest include knowledge management, knowledge sharing, organisational behaviour, purchasing and consumer behaviour. Dr. Mazen Mohammed Farea is currently an associate professor at Al-Madinah International University. Dr. Abdulrab is currently an assistant professor at the Community College of Qatar, Doha, Qatar & Al-Razi University, Yemen. Dr. Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary is currently an associate professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia & Al-Razi University, Yemen. Dr. Adel Abdulmhsen Alfalah is currently an assistant professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Mohieddin Grada is currently an assistant professor at College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia. PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT Trust is necessary for academics in educational institutions to achieve knowledge sharing. Trust reassure academics that sufficient and purposeful information is necessary for higher education institutions in achieving the desired academic excellence. Without trust of procedures, institutional processes, and colleagues, knowledge will not be shared effectively. Hence, Trust in Higher Educational Institutes, is necessary for knowledge to be shared and transferred of knowledge as it this becomes the basis for which academic communities” performs exceptionally and thrives. Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 1 of 16 Received: 21 October 2021 Accepted: 31 January 2022 *Corresponding author: Yaser Mutahar, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Administrative and Humanities Sciences, Al-Razi University, Sana’a, Yemen E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Nor Shaipah Abdul Wahab, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, MALAYSIA Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. and research identifying the mediating role of OCB between trust and knowledge sharing behaviour within academic and research institutions in Malaysia is limited. The study’s outcome applies to higher academic institutions and other academic and industrial corporations where knowledge sharing is required to ensure higher performance. Subjects: Education - Social Sciences; Psychological Science; Business, Management and Accounting Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior; trust; knowledge sharing; academics; research institutions; higher educational institutions; Malaysia 1. Introduction Trust is a concept dated back in centuries; one is expected to earn it through good deeds and conduct that benefits all or the individual’s expectation that other persons will act unselfishly (Stimpson & Maughan, 1978). Trust is also a social concept practiced in every individual’s daily and professional life. Everyone is expected to trust someone. These expectations are satisfied by the level of information that is available and shared among the interested parties. The feelings of protection and readiness depend on trust. According to Jin and Lim (2021) trust is a very complex concept that includes integrity, reliability and belief. In this study, trust refers to the degree with which stakeholders assume that academic services are reliable and secure to achieve educational excellence. The underlying concept of trust is “expectation” which refers to the belief of what is to happen. The academic environment requires trust since it involves collaborations, partnerships and joint researches which involve team work and knowledge sharing, it is unavoidable to identify the existence of the need for trust between academics in performing these duties (Mok, 2010). Trust is considered as the basis of adoption of many emerging technologies, such as mobile payment and mobile health services. The Malaysian educational sector, which is the context of the present study, is seen as one of the top notch in the region, and it has been built through the aspiration of the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) sound objectives and taking measures to ensure that the nation becomes highly ranked both locally and globally for provision of quality research and researchers, innovation and professionalism (Ghasemy et al., 2018). This implies the need for trust in the Malaysian education. For the last decades, knowledge sharing has become increasingly important for enabling development processes in countries around the world among scholars particularly in Malaysia (Jolaee et al., 2014). Knowledge sharing plays an important role in enabling the continuity of organizations (Alwaheeb et al., 2020). Knowledge sharing at a collective level is considered to be a significant dynamic capacity that shapes the competitiveness of an organization locally and globally, while fostering social ties among university academic staff. According to Kim and Bang (2021) knowledge sharing behavior is generally understood as the degree to which employees share their knowledge with others in organizations. To promote knowledge sharing among academics, leaders should concentrate on cultivating target social relationships and interactions and build an atmosphere of trust and positive social pressure (Van Dong et al., 2019). Because of the inherent nature of humans to share knowledge, organizations are still facing difficulties in seeking ways to encourage workers to willingly share their knowledge, some studies related this difficulty to institutional expectation factors and the nature of the organizational culture that were further stressed to be catastrophic for knowledge sharing. Knowledge exchange has been seen as a central practice of higher education institutions (HEIs). Since HEIs generate new knowledge through the study of existing knowledge, it is an important role to identify that knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and implementation are central Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 2 of 16 in the institution and enabled by trust, where academic staff’s willingness to share knowledge is also based on trust. For instance, Ghasemy et al. (2018) knowledge sharing among academics is challenged and hindered by their experiences in institutions where trust and mutual misunderstandings are almost lacking. Unwillingness to share knowledge is another challenge found in previous literatures that hinders the exchange of knowledge among academics, in addition to the fear of losing a competitive advantage, particularly when new academics join institutions with new knowledge and research updates, thus causing other academics to disassociate and avoid sharing of relevant knowledge. While knowledge sharing practices play a role in optimizing the overall effectiveness and competitiveness of the output of academics within institutions, a lack or absence of sound and healthy knowledge sharing practices can cause some issues for an organization (Akosile & Olatokun, 2020). These issues have been also identified in a recent relevant study as the perception and expectation of academics towards the institutions, which informs how academic duties are performed. This is also demonstrated in the MOHE and other research-based institutions’ many calls for governments to finance research that impacts the nation and enables academic lifelong learning and sharing their expertise (Seng, 2018). Another recent study in Malaysian by Fauzi et al. (2018) has attributed the reluctance of academics to share knowledge to the lack of trust and past events encountered by academics within their universities. Furthermore, the authors added that this was due to the lack of subjective norms and mutual trust among scholars in same value networks in Malaysia. Failure of institutions to share relevant knowledge with their academic staffs also contributes to poor perception of academic staffs about their research institutions. The purpose of the present study is to examine the effect of trust on academics’ knowledge sharing in Malaysian research universities, the effect of trust on organisational citizenship behaviour among academics in Malaysian research universities and the effect of organisational citizenship behaviour as the mediator between trust and knowledge sharing. The study will provide relevant insight on trust, organisational citizenship behaviour and knowledge sharing. The significance of the study highlights that academic institutions, academic staff, students and relevant stakeholders of research institutions will benefit from this study. Thus, all academic institutions must have the ability of their staff to share relevant knowledge, enable higher academic performance and improve the academic ranking of the institution. Therefore, knowledge sharing is important. 2. Literature review The social exchange theory has been adopted is several studies that attempted to comprehend human social behavior in economic efforts (Homans, 1958). The theory proposes that employees are motivated to increase their work productivity when their organization contract is based upon a fair social exchange. The theory further suggest that there is an important relationship between employees’ motivation and achievement of organizational goals. Trust is recognized as an important factor underpinning social exchanges because the act of initiating social exchange relationships is based on reciprocal trust. Knowledge Sharing among faculty members is mainly the result of trust C. N. L. Tan (2016). Pai (2006) indicated that “to study the factors that predict knowledgesharing behavior many researchers used social exchange theory for this purpose”. X. Liu and Deng (2011) developed a model to investigate employees’ organizational trust and commitment based on social exchange theory. Based on the social exchange process, the study established a developmental mechanism model of organizational commitment. The reputation of Malaysian universities has been increasing and becoming more important over the last 20 years, especially with the emergence of a knowledge-based economy. Like many developing nations, Malaysia’s HEIs play a critical role in contributing economically and socially to the country. The Malaysian government views the higher education sector as a key component in transforming the country from a middle-income or average-income nation into a high-income Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 3 of 16 nation by 2020. In Malaysia, therefore, the growth of this sector has been regarded as the key agenda. It was reported by Tafti et al. (2018) that higher education internationalization in Malaysia is seen as a way of enabling Malaysian higher education institutions to enhance and empower the education they deliver and enable them to become international education hubs. As a result of this initiative, a very large number of postgraduate students from numerous nations, including the Middle East have been attracted to universities in Malaysia to pursue their higher studies (Malaysia Education Roadmap 2015–2025). The hallmark of the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia is the establishment of research universities (RUs). Several thrusts for potential course have been adopted by the Malaysian National Higher Education Strategic Plan Beyond 2020. One of these thrusts is the selection of five Malaysian public universities as RUs to change the status of Malaysian universities to world class and promote the transformation phase of national higher education. These initiatives were earmarked to promote public and international trust of the services provided by the Malaysian higher educational sector. In 2006, four public universities were granted with RU status, namely Universiti Malaya (UM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) and Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). The fifth Research University which is Universiti Teknologi Malaysia was selected in 2010. Furthermore, these research institutions are responsible for enabling the creation and transformation of new knowledge that is innovative and facilitates knowledge transfer and commercialization. However, recent studies have identified some challenges experienced in knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian higher educational sector. Kalidass and Bahron (2015) concluded that there exists a challenge of attempts to corporatize and private the Malaysian higher education sector, which began from the intention of the sector to expand and become an international hub for education. Several issues of bureaucratization have also been identified with effects of work-related stress on academics (Shahid et al., 2016). These challenges also result in the turnover of academics within these institutions thereby questioning the job satisfaction of these academics. Hussein Amzat and Abdul Rahman Idris (2012) added that the lack of motivation and turnover of academics particularly in the Malaysia public universities is as a result of the limited opportunities of academics in participating in the policy and decision-making process of their universities hence the feeling of less empowerment. The challenges and problems identified are likely to affect scholars in Malaysian universities, including working methods as well as their psychological behaviors and attitudes towards sharing knowledge, thereby reducing their academic commitment and performance (Tartari & Salter, 2015). With respect to the academic context, research team members are considered to be a community where they engage in collective research activities, research initiatives, sharing information and other financial resources. Hence, such process is bidirectional where researchers ought to invest their time in initiating, growing and maintaining social relationships among teams (Tangaraja et al., 2016). Davenport and Cronin (2000) point out that university is generally acknowledged as the most ideal place to create knowledge. Taking into consideration universities as the primary source of the creation of knowledge, and the location where knowledge management was initially introduced, universities are therefore the most anticipated place where it is practicable to freely share knowledge among its representatives, more specifically academics. Furthermore, knowledge sharing within universities occurs when academics recognize its significance and its overall outcome (Ridzuan et al., 2008). Seonghee and Boryung (2008) argued that knowledge sharing requires the need for knowledge creation and making it accessible to others through the provision of systemic and technological infrastructure. Wu et al. (2012) have found knowledge sharing as the constructive swiftness that keeps organizations moving forward. Though Charband and Jafari Navimipour (2018) refer to knowledge sharing as an integral platform for delivering knowledge and education, they also acknowledged its emergence through individuals’ cooperation and willingness to share knowledge. In addition, knowledge sharing is a relevant resource to gain value and increase Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 4 of 16 creativity. Charband and Jafari Navimipour (2018) further suggested that sharing knowledge means enhancing the performance of tertiary education environments. In an empirical analysis by Ramayah et al. (2013), it was concluded that knowledge sharing can be referred to as a reciprocal process of exchanging knowledge between at least two parties. Recently, Annansingh et al. (2018) have referred to higher education institutions as the venue for creating, distributing and communicating knowledge guided by relationships among people, processes and technologies. Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions and its associated relationships and interaction allows people to build practices, collect and exchange knowledge. This also contributes to better programs and outcomes. According to Stimpson and Maughan (1978) trust is the individual’s perceived actions of another person or a community that will be unselfishly and personally beneficial. Liao (2006) described trust as “a party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party’s actions, with the expectation that the other party will conduct a specific action essential to the trustor, regardless of the other party’s ability to track or control it.” Trust has proven to be a precedent for sharing information and the presumption of the honesty of other individuals (Gefen et al., 2011). Trust among academics is seen as the ability and willingness of a faculty member to engage in a strong relationship with a team member or colleague that will result to knowledge sharing with those that he or she trusts. With the lack of trust, academics in universities will become knowledge seekers that exploits the knowledge against their interest. On the other hand, people seeking knowledge lack the assurance that sharing offers them the correct and adequate amount of knowledge (Yusof & Suhaimi, 2006). Renzl (2008) suggested in their study that, for an adequate level of knowledge sharing, there is a need for trust among people. According to Annansingh et al. (2018) trust is essentially based on honesty, reliability and integrity as well as having confidence in institution or person. Without trust of procedures, institutional processes, and colleagues, knowledge will not be shared effectively. Hence, trust in HEIs is necessary for knowledge to be shared and transferred as the basis for which academic communities perform exceptionally and thrive. In the same study, Annansingh et al. (2018) added that trust is a relevant component for growth and promotion of knowledge. In other hand, trust has a direct positive effect on organizational citizenship behavior. Trust is very important to enhance organizational citizenship behavior (Guh et al., 2013; Khadivi et al., 2013; Thomsen et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2012; Zhang, 2011). In summary, the above reviewed studies provided evidence that trust is positively related to organization citizenship behavior. However, there is a lack of evidence on the relationship trust and organization citizenship behavior in the higher education context especially in the Malaysian higher educational context. Amin et al. (2010) conducted a case study on oil and gas Company. The researched argued that OCB as has a positive effect of individuals’ decision to share knowledge. Regression analysis indicated that OCB is a strong predictor of knowledge sharing behavior. According to Teh and Yong (2011), OCB and subjective name are positively related to individuals’ attitude to share his/ her knowledge. OCB found to be positively and directly associated with knowledge sharing behavior (Sadegh et al., 2018; Teh & Sun, 2012; Trong Tuan, 2017). In short, the above-mentioned studies demonstrated the existence of a positive and substantive relationship between the OCB and the sharing of knowledge. Based on the literatures reviewed, the present study proposes the following research hypotheses; Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 5 of 16 H1: Trust has positive effect on academics’ knowledge sharing. H2: Trust has positive effect on academics’ organizational citizenship behavior. H3: Organizational citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. Figure 1 below illustrates the conceptual framework of this study: 3. Methodology and analysis The instrument adopted is a questionnaire which consists of three sections pertained to the study constructs; trust, organizational citizenship behavior and knowledge sharing in addition to the demographic information of the respondents. The respondents had to respond to each item using a Likert scale with a five-point ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The survey data gathered were from respondent who are academics within the five research institutions in Malaysia. The surveys were distributed to the academics personally to increase the response rate of the study. The data was voluntarily gathered, screened, edited and only valid responses were retained for further analysis. The study also adopted the recommendations by Krejcie and Morgan (1970a) in determining the sample size. The items were adapted from (Ramayah et al., 2014) knowledge sharing; trust was measured by an instrument developed by (Choi et al., 2008; Seonghee & Boryung, 2008) and tested in Malaysia by (Jolaee et al., 2014; C. N. L. Tan, 2016), organizational citizenship behavior was adapted from (K. Lee & Figure 1. Research model for this study. Figure 2. Structural model for this study. Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 6 of 16 Allen, 2002), and tested in Malaysian context by (Abdulrab et al., 2018; Abdulrab et al., 2020; AlMamary, 2020a; Hamid et al., 2013). The validity of the instrument were established through the evaluation done by five experts within the same area of expertise as suggested by (Kline, 2015). The experts’ opinions were used to determine the clarity, understandability, content and modifications for improvement. The survey was modified based on the experts’ suggestions and therefore was established as a valid instrument. The data obtained from the survey were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software and using Smart PLS-Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). 4. Result and discussion A number of 388 (78%) out of the 500 questionnaires were distributed and collected. Although 380 questionnaires were available after an examination of the 388 questionnaires, giving a 76% response rate. Specifically, eight questionnaires were excluded because they were incomplete. In order to achieve an appropriate degree of statistical power in Smart-PLS, the sample size (N = 380) of this study is considered reasonable as it is above the minimum requirement (10 times rule: 10 times the number of independent variables; Hair et al., 2017). The results of the respondents’ demographics are tabulated in Table 1. Using the Mahalanobis ranking, the data was checked for outliers where a ranking greater than the critical value is treated as an outlier and excluded from any further review. The outcome showed that the data set did not contain multivariate outliers. The normality of the three Table 1. Demographic variables (N = 380) Item Frequency Percentage (%) Gender 1. Male 162 42.6 2. Female 218 57.4 Age 1. 29 and below 13 3.4 2. 30 to 45 216 56.3 3. 46 to 60 143 37.6 4. 61 and above 10 2.6 Marital Status 1. Married 334 87.9 2. Single 36 9.5 3. Divorced 7 1.8 4. Widowed 3 0.8 Education 1. Doctorate Degree 349 91.8 2. Master’s Degree 31 8.2 Academia’s Rank 1. Professor 44 11.6 2. Associate Professor 76 20 3. Senior Lecturer 223 58.7 4. Lecturer 37 9.7 Years with current position 1. Less than a year 30 7.9 2. 1 to 3 Years 125 32.9 3. 4 to 7 years 76 20 4. More than 7 Years 147 39.2 Institution 1. UM 90 23.7 2. UPM 66 17.4 3. USM 84 22.1 4. UTM 69 18.2 5. UKM 71 18.7 Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 7 of 16 leaders. SAGE Open, 8(1), 2158244018755839. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018755839 Guh, W. Y., Lin, S. P., Fan, C. J., & Yang, C. F. (2013). Effects of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors: Mediating effects of institutional trust and affective commitment. Psychological Reports, 112(3), 818–834. https://doi.org/10.2466/01.21.PR0.112.3. 818-834 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2014). Pearson new international edition. In Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited Harlow, Essex. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Hamid, S. F., Nordin, N., Adnan, A. A., & Sirun, N. (2013). A study on primary school teachers’ organizational commitment and psychological empowerment in the district of klang. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 782–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2013.07.152 Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American journal of sociology, 597–606. Hussein Amzat, I., & Abdul Rahman Idris, D. (2012). Structural equation models of management and decision-making styles with job satisfaction of academic staff in Malaysian Research University. International Journal of Educational Management, 26 (7), 616–645. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513541211263700 Jin, Z., & Lim, C.-K. (2021). Structural relationships among service quality, systemic characteristics, customer trust, perceived risk, customer satisfaction and intention of continuous use in mobile payment service. Journal of System and Management Sciences, 11(2), 48–64. http://www.aasmr.org/jsms/Vol11/vol. 11.2.4.pdf Jolaee, A., Nor, K. M., Khani, N., & Yusoff, R. M. (2014). Factors affecting knowledge sharing intention among academic staff. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(4), 413–431. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJEM-03-2013-0041 Kalidass, A., & Bahron, A. (2015). The relationship between perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, organizational commitment and employee turnover intention. International Journal of Business Administration, 6(5), 82. https:// doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v6n5p82 Kannan, V. R., & Tan, K. C. (2005). Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain management: Understanding their linkages and impact on business performance. Omega, 33(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.03.012 Khadivi, A., Talebi, B., & Gholbaz Jabbari, M. (2013). Explaining the organizational citizenship behavior of elementary school teachers based on their organizational trust. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7 (10), 3137–3144. http://www.aensiweb.com/old/aeb/ 2013/3137-3144.pdf Khan, I., Khan, N., Jazim, F., Al-Mamary, Y. H., Abdulrab, M., & Al-Ghurbani, A. M. (2021). The effect of external factors in use of technology among Ha’il university academic faculty: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, ahead-of-print(ahead–of–print), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-04-2021-0140 Kim, B. H., & Bang, H. (2021). When do we share our knowledge to others? Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 8(1), 51–66. http://www.aasmr. org/liss/Vol.8/vol.8.1.4.pdf Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970a). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https:// doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 Le, P. B., & Lei, H. (2018a). Fostering knοwledge sharing behaviours through ethical leadership practice: The mediating roles of disclosure-based trust and reliance-based trust in leadership. Knοwledge Management Research and Practice, 16(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1445426 Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131 Liao, L.-F. (2006). A learning organization perspective on knowledge-sharing behavior and firm innovation. Human Systems Management, 25(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2006-25401 Liu, X., & Deng, J. (2011). Development of organizational commitment based on the social exchange theory. 2011 International Conference on Management and Service Science (pp.1–6). IEEE. Mok, K. H. (2010). When state centralism meets neo-liberalism: Managing university governance change in Singapore and Malaysia. Higher Education, 60(4), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9307-9 Oyenuga, O. G., Olanrewaju Adebiyi, S., Omolade Mustapha, D., & Oluwadamilola Abimbola, B. (2019). Assessment of knowledge sharing determinants in The Nigeria Universities using analytic network process. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 12(3), 84–102. https://doi.org/ 10.7160/eriesj.2019.120303 Pai, J.-C., and Homans, G. C. (2006). An empirical study of the relationship between knowledge sharing and IS/ IT strategic planning (ISSP). Management Decision, 44(1), 105–122. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10. 3758/BRM.40.3.879 Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., & Ignatius, J. (2013). An empirical inquiry on knowledge sharing among academicians in higher learning institutions. Minerva, 51(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-013-9229-7 Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., & Ignatius, J. (2014). Assessing knοwledge sharing among academics: A validation of the knοwledge sharing behavior scale (KSBS). Evaluation Review, 38(2), 160–187. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0193841X14539685 Rehman, A. U., Al Shammari, S., & Al-Mamary, Y. H. (2021). Role of religiosity and the mediating effect of luxury value perception in luxury purchase intention: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of Islamic Marketing, ahead-of-print(ahead–of–print). https:// doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-03-2021-0091 Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knοwledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knοwledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206–220. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.06.005 Ridzuan, A. A., Sam, H. K., & Adanan, M. A. (2008). Knowledge management practices in higher learning institutions in Sarawak. Asian Journal of University Education, 4(1), 69–89. https://education.uitm.edu. my/ajue/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Chapter-6Knowledge-Management-Practices-in-HigherLearning-Institutions-in-Sarawak.pdf Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 14 of 16 Saad, A., & Haryani, H. (2019). A socio-technical knowledge sharing system. Model for governmental organizations. 2nd International Conference on Computer Applications & Information Security (ICCAIS), Saudi Arabia, 2, 1–5. IEEE. Sadegh, T., Khani, R. M., & Modaresi, F. (2018). Introducing a model of relationship between knowledge sharing behavior and organizational citizenship behavior and positively orientated organizational behavior: A two-wave study. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJKM.2018070102 Seng, L. C. (2018). Malaysia Public Universities’ graduate employability policies: An analysis of first degree graduates unemployment and underemployment issues. Int. J. Of Social Science and Humanities Research, 6(4), 480–489. https://zenodo.org/record/ 2589702#.YgWZJt9BzIU Seonghee, K., & Boryung, J. (2008). An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in an academic institution. Library and Information Science Research, 30(4), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.04.003 Shahid, S. A. M., Amdan, S., Alwi, A., Syazreena, F., & Hassan, C. N. (2016). Social support, negative affectivity, and work personal life balance of academics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(7), 500. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.699 Stimpson, D. V., & Maughan, M. R. (1978). Some correlates of trust. The Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1978.9921447 Tafti, H. F., Sarvestani, R. A., & Hosseini, M. (2018). The role of trust and dependence on the performance of information systems in knowledge-sharing process in ICT of the municipality of Shiraz. Iranian Journal of Information Processing Management, 33(4), 1465– 1492. https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id= 3603&sid=1&slc_lang=en Tan, C. N. L. (2016). Enhancing knowledge sharing and research collaboration among academics: The role of knowledge management. Higher Education, 71(4), 525–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9922-6 Tangaraja, G., Mohd Rasdi, R., Abu Samah, B., & Ismail, M. (2016). Knowledge sharing is knowledge transfer: A misconception in the literature. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 653–670. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-11-2015-0427 Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2015). The engagement gap: Exploring gender differences in University–Industry collaboration activities. Research Policy, 44(6), 1176–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.014 Teh, P. L., & Sun, H. Y. (2012). Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational citizenship behaviour. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(1–2), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211193644 Teh, P. L., & Yong, C. C. (2011). Knowledge sharing in is personnel: Organizational behavior’s perspective. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(4), 11– 21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 08874417.2011.11645497 Thomsen, M., Karsten, S., & Oort, F. J. (2016). Distance in schools: The influence of psychological and structural distance from management on teachers’ trust in management, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviour. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(4), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016. 1158193 Trong Tuan, L. (2017). Knowledge sharing in public organizations: The roles of servant leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1113550 Van Dong, P., Hawryszkiewycz, I., Chandran, D., & Ha, B. M. (2019). Promoting knowledge sharing amongst academics: A case study from Vietnam. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 18(3), 1950032. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0219649219500321 Wong, Y. T., Wong, C. S., & Ngo, H. Y. (2012). The effects of trust in organisation and perceived organisational support on organisational citizenship behaviour: A test of three competing models. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011. 610966 Wu, Y., Zhu, W., & Dash Wu, D. (2012). An integrated theoretical model for determinants of knοwledge sharing behaviours. Kybernetes, 41(10), 1462–1482. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921211276675 Yeo, R. K., & Gold, J. (2014). Knοwledge sharing attitude and behaviour in Saudi Arabian organisations: Why trust matters. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 14(1–3), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJHRDM.2014. 068082 Yuan, X., Olfman, L., & Yi, J. (2016). How do institutionbased trust and interpersonal trust affect interdepartmental knοwledge sharing? Information Resources Management Journal, 29(1), 15–38. https:// doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2016010102 Yusof, I., & Suhaimi, M. (2006). Managing knοwledge transfer among academic staff of Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL): Lessons from public universities in Malaysia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Knοwledge Management in Institutes of Higher Learning, Multimedia University, Malaysia and Suan Dusit Rajabhat University. Bangkok, Thailand. Zhang, R. (2011). Study on the influence of perceived organizational support and inter-organizational trust on organizational citizenship behaviors in technology alliances. International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, 2, 29–32. IEEE. doi:10.1109/ ICIII.2011.155 Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 15 of 16 © 2022 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Mutahar et al., Cogent Business & Management (2022), 9: 2038762 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2038762 Page 16 of 16