the impacts of the cognitive nature of the task and psychological empowerment on an individual’s...

7/28/2019 The Impacts of the Cognitive Nature of the Task and Psychological Empowerment on an Individuals Knowledge Creation, Sharing, and Application

1/10

The Impacts of the Cognitive Nature of the Task and Psychological

Empowerment on an Individuals Knowledge Creation, Sharing, and

Application

Shahnawaz MuhammedThe American University of

Middle [email protected]

William J. DollThe University of Toledo

[email protected]

Xiaodong DengOakland [email protected]

AbstractOrganizational level studies of knowledge

management have been enhanced by the developmentof the measurement instruments for individualknowledge management practices. However, ourunderstanding on what factors and how these factorsdrive an individuals knowledge creation, knowledge

sharing, and knowledge application activities is stilllimited. This paper explores the influence of thecognitive nature of the task and the psychologicalempowerment of the individuals on the extent to whichan individual engages in the creation, sharing, andapplication of knowledge.

A model of how the nature of the task and theempowerment of knowledge workers are related to anindividuals knowledge management practices is

proposed and tested with structural equation modelingapproach. The results suggest that the cognitive natureof the task drives knowledge creation. While the

psychological empowerment of the knowledge workerenhances knowledge sharing and application,empowerment is not linked to knowledge creation.

1. Introduction

Knowledge creation, sharing, and application arecritical activities for organizations in the globalcompetitive environment [7][9][31][42]. While extantliterature has focused on organizational level studies ofknowledge management [17][18][31], Grant [11] andSimon [39] argue that viewing the organization as anentity that creates, stores, and deploys knowledgeobscures the knowledge management processesthrough which individuals share, create, and applyknowledge. A lack of a broader understanding ofknowledge management (KM) practices and theirantecedents and consequences at the individual level

can potentially hamper the overall research efforts inthe KM field [13].

Individuals are the key entities in an organizationthat create new knowledge and then share it with

others. Drucker [9] observes that the individualsability to create and apply new knowledge makes workgroups or organizations productive. New ideas are firstcreated by individuals and, then, shared acrossnetworks of individuals [22]. Organizations learnthrough their individual members [38]. Insights andinnovative ideas occur to individuals notorganizations [32]. Knowledge intensive organizationsare not productive unless their individual membershave the ability to learn and innovate. Based on thisindividual level perspective, knowledge is created,shared, and applied by individuals within theorganization to meet organizational goals and

objectives [11][39].Muhammed, Doll, and Deng [29][30] have

conducted studies of KM practices and task knowledgeat the individual level to complement theorganizational level studies, leading to a morecomprehensive understanding of knowledgemanagement. They have suggested that knowledgemanagement practices of individuals contribute to

building and utilizing their task knowledge. The taskknowledge influences the individuals innovation and

job performance.However, how the contextual factors in an

organization impact on knowledge management

practices of individuals is an important and, yet,inadequately explored area. The focus of this paper isto explore the relationship between contextual factorsand individual knowledge management practices. Anorganization cannot be viable in the long run unless itsindividuals are active in creating, sharing, and applyingtheir knowledge. Understanding what key factorscontribute to knowledge management practices and themechanism of how will help management develop

programs to enhance individuals KM practices and,

2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

1530-1605/12 $26.00 2012 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2013.525

3662

2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

1530-1605/12 $26.00 2012 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2013.525

3664


2/10

thus, contribute to the organizations long termsustainability.

2. Knowledge management practices at an

individual level in an organizational

context

Figure 1 highlights the focus of current study. Theframework is adopted from Muhammed et al. [29][30]and posits that the contextual factors in an organizationimpact on individuals knowledge management

practices. Organizations are often viewed as entitiesthat provide structure, orientation, and support forindividuals to enhance and use their knowledge. Thesupport and learning orientations the organizations

possess constitute the context of implementingknowledge management initiatives and the subsequentlearning that may occur [18][31].

Knowledge management systems (KMS) refer to

the organizational context that is thought to enhanceknowledge management effectiveness. Jennex andOlfman [18] and Jennex, Smolnik, and Croasdell [19]have identified critical success factors that contributeto better organizational knowledge management andimprove individual employees KM practices. Alsofocusing on organization level facilitating factors,

Nevis et al. [31] describe learning orientations andfacilitating factors that contribute to individual learningand knowledge accumulation. These factorscharacterize the context that influences the degree thatindividual knowledge workers engage in the KM

practices of creating, sharing, and applying knowledge.

The framework contends that individuals KMpractices affect task knowledge and benefit outcomes.

If individuals create, share, and apply knowledge, taskknowledge (conceptual, contextual, and operational)will be enhanced. The enhanced task knowledge willlead to substantive benefits such as innovation andimproved individual performance.

Muhammed et al. [29] operationalize taskknowledge as conceptual (know why), contextual(know who, know where, and know when), andoperational (know what and know how) knowledgeand provide support that these three types of taskknowledge enhance individuals innovation and

performance. In a follow-up study, Muhammed et al.[30] have developed measurement instruments ofknowledge creation, sharing, and application practicesand empirically test a model of how these threeindividual level KM practices are related to each otherand affect an individuals task knowledge.

For a more comprehensive understanding ofknowledge management, Muhammed et al. [30] callfor studies that link organization level contextual

factors or key success factors with KM practices andtask knowledge at the individual level. This studyfocuses on the motivational and support aspects of theKMS success factors [18] such as motivation andcommitment of users, organizational culture andstructure that support learning and sharing and usingknowledge, and senior management support. In

particular, the study identifies the cognitive efforts oftasks and psychological empowerment of knowledgeworkers as two contextual factors that affect individuallevel knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, andknowledge application practices.

2.1. Task nature

The task nature here describes the cognitive effortsthat an individual is involved in the task. It refers to theamount and difficulty of reasoning and thoughtinvolved in performing the job and resolving work

KM/KMS

x Critical Success Factors

x Learning Orientation

x Facilitating Factors

KM Practices

x Creating

x Sharing

x Applying

Task Knowledge

x Conceptual

x Contextual

x Operational

Benefits

x Innovation

x Performance

Individual

KM Practices

Organizational

Context

Muhammed et al. [29][30]Jennex & Olfman [18]; Nevis et al., [31]

Figure 1: The focus of current study the relationship between organizational context andindividual KM practices (indicated by the shaded area)

Individual Knowledge

Management Outcomes

36633665


3/10

problems [15]. Trying to identify the real knowledgeworker, Helton [15, p.26] uses a set of characteristicsthat are typical of knowledge work. The relevantattribute is the cognitive effort. It captures the essentialcharacteristic that is important in knowledge work forstudying how knowledge workers engage in variousKM practices.

2.2. Psychological empowerment

Psychological empowerment is defined as anindividuals task motivation derived through itsassessment of the potential value of his or her work.Conger and Kanungo [5] and Thomas and Velthouse[43] have indicated that psychological empowermentcomprises of four individual cognitions:meaningfulness/ intrinsic motivation, competence/self-efficacy, self-determination/autonomy, and perceivedimpact [41][43]. Autonomy is an individuals sense ofhaving choice in initiating and regulating actions; self-efficacy is an individuals belief in his or her capabilityto perform activities with skill; perceived impact is thedegree to which an individual can influence strategic,administrative, or operating outcomes of work; andmeaningfulness is the value of work goal or purpose,

judged in relation to an individuals own ideals orstandards [41].

2.3. Knowledge creation

Knowledge creation refers to the activities throughwhich an individual synthesizes existing knowledge todevelop new insights or ideas [30][33]. Knowledgecreation involves more cognitive than behavioralactivities [30]. While knowledge may be acquiredwhen individuals are engaged in different behavioralactivities, Kim [22] contends that it is the cognitivereflection that enables the creation of new knowledge

by altering existing mental models or generating newones.

Knowledge creation involves reflecting onobserved new phenomena and making new mentalconnections. Without such reflections and connections,individuals may still perform various activities butthese activities may be considered as routines with

barely any new knowledge being created [30].

2.4. Knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing is the activity of exchangingideas with others through the system documentationsor other artifacts for the explicit purpose of sharing theknowledge in a synchronous or asynchronous mode[30]. It focuses more on the dissemination aspect toassess the extent to which individuals are engaged insharing knowledge with other individuals inorganizations [22]. Unlike knowledge creation, whichis viewed as an internal and cognitive activity,knowledge sharing is more an external and behavioralactivity.

2.5. Knowledge application

Knowledge application refers to the actualutilization of knowledge for productive purposes [30].Applying knowledge is by far the primary activity by

which individual knowledge is made available fororganizational use and value creation. Experientiallearning theory [22][24] suggests that applying existingknowledge is also an important process by whichindividuals gain further knowledge that is specific to

particular tasks and context. Knowledge application is

Organizational Context Knowledge Management Practices

Knowledge

Creation

Knowledge

Sharing

Knowledge

Application

Psychological

Empowerment

Task NatureH1

Figure 2: Relationships between contextual factors and individual level KM practices

H2

H3

H5

H6

H4

36643666


4/10

primarily a behavioral manifestation of the knowledgemanagement process.

3. A model of contextual factors and

individual level knowledge management

practices

The primary emphasis of this paper is to examine

the linkages between contextual factors and individuallevel knowledge management practices. The proposedrelationships are illustrated in Figure 2. In this model,contextual factors include cognitive nature of tasks and

psychological empowerment of knowledge workers.Individual level knowledge management practicesconsist of knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, andknowledge application [30].

First, we examine the impacts of task nature andpsychological empowerment on individual knowledgemanagement practices. When a task is cognitively

challenging, it means that something is new andunknown in terms of how to complete the task.Individual knowledge workers need to come with newways through synthesizing existing knowledge andexpertise. Psychologically empowered knowledgeworkers have the autonomy to conduct the work, havethe skills needed to complete the work, see the impactsof fulfill the work requirements, and enjoy the work. Inthe process of completing the work, they are morewilling to share their knowledge and apply theirknowledge in different situations.

Second, we replicate the interrelationships amongthe practices involved in managing individual

knowledge as examined by Muhammed et al. [30].Knowledge creation is an internal cognitive processthat drives the more external behavioral processesrelated to KM such as knowledge sharing andknowledge application. Knowledge sharing promotesknowledge application.

Various characteristics of an individuals workmay have an impact on what KM actions the individualwould engage in. Most of the job characteristicsliterature had been developed either for jobclassification [37], for job enrichment [14], or tounderstand how the different characteristics of the jobcontributes to the general job outcomes such as

satisfaction, performance and attendance [12]. Manyself actualization or need related variables weresuggested to mediate this relationship. The logic

behind such a proposition is that certain taskcharacteristics could be seen as having highmotivating potential [14].

Task nature is an individual task characteristic thatmay have this motivating potential. When anindividual encounters a task that demands cognitive

efforts, the individual will go through many observe-assess-design-implement (OADI) learning cycles [22].Each cycle involves heavy cognitive efforts at assessand design stages. At the end of each cycle, theindividual will be able to develop something new forthe task. The more mentally challenge the task is, themore learning cycles the individual may involve. Themore learning cycles have been involved in a task, themore leaning or knowledge creation activities areinvolved. Therefore, we contend:

H1: The more cognitive efforts their workdemands, the more individuals are engaged inknowledge creation.

Argote, McEvily and Reagans [2], in reviewingemerging themes and suggesting an integrativeframework for managing knowledge in organizations,have indicated that characteristics of units could be akey driver of effective knowledge management.

Moreover, the perceptual filters people use to interpretthe actions and events influences their acquisition anduse of knowledge [6][36].

Intrinsically motivated individuals engage in moreknowledge creation, they are usually more willing toshare their knowledge, they proactively seek newknowledge that they can use in the organizationalcontext, and they may also try to capture moreknowledge because of their increased knowledgeneeds. Since empowered individuals feel that they aremore autonomous, and that their actions have a greaterimpact, they could be expected to engage in the variousknowledge management activities to a greater extent.

Similarly, individuals who feel competent at their workand thus have greater self-efficacy feelings may sharetheir knowledge to a greater extent than individualswho does not feel competent. Such individuals mayalso generate more knowledge, try to access andcapture more of what they know, and use theirknowledge to a greater extent than individuals who feelless competent. Thus, we hypothesize:

H2: The more individuals are psychologicallyempowered, the more they are engaged inknowledge sharing.

Task centered empowerment is found to be animportant aspect of many individual actions such astheir innovative behaviors and other performanceoutcomes [41]. Spreitzer [41] found that access toinformation related to the various aspects ofindividuals work such as access to organizationsmission and their work unit performance are positivelyrelated to their psychological empowerment. Onlywhen individuals feel empowered will they use such

36653667


5/10

information and proactively implement and incorporatethe insights gained from such information at theirwork. The more empowered they feel to share whatthey know, and access information from others, themore they may engage in these activities.

Similar views can be found in the qualityliterature, where efforts such as TQM are centered ontraining and empowering workers with the knowledgeof statistical process control technique and scientificapproaches so that they can make better decisions andtake actions based on it. The implicit assumptionunderlying this is that all human beings are intelligentand capable of learning [11].

Virtual knowledge workers need to be empoweredto apply knowledge for innovation [8]. Empoweredworkers take an active role in seeking knowledge andother activities whereby they enhance what they knowto successfully conduct their task. Thus, the followinghypothesis is derived:

H3: The more individuals are psychologicallyempowered, the more they are engaged inknowledge application.

The relationships among KM practices have beendeveloped and empirically tested in Muhammed et al.s[30] study. We recap their key points and maintain thesame three hypotheses in this study. This will alsoallow us to observe whether the relationships amongthe three individual level KM practices are affected bycontextual factors.

Knowledge creation at an individual level involvesdeveloping new or modifying existing mental models

to represent business problems [20][22][35].Knowledge creation is a process of engaging inthought and reflection to create or modify ones mentalmodels [22]. It is a highly internal set of cognitiveactivities involving observation, thought, andreflection. It requires significant mental prowess tolearn or to create new knowledge. One way to ensurethat knowledge creation leads to repeated application isto routinize certain portions of that knowledge. Whenan individual is engaged in knowledge creation, thisknowledge is typically applied by the individual inhis/her work if he/she has all the resources necessary to

put the new idea into practice. The individuals

motivation to engage in knowledge creation is typicallythe utilization of that knowledge in work. Thus, wecontend that:

H4: The more individuals are engaged inknowledge creation, the more they will applytheir knowledge.

The relationship has been developed and tested inMuhammed et al.s [30] study. Individual knowledgeworkers engaging in reflection, thought, and learningin a community of practice setting [25] often wish toshare their knowledge. New knowledge created by anindividual needs to be tried out or applied in thecommunity. The knowledge may have to be shared

before it can be applied. Even knowledge creation as ameans for intellectual enhancement is limited withoutthe opportunity to share and sharpen such insightswithin ones community of practice. When working ina community of practice, there seem to be a naturalhuman inclination for internally created knowledge to

be externalized, perhaps due to the need for selfactualization, work fulfillment, or social recognition[16][28]. Thus, we maintain:

H5: The more individuals are engaged inknowledge creation, the more they will sharetheir knowledge.

This relationship has also been developed andtested in Muhammed et al.s [30] study as well. Basedon Kims [22] Observe-Assess-Design-Implement(OADI) model, knowledge creation would occur in theassessment and design stages. Working by oneself or ina team setting, the individual might implement his/heridea immediately. In the situation where it requirescollective action, he/she may share it first and then tryto convince the team of the merit of trying the idea.Sharing knowledge also allows the individual to be

purposefully conscious of that knowledge and providefurther clarity, as needed, and grasp to such

knowledge, which is an essential aspect needed for itsapplication [31]. Once the task knowledge is sharedand understood, it becomes easier to apply thatknowledge. Sharing may also help identify moreopportunities for application. Thus, we maintain:

H6: The more individuals are engaged inknowledge sharing, the more they will applytheir knowledge.

4. Research methods

A survey approach is employed to test the

hypotheses derived from the research model.Following generally accepted psychometric principles[4][34], the questionnaire was developed based on thedomain of the constructs, pretested, and piloted beforethe large scale study.

The following sections briefly describe the largescale study and measurement development. Structuralequation modeling with LISREL is employed for

36663668


6/10

measurement assessment and for testing the researchmodel.

4.1. The sample

A cross-sectional survey design was used tocollect the data to test this model. An email list fromManufacturers News Inc. targeting managerialknowledge workers was used to reach the targetrespondents. Email requests were sent out in tworounds requesting the respondents to complete thesurvey on the web. The survey website implementedtracking of click-throughs based on the emailinvitations to calculate the response rate. Afteradministering two waves of emailing, 252 usableresponses were obtained yielding a 31.6% responserate based on click-throughs. Respondents includedindividuals from a wide range of industries and firmsizes. The majority of the respondents were

professionals, middle level management, or top levelmanagement.

Non-response bias was evaluated using a Chi-square test of goodness-of-fit of various demographicvariables between the first and the second wave of datacollection [40]. The results indicated that no significantdifference existed between the various demographicvariables such as organization type and size, age of theorganization, respondents business functional area,and their position.

4.2. Measures

Respondents were asked to respond to the survey

items (see Table 1) based on a particular project or anassignment. If they did not typically work on projectsthey were asked to respond to the questions based onthe last six months of their work. A five point Likerttype scale where 1= None or to a very little extentand 5= To a very great extent was used for tasknature and knowledge management practices. A seven

point Likert scale was used for empowerment.Items measuring task nature were developed by

this study through a comprehensive literature. Itemsmeasuring psychological empowerment were adaptedfrom Spreitzer [41] and prefixed with During theassignment/project/work in this study. Items for

KM practices were adopted from Muhammed et al.[30] and prefixed with During the assignment/projectwork I have. The leading texts provided a frame ofreference for respondents before answering questions.Separating the leading texts from the main content ofthe items enabled the respondents to focus on theessential elements of the question.

Table 1: Measurement items for task nature,empowerment, and KM practices

Construct Label Items

Task Nature

TASK1My work required significant

amount of reasoning.

TASK2My work required significantamount of knowledge.

TASK3 My work involved intense thinking.TASK4 My work involved complex analysis.

TASK5 My work was mentally challenging.

Empower-

ment

During the assignment/project/

work...

Autonomy

AT1I had autonomy in determining how I

did my job.

AT2I could decide on my own how to go

about doing my work.

AT3I had independence in how I did myjob.

AT4 I had choice in how I did my job.

Self-efficacy

SE1I was confident about my ability todo my job.

SE2

I had mastered the skills necessary to

do my job.

SE3I was confident about my knowledgefor my tasks.

Impact

IP1I had impact on what happened inmy department.

IP2I had control over what happened inmy department.

IP3I had influence over what happened

in my department.

IP4I had impact over the outcomes of

my job.

Meaning

MN1 the work I did was important to me.

MN2 the work I did was important to me.

MN3the work I did was meaningful to

me.

During the assignment/project workI have

Knowledge

Creation

CREA1 created new thinking.

CREA2created new ways of interpreting

situations.

CREA3 created new ways of working.

KnowledgeSharing

SHAR1 shared my insights with others.

SHAR2 shared my knowledge with others.

SHAR3shared my work-related knowledge

with others.

Knowledge

Application

APPL1 applied my know-how.

APPL2 applied my skills.

APPL3 applied my expertise.

5. Results

The data are analyzed using Anderson andGerbings [1] two step process. First, we examine theeight first-order factor correlated measurement modeland assess the measures for reliability, convergentvalidity, and discriminant validity. We also examinedthe second-order measurement model for

36673669


7/10

empowerment. Second, we examine the model-data fitof the combined measurement and structural model andreport on the testing of the substantive hypotheses H1through H6.

5.1. Measurement model results

Information about the descriptive statistics,

reliability (D), convergent validity, and discriminantvalidity of the variables is illustrated in Table 2.Descriptive statistics include the mean, standarddeviation, skewness, and kurtosis. The number of itemsfor each variable and the value range of eachmeasurement item for the variable are also reported in

Table 2. Table 2 also reports the average varianceextracted (AVE), Pearson correlation between theconstructs (r), chi-square difference between pair-wisemodels with correlations between constructs set to freeand set to one (2) for convergent and discriminantvalidity test.

A good measure of convergent validity in mono-method studies is Fornell and Larkers [10] averagevariance extracted (AVE). AVE can range from 0 to 1,

but a value above 0.50 indicates adequate convergentvalidity [1]. AVE for the six factors ranged from 0.59to 0.90, suggesting adequate convergent validity.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics, reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity ofcontextual factors and knowledge management practices

Variable Seq. # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Mean 3.95 5.67 5.83 5.62 5.71 3.25 3.94 4.24

Standard Dev. 0.76 1.06 0.96 1.17 1.31 0.91 0.86 0.74Skewness -0.89 -1.02 -1.03 -1.23 -1.30 -0.43 -0.89 -1.34

Kurtosis 1.46 1.76 1.94 1.79 1.59 -0.12 0.90 2.57

# of Items 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 3

Value Range 5 7 7 7 7 5 5 5

1. Task NatureD = 0.90AVE = 0.65

2. Autonomyr= 0.31** 0.91

2 = 824.32 0.74

3. Self-Efficacy0.15* 0.42** 0.93

488.83 461.49 0.80

4. Impact0.39** 0.55** 0.42** 0.90

723.81 567.05 492.81 0.71

5. Meaningfulness0.36** 0.44** 0.46** 0.60** 0.96

646.02 635.68 637.99 589.12 0.90

6. Knowledge Creation0.25** 0.08 0.07 0.16* 0.27** 0.81

242.49 254.90 258.75 248.48 242.20 0.59

7. Knowledge Sharing0.19** 0.15* 0.13* 0.25** 0.33** 0.38** 0.91

446.94 451.19 455.69 449.17 436.27 228.70 0.78

8. Knowledge Application0.33** 0.33** 0.21** 0.37** 0.38** 0.33** 0.49** 0.91

433.30 428.36 445.46 439.20 416.71 234.16 409.78 0.78** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

F! 12.74 for one degree of freedom is significant at the 0.01 level, corrected for 28 comparisons [8].

36683670


8/10

The eight first-order factor correlatedmeasurement model was judged to have adequate

model-data fit [27] with F2 = 401.51 for 322 degreesof freedom, chi-square per degree of freedom = 1.25,

p-value = 0.00168, RMSEA = 0.031, NNFI = 0.99,and CFI = 0.99. All items except CREA3 had item-factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.74. ItemCREA36 loaded on Knowledge Creation at 0.63. Thecorrelations between factors in Figure 3 are correctedfor attenuation (errors in measurement) and maydiffer slightly from the correlations reported in Table2.

Psychological empowerment theory provides astrong rationale for the second-order measurementmodel. Therefore, a second-order measurementmodel (see Figure 3) was constructed and tested. Themeasurement model was judged to have good model-

data fit with F2

= 171.03 for 128 degrees of freedom,chi-square per degree of freedom = 1.74, RMSEA =0.037, NNFI = 0.99, and CFI = 0.99. Item-factorloadings are all greater than 0.70. The structuralcoefficients from the first order factors to the secondorder empowerment construct are 0.69, 0.60, 0.81,and 0.73 for autonomy, self-efficacy, impact, andmeaningfulness, respectively.

These results indicate that a single second-ordermodel of psychological empowerment with four first-order factors has a very close model-data fit to that ofthe four factor correlated measurement model. Thetarget coefficient or the ratio of chi-square of the fourfactor correlated model (chi-square = 124.53) to thesecond order model (chi-square = 127.12) is 0.98.This target coefficient of 0.98 is interpreted to mean

that the second order empowerment constructexplains 98 percents of the variation in the four first-order factors. Thus, the second-order measurementmodel of psychological empowerment isrecommended and used as a basis for testing thesubstantive hypotheses.

In LISREL, second-order factors are assumed tobe exogenous factors measured by a set of reflectivefirst-order endogenous factors [21]. A second-orderfactor cannot be modeled as an endogenous factorwith exogenous antecedents. Measuring the higherorder factor by aggregating (or parceling) the itemscomprising each of its components enables

researchers to keep the multidimensional nature ofthe higher order construct explicit, allows thecomponent factors to be related to other constructs inthe model, and permits the higher order factor to bemodeled with antecedents [3][26].

Kishton and Widamans [23] internal-consistency approach was applied to create parcelsfor the four first-order factors of psychological

empowerment. All four autonomy items (AT1, AT2,AT3, AT4) were averaged to form a single reflectiveindicator (i.e., an autonomy parcel) of psychologicalempowerment. This procedure was followed to create

parceled indicators for self-efficacy, impact, andmeaningfulness. These four unidimensional parcels

provide reflective indicators of psychologicalempowerment that are used in the structural model totest the substantive hypotheses.

Figure 3: The 2nd order psychologicalempowerment model (Standardized solution)

The measurement model with the psychologicalempowerment construct measured by four reflective

parceled items (Autonomy, Self-efficacy, Impact, andMeaningfulness) was judged to have good model-

data fit with F2 = 166.32 for 125 degrees of freedom,

chi-square per degree of freedom = 1.33, RMSEA =

0.036, NNFI = 0.99, and CFI = 0.99. Item-factorloadings are 0.66, 0.56, 0.80, and 0.75 for parcelsautonomy, self-efficacy, impact, and meaningfulness,respectively.

5.2. Structural model results

To test the hypotheses H1 through H6 derivedfrom the research model, a combined measurementand structural model was examined (see Figure 4).For simplicity and to focus on the structuralrelationship corresponding to H1 thru H6, only thestructural portion of the combined model is depicted.

The model-data fit was considered adequate based onthe fit indices (F2 = 171.03, df = 128, F2/df = 1.34, p-value = 0.00663, RMSEA = 0.037, NNFI = 0.99, CFI= 0.99). The standardized structural coefficients andtheir t-values are shown in Figure 4. All structuralrelationships were significant at p-value < 0.05.

36693671


9/10

Figure 4: Standardized structural coefficientsand t-values

Organizational contextual factors had significantimpacts on knowledge management practices. Theimpacts of cognitive nature of tasks on knowledge

creation (H1: J11 = 0.33, t = 4.61, p-value < 0.01) was

significant. The variance explained by this model forknowledge creation is 11 percents (] = 0.89).Knowledge workers psychological empowermenthad a significant impact on knowledge sharing (H2:

J22 = 0.22, t = 3.44, p-value < 0.01) and knowledge

application (H3: J32 = 0.33, t = 5.18, p-value < 0.01).Among the knowledge management practices,

knowledge application had a significant impact on

knowledge application (H4: E31 = 0.16, t = 2.40, p-

value < 0.05) and knowledge sharing (H5: E21 = 0.38,t = 5.35, p-value < 0.01). Knowledge sharing had a

significant impact on knowledge application (H6: E 32= 0.35, t = 5.23, p-value < 0.01). The variancesexplained by this model for knowledge sharing and

knowledge application are 23 (] = 0.77) and 40 (] =0.60) percents, respectively.

6. Discussions and conclusions

This paper explores the organizationalantecedents of KM practices at an individual level.Critical success factors (CSFs) represent anorganizational context that facilitates the success ofknowledge management initiatives in theorganization. These CSFs contribute to individualsknowledge management practices as well.

This study explored the impacts of two factors(cognitive efforts of task and psychologicalempowerment of knowledge workers) on KM

practices at an individual level. Future studies couldexamine efficacies of other CSFs on individuals KM

practices. The results will help management developefficient programs to enhance the organizationsknowledge workers KM practices.

This study replicated the relationships amongKM practices identified in Muhammed et al. [30].The results suggested the relationships are stable andnot affected by the cognitive efforts of task and

psychological empowerment of knowledge workers.If this observation is applicable to other contextualfactors, this means that the programs developed bymanagement will help enhance the level ofknowledge workers KM practices but alter theworking mechanism among knowledge creation,knowledge sharing, and knowledge application.

This study focuses on the antecedents ofindividual KM practices. Future studies could includethe task knowledge and benefits in a largenormological network (see Figure 1) and investigatethe impacts of each variable on other variablesdownstream.

In sum, the results from the current studyindicate that cognitive nature of a task has effect onknowledge creation practice. Knowledge workers

psychological empowerment impacts on knowledgesharing and knowledge application.

7. References

[1] J.C. Anderson, and D.W. Gerbing, Structuralequation modeling in practice: A review and recommended

two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 1988,pp. 411-423.[2] L. Argote, B. McEvily, and R. Reagans, Managingknowledge in organizations: An integrative framework andreview of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4),2003, pp. 571582.[3] R.P. Bagozzi, and T.F. Heatherton, A general

approach to representing multifaceted personalityconstructs: application to state self-esteem. StructuralEquation Modeling, 1, 1994, pp. 35-67.[4] G.A.J. Churchill, A Paradigm for Developing BetterMeasures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of MarketingResearch, 5, 1979, pp. 64-73.[5] J.A. Conger, and R.N. Kanungo, The empowerment

process: integrating theory and practice. Academy ofManagement Review, 13(3), 1988, pp. 471482.[6] R.L. Daft, and K.E. Weick, Toward a model oforganizations as Interpretation systems. Academy ofManagement Review, 9(2), 1984, pp. 284-295.[7] T.H. Davenport, and L. Prusak, Workingknowledge: how organizations manage what they know.

Ubiquity, 1(24), 2000, pp. 2.[8] W.J. Doll, and X. Deng, A technologyempowerment model for engineering work. Database forAdvances in Information Systems, 41(4), 2010, pp. 52-74.[9] P.F. Drucker, Knowledge-Worker Productivity: TheBiggest Challenge. California Management Review,41(2), 1999, pp. 79-94.[10] C. Fornell, and D.F. Larcker, Evaluating StructuralEquation Models With Unobservable Variables and

36703672


10/10

Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 1981, pp. 39-50.[11] R.M. Grant, Toward a Knowledge-based Theory ofthe Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 1996,

pp. 109-122.[12] R.W. Griffin, A. Welsh, and G. Moorhead,Perceived task characteristics and employee performance:

A literature review. Academy of Management Review,6(4), 1981, pp. 655-664.[13] Z. Guo, and J. Sheffield, A Paradigmatic and

Methodological Examination of KM Research: 2000 to2004. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS2006), Hawaii, USA. 2006.[14] Hackman, J.R., and G.R. Oldham, Work Redesign.Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA. 1980.[15] B.R. Helton, Will the real knowledge worker pleasestand up? Industrial Management, 29 (1), 1987, pp. 26-30.[16] P. Hendriks, Why share knowledge? The influenceof ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing.Knowledge and Process Management, 6, 1999, pp. 91-100.[17] G.P. Huber, Organizational Learning: The

Contributing Processes and the Literatures. OrganizationScience, 2(1), 1991, pp. 88-116.[18] M.E. Jennex, and L. Olfman, Assessing KnowledgeManagement Success. International Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 1(2), 2005, pp. 33-49.[19] M.E. Jennex, S. Smolnik, and D.T. Croasdell,Towards Defining Knowledge Management Success,Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences (HICSS 2007), Hawaii,USA. 2007.[20] Johnson-Laird, P.N., Mental models: Towards acognitive science of language, inference, andconsciousness. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.1983.[21] Joreskog, K.G., and D. Sorbom, LISREL Analysis ofStructural Relationships by the Method of MaximumLikelihood. Scientific Software, Inc.. Moorsville, IN. 1989.[22] D.H. Kim, The Link Between Individual andOrganizational Learning. Sloan Management Review,35(1), 1993, pp. 37-51.[23] J.M. Kishton, and K.F. Widaman, Unidimensional

versus domain representative parceling of questionnaireitems: An empirical example. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 54, 1994, pp. 757-765.[24] Kolb, D.A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the

Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall.Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1984.[25] Lave, J., and E. Wenger, Situated learning: legitimate

peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge, England. 1991.[26] T.D. Little, W.A. Cunningham, G. Shahar, and K.F.Widaman, To parcel or not to parcel: exploring thequestion, weighing the merits. Structural EquationModeling, 9(2), 2002, pp. 151-173.[27] H.W. Marsh, and D. Hocevar, Application ofConfirmatory Factor-analysis to the Study of Self-concept:First- and Higher-order Factor Models and Their InvarianceAcross Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 1985, pp.562-582.

[28] Maslow, A., The farther reaches of human nature.The Viking Press. New York, NY. 1971.

[29] S. Muhammed, W.J. Doll, and X. Deng, A Model ofInterrelationships among Individual Level Knowledge

Management Success Measures. International Journal ofKnowledge Management, 5 (1), 2009, pp. 1-16.[30] S. Muhammed, W.J. Doll, and X. Deng, Impact of

Knowledge Management Practices on Task Knowledge: AnIndividual Level Study. International Journal ofKnowledge Management, 7(4), 2011, pp. 1-21.[31] E.C. Nevis, A.J. DiBella, and J.M. Gould,Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. SloanManagement Review, 36(2), 1995, pp. 73-85.[32] Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi, The knowledge-creatingcompany: how Japanese companies create the dynamics ofinnovation. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 1995.[33] I. Nonaka, A Dynamic Theory of OrganizationalKnowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 1994,

pp. 14-24.[34] Pedhazur, E., and L. Schmelkin, Measurement,Design and Analysis: an Integrated Approach. LawrenceErlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ. 1991.

[35] B.T. Pentland, Grammatical Models ofOrganizational Processes. Organization Science, 6(5),1995, pp. 541-556.[36] R. Sabherwal, and I. Becerra-Fernandez, AnEmpirical Study of the Effect of Knowledge ManagementProcesses at Individual, Group, and Organizational

Levels. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 2003, pp. 225-261.[37] F.L. Schmidt, J.E. Hunter, and K. Pearlman, Task

Differences as Moderators of Aptitude Test Validity inSelection: A Red Herring. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 66(2), 1981, pp. 166-185.[38] P.M. Senge, The Leaders New Work: BuildingLearning Organizations. Sloan Management Review,32(1), 1990, pp. 7-23.[39] H.A. Simon, Bounded Rationality and

Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 2(1),1991, pp. 125-134.

[40] T.W. Smith, The Hidden 25 Percent: an Analysis ofNonresponse on the 1980 General Social Survey. PublicOpinion Quarterly, 47(3), 1983, pp. 386-404.[41] G.M. Spreitzer, Psychological empowerment in theworkplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation.Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1995, pp.14421465.[42] D. Teece, Knowledge and Competence as StrategicAssets. in Handbook on Knowledge Management:Knowledge Matters, ed. C. W. Holsapple. Birkhuser,2004. pp. 129-152.[43] K.W. Thomas, and B.A. Velthouse. Cognitive

elements of empowerment: an interpretive model ofintrinsic task motivation. Academy of ManagementReview, 15(4), 1990, pp. 666681.

36713673

the impacts of the cognitive nature of the task and psychological empowerment on an individual’s...

Documents