KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

http://iaeme.com/Home/journal/IJM 2320 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Management (IJM)
Volume 11, Issue 6, June 2020, pp. 2320-2327, Article ID: IJM_11_06_221
Available online at https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=11&Issue=6
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4ASQF
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND
RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS
KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING
EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT
Arul Ramanatha Pillai
Assistant Professor & Research Advisor, PG and Research Department of Commerce,
St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu, India. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9877-647X
Pavithra Sivagnanam
Ph.D Research Scholar (Full-Time), PG and Research Department of Commerce,
St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Affiliated to Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli,
Tamil Nadu, India. ORCID ID: 0000-000-6765-4795
ABSTRACT
Purpose: This research examines the impact of individual self-efficacy and research
collaboration among college professors. Higher education institutions involve the
dissemination of knowledge and learning, knowledge management is thus deemed as
significant in this field. Knowledge management has dimensions like knowledge
creation, acquisition, storing, and sharing. The research aims to determine the essence
of knowledge-sharing practices.
Methodology: The research sample includes 410 respondents in Tamil Nadu. Data
collection is made through a structured measurement scale. The hypotheses were tested
and data were analyzed by using statistical tools such as descriptive statistics, reliability
tests, correlation analysis, and structural equation modeling.
Findings: In higher education institutions, the faculty member is engage in
knowledge-sharing aspects in recent days. It is very essential to retain the quality of
knowledge among the faculty members.
Conclusion: The education institution may facilitate the facilities to maintain and
equip the knowledge of the professor. The institution must facilitate and support for
proper implementation of the knowledge management strategy.
Key words: Self-efficacy, Research Collaboration, Knowledge sharing, Higher
Education Institutions.

Knowledge Self-Efficacy and Research Collaboration Towards Knowledge Sharing: The
Moderating Effect of Employee Commitment
Cite this Article: Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pavithra Sivagnanam, Knowledge Self-
Efficacy and Research Collaboration Towards Knowledge Sharing: The Moderating
Effect of Employee Commitment, International Journal of Management (IJM), 11(6),
2020, pp. 2320-2327.
https://iaeme.com/Home/issue/IJM?Volume=11&Issue=6
1. INTRODUCTION
Higher educational institutions (HEIs) are currently making and applying knowledge (Hashim
& Al-Sulami, 2018) for generating a skilled workforce for a healthier future in India. The
development in the number of higher education institutions in India throughout the previous
few years has offered ascent to a significant level of competition (Arqawi et al., 2018) and
endless pressing factors for perfection (Sinha, 2012). If knowledge is collective with learning,
insights, and abilities of judgment, wisdom is engendered (Masa’deh et al., 2017). Though
knowledge can be shared with others, wisdom is replicated to be too personal and is nearly
special to that of our minds, and thus when shared capacity becomes unfitted with the minds of
other individuals constructing it meaningless (Gottschalk, 2005). Making knowledge accessible
to the right people at the right time (Charles & Nawe, n.d.) is essential for constructing and
sustaining an organization’s proficiencies. Along these lines in the Education sector today,
managing knowledge is viewed as key to accomplishing a breakthrough competitive advantage
(V Nair & Munusami, 2019), which is important because the job of private players in this
ground has increased extremely in the past decades (Sinha, 2012). The relationship among the
knowledge management process and creativeness among faculties in the educational
institutions specify that there is a positive relationship exists between the knowledge
management process and creativity (Rahimi et al., 2011).
The knowledge management concept into four unique types of perspectives which are to
make knowledge repositories (Dowens, 2014), to increase knowledge access (Yeshinegus
Adamseged & Janne Hong, 2018), to enrich the knowledge environment (Zahrawi, 2019), and
to accomplish knowledge as an asset (Ling et al., 2014). The knowledge management processes
such as knowledge generation (R, 2015), accessing the external knowledge, knowledge
documents, software, and databases, entrench knowledge processes, transfer the existing
knowledge (V Nair & Munusami, 2019) everywhere in an organization, exhausting assessable
knowledge in decision making, enabling knowledge growth however culture (Omerzel et al.,
2011) and incentives and assessing the significance of knowledge assets and the effect of
knowledge management (Galagan, 1997). Knowledge management can be applied in an
educational institution by making an innovative and flexible relationship among the
stakeholders, serving students to match their abilities more closely to their present workplace
demands (Ling et al., 2014), and donating to the adaptation and integration of new knowledge
which is compared with existing ones. Also contributes to the re-association of knowledge with
experience (Metaxiotis & Psarras, 2003).
1.1. Research Objectives
The following are the objectives of this study:
• to identify the knowledge-sharing practices in higher education institutions
• to explore the importance of research collaboration among the faculty members.
• to find out the moderating impact of employee commitment towards knowledge sharing.

Arul Ramanatha Pillai and Pavithra Sivagnanam
2. LITERARY REVISED
2.1. Knowledge Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is well-defined as people’s judgments of their abilities to categorize and execute
the activities necessary to attain selected types of performances (Bandura, 1986). Social
Cognitive Theory describes one’s capacity to systematize and implement the desired
performance, nevertheless of the background (Hamid et al., 2019). This fundamental
supposition of the theory displays the effect of self-efficacy on knowledge sharing. Self-
efficacy is a vital element of performance as faculty with high self-efficacy will have a high
tolerance to obstacles from the stress in the working environment (Keskin, 2019). Faculty with
high self-efficacy will be capable to reduce their stress and anxiety (Nair & Sivakumar, 2019)
and accomplish at a higher anticipation level (Na-Nan & Sanamthong, 2019), which ultimately
leads to better job performance. Self-efficacy compressed job performance and it is an
ascending factor to motivate faculty for a high rate of performance (Keskin, 2019).
2.2. Research Collaboration
Research collaboration is a way to share knowledge by faculty members elaborate in a
collaborative manner. This collaboration implicates informal support, sharing thoughts,
materials, story-telling, and ideas where academic staff can share duties (Cornelissena et al.
2011). It is important to recognize the research collaboration requirement of an institution to
define academic collaboration of policies that encourage collaboration among faculty members.
They need to appreciate that a well-organized interactive research association grows of an
individual efficiency that provides the group with a research proficiency that is vibrant to
institutional performance (Kogut & Zander 1996). Kim and Ju (2008) explained that institutions
lead to generating new knowledge that comes from the processing an existing knowledge; still,
there was a necessity for a methodical structure to assist faculty members to share knowledge
and collaborate efficiently since effective collaboration among faculty members.
2.3. Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is one of the major tasks in institutional knowledge management. Nonaka
and Konno (1998) proposed that institutional members can engage new knowledge from their
co-workers to be leveraged by the institutions. Other information systems recommended that
the individual’s reference group within an institution outcome in knowledge sharing, which can
keep knowledge obtained from different sources to attend as a monitor for future
accomplishment (Lukas et al., 1996). Some of the researchers recommended that knowledge in
an institution results from a gathering of individual-level knowledge (Shrivastava, 1983).
Dodgson (1993) describes that intra-institutional knowledge sharing supports the institution by
the dissemination of individual-level knowledge to accomplish two major purposes of
knowledge effectiveness: improving efficiency and innovation when the institution is facing
conservational uncertainty.
2.4. Competence
The concepts of competencies and knowledge are closely associated (Hellström et al., 2000)
and competence management performs are generally used in knowledge exhaustive institutions
(Vasconcelos et al., 2003). It is measurable characteristics of an individual are required to
perform some particular task in a specific work circumstance (Klendauer et al., 2012) can cope
with competencies that are closely associated with superior performance as skills, knowledge,
and behaviors that provide to an institutional success (Prahalad & Hamel 1990). It aims to make
optimum use of human skills as well as knowledge (García-Barriocanal et al., 2012). Maamri
(2016) discusses that knowledge management and competence management leads to an

emphasis on resource distribution and have a positive impact on expenditures. This paper
explains an approach to knowledge sharing depends on the fundamentals of knowledge and
competence management, which determines services that provide the same functionality.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample Method
The sample of this study was drawn based on NIRF-ranked colleges in 2019 in Tamil Nadu.
There are thirteen colleges were come under this category. From the population, the researcher
has received responses from 410 samples by using a simple random sampling method. The
measurement scale was used to collect the primary data from the respective respondents.
3.2. Measures and Tools
The measures were taken from pre-defined items in the previous studies. The first part deals
with the demographic profile of the respondents. Followed by knowledge self-efficacy has 4–
items and research collaboration have 4–items which are adapted from Tan & Noor (2013).
Knowledge sharing has 3–items derived by Muhammed (2006), and Competence has 14–items
adapted from Conhado et al., (2015). The data were collected through an online mode of survey
(Google forms). After the data collection, the analysis was made with appropriate statistical
tools like percentage analysis, mean, standard deviation, correlation, and structural equation
modeling. By using these tools, the hypothesis was tested in this study.
3.3. Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework is framed with the support of a literature review of previous studies.
Figure 1 The Conceptual Framework Model
3.4. Hypotheses Development
H1: Knowledge self-efficacy is positively and significantly related to knowledge sharing
H2: Research Collaboration is positively and significantly related to knowledge sharing
H3: Competence moderated the relationship between the knowledge self-efficacy and
knowledge sharing
H4: Competence moderated the relationship between the knowledge self-efficacy and
knowledge sharing

4. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Table 1 Distribution of the Sample
Variables Category Respondents Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 224 56.13
Female 186 43.87
Discipline
Arts 213 52.58
Science 157 47.42
Associate Professor 177 43.17
Assistant Professor 233 56.83
Educational Qualification
Post-Graduation 109 15.81
M. Phil 157 24.84
Ph.D 234 59.35
Years of Experience
Below 5 years 159 33.55
6 to 10 years 120 24.19
11 to 15 years 124 28.71
Above 16 years 113 15.48
N = 410
Source: Field Data
As obtained from table 1, out of 410 respondents, 224 respondents were males and 186
respondents were females. According to discipline-wise, 213 respondents belonged to the arts
category and 157 respondents belonged to the science category. Designation wise, 177
respondents worked as associate professors and 233 respondents worked as an assistant
professors. 109 respondents had post-graduation degrees, 157 has M.Phil. degrees, and 234 has
doctorate degrees. According to their experience, 159 respondents had below 5 years of
experience, 120 respondents had 6 - 10 years of experience, 124 respondents had 11 - 15 years
of experience, and 113 respondents had 16 and above years of experience.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics
(SA – Strongly agree, A – Agree, N – Neutral, DA – Disagree, SDA – Strongly Disagree)
Variable Item Mean SD % Majority
Knowledge Self-
Efficacy
I am confident in my ability to provide knowledge
that other academic faculty consider valuable
2.72 1.31 25.39 A
I have the expertise required to provide valuable
knowledge to academic faculty
2.92 1.22 30.01 N
It does make a difference when I share my knowledge
with other academic faculty
2.47 1.36 35.11 SA
I can provide more valuable knowledge than most of
the academic faculty
2.72 1.41 26.02 A
Research
Collaboration
I prefer to work collaboratively with other academics
in my faculty/school rather than work alone
2.98 1.40 27.59 N
If I have options, I prefer to work with other
academics in my faculty/school than to working
independently
2.83 1.50 28.84 SA
The academics in my faculty/school were satisfied
with the current levels of collaboration
2.71 1.40 27.90 A
There is a willingness to collaborate across
departments and research centers at my institution
2.49 1.36 33.54 SA
Knowledge
Sharing
I have shared my best practices 2.97 1.34 24.76 A
I have shared the information that I used 2.83 1.31 27.27 N
I have shared the information that I have gained
elsewhere
2.53 1.23 31.66 A
Competence
Ability to come up with new ideas and solutions 2.73 1.39 18.18 A
Ability to find new ways to apply existing knowledge 2.50 1.35 33.23 SA

Ability to use information and communication
technology
2.61 1.40 30.72 SA
Ability to use computers and the internet 2.99 1.38 25.07 A
Willingness to question prevailing ideas 3.16 1.45 27.90 DA
Ability to make your meaning clear to others 3.26 1.34 30.41 N
Ability to present products, ideas, or reports to an
audience
2.82 1.44 24.76 SA
Ability to write reports, memos, or documents 2.75 2.75 25.39 SA
Ability to write and speak in a foreign language 3.95 2.53 57.26 A
Ability to mobilize the capacities of others 2.95 3.61 37.96 SA
Ability to work productively with others 1.90 2.87 48.02 A
Ability to assert your authority 2.73 1.33 18.72 A
Ability to negotiate effectively 2.50 1.35 29.11 N
Alertness to new opportunities 2.49 1.36 31.27 A
Source: Field Data
It could be inferred from table 2, that the respondents give their self-efficacy and research
collaboration on knowledge-sharing practices in higher education institutions. The range of the
mean lies between (1.90 - 3.95). Among these, the majority of the respondents belonged to
(57.26) to write foreign language for knowledge sharing aspects.
Table 3 Karl Pearson Correlation
Factors KSE RC KS COM
Knowledge Self-Efficacy (KSE) 0.4829*
Research Collaboration (RC) 0.5253
Knowledge Sharing (KS) 0.3093* 0.3852
Competence (COM) 0.5286* 0.7642* 0.4872* 0.5724*
Note: * represents that values are significant at the 0.05 level
Table 4 Structural Equation Modelling and Summary of hypothesis testing
Hypotheses
Std.
Coeff
t-value p-value Results
Knowledge self-efficacy is positively and significantly
related to knowledge sharing
0.478 7.49 0.035 Supported
Research Collaboration is positively and significantly
related to knowledge sharing
0.374 6.67 0.016 Supported
Competence moderates the relationship between the
knowledge self-efficacy and knowledge sharing
0.361 9.03 0.083 Not Supported
Competence moderates the relationship between the
knowledge self-efficacy and knowledge sharing
0.346 5.32 0.299 Supported
5. CONCLUSION
The study explored that the knowledge-sharing practices held in educational institutions were
critical. Because the faculty members are having various techniques from their point of view.
The management must facilitate the requirement of faculty members to enhance collaboration
with experts across the global levels The findings of the study were that there is a positive
relationship exists between knowledge self-efficacy and research collaboration with knowledge
sharing activities. Also, competence moderates the relationship between research collaboration
with knowledge sharing. But, competence does not moderate the relationship between self-
efficacy with knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing will enhance the quality and standard
level of educational institutions. It generates the roadmap to attain the goal with the support of
knowledge management practices. Proper adoption of the framework and implementation of
knowledge management strategies may lead to enriching the collaboration and improving the

self-efficacy. The result shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between
research collaboration and knowledge sharing among faculty members. The extent of
knowledge sharing by staff has a significant impression on research collaboration. It was
reliable with the concept that knowledge sharing was important to overwhelm the research
restrictions faced by academicians to improve a regularly suitable sustainable research strategy
among faculty members in higher education institutions.
REFERENCES
[1] Hashim, H. S., & Al-Sulami, Z. A. (2018). Promoting successful knowledge management
processes integrated into information technology in higher education universities in Iraq.
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 96(24), 8291–8299.
[2] Arqawi, S. M., Al, A. A., Naser, S. S. A., & Shobaki, M. J. Al. (2018). Obstacles to the
Application of Knowledge Management from the Point of View of the Employees at the
Technical University of Palestine ( Kadoorei ). 2(9), 1–16.
[3] Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic Knowledge Management Technology. Idea Group Publishing,
United Stated of America.
[4] V Nair, B., & Munusami, C. (2019). Knowledge management practices. Journal of Research in
Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(2), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-01-2019-0008
[5] Sinha, P. (2012). Challenges and Prospects of Knowledge Management Practices. 1(March
2018).
[6] Rahimi, H., A. Arbabisarjou, S.M. Allameh, R. Aghababaei, 2011. Relationship between
Knowledge Management Process and Creativity among Faculty Members in the University.
Interdisciplinary Journal of of Information, Knowledge and Management, 6.
[7] Downes, T. V. (2014). An evaluation of knowledge management practices in nonprofit
community services organisations in Australia Publication details.
[8] Yeshinegus Adamseged, H., & Janne Hong, J. (2018). Journal of Education and Practice
www.iiste.org ISSN (Vol. 9, Issue 24). Online. www.iiste.org
[9] Zahrawi, A. (2019). Establishing a framework for knowledge management in higher education
institution. Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, ECKM, 2,
1114–1122. https://doi.org/10.34190/KM.19.175
[10] Ling, N. E., Bakar, R., & Islam, M. A. (2014). Awareness of knowledge management among
higher learning institutions: A review. Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(9 SPEC. ISSUE
4), 436–439.
[11] R, P. T. (2015). Review of Knowledge Management in Higher Education. International Journal
of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(11), 2062–2065. https://doi.org/10.21275/v4i11.nov151609
[12] Omerzel, D. G., Biloslavo, R., & Trnavcevic, A. (2011). Knowledge management and
organisational culture in higher education institutions content in a trusted digital archive .
Journal for East European Management Studies, 16(2), 111–139.
https://doi.org/10.2307/23281852
[13] Galagan, P., 1997. Smart companies (knowledge management). Training and Development,
51(12): 20-5.
[14] Metaxiotis & John Psarras. (2006). Knowledge Cities: Answer to the Needs of Knowledge
Based Development. VINE, 36(1).
[15] Hamid, R. A., Rahid, M. R., & Hamid, S. N. A. (2019). The effects of employee participation
in creative-relevant process and creative self-efficacy on employee creativity. Malaysian
Journal of Society and Space, 16 (2), 179-191

[16] Keskin, E. (2019). Relationships among Self-efficacy, Job Resourcefulness and Job
Performance of Hotel Cooks in Cappadocia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism,
5(1), 17-27
[17] Nair, R. S., & Sivakumar, V. (2019). Knowledge Sharing: Will it Enhance the Link between
Self- Efficacy and Workplace Spirituality?. International Journal of Management and
Humanities (IJMH,) 4(9).
[18] Na-Nan, K., & Sanamthong, E. (2019). Self-efficacy and employee job performance: Mediating
effects of perceived workplace support, motivation to transfer and transfer of training.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 37(1), 1- 17.
[19] Keskin, E. (2019). Relationships among Self-efficacy, Job Resourcefulness and Job
Performance of Hotel Cooks in Cappadocia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic Tourism,
5(1), 17-27.
[20] Cornelissena, F., Swetb, J.v., Beijaarda, D., and Bergen, T. (2011), ‘Aspects of school–
university research networks that play a role in developing, sharing and using knowledge based
on teacher research’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 147–156
[21] Kogut, B., and Zander, U. (1996), ‘What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning’,
Organization Science, 7(5), 502-518.
[22] Kim, S., and Ju, B. (2008), ‘An analysis offaculty perceptions: attitudes toward knowledge
sharing and collaboration in an academic institution’, Library & Information Science Research,
30(4), 282–290.
[23] Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge
creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.
[24] Lukas, A., Hult, M., & Ferrell, C. (1996). A theoretical perspective of the antecedents and
consequences of organizational learning in marketing channels. Journal of Business Research,
36(3), 233–244.
[25] Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management
Studies, 20(10), 7-28.
[26] Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization
Studies, 14(3), 375–394.

KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

Similar to KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

KNOWLEDGE SELF-EFFICACY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATION TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT