1. Introduction
In the current era or the knowledge age, the organizations and establishments that can survive in the market are those capable of managing knowledge in an efficient manner (Chauhan & Bontism, 2004). As a key resource, it is not employment, raw materials, or capital, but knowledge that changes the operations of an organization significantly. In a similar vein, knowledge sharing is considered a crucial component of the knowledge management process. Previous research associated knowledge sharing with positive outcomes for organizations, such as innovative work behavior and competitive advantage (Almulhim, 2020; Hoa, Thanh, Mai, Le, & Quyen, 2020). Moreover, it serves as the key to explaining unprecedented transformation in our social life in general and the operations of socially-based companies and institutions in particular (Drucker, 1995).
The sharing of knowledge is a fundamental component of knowledge management since it creates new knowledge (Zhang, De Pablos, & Xu, 2014). According to Lee (2001), knowledge sharing is an activity that transfers or disseminates knowledge from one person, group, or organization to another that can be executed by various methods. It is expected that sharing knowledge shows how likely someone will share knowledge because desire is a key aspect that is related to the behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Moreover, Jolaee, Nor, Khani, and Yusoff (2014) assert that the organization must realize what makes employees share their knowledge.
In knowledge-intensive organizations such as HEIs, knowledge sharing is considered as the backbone for the permanence and development of these organizations (Bibi & Ali, 2017). Therefore, many recent studies point out that knowledge management in HEIs needs more research (Chedid, Alvelos, & Teixeira, 2020; Quarchioni, Paternostro, & Trovarelli, 2020). According to Al-Kurdi, El-Haddadeh, and Eldabi (2018), the effect of culture on knowledge sharing in HEIs in developing countries needs more attention from researchers comparing with developed countries. In this line, a country like Jordan needs more research regarding knowledge sharing (Al Hawamdeh & Al-edenat, 2019). Moreover, based on previous studies, the culture and knowledge sharing in a context such as public universities need more research (Raza & Awang, 2020). Based on the literature review, it appears that most prior research regarding knowledge sharing in HEIs has been conducted either in the European context (Al-Kurdi, El-Haddadeh, & Eldabi, 2020; Chedid et al., 2020; Fullwood, Rowley, & McLean, 2019) or the Asian context (Bagais, Aljaaidi, & Al-Moataz, 2020; Bibi & Ali, 2017; Farrukh, Sajid, Zreen, & Khalid, 2019; Raza & Awang, 2020). Therefore, this research responds to the identified literature deficiencies regarding lack of knowledge-sharing research conducted in HEIs in developing countries such as Jordan, and this research extends previous studies by investigating the effect of culture on knowledge sharing in Jordanian HEIs. In doing so, this study attempts to answer the following question: What is the effect of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions on knowledge-sharing intentions in higher education institutes (HEIs) of Jordan?
The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the related literature and hypothesis development; Section 3 describes the research methodology; Section 4 offers research results; Section 5 presents discussion and conclusion.
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
2.1. Knowledge-Sharing Intention
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) define intention as the location of an individual on a subjective probability dimension involving a relation between self and some action. According to Bandura (1986), intention is the determination of an individual to perform particular activities or cause a certain future state of affairs. Malle and Knobe (1997), on the other hand, explain intention as the element linking desire and belief to action.
For every employee, intention forms the basis of sharing any knowledge in their organization. Employees must have the intention to share their knowledge before actually sharing it with their colleagues. Additionally, if they are unwilling to engage in knowledge sharing, organizations would not be able to operate at the optimal level as knowledge-based entities (Jolaee et al., 2014). Knowledge-sharing intention is the source for any employee before they can begin sharing anything in organizations (Zain et al. 2019). Intention to share knowledge is considered one of the variables affecting knowledge sharing (Gupta, Sharma, & Ganesh, 2009). According to Warshaw and Davis (1985), knowledge-sharing intention indicates the degree to which an individual is fully aware to engage in a behavior.
Cultural impacts should be considered when studying knowledge sharing to get the full picture of the impacts (Chang, Hsu, Shiau, & Tsai, 2015). Indeed, culture and knowledge sharing are two significant factors for the long-term success of an organization (Attar, 2020). According to Campbell (2009), culture plays an important role in stimulating employees to share knowledge and help employees to share ideas and insights because they consider knowledge sharing as a natural part of their job role rather than as something they are being obliged to do.
According to Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003), culture is considered as the most important factor that affects knowledge management that could encourage or impede knowledge sharing. If the manager understands the culture, he/she will have confidence when encountering the irrational behavior of people in organizations, and deeper understanding why various groups of people or organizations can be so different, and why it is so hard to change them (Klepić & Madžar, 2017). However, each organization has its own particular culture and its distinctive practices by managers (Schein, 1984).
Based on the background, the objectives of this research are: to review the literature of knowledge sharing and culture dimensions to investigate the effect of cultural dimensions on knowledge-sharing intention; to propose a theoretical model based on existing literature to investigate the effect of cultural dimensions on knowledge sharing intention; to empirically test the research hypotheses to answer research questions in the Jordanian context; to discuss the research findings and relate them within the existing literature of knowledge sharing and cultural dimensions; and to provide a set of managerial implications that advance the understanding of how organizations increase the sharing of knowledge within their internal environments.
2.2. Cultural Dimensions
In various cross-cultural studies on knowledge sharing, researchers have widely used Hofstede’s cultural dimension model to explore the cultural values of different countries (Chang et al., 2015). Consequently, in this study, the researchers aim to establish a link between Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and the intention to share knowledge. Another objective is to find out the effects of this intention on employees’ behavior in Jordan. The researchers chose the higher education environment for the study as it provides a complex context where a network of independent members is tied together by common traditions (Martin & Marion, 2005). The study population consists of five public-sector universities in Jordan. The researchers expect this study to influence the advancement of knowledge-sharing intention in developing countries such as Jordan and help develop a clear picture for organizations and associations to reach a new height and attain great outcomes in the area of knowledge-sharing intention.
Based on Hofstede’s work, the effects of culture are estimated to be pervasive, which can be observed in an individual’s behavior and an organization’s management. This model was developed based on nearly 116, 000 survey questionnaires completed by over 80, 000 IBM employees in two different periods during the late 1960s and early 1970s. These employees worked in IBM’s offices in over 40 countries. Most of these workers had similar traits; they were middle-aged, well-educated, professional men having similar jobs in the same corporation. However, based on the factor analysis, the survey results indicated a marked difference in the values of employees across the participating countries (Hofstede, 2001).
Hofstede identified and determined the specific “dimensions of culture” that contributed to the variations found in survey responses of IBM employees across different countries. Hofstede’s six dimensions of national culture included power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term versus short-term orientation, and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede, 2011). The dimensions of knowledge-sharing intention are spelt out as follow:
2.2.1. Power Distance
According to Hofstede (2001), power distance means the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations within a nation expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Most studies have noted that in many cases low- power distance situations foster knowledge sharing and trust naturally; nevertheless, in the case with a high-power distance situation, knowledge sharing is conducted only when instruction requires low trust (Boateng & Agyemang, 2015; Rivera-Vazquez, Ortiz-Fournier, & Flores 2009). Moreover, in countries with fewer degrees of power distance, individuals are more independent on their managers and supervisors and they have sufficient space or freedom and they can disagree with management, as well as express their views and participate in the decision-making process, furthermore, management style, in this case, allows staff to question and access the high-level management (Hofstede, 2001). According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Jordan ranks high in power distance (70%) as a country. Accordingly, we postulate the first research hypothesis in the following form:
H1: A high-power distance has a negative effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
2.2.2. Individualism Versus Collectivism
As opposed to collectivism, Hofstede (2001) argues that individualism is a system in which people are expected exclusively to take care of themselves and their families. Conversely, collectivism is a system in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a particular in-group to look after them in exchange for undoubted loyalty, and he stated that individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to give preference to the goals of the larger collective group they belong to. Also, Dorfman and Howell (1988) make it clear that individuality versus the collectivity dimension is related to the degree to which a community member cares about his/her interest rather than looking for the interest of others, On the other hand, collectivity refers to the degree to which members of society bear responsibility for the benefit of other members, while individualism describes the tendency of people to set their personal goals before the goals of a larger social group, such as an organization (Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2006). Moreover, Chow, Deng, and Ho (2000) revealed that having collectivist culture helps members to share their knowledge with members of their in-group. Referring to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Jordan ranks high in collectivism (70%) as a country. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Collectivist culture has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
2.2.3. Uncertainty Avoidance
Hofstede (2001) identified avoiding uncertainty as a cultural dimension that reflects the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfortable through uncertainty and ambiguity. Also, its impact on rule making is considered. The main issue here is how society is dealing with the fact that one cannot know the future: Should we try to control the future or let it happen? Countries that demonstrate a significant avoidance of uncertainty maintain norms of rigid beliefs and behavior and do not tolerate unconventional behavior and ideas.
In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, rules and formalities are required to structure life and competence – a strong value that influences belief in experts. However, in cultures with weak uncertainty avoidance, individuals tend to have a strong belief in the generalist. In the latter culture, people are also likely to be more innovative and entrepreneurial as compared to the former (De Mooij & Hofstede, 2002).
According to Wilkesmann, Fischer, and Wilkesmann (2009), uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which members of an organization strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices. Hauke (2006) also states that the low level of avoiding uncertainty is linked to a lack of rules and regulations in the company and argues that when employees of an organization are willing to take risks, they feel more responsible for their decisions, leading to better satisfaction with the success achieved and high self-esteem. Also, cultures with a relatively high level of uncertainty avoidance support the process of knowledge sharing through the established norms and practices (Kucharska & Bedford, 2019). According to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Jordan ranks high in uncertainty avoidance (65%) as a country. As a result, the third hypothesis is proposed:
H3: High uncertainty avoidance culture has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
2.2.4. Masculinity Versus Femininity
Hofstede (2001) stated that the masculinity aspect of this dimension describes a nation’s preference for achievement, assertiveness, heroism, and material rewards for success, so that society as a whole is more competitive. On the contrary, femininity represents a preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak, and quality of life, so that society as a whole is more consensus-oriented.
Rivera-Vazquez et al. (2009) defined femininity as an environment of cooperation where employees feel secure to share their knowledge with other colleagues. Correspondingly, Ford and Chan (2003) claim that masculinity-oriented cultures may have less knowledge sharing between organizational members if the competitiveness is individually based. Also, in this line, Ray (2014) argues that a masculinity dimension leads to little trust, which increases hoarding knowledge, while Chiu, Lin, Tsai, and The (2018) found out that masculinity has no impact on knowledge sharing. However, as mentioned by Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, masculinity is the dominant culture in Jordan. Based on the above discussion, the researcher proposes the following hypothesis:
H4: Masculinity culture has a negative effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
2.2.5. Long-Term Versus Short-Term Orientation
In the fifth dimension, Hofstede (2011) explains the long- term orientation as the fostering of virtues directed toward future rewards such as perseverance and thrift. On the other hand, the short-term orientation indicates the promotion of the past and current/future virtues including respect for tradition, preservation of “face”, and the fulfillment of social obligations. According to Ford and Chan (2003), in long-term oriented culture, members tend to be more willing to have active participation in knowledge management processes, while such traits are not evident in a short-term orientation culture. Additionally, people in countries with long-term orientation are inclined towards the future, while past and present remain the key focus areas of those in countries with short-term orientation (Goswami, Agrawal, & Goswami, 2020). A number of earlier studies argue that the long-term orientation culture affects the intention to knowledge sharing, as the members in this culture are future-oriented and share the knowledge that focuses on long-term planning (Bashir & Usuro, 2017; Ray, 2014). Hofstede associates Jordan with a long-term culture, which leads to the following hypothesis:
H5: Long-term orientation has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
Thus, based on the previous studies and the objectives of this study, the following research model has been developed as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Study Model
3. Research Methodology
The research methodology is associated with the research process and includes various methods of research (Collis & Hussey, 2013). In this view, qualitative and quantitative research methods are recognized as the most popular types of research methods. The researcher should determine the most effective research design in a way that the requested data can be obtained and analyzed to arrive at a solution (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Hence, the research methods conducted in this study are to generate primary data by using a quantitative research approach. A survey is a research technique in which data is gathered from a population’s representation by a questionnaire to obtain data about how culture affects knowledge-sharing intention. The quantitative methods became widely adopted in the social sciences to examine social phenomena using survey methods and other tools (Collis & Hussey, 2013).
3.1. Questionnaire Design and Measures
This study applied a questionnaire survey for data collection. Based on a literature review, the questionnaire items have been developed and modified according to Jordanian Higher Education Institutes’ characteristics. Note that the items of measurement used in the questionnaire directed to measure the independent and dependent variables of the study were multiple-choice questions according to 5-point Likert scale (Strongly agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1). Questions for the independent variable (culture dimensions) were derived from the literature. The power distance construct consists of five questions from Wu (2006), collectivism construct consists of five questions from Yoon (2009), Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz (2011), uncertainty avoidance construct consists of five questions from Wu (2006), masculinity construct consists of four questions from Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz (2011), long-term construct consists of five questions from Yoon (2009). The dependent variable (knowledge-sharing intention) was measured with the help of Bock, Mud, Kim, and Lee (2005) and Lin’s (2007) 6-item scale.
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
The study population consisted of academics working at five public universities in Jordan. The questionnaire was directed to the study population using messaging and social networking platforms such as email, WhatsApp, and Facebook using the convenience sample method. Three hundred seven responses were obtained, which is a valid number for research purposes, according to Sekaran (2003). Table 1 shows the profiles of respondents.
Table 1: Profiles of Respondents
3.3. Research Quality and standards
3.3.1. Validity and Reliability
Face validity is the extent to which questions illustrate the idea of a variable and the inclusion of these questions for the dimensions representing such variables. To achieve face validity, a group of researchers, academics, and specialists test the questionnaire using the Instrument Reliability.
The reliability of the survey scale was measured by using Cronbach’s Alpha (a) in the SPSS software (Albawwat, Al-Hajaia, & Al Frijat, 2021). If the value of (a) is greater than 60%, the scale is considered reliable and therefore, the reliability of the study survey is evident (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). Table 2 shows that the values of Cronbach’s Alpha for all items surveyed were greater than the limit of acceptance 60%, which refers to the reliability of the study tool.
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Test
4. Results
Table 3 shows the mathematical averages of respondents’ answers to the “culture dimension.” The first variable is long-term orientation with an average of 4.062 and a high rating. Finally, power distance has an average of about 2.578 and a medium rating. It indicates that the level of application of culture dimensions is a medium rating among knowledge-sharing intention in Jordan.
Table 3: The Arithmetical Averages and Atandard Deviations of Independent and Dependent Variables
Before testing the hypotheses of the study, the “Variance Inflation Factor-VIF” test and a “Tolerance” test for each of the independent variables have been performed to ensure the relevancy and relevance of the data and ensure that there is no high correlation (multicollinearity) between the independent variables.
Table 4 shows the values of the variance inflation coefficient (VIF) and the allowed variance “Tolerance” for each variable, where we note that the value of (VIF) for all variables was less than 5 and that the value of Tolerance for all variables was greater than 0.05, which is based on decision rule for (VIF) values indicating that there is no correlation between the independent variables hindering the regression test.
Table 4: Tolerance and VIF for Culture Dimension
After assuring the regression model’s assumptions were met, the following section deals with hypothesis testing. The hypotheses were tested using multiple regressions to determine if there is an effect of independent variables on the dependent variable.
The data obtained through the questionnaire were processed into the Statistical Analysis Package for Social Science (SPSS) and then processed according to the tests that achieve the aims of the study. Multiple linear regressions have been used to test the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable.
Table 5 shows the results of coefficients for the effect of the cultural dimensions on knowledge-sharing intention. The table shows the calculated T values for (power distance, collectivism, individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, long-term orientation) are –1.493, –0.773, 6.679, 1.497, 6.158, respectively, and the level of significance of T sig were 0.337, 0.631, 0.000, 0.135, 0.000, respectively. Thus, there is a statistically significant impact effect at of the culture dimension except for power distance and masculinity on knowledge-sharing intention in in Jordanian HEIs.
Table 5: Summary of the Research Hypotheses and their Results
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The current results reveal that cultural dimensions affect knowledge sharing in different ways, some of which have a positive effect, but others have no effect. Furthermore, the results are consistent with the study conducted by Kucharska and Bedford (2019) that indicates organizational culture influences knowledge sharing, which assumes that organizational culture dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001) have an influence on knowledge sharing. Furthermore, İlknur, Cetin, Senturan, and Demiralay (2017) carry out a study claiming that organizational culture types have a significant effect on tacit and explicit knowledge sharing.
H1: High-power distance has a negative effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
Based on the research result, the first hypothesis is not accepted; the results show that high-power distance has no negative effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs. Indeed, the empirical findings of this study are in line with many studies that have highlighted the positive impact of high-power distance on knowledge sharing. For example, Ford and Chan (2003) affirmed that the potential for sharing knowledge in countries with high-power distance is better than the countries that have low-power distance. In contrast, this result conflicts with the study by Wilkesmann et al. (2009), which found that in countries with a high score of power distance the employees tend not to share knowledge because they hesitate to speak in front of their supervisors. Therefore, the explanation behind this result is that the sample of this study is limited to the academic members and the main duties are to share knowledge although the presence of a high power distance in this country (Fullwood, Rowley, & Delbridge, 2013).
H2: Collectivist culture has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
With reference to the results of this study, the second hypothesis is accepted; the results show that collectivism has a positive role in enhancing knowledge-sharing intention in Jordanian HEIs; the main reason behind this result is that the Jordanian collective society should be more sociable and works as a team to effectively solve the problems to achieve better performance; this result is consistent with Arpaci and Baloğlu (2016) who reveal that collectivism has a higher level of effect on knowledge sharing. Similarly, Kim (2019) emphasized that collectivism orientation significantly influences knowledge-sharing intention. Further, Yu (2014) states that the employees who are more collectivism-orientated are more willing to share knowledge than those who are more individualism-orientated.
H3: High uncertainty avoidance culture has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
According to the results of this study, the third hypothesis is accepted; the results show that uncertainty avoidance encourages the knowledge-sharing intention in Jordan; the main reason behind this result is that Jordanians have a high level of uncertainty avoidance; thus, Jordanians prefer the standard operating procedures on jobs so they are more likely to avoid risk, uncertain future and fear from doing new jobs; these results are constant with Kucharska and Bedford (2019) who claims that uncertainty avoidance is vital for knowledge sharing from the employee’s point of view, in addition to a high level of uncertainty avoidance, and supporting employees by instructions and procedures. Feeling a sense of security has a positive impact on knowledge sharing. Furthermore, according to Boateng and Agyemang (2015), uncertainty avoidance has a significant effect on the likelihood that an individual will share his knowledge.
H4: Masculinity culture has a negative effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
In light of the result of this study, the fourth hypothesis is rejected. The results show that masculinity has no negative effect on knowledge-sharing intention in Jordanian HEIs. While the Jordanian masculinity-oriented society is characterized by a tendency toward achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success, the society is more competitive and gives men a more significant role. This study’s result is in line with some previous studies that found that the masculinity culture has no impact on knowledge sharing (Kucharska & Bedford, 2019) and it supports Boateng and Agyemang’s (2015) work that concludes that femininity and masculinity are not critical regarding knowledge sharing when they prefer group interest to individual success, encouraging them to share their knowledge.
H5: Long-term orientation has a positive effect on the intention to share knowledge in Jordanian HEIs.
Corresponding to research results, the fifth hypothesis is accepted. The results show that the long-term orientation dimension has a vital role in stimulating people to knowledge- sharing intention; the main reason behind this result lies in the assumption that Jordanian society has a long-term view, and by stimulating the people for long term orientation we can get better results; it further indicates that Jordanians noticeably work hard for success in the future and plan for a long term; this result is in agreement with the study of Bashir and Usuro (2017), which reveals the positive relationship between long-term orientation and knowledge sharing; furthermore, Jin (2012) illustrates that long-term orientation is one of the five dimensions of the framework that has a positive effect on staff’s willingness of knowledge sharing.
This research attempts to contribute to the literature on knowledge sharing through investigating the effect of national culture on knowledge-sharing intention in Jordanian HEIs. The findings of this research reveal that culture dimensions such as: collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation has a positive and significant effect on knowledge-sharing intention, while cultural masculinity and power distance had no negative effect on knowledge sharing intention in Jordanian HEIs. Accordingly, this empirical study with actual contributors will enrich the understanding of both Hofstede’s culture dimensions and knowledge-sharing intention in HEIs. Moreover, this study offers guidance on what cultural dimension can play an important role in social contexts (collectivism, long-term planning and avoiding uncertainty) in promoting the intention to share knowledge HEIs.
This study has made some significant original contributions, particularly on knowledge-sharing intention. Based on what has been so far established in the previous studies, it has been now clear to the researcher that the current study is unique in it attempts to examine knowledge-sharing intentions in the Jordanian environment using Hofstede’s five dimensions. In addition, most of the previous studies reviewed by the researcher were conducted in several different environments except in the Jordanian environment. Equally important, this study is different from previous studies in terms of the objectives.
The limitation of this study is concerned with the possibility of generalizing these findings. The key objective of this study was to explore the effect of cultural dimensions on the intention of sharing knowledge in HEIs in Jordan. However, for the study community, the number of respondents was limited due to the unfavorable circumstances, especially the COVID-19 challenges. National lockdowns, curfews, and the lack of cooperation from several individuals along with the difficulty in collecting data added to the limitations of this study. Additionally, this research excluded Hofstede’s (2001) sixth dimension – indulgence versus restraint – as it is still a relatively new concept and has not been widely adopted within the intercultural training and management field. It also has limited data and fewer countries as compared to the previous dimensions.
Considering the above and the research results, future research may attempt to examine the dimensions of culture that affect knowledge sharing intention. The researchers recommend that future studies should concentrate on other factors that affect knowledge-sharing intention such as incentives, trust, role competence, subjective norms, and other factors.
Since the current study involved only public universities the researcher recommends increasing the study population to private universities or other sectors and using a larger sample size to carry out a thorough analysis that can improve the validity and reliability of the results. In future studies, Jordanian researchers may pay more attention and effort to understand the various cultural values that affect the intention to share knowledge to enhance performance and productivity.
References
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
- Al Hawamdeh, N., & Al-edenat, M. (2019). Determinants of Barriers to Knowledge Sharing in the Jordanian Hospitality Industry. International Business Research, 12(7), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v12n7p121
- Albawwat, I. E., Al-Hajaia, M. E., & Al Frijat, Y. S. (2021). The Relationship Between Internal Auditors' Personality Traits, Internal Audit Effectiveness, and Financial Reporting Quality: Empirical Evidence from Jordan. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(4), 797-808. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO4.0797
- Al-Kurdi, O. F., El-Haddadeh, R., & Eldabi, T. (2020). The role of organisational climate in managing knowledge sharing among academics in higher education. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.018
- Al-Kurdi, O., El-Haddadeh, R., & Eldabi, T. (2018). Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: a systematic review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(2), 226-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2017-0129
- Almulhim, A. F. (2020). Linking knowledge sharing to innovative work behaviour: the role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(9), 549-560. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.549
- Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of knowledge management, 10(1), 94-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610650139
- Arpaci, I., & Baloglu, M. (2016). The impact of cultural collectivism on knowledge sharing among information technology majoring undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.031
- Attar, M. M. (2020). Organizational Culture, Knowledge Sharing, and Intellectual Capital: Directions for Future Research. International Journal of Business and Economics Research, 9(1), 11-20. https://doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20200901.12
- Bagais, O. A., Aljaaidi, K. S., & Al-Moataz, E. S. (2020). Knowledge Sharing Among Accounting Students: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(11), 557-561. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no11.557
- Bandura, A., & National Institute of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Bashir, S., & Usuro, A. (2017). The relationship of long-term orientation with knowledge sharing in virtual community. Communications of the IIMA, 15(2), 4. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol15/iss2/4
- Bibi, S., & Ali, A. (2017). Knowledge sharing behavior of academics in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(4), 550-564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2016-0077
- Boateng, H., & Agyemang, F. G. (2015). The role of culture in knowledge sharing in a public-sector organization in Ghana: Revisiting Hofstede's model. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(7), 486-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.949743
- Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 87-111. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148669
- Campbell, M. J. (2009). Identification of Organizational Cultural Factors That Impact Knowledge Sharing. Eugene, OR: Masters thesis, University of Oregon. http://hdl.handle.net/1794/9477
- Chang, Y. W., Hsu, P. Y., Shiau, W. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Knowledge sharing intention in the United States and China: a cross-cultural study. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(3), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2014.28
- Chauhan, N., & Bontis, N. (2004). Organisational learning via groupware: a path to discovery or disaster? International Journal of Technology Management, 27(6-7), 591-610. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.004904
- Chedid, M., Alvelos, H., & Teixeira, L. (2020). Individual factors affecting attitude toward knowledge sharing: an empirical study on a higher education institution. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-01-2020-0015
- Chiu, C. K., Lin, C. P., Tsai, Y. H., & Teh, S. F. (2018). Enhancing knowledge sharing in high-tech firms. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 25(3), 468-491. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-03-2017-0034
- Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J., & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations: A comparative study of the United States and the People's Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 12(1), 65-95. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar.2000.12.1.65
- Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2013). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education.
- De Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00067-7
- Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3(1), 127-150.
- Drucker, P. F. (1995). The age of social transformation. Ottawa, ON: Centre Canadien de Gestion.
- Farrukh, M., Sajid, M., Zreen, A., & Khalid, R. (2019). Knowledge sharing in higher education institutes. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2018-0228
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multicultural setting: a case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8499999
- Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300831
- Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & McLean, J. (2019). Exploring the factors that influence knowledge sharing between academics. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1051-1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1448928
- Goswami, A. K., Agrawal, R. K., & Goswami, M. (2020). Influence of national culture on knowledge management process: literature review and research agenda. Benchmarking: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-04-2020-0171
- Gupta, B., Sharma, N. K., & Ganesh, C. (2009). The influence of organisational cultural values, reward, time, self-esteem and job security on knowledge sharing intentions among managers. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 2(2), 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJICBM.2009.02234
- Hauke, A. (2006). Impact of cultural differences on knowledge transfer in British, Hungarian and Polish enterprises (No. 50.2006). Nota di Lavoro.
- Hoa, N. D., Thanh, V. B., Mai, V. T., Tung, L. V., & Quyen, H. V. T. (2020). Knowledge Sharing Influence on Innovation: A Case of Textile and Garment Enterprises in Vietnam. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(7), 555-563. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.555
- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. New York: Sage Publications.
- Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307-0919. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
- Ilknur, U. C. A. R., Cetin, C., Senturan, S., & Demiralay, T. (2017). The Relationship Between Organizational Culture And Knowledge Sharing: A Research On Participation Banking Sector. Research Journal of Business and Management, 4(3), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.712
- Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351-384. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5915.02328
- Jin, C. (2012, November). The effect of long-term orientation on knowledge sharing-A mediate model. In 2012 International Symposium on Management of Technology (ISMOT) (pp. 382-384). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMOT.2012.6679498
- 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
- Kim, S. S. (2019). The effect of social contexts and formation of individualism-collectivism orientation on knowledge sharing intention: the case of workers in Korea. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 196-215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0284
- Klepic, Z., & Madzar, D. (2017). The Impact of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management in Small and Medium Enterprises. Tourism in South East Europe, 4, 259-266. https://doi.org/10.20867/tosee.04.48
- Kucharska, W., & Bedford, D. A. (2019). Knowledge sharing and organizational culture dimensions: does job satisfaction matter? Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 1-18. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3406496
- Lee, J. N. (2001). The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 38(5), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00074-4
- Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0165551506068174 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0165551506068174
- Malle, B. F., & Knobe, J. (1997). The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.1314
- Martin, J. S., & Marion, R. (2005). Higher education leadership roles in knowledge processing. The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 12(2), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696470510583520
- Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2020). Knowledge management in higher education: a literature review and further research avenues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2020.1730717
- Ray, D. (2014), Overcoming cross-cultural barriers to knowledge management using social media, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2012-0053
- Raza, I., & Awang, Z. (2020). Knowledge-sharing practices in higher educational institutes of Islamabad, Pakistan: an empirical study based on theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2020-0068
- Rivera-Vazquez, J. C., Ortiz-Fournier, L. V., & Flores, F. R. (2009). Overcoming cultural barriers for innovation and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(5), 254-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910988097
- Schein, E. H. (1984). Culture as an environmental context for careers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030050107
- Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4
- Wilkesmann, U., Fischer, H., & Wilkesmann, M. (2009). Cultural characteristics of knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6), 464-477. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910997123
- Wu, M. (2006). Hofstede's cultural dimensions 30 years later: A study of Taiwan and the United States. Intercultural Communication Studies, 15(1), 33.
- Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23(3-4), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2011.578059
- Yoon, C. (2009). The effects of national culture values on consumer acceptance of e-commerce: Online shoppers in China. Information & Management, 46(5), 294-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2009.06.001
- Yu, M. (2014). Examining the effect of individualism and collectivism on knowledge sharing intention: an examination of tacit knowledge as moderator. Chinese Management Studies, 8(1), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-06-2011-0037
- Zain, R. S., Mutalib, S. K. M. S. A., Dzulkafli, N., Aziz, A. S. N., Rosli, N. A., Yusuf, F. H., & Abidin, H. T. (2019). Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Intention among Academic Staff. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Future of ASEAN (ICoFA) 2017-Volume 1 (pp. 209-218). Berlin: Springer.
- Zhang, X., De Pablos, P. O., & Xu, Q. (2014). Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multi-national virtual classes: A mixed method. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 491-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.021