SUPPORTING THE ENABLING FACTORS FOR SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE SHARING ADOPTION

BY THE EGYPTIAN TOURISM COMPANIES

 

Mahmoud Ahmed Aboushouk 

PhD, Lecturer in Tourism department, faculty of Tourism & Hotels Management, Pharos University in Alexandria, Egypt

 

Hala Hilaly

Professor in Tourism studies department, and vice dean for community service and environment development, Faculty of tourism and hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt

Nashwa Fouad Attallah      

Professor in tourism studies department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, and Vice Dean for graduate Studies and Research - Alexandria University, Egypt

 

ABSTRACT

            This study aimed at measuring the extent of knowledge sharing adoption by the Egyptian tourism companies class A, as well as identifying and supporting its enabling factors. The deductive approach and quantitative method were used by this study. Moreover, a  semi-structured questionnaire was distributed to a sample of 278 out of 1008 tourist companies, were selected using a simple random sampling technique with response rate was of 85%.Moreover, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for the quantitative data analysis. Results identified enabling factors for knowledge sharing adoption in the Egyptian tourism companies. In addition, implications for practice were recommended to support the perceived enabling factors of knowledge sharing adoption- in the Egyptian tourism companies class A. This research provides improvements to knowledge sharing adoption process by tourism companies.

 Keywords: knowledge sharing, supporting enabling factors, tourism companies

 

1-INTRODUCTION

         Knowledge sharing strategy has become one of the most applied strategies by major tourist organizations to cope with intense competition in a changeable world, also to meet the current tourist needs who are searching for new and unique experiences as mentioned by Hu, Horng, and Sun (2009).

Therefore, more emphasis in knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviors is needed by tourist companies to be able to survive through keeping and attracting new customers by continuously satisfying their growing and complicated needs as stated by  (Brotherton,1999), and (King,2002)  otherwise their services will become worthless and have no demand according to Tidd , Bessant, and Pavitt (2005). 

According to Mason and Pauleenis (2003) Knowledge sharing is considered the most important factor in knowledge management, moreover (Lin 2007) defined it as a culture of social interaction that contains exchanging knowledge, skills, and experiences related to work among employees at the departments and the whole organization's levels.

Moreover it was proved by each of (Mohamed, Stankosky, and Murray 2004; Finnegan and Willcocks 2006 ; Hallin and Marnburg 2008; Hu, Horng, and Sun 2009) that if tourist organizations want to achieve high levels of service innovation , they must support the behaviors of  knowledge sharing  among their employees.Also (Cooper 2006 ; Weidenfeld, Williams, and Butler 2010) added that innovation processes are fed through absorbing, sharing, and implementing new knowledge.

A research gap was found in this area where until the present time there are little practical studies examining knowledge sharing adoption by Tourism companies which has given an incentive to carry out this study in the Egyptian tourism companies to provide new results on the process knowledge sharing adoption in tourism industry.

 

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The concept of Knowledge sharing (KS)

 Knowledge sharing was described by (Van den Hoof & De Rider, 2004; Usoro et al. 2007) as a process includes two dimensions; knowledge collecting and knowledge donating.

Moreover, (Bock et al.,2005; Lin, 2007) described knowledge sharing from behavioral and social point of view as a kind of social exchange and interaction that involve disseminating, sharing or exchanging employees' acquired knowledge, skills, and experiences through the whole department or organization, and expecting to receive others in return based on mutual trust.

In addition, (Bock & Kim, 2002) added that knowledge sharing occurs when an employee is willing to learn or assist others to build new capabilities. In the same way , (Cummings , 2004) identified the aim of knowledge sharing as collaborating with others to solve problems, develop new ideas, and implement new policies or procedures.

Furthermore, (Alam et al. 2009; Nordin, Daud & Osman 2012) described knowledge sharing as procedures undertaken when a group of people want to exchange their knowledge.

 

2.2 KNOWLEDGE SHARING FACTORS

Knowledge sharing factors were broadly classified as organizational, personal, social, and technological factors in the previous researches as the following:

 

2.2.1Organizational factors

2.2.1.1 Organizational culture:

Organizational culture is considered the most frequently cited factor  supports and facilitates knowledge sharing as part of daily work activities as proved by (O'Dell & Grayson 1998;  Gupta & Govendarajan 2000; Goh 2002; Cheng, HO, & Lau 2009; Yiu and Law 2012; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014). In addition, it contains according to (Kim & Lee ,2006) of vision and mission, trust among employees, social network, as well as (Ling, 2011) who mentioned that culture sociability and solidarity are facilitating factors for knowledge sharing.

 2.2.1.2 Incentives, Reward, and Compensation systems:

The adopted incentives, reward, and compensation systems by organizations, were found to have an influence on knowledge sharing according to (Kim & Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007; Cheng, HO, & Lau, 2009; Yiu & Law, 2012; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014; Mohammadi, 2014).

2.2.1.3 Top management, supervisors, and fellow worker support:

Knowledge sharing was found to be influenced by top managers, supervisors, and fellow workers support in the previous research of (Lin, 2007; Cheng, HO, & Lau 2009; Yiu & Law, 2012; Kathiravelu, 2013; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014; Mohammadi, 2014).

2.2.1.4 Leadership style:

Leadership style where organizations value the contribution of their employees and care about their well-being, also teams with supportive leaders displayed higher levels of knowledge exchange when compared to teams with directive leaders as stated in the previous researches of (Eisenberger et al . 1997; Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997; Yiu & Law, 2012; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

2.2.1.5 Organizational structure:

Organizational structure is composed of centralization where organizations with flexible and decentralized organizational structures encourage knowledge sharing when compared to bureaucratic and centralized organizational structure as found by  (Sharatt & Usoro, 2003; Kim & Lee, 2006), Also flat organizational structures facilitate knowledge sharing when compared to organizations with hierarchal organizational structures as mentioned by (Obrenovic & Qin ,2014).

2.2.1.6 Value congruence:

Sharing of values between employees and their organizations was found to be one of the factors affecting knowledge sharing among employees as proved by (Sharatt & Usoro, 2003; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

2.2.1.7 Openness and Fairness:

The fair balance between what people exert in their jobs as time, ability, personal sacrifices and what they get out of them such as salaries, job security, recognition, development and reputation also the willingness of partners to communicate and interact were perceived as factors influence knowledge sharing proved by (Yiu & Law, 2012).

2.2.1.8 Employees' Commitment:

Employees’ commitment towards their organizations has direct relationship with knowledge sharing behavior as proved by (Kathiravelu, Kenny, & Abu Mansor, 2013).

 

2.2.2Personal factors

2.2.2.1 Self Efficacy:

The employees’ judgment of their capabilities to organize and execute the actions required to achieve specific level of performance as described by (Bandura, 1997), constitutes a personal factor influence knowledge sharing behavior among employees as found by ( Lin, 2007; Yiu & Law,2012; Sharatt & Usoro, 2003; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

2.2.2.2 Positive individual and job attitudes towards knowledge sharing:

The disposition to respond favorably towards knowledge sharing with other employees was found to be one of the personal factors that has significant impact on knowledge sharing as found by (Yang,2008; Cheng, Ho, & Lau, 2009; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014; Mohammadi, 2014).

2.2.2.3 Expected rewards, recognition, and status enhancement:

(Herzberg, 2003) found that financial rewards and other external factors are important in avoiding demotivation but it has little effect on sustaining the motivation of employees instead of the factors that are intrinsically rewarding such as recognition and reputation that have a far greater influence on employee's motivation.  Furthermore, (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998) found that the process of knowledge sharing must be rewarded, celebrated, and supported by culture. Moreover, expected rewards, recognition, and promotion by employees as a result of sharing their knowledge, were considered an effective incentives influencing knowledge sharing by (Yiu & Law, 2012; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

2.2.2.4 Enjoyment in helping others:

The enjoyment in helping others was found to have influence on knowledge sharing as stated in the results of  the study  of  (Yiu & Law, 2012; Lin, 2007).

2.2.2.5 Perceived loss of knowledge power:

Employees normally consider their knowledge as a source of power that they will lose it when they share this knowledge with other employees so it negatively influences knowledge sharing as proved by (Yiu & Law,2012).

2.2.2.6 Personal expectations:

Employees are expecting that their peers will exchange their knowledge with them in return of sharing their knowledge with their peers which was found to be one of the personal factors that influences knowledge sharing in a study results conducted by (Cheng, Ho, & Lau, 2009)

2.2.2.7 Other group of personal factors:

Another four personal factors were added by (Obrenovic & Qin, 2014) affecting knowledge sharing including subjective norms, employees’ intentions beyond knowledge sharing with their peers, employee's personality and emotions toward other employees.

Furthermore, (THE & Yang, 2011) added another three personal factors as well were sense of self worth, organizational citizenship behavior and in role behavior.

Moreover, (Kathiravelu, Kenny, & Abu Mansor, 2013) also added another personal factor that influences knowledge sharing which is the work place.

 

2.2.3 Social factors

2.2.3.1 Trust:

Trust resides the individuals’ relationships with others including their peers, team members, and coworkers to create suitable atmosphere for knowledge sharing. In addition, it involves various facets including trust in their competence, openness, honesty, intensions, concerns, and reliability as stated by (Mishra, 1996). Moreover, trust can be conceptualized across three dimensions according to (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman ,1995) which are integrity based trust that includes honesty and reliability, benevolence based trust that means another party will not harm others even when he is given the opportunity to do so, and competence based trust that means another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence.

In addition, trust was found as a social factor affecting knowledge sharing according to the results of previous researches conducted by (Nanoka, 1994; Sharatt & Usoro, 2003; Tiwana & Bush, 2005; Kim & Lee, 2006; Ling, 2011; Yiu & Law, 2012; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014; Mohammadi, 2014).

2.2.3.2 Career advancement:

The degree to which a member believes that sharing his knowledge will positively affect his career is considered as an effective incentive in motivating knowledge sharing as found by (Hall, 2001; Sharatt & Usoro, 2003).

2.2.3.3 Reciprocity:

When employees expect future benefits as a result of their present actions of sharing their knowledge that will influence their attitude towards knowledge sharing as found by (Bock et al. 2005; Yiu & Law, 2012).

2.2.3.4 Social interactions and team collaboration:

Social interactions among employees and team members collaboration and competition within the organization context were found to be influencing knowledge sharing according to the results of researches made by (Yiu & Law ,2012 ; Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

2.2.3.5 Sense of community:

The degree to which employee feels sense of belonging in the community of organization as described by (Yoo, Suh, & Lee, 2002). In addition, the feeling that members matter to one another, as well as, their commitment to be together, was proved to have influence on sharing knowledge among employees or the team members according to the research results of (Sharrat & Usoro, 2003). 

2.2.3.6 Social networks:

The formal and informal relationships and contacts between employees within the organizations were found to have significant impact on employees’ knowledge sharing by (Kim & Lee, 2006).

2.2.3.7 Team context (diversity- cooperation- competition):

Diversity of team members within teams provides a variety in professional backgrounds, personalities, cultures, tenure, and many other team members' characteristics. Moreover the cooperation and competition among those members were found to have influence on knowledge sharing among them as proved by (Obrenovic & Qin, 2014).

 

3 RESEARCH METHODLOGY

3.1Method

           The deductive approach and quantitative method were adopted where it uses hypotheses to explain the causal relationships among variables of the study according to (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). The researchers used semi-structured questionnaire to measure four main constructs conducted between the 1^st of January to the 5^th February, 2017.  It was distributed among a sample of 278 out of 1008 tourist companies, selected using a simple random sampling technique with response rate of 85%.

 

3.2 Data collection

           The population for this study is category (A) tourism companies in Egypt. A list of these companies is available from the Egyptian travel Agents Association (ETAA). According to them in (2017), there was 1168 category (A) tourist companies in Egypt. They are located in 23 of Egypt’s 27 governorates. Because of the high concentration of tourist companies in Greater Cairo and Alexandria in addition to the geographical spread of the other governorates throughout Egypt, totally, this sample frame consists of 1008 tourist companies.

This study used online questionnaire using Google form at http://goo.gl/forms/YqIU5iiFQP  in addition to face-to-face questionnaire technique for collecting data. The simple random sampling technique involves selecting the sample at random from the sampling frame using random number tables.

 

3.3 Sample size and technique

              The actual sample size calculated using the following formula by (Thompson, 2012):

 

Where

N	Population size
z	Standard Z= 1.96 (z value corresponding to the level of confidence required)
d	Error accepted level = 0.05
p	Probability level = 0.50

Based on the equation, the suitable sample size is 278 companies.

 

3.4 Questionnaire design

           The semi-structured questionnaire in this study; includes a mixture of closed-ended, open-ended and partially closed ended questions to allow the respondents to choose the most relevant answers and add extra information.

 

3.5 Variables of the study

            The main constructs of the study as shown in figure (1) are the perceived knowledge sharing adoption practices, its enabling organizational, social, and personal factors.

 

Figure (1) research model including the main constructs of the study

       

        Based on the previous theoretical framework, this research tests the following hypotheses:

1-a-The perceived Knowledge sharing organizational factors have no impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H0).

1-b- The perceived Knowledge sharing organizational factors have positive impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H1).

2-a-The perceived Knowledge sharing personal factors have no impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H0).

2-b-The perceived Knowledge sharing personal factors have positive impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H1).

3-a- The perceived Knowledge sharing social factors have no impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H0).

3-b-The perceived Knowledge sharing social factors have positive impact on knowledge sharing adoption (H1).

        These variables are developed from the literature review as the following:

Practices of knowledge-sharing adoption adapted from: (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Walz &Niehoff 2000; Kim & Lee, 2006; Hamid & Sulaiman, 2013; Kim & Lee, 2013; Alhady et al. 2011)

Enabling factors adapted from: (Szulanski, 1996; O’Dell & Grayson, 1998; McDermott & O' Dell, 2001; Szulanski, 2003; Evgeniou & Cartwright, 2005; Reige, 2005; Kim & Joh, 2005; Shahid & Alamgir, 2011; Kaps, 2011; Khalil & Shea, 2012; Gaal et al.2012; Santos, Goldman, & Souza, 2012; Awang, Kareem, & Ismai, 2014).

 

3.6 Questionnaire layout

            Procedures were followed to validate the initial questionnaire form to ensure that it measures what it was supposed to measure. The final questionnaire form is divided into four parts included factors affecting knowledge sharing adoption with response for each item ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

 

3.7 Data analysis tools

            Structural equation modeling (SEM) the advanced multivariate technique was used for the quantitative data analysis. As it has the ability to measure complicated causal relationship among constructs, SEM is considered the highly appropriate analytical approach for this type of study (Olsson et al. 2000).  Moreover, Wrap PLS software version (5) was used to conduct the structural equation modeling analysis where it depicts the regression weights of independent variables on dependent ones. In addition, the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS version 20, Chicago, IL) is used to carry out the descriptive analysis.

 

3.8 The questionnaire validity and the pilot testing

             To investigate the construct validity of the measurement model and its reliability, Table (1) shows that AVEs for all constructs are greater than 0.50 which is an evidence of convergent validity that refers to the overall amount of variance in the items accounted for by a latent construct as stated by (Bland & Altman, 1994) Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability for all constructs exceed 0.70 meaning that the measurement model is reliable.

 Table (1) Statistics of the measurement model

Source: researchers according to research statistical analysis' results

3.9 The Measurement Model

             The measurement model measures the relationships between the observed variables (indicators) and the unobserved variables (constructs) as stated by (Van de Wijngaert, 2010). To validate the measurement model, the construct validity should be assessed. The construct validity assessed by looking at both the discriminant and convergent validities. Discriminant validity means that the constructs must be different from other related constructs, for each pair of constructs according to (Tarling, 2009). Convergent validity refers to the extent of correlation between measures of the same construct, which should be related in reality as mentioned by (Golob, 2003). Average variance extracted (AVE) used for assessing discriminant and convergent validity according to (Dalgaard, 2008; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

 

Table (2) Square roots of AVEs and correlations among constructs

Source: researcher according to research statistical analysis' results

 

4 RESULTS

4.1 Knowledge sharing adoption practices

           This study results proved that the following knowledge sharing adoption practices by employees of the Egyptian tourism companies are exist:

-       When they have learned something new, they tell their colleagues about it,

-       They participate in seminars/ conferences,

-       They make copies of articles and pass them to friends,

-       They are involved in knowledge generation/sharing activities,

-       Knowledge sharing amongst colleagues is considered normal in their learning environment,

-       They cooperate or communicate with other employees in teams or groups for sharing information, 

-       They think it is important that their colleagues know what they are doing,

-       They are willing to help other team members,

-       In a team setting, they would share knowledge with colleagues, who had assisted them in the past,

-       At work, they would share knowledge with colleagues about the latest developments within/ outside the company,

-       They believe that knowledge sharing among teams can help establish their images as an experts, and

-       They voluntarily share their know-how, information, and knowledge with other employees

These results agree with the studies' results of (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Walz & Niehoff, 2000; Kim & Lee, 2006; Hamid & Sulaiman, 2013; Messmann, 2012).

 

4.2 Organizational Personal, and social, factors influencing knowledge sharing adoption:

                 The results of this study found that the following organizational factors are influencing knowledge sharing adoption by the Egyptian tourism companies:

-       Solidarity: ability to pursue shared objectives quickly and effectively,

-       Social networks: Both formal and informal relationships and contacts between employees in company,

-       Reward and Compensation systems that encourages to share knowledge,

-       Realizing that co-worker will find knowledge sharing favorable,

-       Organizational structure (Centralization- formalization degree) of company  encourage increasing levels of knowledge-sharing,

-       Top manager and supervisors in company support quality and level of sharing knowledge,

-       Company's culture facilitates employees to share knowledge as part of daily work activities,

-       Openness: partners have the willingness to communicate and interact in company, and

-       Culture sociability: employees are more like friends than co-workers

                Moreover, Results revealed that the following personal factors are influencing knowledge sharing adoption by the Egyptian tourism companies:

-       Individual attitude toward share knowledge,

-       Job attitude (the readiness to respond favorably or unfavorably toward knowledge sharing with colleagues according to job nature),

-       Considering knowledge as a source of power,

-       Expecting benefits of peers in return of sharing  knowledge with them,

-       Expected rewards, recognition, and status enhancement,

-       Personality characteristics, especially openness to experience  associated with traits are intelligence and curiosity, and reflect a more flexible, imaginative approach,

-       Emotions of pride and empathy toward knowledge sharing, 

-       Self-efficacy and confidence in personal performance,

-       Self-image of feelings of competence, effectiveness, and moral worth in the eyes of  peers,

-       Working place with entrepreneurial, learning and innovation environments where knowledge sharing takes place, and

-       Enjoying helping others.

Furthermore, results indicated that the following social factors are influencing knowledge sharing adoption by the Egyptian tourism companies:

-       The diversity of team members, cooperation & competition among them,

-       Trust: that another party is honest and reliable, knowledgeable,

-       Sharing knowledge will positively affect career advancement, and

-        Expecting future benefits from present  actions of sharing knowledge

 

4.3 The structural model and hypotheses testing:

           The structured model looks at the causal relationships among the unobserved variables as mentioned by (Hox, 2010). It depicts the regression weights of independent variables on dependent ones. In this study, there are 10 hypotheses to test according to Figure (2).

Figure (2) the structural model

Source: researchers based on questionnaire analysis results

 

 

4.3.1 Hypotheses testing results:

1- The perceived Knowledge sharing organizational factors has positive effect on knowledge sharing adoption where (β=0.31, P<0.01) hypothesis 1-a (H0) is not supported and hypothesis 1-b (H1) supported.

1-The perceived Knowledge sharing personal factors has positive effect on knowledge sharing adoption where (β=0.19, P<0.01) so hypothesis 2-a (H0) is not supported and hypothesis 2-b (H1) supported.

2- The perceived Knowledge sharing social factors has positive effect on knowledge sharing adoption where (β=0.15, P<0.01, hence hypothesis 3-a (H0) is not supported and hypothesis 3-b (H1) supported.

 

5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION

           Previous researches such as (Davenport and Prusak 1998; Walz and Niehoff 2000; Kim and Lee 2006; Hamid and Sulaiman 2013; Messmann, 2012) proved that knowledge sharing concept exists, and its practices are applied inside in the Egyptian tourism companies, these results agree with the results of this study.

In addition, the enabling personal factors that influence the adoption of knowledge sharing that were identified by previous researches of (McMillan and Chavis 1986; Bandura 1997; Kim and Lee 2006; Lin 2007; yang 2008; THE and Yong 2011;  Yiu and Law 2012; Kathiravelu, Kenny, and Abu Mansor 2013; Sharri, Abdulrahman, and Ragab 2014; Obrenovic and Qin 2014) agree with the results of this study so, if the CEOs and directors of these tourism companies support and develop it, the result will be an active participation from the employees in knowledge sharing.

Moreover, the enabling social factors that influence the adoption of knowledge sharing that were determined by previous researches of (Hedlund and Nonaka, 1993; Nonaka, 1994; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995; Mishra, 1996; Hall, 2001; Bock et al., 2005; Tiwana and Bush, 2005; Kim and Lee, 2006;Tan, Lim and Ng, 2009; Ling 2011; Carneiro, 2010; Goffee and Jones, 2009;Yiu and Law, 2012; Obrenovic and Qin, 2014) agree with the findings of this study.

Furthermore, the organizational factors influencing knowledge sharing adoption that has been identified by previous researches of (Eisenberger, et al.,1997; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998; Govindarajan, 2000; Gupta and McDermott and O'Dell, 2001; Goh ,2002; Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Kim and Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007; Cheng, et al.,2009; Cheng, HO, and Lau, 2009; Goffee and Jones, 2009; Lim and Ng, 2009; Carneiro, 2010; Tan, Ling, 2011; Obrenovic and Qin, 2014) agree with the results of this study.

On the other hand it was found by previous researches of (Bandura, 1997; Kim and Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007; yang,2008;THE and Yong, 2011; Kathiravelu, Kenny; and Abu Mansor, 2013; Yiu and Law,2012; Sharri, Abdulrahman, and Ragab, 2014; Obrenovic and Qin, 2014) that the perceived Knowledge sharing personal factors has a positive effect on knowledge sharing adoption which is matching the results of this study.

       In addition, previous researches results of (Hedlund and Nonaka, 1993; Nonaka, 1994; Hall, 2001; Mishra, 1996 ; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995; Bock  et al.,2005; Tiwana and Bush, 2005; Kim and Lee, 2006; Tan, Lim, and Ng, 2009; Goffee and Jones, 2009; Carneiro, 2010; Ling, 2011; Yiu and Law, 2012;  Obrenovic and Qin, 2014) agree with this study results which found that the perceived Knowledge sharing social factors has a positive effect on knowledge sharing adoption.

Moreover, results of previous studies of (Eisenberger et al., 1997; O’Dell and Grayson, 1998; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000 ; McDermott and O'Dell, 2001; Goh, 2002;  Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Kim and Lee, 2006; Lin 2007; Goffee and Jones, 2009; Cheng, HO, and Lau, 2009; Cheng, Ho, and Lau, 2009; Tan, Lim and Ng, 2009; Carneiro, 2010;  Ling, 2011; Obrenovic and Qin ,2014) agree with this study results that found positive effect of the perceived Knowledge sharing organizational factors on knowledge sharing adoption

It became clear according to the results that, the perceived Knowledge sharing personal, social, and organizational factors have significant positive impact on knowledge sharing adoption by the Egyptian tourism companies, As such, based on the research results the research provide ideas that provide the basis for improving the applicability of knowledge sharing within Egyptian tourism companies through supporting its enabling factors as the following:

Firstly: implications for supporting personal enabling factors:

A- Using an extra ordinary selection system to attract and retain the best employees who enjoy the following personal traits:

Learning oriented where employees are committed to continuous learning to enhance themselves, open mindness, think outside the box, like communicating and interacting with other employees, enjoy helping others, intelligent, curious,  reflect more flexibility, imaginative

b- Developing and supporting employees' self-efficacy and confidence in their personal performance through:

- Encouraging employees to continuously learn, provide them with more learning opportunities, and facilitate their access to resources necessary for learning, which will be reflected in their self-efficacy.

-Providing evaluative feedback because employees affiliated with highly motivated groups or teams change positively and their self-efficacy rises by time.

-Providing a warm, responsive and supportive work environment encourages exploration, stimulate curiosity, and provide learning materials accelerate the employees' intellectual.

- Observing similar others employees succeed motivate employees to perform the task if they believe that they, too, will be successful.

- Assuring that employees are familiar with their assigned tasks and fully understand what is required to execute these tasks successfully.

c- Supporting employees' self-image of feelings of competence, effectiveness, and moral worth in the eyes of peers through:

 - Providing employees with evaluative feedback about their outstanding performance as recognition for their tasks achievements and their effective participation,

- Communicating their confidence in their capabilities than expressing doubts,

- Involving employees in the decision making process,

- Keeping the employees' positive mood state through the positive work environment.

- Avoiding placing people in situations prematurely where they are likely to fail often.

d- Providing employees' expected rewards, recognition, and status enhancement through:

      - Developing a formal reward system.

- Incorporating Knowledge sharing activities formally in employees’ evaluations and must be rewarded effectively rather than just the occasional verbal recognition for a good job.

e- Keeping positive individual and job attitude toward knowledge sharing through:

- Encouraging a cooperative work environment than competitive work environment,

- Let employees perceive the knowledge sharing benefits,

- Knowing that the positive employees' prior experience of sharing knowledge with others affect their attitude to repeat further opportunities for knowledge sharing,

-Realizing that employee must perceive cooperative intentions of his/her colleagues, which participate effectively in forming his/her positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing.

-Preventing and discourage the opportunistic behavior where employee may exploit the other for short-term gain.

-Avoiding interpersonally unfair treatment to the employees, which trigger negative emotions as feeling of anger and annoyance.

f- Providing the expected benefits of peers in return of sharing knowledge with them through:

- Investing in terms of time and effort in building a cooperative climate that encourage employees to focus on the larger community of the company rather than on their own interests. Therefore, knowledge sharing can be facilitated among them, also in a cooperative climate employees show a tendency to “pay back” their colleagues according to the social exchange theory, moreover the cooperative climate is likely to increase trust among employees, which in turn foster knowledge sharing

g- Supporting personality characteristics, especially (openness to experience) associated with traits are intelligence and curiosity, and reflect a more flexible, imaginative approach through:

-recruiting candidates by human resources' directors of tourism companies that enjoying openness to experience as a personality characteristic

h- Supporting emotions of pride and empathy toward knowledge sharing through:

-Organizing events as possible to celebrate knowledge sharing in order to reinforce the employees Positive emotions of pride and empathy toward knowledge sharing,

- Reinforcing the employees' feeling that what they knows is very valuable to others, thus positively influencing the desire to share.

- Reinforcing the employee pride of his or her expertise and experience because this employee is more likely to be eager to share knowledge.

i- Supporting working place with entrepreneurial, learning and innovation environments where knowledge sharing takes place through encouraging according to Porzse et al.(2012)  the following:

-A high challenge climate, which is formed when the employees are emotionally involved into the company’s goals and operations, and feel joy and experience in their job

       -Freedom: where people are making contacts freely, exchange information, initiate and make decisions.

      - Sharing time: time allocated to discuss suggestions that were not planned and scheduled in advance.

      - Openness: where everyone in the company dares to put new ideas and opinions.

      - Dynamism: where new things happen all the time and ways of thinking are frequently changing.

- Playfulness/Humor: where a relaxed atmosphere with jokes and laughter is present in a high playfulness environment.

- Debates: where clashes and encounters between differing points of views, ideas, experiences and knowledge occurs. In addition, many voices are heard and people are keen on putting their ideas.

- Risk Taking: where decisions are quick and prompt, arising opportunities are taken and concrete experimenting is preferred rather than detailed investigation and analysis.

j - Considering knowledge as a source of power:

      CEOs and directors of tourism companies must support the following:

- Encouraging employees to increase their experiences and power by sharing knowledge especially with someone with higher status such as their supervisor compared to a coworker.

- Encouraging employees to focus on the larger community of the company rather than on their own interests, and place more points in valuable knowledge sharing within the employees’ evaluation.

- providing effective incentives to motivate employees with unique knowledge to share their knowledge.

 

Secondly: implications for supporting social enabling factors:

a- Expecting future benefits from present actions of sharing knowledge:

 CEOs and directors of tourism companies must:

- reassure employees that they will receive incentives for what they share

- Rewards must exceed the costs of sharing such as time, energy and potential loss of ownership and power,

b- Trust: that another party is honest, reliable, and knowledgeable:

CEOs and directors of tourism companies must promote trust between every employee and others through the trust worthy actions and behaviors or the trust builders as stated by Abrams et al. (2003):

Actual trust worthy behaviors:

Acting as the followings:

             - Being clear about what information they are expected to keep confidential.

             - Don’t reveal information they have said they would not reveal.

Being consistent between word and deed through the following:

              - Being clear about what they have committed to do.

              - Set realistic expectations.

Ensuring frequent and rich communication through the following:

              - Make interactions meaningful and memorable

              - have some face-to-face (or at least telephone) contact.

              - Develop close relationships

Engaging in collaborative communication through the following:

              - Avoid being overly critical or judgmental of ideas still in their infancy,

              - Don’t always demand complete solutions from people trying to solve a problem.

              - Work with people to improve jointly on their partially formed ideas.

Ensuring that decisions are fair and transparent through the following:

              - Make sure that people know how and why rules are applied and applied equally,

              -Make promotion and rewards criteria clear-cut.

 

Organizational trust worthy Factors:

Establishing and ensuring shared vision and language through the following:

             - Set common goals,

             - Look for opportunities to create common terminology and ways of thinking,

             - find out the misunderstandings due to differences.

Holding people accountable for trust through the following:

            - include measures of trustworthiness in performance evaluations,

            -  do not reward employees with high performance but are not trustworthy,

            - Foster trust value through Keeping, publicizing, and highlighting both rewarded good examples and punished violations-in multiple forums.

Relational Factors trust worthy Factors:

            Creating personal connections through the following:

            - Create a connection with employees based on non work things they have in common.

            - Maintain a quality connection when they do occasionally run into colleagues and friends including discussing non-work topics,

            - Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence.

     Giving away something of value through the following:

           - When appropriate, take risks in sharing their expertise with their employees,

           - Be willing to offer employees their personal network of contacts when appropriate

      Individual trust worthy Factors:

   Disclosing their expertise and limitations through the following:

           - Admit it when they do not know something rather than expose to embarrassment,

           - listen to employees who know more than they do about a topic.

c- Sharing knowledge will positively affect career advancement:

- CEOs and directors of tourism companies must add knowledge sharing to the criteria of employees’ selection and promotion as evaluation standard where they can advance in their careers 

d- The diversity of team members, cooperation and competition among them:

      CEOs and directors of tourism companies must:

- encourage teams members to share knowledge freely, to learn from one another, to shift workloads flexibly to break up unexpected bottlenecks, to help one another complete jobs and meet deadlines, and to share resources

- Form teams contain individuals with heterogeneous and balanced skills where members have a mutual understanding.

- Form teams involve colleagues drawn from other divisions of the company, perhaps, or even from outside it with a diversity of background and experience.

- assure team members face-to-face contact and close personal relationships because when the members get to know one another and they have a sense of mutual trust, they will cooperate and effectively share their knowledge.

 

Thirdly: supporting organizational factors through:

 a-Supporting culture sociability:

 CEOs and directors of tourism companies must:

-Encourage personal contact among employees where they more likely to turn to friends and colleagues.

- Develop an atmosphere of informality where employees feel comfortable when asking others for help.

- Locate work areas so they intersect with others.

- Personally set the example of sociability in the workplace e.g. praising the employees' sociability behaviors.

b- Supporting employees solidarity:

CEOs and directors of tourism companies must:

- Develop the employees' solidarity as one of the main values adopted by the company.

-Set and announce shared vision, mission, and objectives for the company as a shared interests and direct employees to pursue it quickly and effectively.

- Reinforce the employees' commitment toward the company so they will work together to act as one when times get tough.

C-supporting Social networks:

-CEOs and directors of tourism companies must

- Reinforce and encourage the development and maintaining of social networks and ties between colleagues that are important and a good relationship will enhance knowledge-sharing behavior.

- Jointly establish online community using systems such as enterprise social networking systems (ESNS) to tie the employees where they can strengthen the weak social ties among them and share knowledge more easily and faster. These systems help not only to locate the right persons of expertise but also to visualize one or more paths to those persons, also provides visual maps of network paths of different lengths between an expertise seeker and all potential expertise providers. Moreover, through reviewing the paths, seekers can decide to either contact the expertise holder directly, or pick any intermediate contacts for referral.

d- Establishing reward and Compensation systems that encourages sharing knowledge:

- CEOs and directors of tourism companies should tailor the rewards and compensation according to the specific needs of employees through providing extrinsic motivation that contains  money, promotion, job security, verbal rewards as praise, and feed back , reciprocal relationship, and enhanced reputation, as well as avoidance of punishment . Also providing intrinsic motivation that involves supporting employees' self-efficacy, showing them the value of knowledge sharing behavior in accordance with their own standards, and reinforce their feeling that their behavior of sharing their knowledge is making a difference.

e- Developing organic Organizational structure:

- CEOs and directors of tourism companies should develop an organic organizational structure which is best suite to organizations operating under unstable environmental conditions as tourism companies, also is flexible, adaptable,  team directed, with low levels of formalization, simple rules, policies, and procedures, horizontal specialization that refers to the number of occupational specialties included in an organization and the length of training required of each , decentralized decision making, communication flows in all directions facilitating transferring and sharing knowledge across the organization, and fluidity of tasks adaptable to changing conditions as well as it seeks to maximize employees satisfaction and development.

f- Top managers and supervisors in tourism companies support quality and level of sharing knowledge through:

- Understanding the benefits of knowledge sharing.

-Valuing the contributions of employees and care about their well-being, which, will make them, feel useful and they are making a difference

-Openly interacting with employees.

-Developing high-quality work relationships with their employees to make them feel that the company care about them.

-Developing psychological safety of the work environment so the employees will feel that they can take interpersonal risks, and they will not be punished if they make any mistakes.

-Providing employees with the required physical, emotional, or psychological resources to engage in knowledge sharing.

G-Openness:

CEOs and directors of tourism companies must reinforce the willing of the employees to communicate and interact with other employees within the company and engage in knowledge sharing process. 

h. Supporting company's culture that facilitates employees to share knowledge as part of daily work activities:

- CEOs and directors of tourism companies must take the lead to shape and support a strong culture facilitates knowledge sharing among the company employees through:

Facilitating a positive work environment where managers of all levels according to (Urrabazo 2006) value and activate the following:

Trustworthiness and trust:

- Be honest and competent to be trustworthy by their employees.  

- Mean what they say to employees where if they say they are going to do something they must do it

- Place greater level of trust in their employees and depend on them in achieving the important outcomes.

Empowerment:

- Empower their employees by including them in problem solving through their knowledge sharing or allowing them to put their schedules and assignments.

- Provide their empowered employees by adequate information, resources to do the job, and effective support system to learn and grow through knowledge sharing.

- shouldn't ask any employee to perform a task that he is not willing to do himself.

Consistency:

-Align the company structure, mission statement, shared values, management philosophies and all other aspects with one another that foster and encourage knowledge sharing.

-Make policies, goals and mission statements flexible to be revised and modified when a modification is required.

-Develop a discipline where every employee must understand the rules and the behaviors that are expected within the company as knowledge sharing in this case.

- Remember that they are role models so they cannot discipline their employees to share their knowledge if they did not do that action.

- prevail fairness and consistency when rewarding employees in the form of intrinsic or extrinsic rewards where employees must feel that these rewards are given out for substantial reasons.

Mentorship:

-Establish mentor program within the company where the company values such as knowledge sharing and principles can be communicated and instilled into the behaviors of the new employees through orientation programs and reinforced through the employment.

- Be sure about the convenience between the employee personal values and standards and those of the company.

- Provide mentors to new employees so they will feel that they are not alone in a new environment because they have some one to teach them the language, the rules, and the way of thinking unique to their company in addition to serving as a resource guide.

-Be responsible when selecting employees to serve as mentors to new employees where they must possess certain qualities such as being helpful, caring, flexible, dependable, motivated, respectful, interested in professional growth, confident, knowledgeable, take initiative, have good communication skills, able to deal with conflict, and serve as good role model.

i-Realizing that co-worker find knowledge sharing favorable:

- Employee must perceive as mentioned before a cooperative intentions of his/her colleagues, which participate effectively in forming his/her, positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing.

- CEOs and directors of tourism companies must foster trust and cooperation to overcome risk and the unwillingness to share knowledge

 

 

 

References

Books:

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Dalgaard, P. (2008), Introductory statistics with R, Statistics and Computing Series, Germany, (2^nd edn): Springer.

Davenport, T, & Prusak, L. (1998),Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know,  England: Harvard Business Press. 

Hair, J, Anderson, R, Tatham, R, & Black, W. (1998).Multivariate data analysis, (5^thedn), New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Hox, J (2010), Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications, (2^nd edn), Routledge.

O'Dell, C & Grayson, C. (1998), If Only We Knew What We Know, New York:The Free Press.

Robson, C. (2002), Real World Research, (2^nd edn), Blackwell.

Saunders, M, Lewis, P, & Thornhill, A. (2009), Research methods for business students,  London: Financial Times Prentice Hal.

Szulanski, G. (2003), Sticky Knowledge. Barriers to Knowing in the Firm, London: SAGE Publication.

Tarling, R. (2009), Statistical modeling for social researchers: principles and practice,  Abingdon: Routledge.

Thompson, S. (2012), Sampling, (3^rd  Edn) ,Wiley series in probability and statistics, viewed 20 July 2016, available from: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470402318.html#

Tidd, J, Bessant, J,& Pavitt, K.( 2005), Managing Innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, (3^rd edn) , John Wiley, Chichester

 

Articles:

Abrams, L, Cross, R , Lesser, E , & Levin, D. (2003),’Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive, 17(4),64-77.

Alam, S., Abdullah, Z., Ishak, N., & Zain, Z. (2009),‘ Assessing Knowledge Sharing Behaviour among Employees in SMEs: An Empirical Study’, International Business Research, 2(2),115. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v2n2p115

Awang, M, Kareem, O, & Ismai, R. (2014),’Sharing is Caring. Why do we have Barriers in Knowledge Sharin’, The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning,2(2),25-33.

Bland, J, & Altman, D, (1994),’Regression towards the mean’, BMJ, 308(6942),1499.

Bock, G., & Kim, Y. (2002),’ Breaking the Myths of Rewards. Information Resources Management Journal’, 15(2), 14-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2002040102

Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee. (2005),’ Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators’, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25148669.

Brotherton, B. (1999),' Towards a definitive view of the nature of hospitality and hospitality management', International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol.11, no.4, pp.165-173.

Carneiro, R. (2010),’Transforming universities. In :Ehlers, U, & Schneckenberg, D. (2010),‘Changing Cultures in Higher Education. Moving Ahead to Future Learning’, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany.

Cheng, M, HO, J, & Lau, p. (2009),’ Knowledge sharing in academic institutions : a study of multimedia University Malaysia’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3),313 – 324.

Cooper, C. (2006),'Knowledge management and tourism', Annals of Tourism Research, vol.33, no.,pp.47–64.

Cummings, J. (2004),’Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization’, Management Science, 50(3), 352-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134

Durham, C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. (1997),’ Effects of Leader Role, Team-Set Goal Difficulty, Efficacy, and Tactics on Team Effectiveness. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes’, 72(2), 203-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2739

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997),‘ Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction’, Journal Of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.82.5.812

Evgeniou, T & Cartwright, P. (2005),’Barriers to information management’, European Management Journal, 23(3), 293-299.

Finnegan, D, & Willcocks, L. (2006), ' Knowledge sharing issues in the introduction of a new technology', Journal of Enterprise Information Management, vol.19, no. 6,pp. 568 – 590.

Gaal,z , Szabo, L , Kovacs, N, & Csepregi, A. (2012),’Middle mangers' Maturity of knowledge sharing: investigation of middle managers working at medium and large sized enterprises’, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1),26-38, viewed 15 November 2015, http//www.ejkm.com.

Goh, S. (2002),’ Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice implications’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270210417664

Golob, T. (2003),’ Structural equation modeling for travel behavior research’, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(1), 1-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0191-2615(01)00046-7

Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. (2000),’ Knowledge flows within multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200004)21:4<473::aid-smj84>3.0.co;2-i

Hall, H. (2001),’ Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets’, Journal Of Information Science, 27(3), 139-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551014233653

Hallin, C, & Marnburg, E. (2008), 'Knowledge management in the hospitality industry: A review of empirical research', Tourism Management, vol.29, pp.366–381.

Hamid, A, and Sulaiman, s. (2013),’Relationship between Perceived Costs, Perceived Benefits and Knowledge Sharing Behaviour among Lecturers in Educational Institution in Malaysia’, Pertanika Journal. Soc. Sci. & Hum, 21(3), 937- 951.

Hendriks, P. (1999),’ Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing’, Knowledge And Process Management, 6(2), 91-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1441(199906)6:2<91::aid-kpm54>3.0.co;2-m

Herzberg, F. (2003),’One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?. Harvard Business Review’, January - Special issue, 87-96.

Hu, Meng, Horng, K, & Sun,Y. (2009),' Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service innovation performance', Tourism management, vol.30,pp.41-50.

Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. (2004),’ Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing’, Journal Of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567675

Kaps, I.(2011),’Barriers in intercultural knowledge sharing’,Open Journal of Knowledge Management, (3),6-12.

Khalil, O., & Shea, T. (2012),’ Knowledge Sharing Barriers and Effectiveness at a Higher Education Institution’, International Journal Of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 43-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2012040103

Kathiravelu, S, Kenny, N, & Abu Mansor, k. (2013),'Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB) among Employees of Public Services in Malaysia’, International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 2(3), 107-119.

Kim, S., & Lee, H. (2006),’The Impact of Organizational Context and Information Technology on Employee Knowledge-Sharing Capabilities’, Public Administration Review, 66(3), 370-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00595.x

Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2013),’ Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship between goal orientations and service innovative behavior’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 324-337. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.009

King, C. (2002),'Antecedent, correlates, and outcomes associated with single and three facet models of organizational commitment: A meta-analysis, Dissertation abstracts international,vol.63,no.5.

Lin, H. (2007),’ Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study’, International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332. doi:10.1108/01437720710755272

Ling, C. (2011),’ Culture and Trust in Fostering Knowledge-Sharing’, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 328-339.

Mason, D, & Pauleen, D. (2003),'Perceptions of knowledge management: a qualitative analysis' , Journal of Knowledge Management, vol.7, no.4 ,pp.38–48.

Mayer, R , Davis, J, & Schoorman, F. (1995),’ An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust’, Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001),’ Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76-85. doi:10.1108/13673270110384428

Messmann, G, & Mulder, R. (2012),’Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct’,Human Resource Development International, 15(1), 43-59.

Mishra, A. (1996),’Organizational Responses to Crisis: The Centrality of Trust’. In Tyler, R (edn), Trust in Organisations, 261-287, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mohamed, M, Stankosky, M, & Murray, A. (2004),'Applying knowledge management principles to enhance cross-functional team performance', Journal of Knowledge Management, vol.8, no.3,pp. 127 – 142.

Mohammadi, M. (2014),’The Main factors Influencing Knowledge sharing in private Universities of Malaysia’,Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 6(3), 116-130.

Nonaka, I. (1994),’Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation’, Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Obrenovic, B,& Qin, Y. (2014),’Understanding the concept of individual level knowledge sharing: A review of critical success factors’, Information and Knowledge Management, 4(4), 110-120.

Olsson, U, Foss, T, Troy, S, Howell, R. (2000),’The performance of ML,GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification, and non normality’, Structural equation modeling. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 557-559.

Porzse,G, Takacs, S,  Csedo, Z,  Berta, Z,   Sara, Z, & Fejes, J. (2012),’The impact of creative organizational climate on the innovation activity of medical devices manufacturing firms in Hungary’, European Journal of Business and Management, l.4(13),1-11.

Riege, A. (2005),’Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider’,Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.

Sharatt, M & Usoro, A. (2003),’Understanding Knowledge-Sharing in Online Communities of Practice’, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, 1(2), 187-196.

THE, P, & Yong, C. (2011),’ Knowledge sharing in is personnel: Organizational behavior prospective’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, january, 11-20.

Tiwana, A, & Bush, A. (2005),’Continuance in expertise-sharing networks: A social perspective’,IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 85-101.

Usoro, A, Sharratt, M, Tsui, E, Shekhar, S. (2007)’,Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice’, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3), 199-212.

Urrabazo, C. (2006),’Management's role in shaping organizational culture’, Journal of Nursing Management ,14,  88–194.

Walz, S, & Niehoff, B. (2000),’Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness’, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3), 301-319.

Weidenfeld, A, Williams, M, & Butler, R.( 2010), 'Knowledge transfer and innovation among attractions'. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 604–626.

Yoo, W, Suh, K & Lee, M. (2002), 'Exploring Factors Enhancing Member Participation in Virtual Communities’,Journal of Global Information Management, 10(3), 55-71.

Yiu , M.,& Law ,R. (2012),'Factors influencing knowledge sharing behavior: A social-Psychological view in tourism’,Service Science, 3(2), 11-31.

 

Conferences' proceedings

Alahdy, S, Sawal, M, Idris, A, and Azmi, N. (2011). Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Individual Factors: A Relationship study in the i-Class Environment. In: proceedings of the International Conference on Management and Artificial Intelligence.[online] available at: https://www.google.com.eg/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Knowledge+Sharing+Behavior+and+Individual+Factors:+A+Relationship+study+in+the+i-Class+Environment%27 [accessed 10 JAN. 2016]

Chung, L. (2001). The Role of Management in Knowledge Transfer. In: the Third Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference Adelaide. South Australia, Australia.

Kim, T, & Joh, H. (2005). Key barriers and their strategic responses to activate knowledge sharing in construction organizations. In: the 1st Annual ICCEM International conference on construction Engineering and management. Seoul. Korea.

Van de Wijngaert, L. (2010). A multi-theory approach towards the adoption, use and effects of IT services: The case channel choice in an e-Government setting. In: the Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), IEEE International. Enschede, Netherlands.

 

Theses

Shahid, A, & Alamgir, R. (2011). ICT enabled knowledge sharing-impact of ict on knowledge sharing barriers: The case of Avanade , MS. Viewed 20 April 2016: https://scholar.google.com.eg/scholar?q=Shahid+and+Alamgir+%282011%29&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

 

Governmental Publication

Santos, V, Goldman, A, & Souza (2012), Fostering inter-team knowledge sharing effectiveness in agile software development, Technical Report: RT-MAC-2012-02. [online] available at: Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of São Paulo website: http://ccsl.ime.usp.br/agilcoop/files/technical-report-santosgoldman- souza_2012.pdf