Parikalpana: KIIT Journal of Management

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Knowledge Sharing and Turnover Intention in Business Management Institutes: Do Individual Differences Play a Pivotal Role?


Affiliations
1 Amity School of Business, Amity University, Patna- 801503, India
2 KSOM, KIIT Bhubneswar, India
 

Knowledge Sharing (KS) and Turnover Intention (TI)are undoubtedly the most researched topics but it is important to look at the concepts in context to the faculties in the Management institutes, seeing the unconventional nature of the discipline. Armoured by the imperative role of management institutes in creating and distributing knowledge, this study examines the relationship of age, gender, qualif ication and experience with the KSbehaviour of the faculties in management teaching institutes in the eastern and northern states of India. It also tries to answer whether knowledge sharing affects the facultyTI. This is an exploratory study with a total sample size of 339, collected through convenience sampling method, using standard scale questionnaires. The analyses were done with SPSS 20 through correlation and linear regression analysis. The f indings indicated that KS lowered the faculty’s TI and with growing age, better qualif ication and higher experience, the KS behaviour of the faculties increased. At the same time, gender of the faculty members had no effect on theKS behaviour. All the f indings were discussed in reference to the existing literature.

Keywords

Knowledge Sharing, Demographic differences, Turnover Intention, Management Teaching Institutes, Eastern and Northern states of India.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Alvesson, M. (2002). Management of Knowledge Intensive Companies. 1995.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge sharing teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64-77.

  • Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

  • Bartol, K. M.,& Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9 (1), 64-76.

  • Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Bundred, S. (2006). Solutions to Silos: Joining Up Knowledge.Public Money & Management, 125 – 130

  • Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 55-70.

  • De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000), Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge Management. The Academy of Management Executive.

  • Drucker, D. (2001). Knowledge Management: theory doesn’t equal practice. Wall Street and Technology

  • Flowers, V. S., & Hughes, C. L. (1973). Why employees stay. Harvard Business Review, 1-28.

  • Hislop, D. (2003). Linking Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee Relations, 25 (1/2), 182-202.

  • Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., & Eberly, M. B. (2008). Turnover and Retention Research: A Glance at the Past, a Closer Review of the Present, and a Venture into the Future. Academy of Management Annals, 231–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211552

  • Jacobs, E. &Roodt, G. (2007). The development of a knowledge sharing construct to predict turnover intentions. Aslib Proc., 59, 229-248

  • Liao, S. H., Chang J. C., Cheng, S. C. & Kuo, C. M. (2004). Employee relationship and knowledge sharing: a case study of a Taiwanese f inance and securities f irm. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2, 24–34.

  • Lin, C. P. (2006).Gender differs: Modeling knowledge sharing from a perspective of social network ties. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 236-241.

  • March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley

  • Malos, S. B., & Campion, M. A. (1995). An options-based model of career mobility in professional service f irms. Academy of Management Review, 20, 611-644

  • Nielsen, C., & Cappelen, K. (2014). Exploring the Mechanisms of Knowledge Transfer in University Industry Collaborations: A Study of Companies, Students and Researchers. Higher Education Quarterly, 68(4), 375-393

  • Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96-104.

  • Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software project Teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12, 67-78.

  • Orbell, S.,& Verplanken, B. (2010). The automatic component of habit in health behavior: habit as cuecontingent automaticity. Health Psychology, 29 (4), 374-383.

  • Pangil, F.,& Nasrudin, A. M. (2008). Demographic factors and knowledge sharing behaviors among R & D employees. Knowledge management international conference (KMICE), Langkawi, 128-133

  • Paulin, D., & Suneson, K. (2012). Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Barriers – Three Blurry Terms in KM. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 82-92.

  • Qureshi, A. M. A., & Evans, N., (2015). Deterrents to knowledge-sharing in the pharmaceutical industry: a case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 296-314, https:// doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2014-0391

  • Rosser, V. J., (2004).Faculty members’ intention to leave: A National Study on Their Work-life and Satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3).

  • Tett, R. P.,& Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293

  • Verplanken, B. & Aarts, H. (1999). Habit, attitude, and planned behaviour: is habit an empty construct or an interesting case of goal-directed automaticity?. European Review of Social Psychology, 10(1), 101-134.

  • Verplanken, B.,& Orbell, S. (2003). Reflections on past behavior: a self report index of habit strength. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313-1330.

  • Xiong, S.,& Deng, H. (2008). Critical Success Factors for Effective Knowledge Sharing in Chinese Joint Ventures. In the Proceedings of the 2008, Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Paper 95

  • Zheng, T. T. (2017). A Literature Review on Knowledge Sharing. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 51-58. https:// doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.53006

  • Zhou, Y., &Volkwein, J. F. (2004). Examining the influences on faculty departure intention: A comparison of tenured versus non-tenured faculty at research universities using NSOPF-99. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 139-176.

  • Zimmerman. R. D.,& Darnold. T. C. (2009). The impact of job performance on employee turnover intentions and the voluntary turnover process: A meta-analysis and path model. Personnel Review, 38, 142-158.


Abstract Views: 399

PDF Views: 0




  • Knowledge Sharing and Turnover Intention in Business Management Institutes: Do Individual Differences Play a Pivotal Role?

Abstract Views: 399  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Manisha Srivastava
Amity School of Business, Amity University, Patna- 801503, India
Anita Pradhan
KSOM, KIIT Bhubneswar, India

Abstract


Knowledge Sharing (KS) and Turnover Intention (TI)are undoubtedly the most researched topics but it is important to look at the concepts in context to the faculties in the Management institutes, seeing the unconventional nature of the discipline. Armoured by the imperative role of management institutes in creating and distributing knowledge, this study examines the relationship of age, gender, qualif ication and experience with the KSbehaviour of the faculties in management teaching institutes in the eastern and northern states of India. It also tries to answer whether knowledge sharing affects the facultyTI. This is an exploratory study with a total sample size of 339, collected through convenience sampling method, using standard scale questionnaires. The analyses were done with SPSS 20 through correlation and linear regression analysis. The f indings indicated that KS lowered the faculty’s TI and with growing age, better qualif ication and higher experience, the KS behaviour of the faculties increased. At the same time, gender of the faculty members had no effect on theKS behaviour. All the f indings were discussed in reference to the existing literature.

Keywords


Knowledge Sharing, Demographic differences, Turnover Intention, Management Teaching Institutes, Eastern and Northern states of India.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.23862/kiit-parikalpana%2F2019%2Fv15%2Fi1-2%2F190175