Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study

Kim, Nam Nguyen; Hang, Nga Nguyen Thi Article Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Kim, Nam Nguyen; Hang, Nga Nguyen Thi (2024) : Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 11, Iss. 1, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2359372 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/326304 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/ Cogent Business & Management ISSN: 2331-1975 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study Nam Nguyen Kim & Nga Nguyen Thi Hang To cite this article: Nam Nguyen Kim & Nga Nguyen Thi Hang (2024) Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study, Cogent Business & Management, 11:1, 2359372, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2359372 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2359372 © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 29 May 2024. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2313 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 ManageMent | ReseaRch aRticle Cogent Business & ManageMent 2024, VoL. 11, no. 1, 2359372 Rewards, knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an empirical study nam nguyen Kima and nga nguyen thi hangb aFaculty of Business administration, Ho Chi Minh university of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; bFaculty of accounting and auditing, Ho Chi Minh university of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam ABSTRACT the banking industry is currently striving to adapt to the rapid development of technology, creating competitive advantages through knowledge management activities. this study investigates the impact of rewards on knowledge sharing behavior and its subsequent influence on individual work performance within the banking sector. the research involves analyzing 263 survey responses from employees working in both private and public sector banks. We employ a linear structural model to evaluate the proposed research hypotheses using sPss and aMOs 20 software. this study shows that rewards solely affect the explicit knowledge sharing. Moreover, both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing significantly and positively contribute to individual work performance. additionally, the study uncovers the mediating role of explicit knowledge sharing in the relationship between rewards, tacit knowledge sharing, and individual work performance. this study holds significant implications for managers in the banking sector when designing reward systems to foster knowledge sharing (both tacit and explicit) and individual work performance within the organization, particularly in Vietnam. IMPACT STATEMENT Knowledge management is becoming increasingly important in knowledge-intensive industries such as banking. this study provides evidence of the relationship between rewards and knowledge sharing behavior in the banking sector in Vietnam. Furthermore, knowledge sharing among employees within an organization contributes to the enhancement of individual work performance. With these findings, the article offers deeper insights into the construction of a reward system in the banking sector to stimulate knowledge-sharing activities and improve individual work performance. 1. Introduction in recent decades, there has been a growing interest among researchers in the field of knowledge management. according to Manfredi latilla et al. (2018) knowledge plays a crucial role in the modern economy and creative industries. as a result, knowledge management has emerged as a potent tool, serving as a crucial organizational resource to enhance overall efficiency (Yeboah, 2023). One essential element of the knowledge management system is knowledge sharing (asrar-Ul-haq & anwar, 2016; Yeboah, 2023), which has gained increasing attention from organizations aiming to create, share, and utilize knowledge more effectively (Berraies & chouiref, 2023; henttonen et al., 2016; santhose & lawrence, 2023). the act of sharing knowledge brings several benefits to both organizations and individuals. By transforming personal knowledge into organizational knowledge, knowledge sharing contributes to the organizational growth (Wang & Wang, 2012), while allowing individuals to acquire organizational knowledge and enrich their own knowledge base (Wang & Wang, 2012). ahmad and Karim (2019) further emphasize that knowledge sharing activities yield advantages not only for the organization but also for the © 2024 the author(s). Published by informa uK Limited, trading as taylor & Francis group. CONTACT nga nguyen thi Hang [email protected] Faculty of accounting and auditing, Ho Chi Minh university of Banking, 36 ton that Dam street, nguyen thai Binh Ward, District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2359372 this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. the terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 June 2023 Revised 28 February 2024 accepted 14 May 2024 KEYWORDS explicit knowledge; tacit knowledge; performance; share; banking REVIEWING EDITOR angela Martinez, Universidad de castilla-la Mancha, spain SUBJECTS critical Management studies; corporate governance; human Resource Management; Organizational studies 2 n. ngUYen KiM anD n. ngUYen thi hang individuals engaged in knowledge sharing. thus, the process of sharing and maintaining knowledge within an organization assumes vital significance, as it facilitates the creation and sustenance of a competitive advantage (abbas et al., 2020; abdelwhab ali et al., 2019; almulhim, 2020; alMulhim, 2021; enwereuzor et al., 2023; sikombe & Phiri, 2019). al-Faouri (2023) sugguets that knowledge-based management is essential for organizational success. Knowledge management can lead to innovation (abbas et al., 2020)and the integration of innovation with knowledge-sharing activities creates the potential for maximizing profits (Zhang et al., 2022). according to Wang and Wang (2012) knowledge sharing not only directly helps improve organizational performance but can also be enhanced through intermediaries created by knowledge-sharing activities. individuals are the holders and owners of knowledge, therefore, knowledge-sharing activities and the relationships among individuals within an organization contribute to the success of knowledge management (henttonen et al., 2016). Previous studies, such as Bock and Kim (2002), chow and chan (2008), chang and chuang (2011), and henttonen etal. (2016) have emphasized the role of knowledge sharing at the individual level. When individuals share knowledge within an organization, it contributes to the accumulation of knowledge for the organization. therefore, individuals within the organization who possess, share, and utilize knowledge play a crucial role in the knowledge-sharing activities of the organization. some previous studies have explored knowledge sharing behavior at the individual level (abdelwhab ali et al., 2019; chang & chuang, 2011; Zhang et al., 2017). however, the research focus has mainly been on intention or behavior of knowledge sharing (henttonen et al., 2016), with limited studies examining the consequences of knowledge sharing behavior. some studies have examined the impact of knowledge sharing behavior on performance at the organizational level (alMulhim, 2023a, 2023b; Byukusenge & Munene, 2017; Du et al., 2007; law & ngai, 2008; Wang & Wang, 2012). henttonen et al. (2016) and Manaf et al. (2018) argue that there is still a lack of research examining the relationship between knowledge sharing behavior and work performance at the individual level. therefore, more studies are needed to investigate the relationship between knowledge sharing behavior and performance at the individual level. the 4th industrial revolution has propelled the rapid development of financial technology, leading to the resurgence of the banking sector and an increased demand for high-quality human resources in this field. it can be stated that the banking industry in Vietnam is a knowledge-intensive sector. according to data from the general statistics Office, in 2021, the proportion of trained workers aged 15 and above engaged in the ‘finance – banking – insurance’ sector within the economy was the highest, and this proportion has been steadily increasing over the years, from 82.9% in 2015 to 86.8% in 2021. in addition, the banking sector is particularly unique, as it requires employees not only to possess excellent knowledge and professional expertise but also to have a deep understanding of various complex legal documents, such as banking laws, civil laws, business laws, land laws, and foreign investment laws. the research findings of henttonen et al. (2016) demonstrate that the knowledge-sharing activities of highly educated employees contribute to enhancing their work performance. therefore, selecting employees for research endeavors within the banking sector is appropriate. Knowledge sharing behavior (KsB) is influenced by various factors: organizational commitment and support (Zaremohzzabieh & Mohd Rasdi, 2023), diversity climate and workplace belongingness (enwereuzor, 2021), respectful engagement (enwereuzor et al., 2023), demographical (nezafati et al., 2023). Building upon the foundation of Blau’s Blau (1964) social exchange theory, several studies have examined the influence of reward factors on knowledge-sharing behaviors. Rewards are considered an important factor in promoting knowledge sharing behavior (Kaushal & nyoni, 2022). however, several studies have shown inconsistent results regarding effects of expected rewards on knowledge sharing behavior (nguyen & Malik, 2020). in light of previous studies, Muqadas et al. (2017) argue that that increasing rewards for knowledge sharing does not necessarily stimulate knowledge sharing activities. Kaushal and nyoni (2022) raise the question as to why, to date, there has not been a comprehensive understanding of the reasons why rewards fail to promote knowledge sharing behavior among employees in some cases. the findings of the analysis by Kaushal and nyoni (2022) on the relationship between rewards and knowledge sharing behavior, drawing from numerous prior studies, have demonstrated inconsistent cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 3 results. this relationship can be positive (abdelwhab ali etal., 2019; Javaid etal., 2020; nguyen & Malik, 2020; Rezaei et al., 2023), negative (hau et al., 2013), or neutral (hung et al., 2011; lin, 2007; Zaremohzzabieh & Mohd Rasdi, 2023). therefore, ahmad and Karim (2019) suggest that future research should further explore the diverse impacts of different forms of knowledge sharing, such as tacit and explicit knowledge, as they may lead to varying outcomes. although the relationship between rewards and knowledge sharing has been examined by several studies, the majority of research has focused on the sharing of explicit knowledge, with few studies investigating the relationship between rewards and the sharing of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. tacit knowledge is difficult to share and is more resource-intensive and time-consuming compared to explicit knowledge (hau etal., 2013). the research findings by Zaremohzzabieh and Mohd Rasdi (2023) demonstrate significant differences in knowledge sharing between groups of knowledge workers and non-knowledge workers. therefore, exploring the relationship between rewards and the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge within a model to enhance individual work performance will offer a more comprehensive explanation for the previously identified inconsistency in relationships found in earlier literature. additionally, the connection between reward systems and Knowledge-sharing Behavior with individual Work Performance (iWP) has also remained relatively unexplored in previous studies (henttonen et al., 2016). in line with that research direction, we consider knowledge sharing to be divided into two types: explicit knowledge sharing (eKs) and tacit knowledge sharing (tKs) (Wang & Wang, 2012). abbas, hussain, et al. (2019) also argue that ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ knowledge are typical fundamental types of knowledge. the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge will provide a deeper understanding of the reward system within organizations to stimulate knowledge sharing activities among individuals in a meaningful way. Whether the reward system can incentivize employees’ knowledge sharing behavior and subsequently improve individual work performance (iWP) in the banking sector of emerging markets like Vietnam is the driving force behind our study. Furthermore, the relationship between the reward system, KsB, and iWP has been underexplored in previous studies (henttonen et al., 2016). in Vietnam, to our knowledge, apart from the study by nguyen and Malik (2020), there has been no in-depth research specifically examining the relationship between expected rewards, KsB, and iWP in the banking sector. nguyen and Malik (2020) approach KsB in a general sense without distinguishing between explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. this study makes significant contributions based on existing literature regarding the relationship between reward systems and KsB with iWP. the article provides a more comprehensive understanding of reward systems for promoting knowledge sharing activities within the knowledge-intensive industry, especially in emerging markets like Vietnam. this research also extends the theoretical understanding of the connection between rewards and both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing, deepening insights into the relationship between rewards and knowledge sharing presented in prior literature. Furthermore, this work offers insights into mechanisms for enhancing individual work performance through personal knowledge sharing components within the organization. as noted by henttonen et al. (2016), there remains a lack of research demonstrating the relationship between knowledge sharing and individual work performance. the findings of this study unveil the mediating role of explicit knowledge sharing in the association between implicit knowledge sharing and individual work performance. lastly, this research provides practical support for the design of appropriate reward systems to foster knowledge-sharing activities and improve individual work performance for employees in the banking sector. to address this research gap, our study aims to answer the following questions: Question 1: Do expected rewards stimulate knowledge sharing behavior among individuals in the banking sector of Vietnam? Question 2: Does knowledge sharing behavior improve individual work performance in the banking sector of Vietnam? to answer these questions, the study is structured into sections, including literature review; research methodology, model, and hypotheses; research findings and discussions. Finally, the study concludes and discusses implications of the research. 4 n. ngUYen KiM anD n. ngUYen thi hang 2. Literature review KsB is influenced by various factors, including individual and organizational factors (abdelwhab ali etal., 2019; Javaid et al., 2020). in the context of organizational factors, expected rewards are considered an important component in encouraging KsB. social exchange theory (set) and social cognitive theory (sct) are two relevant theories to explain knowledge sharing behavior in organizations (Zaremohzzabieh & Mohd Rasdi, 2023). according to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), individuals typically compare the benefits and costs associated with engaging in knowledge sharing behavior. internal and external motivations are also utilized to explain individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior within organizations through the reward system. Building upon the motivation theory, nguyen and Malik (2020) argue that the motivation to share knowledge can also stem from the rewards provided by the organization. in general, the theoretical framework of social exchange theory (set) is considered suitable for explaining the relationship between rewards and the knowledge-sharing behavior of individuals within an organization. social exchange is understood as a two-way transaction, where giving something entails receiving something in return (islam et al., 2022). according to set, employees within an organization interact with each other based on their assessment of the benefits and costs to themselves when engaging in that relationship. they will strive to maximize benefits and minimize costs when sharing knowledge with others (Zaremohzzabieh & Mohd Rasdi, 2023). therefore, rewards incentivize employees to share knowledge with one another within the organization. Based on the theory of social capital, sharing knowledge among individuals can lead to mutual synergies based on the principle of reciprocity. henttonen et al. (2016) argue that, within an organization, individuals sharing knowledge often relates to their own expertise, and they also have the capacity to receive relevant knowledge in return. Furthermore, when individuals share knowledge, it generates a significant pool of knowledge and shapes the formal knowledge network within the organization. as a result, employees participating in knowledge sharing can contribute additional skills and knowledge, thereby enhancing their individual work performance. Knowledge sharing is the process of transferring knowledge to other members of an organization in a manner consistent with decision-making (abdelwhab ali et al., 2019). Rutten et al. (2016) argue that knowledge sharing reflects the willingness to share with others the knowledge an individual possesses within an organization. Knowledge sharing encompasses both explicit knowledge sharing and tacit knowledge sharing. tacit knowledge is knowledge that cannot be easily expressed or articulated; it resides within an individual’s mind. in contrast to explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge is difficult to codify and transfer through conventional mechanisms such as documents, designs, and procedures. tacit knowledge stems from personal experience, which is subjective and challenging to systematize. hau et al. (2013) suggest that explicit knowledge is considered easier to transfer to others. On the other hand, tacit knowledge holds higher value as it relates to direct observation and the behavior of employees and involves more complex ways of acquiring knowledge from others. therefore, inherently, tacit knowledge is more difficult to share than explicit knowledge. 2.1. Expected rewards and knowledge sharing the reward refers to the benefits that employees receive when they share knowledge within the organization (nguyen & Malik, 2020). in this study, the reward structure encompasses both monetary benefits (bonuses, incentives, etc.) and non-monetary benefits (recognition, appraisal, etc.) when employees engage in knowledge sharing within the organization (Javaid et al., 2020). expected rewards are considered an important factor influencing KsB. expected rewards can come from external sources, such as salary increases or monetary bonuses provided to employees based on knowledge sharing, and from internal sources, including recognition and acknowledgment of employees’ contributions to the organization. Both expected rewards from external and internal sources play a crucial role in motivating employees to share knowledge (abdelwhab ali et al., 2019). Kaushal and nyoni (2022) find that the reward system needs to be used to recognize higher achievements because in such cases, workers feel acknowledged and honored for the contributions they have made. an effective reward system will encourage employees to enhance their efforts in knowledge sharing, leading to improved performance (nguyen & Malik, 2020). cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 5 the positive relationship between expected rewards (RW) and knowledge sharing behavior has been found in previous studies such as Kim and lee (2006), seonghee and Boryung (2008) and cheng et al. (2009). Recent studies including abdelwhab ali et al. (2019), Javaid et al. (2020) and nguyen and Malik (2020) also support the notion that expected rewards have a positive impact on knowledge sharing behavior. however, whether the rewards are sufficient to stimulate employees to share explicit and tacit knowledge is a matter that this research aims to explore, as employees may lose a competitive advantage if they share knowledge with others (hosen, chong, et al., 2021hosen, Ogbeibu, et al., 2021). therefore, this study proposes the following hypotheses: hypothesis h1: RW positively influence tKs. hypothesis h2: RW positively influence eKs. 2.2. Tacit knowledge sharing and explicit knowledge sharing some prior studies have categorized knowledge into two types: tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. tacit knowledge is personal and context-specific, as it relies on subjective perception, intuition, senses, ideas, experience, values, and emotions attached to an individual. conversely, explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that can be communicated through formal language, is systematic in nature (nonaka & takeuchi, 1995; Reychav & Weisberg, 2009a). the conversion from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge has been discussed in the seci model (socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization) by nonaka and takeuchi (1995). the transition from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge is based on the process of externalization, which involves expressing hidden knowledge into clear concepts. this process enables individuals to articulate implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge by writing, recording, drawing, or making it concrete and tangible (Reychav & Weisberg, 2009b). Building upon the externalization process (Reychav & Weisberg, 2009b) also argue that employees holding tacit knowledge will have a competitive advantage over others within the organization. through an exchange relationship, employees share tacit knowledge through externalization to convert it into explicit knowledge for the benefit of the organization. in return, they should receive corresponding rewards as compensation. therefore, employees who are willing to share tacit knowledge are also likely to be willing to share explicit knowledge. Based on the theory of rational action, hau et al. (2013) argue that knowledge sharing among employees is based on a rational consideration of the benefits and costs derived from their knowledge sharing. tacit knowledge is more difficult to share compared to explicit knowledge, and thus sharing tacit knowledge incurs higher costs than sharing explicit knowledge. therefore, when employees are willing to share tacit knowledge, which is considered a ‘more valuable’ type of knowledge, there is no reason for them not to be willing to share explicit knowledge, a type of knowledge that is seen as ‘less costly’. this means that employees who are willing to share tacit knowledge are also willing to share explicit knowledge. Building on the seci model, Reychav and Weisberg (2009b) examine the relationship between tKs and eKs. they find that employees who are willing to share their tacit knowledge are likely to be willing to share their explicit knowledge in order to receive recognition from the organization in the form of monetary and non-monetary benefits. their findings are further supported by hau et al. (2013), which demonstrates a positive relationship between tKs and eKs. therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis: hypothesis h3: tKs positively influences eKs. 2.3. Knowledge sharing and individual work performance henttonen et al. (2016) offer three possible reasons to explain the relationship between KsB and iWP. First, knowledge sharing is related to an individual’s expertise, meaning that knowledge sharing can increase the understanding, complementarity, and expansion of an individual’s professional knowledge within the organization. second, knowledge sharing fosters a sense of cohesion among members within 6 n. ngUYen KiM anD n. ngUYen thi hang the organization. third, based on the principle of reciprocity, individuals who share knowledge are also likely to receive relevant knowledge related to their own work, leading to improved individual job performance. Reychav and Weisberg (2009a) show that employees can enhance their individual job performance through learning when they share knowledge and leverage resources. ahmad and Karim (2019) provide evidence that knowledge sharing enhances effectiveness in task completion, problem-solving, and decision-making, leading to improved employee work performance. almulhim (2020) suggests that knowledge sharing effectively increases job satisfaction among workers, fosters innovation in their work, and enhances overall worker efficiency. thus, employees’ knowledge sharing not only benefits the organization but also directly benefits themselves. Mutual knowledge-sharing activities among employees will assist them in enhancing their professional expertise and job-related skills, thereby contributing to the improvement of individual work performance. this relationship is also supported by several previous studies such as Reychav and Weisberg (2009a), tseng and huang (2011), Masa’deh et al. (2016), and henttonen et al. (2016). Based on this foundation, the study proposes the following hypotheses: hypothesis h4: tKs positively influences iWP. hypothesis h5: eKs positively influences iWP. Based on the arguments and hypotheses presented above, the study proposes an expected model as shown in Figure 1. 3. Research methods 3.1. Sample this study selects the banking industry to investigate because it is facing increasing competitive pressure. Knowledge management activities are emphasized in the context of rapid technological developments. the selected banks for the survey encompass both public and private sectors. the research sample was collected using a convenience sampling method. the study distributed 420 survey questionnaires, and after screening, the final sample size used for this study was 263 responses from employees in the banking industry in Vietnam. the response rate met the requirement, corresponding to a rate of 62.6% of the 263 responses, males accounted for 39.2% and females accounted for 60.8%. the majority of respondents had a university degree, accounting for 72.2% and postgraduate degree accounts for 27.8%. the age distribution was as follows: 21-30 years old accounted for 46%, 31-40 years old accounted for 26.2%, 41-50 years old accounted for 20.5%, and over 50 years old accounted for 7.3%. since the survey items were inherited from previous studies originating in english, they were translated into Vietnamese and adapted to suit the research context. the questionnaire items for each structure were reviewed by research experts in the same field to ensure accuracy. to test the clarity of the questionnaire items and ensure the reliability of the measurement scales, a preliminary survey was conducted with 20 Master’s students in the finance and banking field who were currently working at commercial banks in Vietnam. after ensuring the clarity of the questionnaire items, the study proceeded with the formal survey. Figure 1. Research model. cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 7 3.2. Measurement the variables in this study are measured using a 5-point likert scale, where (1) represents ‘strongly Disagree’ and (5) represents ‘strongly agree’. the reliability of the measurement scales is assessed using cronbach’s alpha coefficient. RW: this construct includes 4 observed variables, which is adapted from abdelwhab ali et al. (2019) and Javaid et al. (2020). a sample item includes, ‘i will receive rewards such as salary increase in return for my knowledge sharing’. the cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this construct is 0.872. eKs and tKs: eKs consists of 6 observed variables adopted from Wang and Wang (2012). a sample item includes, ‘People in my organization frequently share existing reports and official documents with members of my organization’. When analyzing the cronbach’s alpha for this scale, variable eKs6 (People in my organization are frequently offered a variety of training and development programs) is excluded due to its lower than 0.3 inter-item correlation coefficient. therefore, the remaining 5 observed variables in this scale have a cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.881. similarly, the tKs scale consists of 7 observed variables adapted from Wang and Wang (2012). a sample item includes, ‘People in my organization frequently share knowledge based on their experience’. One observed variable, tKs7 (People in my organization will share lessons from past failures when they feel necessary), is excluded due to its lower than 0.3 inter-item correlation coefficient. thus, this scale consists of 6 observed variables with a cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.906. iWP: this scale consists of 5 observed variables obtained from henttonen et al. (2016) and Walumbwa etal. (2008). iWP was measured by asking the respondents to compare their performance, on a scale from 1-5, with that of their colleagues who were doing similar work. a sample item includes, ‘how good you are in your work compared to your colleagues’. the cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this construct is 0.884. the linear structural equation Modelling (seM) was utilized for analyzing and testing the research hypotheses through the use of sPss and aMOs software. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Measurement model to evaluate the measurement model, confirmatory Factor analysis (cFa) is conducted. the cFa results are reported as follows: cMin/df = 2.080; cFi = 0.942; tli = 0.932; RMsea = 0.064. For the RW scale: cronbach’s alpha = 0.872; composite reliability (cR) = 0.873; average variance extracted (aVe) = 0.633. For the tKs scale: cronbach’s alpha = 0.906; cR = 0.907; aVe = 0.593. For the eKs scale: cronbach’s alpha = 0.881; cR = 0.882; aVe = 0.600. For the iWP scale: cronbach’s alpha = 0.884; cR = 0.887; aVe = 0.631. an aVe of 0.5 or greater indicates adequate convergence and a cR value greater than 0.7 indicates the presence of internal consistency (hair et al., 2014). Based on these results, the constructs demonstrate unidimensionality, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. the cFa results indicate that the measurement models fit the data adequately (see table 1). to ensure that the common Method Bias (cMB) does not pose a threat to the validity of the research data, the survey questionnaire was designed in a way that guarantees the anonymity of respondents, ensuring a thorough and accurate response process. additionally, the study employed harman’s single-factor test to examine issues stemming from cMB through principal component analysis. the results revealed that the first unrotated factor accounted for 32.76% of the variance, which is less than the threshold of 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003), and no single factor emerged. these findings suggest that cMB does not appear to be a significant concern affecting the data. 4.2. Structural model this study employs the structural equation modelling (seM) to test the model. the analysis results indicate that the indices cMin/df= 2.069, cFi = 0.942, tli = 0.933, and RMsea = 0.064, all met the requirements proposed by hair et al. (2014). therefore, the structural model is deemed appropriate. 14 n. ngUYen KiM anD n. ngUYen thi hang henttonen, K., Kianto, a., & Ritala, P. (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 hosen, M., chong, Y.-l., & lau, l.-s. (2021). the role of salient beliefs influence on Malaysian academics’ intention to publish in indexed journals. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science, 26(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.22452/ mjlis.vol26no1.4 hosen, M., Ogbeibu, s., giridharan, B., cham, t.-h., lim, W. M., & Paul, J. (2021). individual motivation and social media influence on student knowledge sharing and learning performance: evidence from an emerging economy. Computers & Education, 172, 104262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104262 hosen, M., Ogbeibu, s., lim, W. M., Ferraris, a., Munim, Z. h., & chong, Y.-l. (2023). Knowledge sharing behavior among academics: insights from theory of planned behavior, perceived trust and organizational climate. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(6), 1740–1764. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2022-0140 hung, s.-Y., Durcikova, a., lai, h.-M., & lin, W.-M. (2011). the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(6), 415–427. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.02.004 islam, t., chaudhary, a., Jamil, s., & ali, h. F. (2022). Unleashing the mechanism between affect-based trust and employee creativity: a knowledge sharing perspective. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 71(6/7), 509– 528. https://doi.org/10.1108/gKMc-04-2021-0071 Javaid, J., soroya, s., & Mahmood, K. (2020). impact of personal and organizational factors on knowledge sharing attitude of university teachers in Pakistan. The Electronic Library, 38(2), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/el-05-2019-0121 Kaushal, s., & nyoni, a. M. (2022). Why do rewards fail to motivate knowledge sharing behavior among employees? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ VJiKMs-06-2022-0202 Kim, s., & lee, h. (2006). the impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledgesharing capabilities. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.x law, c., & ngai, e. (2008). an empirical study of the effects of knowledge sharing and learning behaviors on firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(4), 2342–2349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.03.004 lin, h. (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 liu, Q., Qu, X., Wang, D., abbas, J., & Mubeen, R. (2021). Product market competition and firm performance: Business survival through innovation and entrepreneurial orientation amid cOViD-19 financial crisis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 790923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790923 Manaf, h. a., armstrong, s. J., lawton, a., & harvey, W. s. (2018). Managerial tacit knowledge, individual performance, and the moderating role of employee personality. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(15), 1258–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1386676 Manfredi latilla, V., Frattini, F., Messeni Petruzzelli, a., & Berner, M. (2018). Knowledge management, knowledge transfer and organizational performance in the arts and crafts industry: a literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1310–1331. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2017-0367 Masa’deh, R., Obeidat, B. Y., & tarhini, a. (2016). a Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0134 Mubeen, R., han, D., abbas, J., Raza, s., & Bodian, W. (2021). examining the relationship between product market competition and chinese firms performance: the mediating impact of capital structure and moderating influence of firm size. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 709678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.709678 Muqadas, F., Rehman, M., aslam, U., & Ur-Rahman, U. (2017). exploring the challenges, trends and issues for knowledge sharing. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 47(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/ VJiKMs-06-2016-0036 nezafati, n., Razaghi, s., Moradi, h., shokouhyar, s., & Jafari, s. (2023). Promoting knowledge sharing performance in a knowledge management system: Do knowledge workers’ behavior patterns matter? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 53(4), 637–662. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJiKMs-11-2020-0202 nguyen, t.-M., & Malik, a. (2020). cognitive processes, rewards and online knowledge sharing behaviour: the moderating effect of organisational innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1241–1261. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0742 nonaka, i., & takeuchi, h. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. Olatokun, W., & 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(3), 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666912438567 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, s. B., lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, n. P. (2003). common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 cOgent BUsiness & ManageMent 15 Reychav, i., & Weisberg, J. (2009a). going beyond technology: Knowledge sharing as a tool for enhancing customer-oriented attitudes. International Journal of Information Management, 29(5), 353–361. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.005 Reychav, i., & Weisberg, J. (2009b). good for workers, good for companies: how knowledge sharing benefits individual employees. Knowledge and Process Management, 16(4), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.335 Rezaei, M., sadraei, R., Jafari-sadeghi, V., & Vrontis, D. (2023). Knowledge is of no value unless to be shared. a synthesis of knowledge-sharing drivers in born-globals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10490-023-09896-3 Rutten, W., Blaas-Franken, J., & Martin, h. (2016). the impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0391 santhose, s. s., & lawrence, l. n. (2023). Understanding the implementations and limitations in knowledge management and knowledge sharing using a systematic literature review. Current Psychology, 42(36), 32427–32442. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-04115-6 seonghee, K., & Boryung, J. (2008). an analysis of faculty perceptions: attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in an academic institution. Library & Information Science Research, 30(4), 282–290. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.lisr.2008.04.003 sikombe, s., & Phiri, M. a. (2019). exploring tacit knowledge transfer and innovation capabilities within the buyer– supplier collaboration: a literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1), 1683130. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 3311975.2019.1683130 tan, c. n.-l., & Ramayah, t. (2018). exploring the individual, social and organizational predictors of knowledge-sharing behaviours among communities of practice of sMes in Malaysia. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 20(3), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/Jsit-09-2017-0071 tseng, s.-M., & huang, J.-s. (2011). the correlation between Wikipedia and knowledge sharing on job performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6118–6124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.009 Walumbwa, F. O., avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). how transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: the role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 793–825. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00131.x Wang, Z., & Wang, n. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017 Yeboah, a. (2023). Knowledge sharing in organization: a systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2195027. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2195027 Zaremohzzabieh, Z., & Mohd Rasdi, R. (2023). Revisiting the determinants of knowledge-sharing behavior in organizations: a meta-analytic structural equation model application. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/gKMc-02-2022-0034 Zhang, X., husnain, M., Yang, h., Ullah, s., abbas, J., & Zhang, R. (2022). corporate business strategy and tax avoidance culture: Moderating role of gender diversity in an emerging economy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 827553. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.827553 Zhang, X., liu, s., chen, X., & gong, Y. (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