Examining the Relationship between Learning Organization Culture and Knowledge Sharing Intention Emphasizing the Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among EFL and Non-EFL University Instructors in Iran

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 1, Volume 50, Issue 1, April 2017, Pages 53-85   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v50i1.62142

Authors

Azar Hosseini Fatemi; Ghasem Barani^*

Department of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
It is believed that the primary mission of educational systems is the creation, preservation, integration, dissemination, and application of knowledge. Educational systems engage in different knowledge management activities among which knowledge sharing has been claimed to be the most important one. The knowledge-based view of the organization considers the organization as a knowledge-creating entity (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990) and argues that effective knowledge management is a crucial factor for success in every sector including higher education. It has become a norm to refer to today’s economy as a knowledge-based economy. Knowledge is increasingly becoming “the” resource, rather than “a” resource for wealth generation; ''knowledge is power''. It is widely recognized that knowledge is the critical asset to individual as well as organization to succeed in the increasingly competitive environment (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Taghvaee Yazdi & Eynali, 2015; Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004; Yang, 2007). The present study aimed to examine the relationship between learning organization culture and knowledge sharing intention with emphasis on the mediating role of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior among EFL and non-EFL university instructors in Iran. It also sought to investigate whether the proposed model of knowledge-sharing intention (KSI) fits the data in the EFL context of Iran.
2. Methodology
Due to the aim of this study, examining the relationship between learning organization culture and knowledge sharing intention emphasizing the mediating role of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour among EFL and non-EFL university instructors in Iran, participants were selected from both groups of university instructors and were organized into two groups, each consisting of 100 individuals. A self-reporting questionnaire with 41 items was given to each participant to measure their perceptions of knowledge-sharing intention (KSI) (5 items), organizational commitment (OC), organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), and learning organization culture (LOC). All these four instruments were originally developed and validated in the U.S. and in English but for this study the Persian versions of questionnaires were used in order to increase the return rate (Khajavy, Ghonsooly, Hosseini, & Choi, 2016). All the scales were translated by the researcher into Persian and then were back-translated into English by an expert in translation. Back-translation was used to assure the accurate translation of the scales. All the variables were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, indicating strongly disagree and strongly agree, respectively. Descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modelling (SEM) were applied; at the end, AMOS 16 software was used in order to analyse the data.
3. Discussion
As it has already been mentioned, many organizations try to provide conditions in which their staff could learn continuously and share their ideas in order to help accumulate and change a bunch of personal experiences and knowledge into organizational knowledge KSI. A closer analysis of the results proved that EFL instructors held a higher degree of KSI, organizational commitment (OC), and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) compared to those by their counterparts in the non-EFL group. The reason can be attributed to the fact that non-EFL group included instructors of a variety of university fields, holding a vast range of job positions and opportunities. Besides, subcomponents of each questionnaire need more scrutiny to achieve a better understanding of the causes involved. Members of this group especially those involved in engineering fields were mainly busy with out-of-campus jobs. This study contributes to our knowledge in several important ways. First and foremost, it showed that what is considered to be a determining factor in a setting could vary profoundly across different educational centres. Factors considered as predictors were not of the same significance in different settings and for different staff. Based on the findings of this study, some further research issues were raised. First, job conditions determine one’s recognition about what behaviours and relations will flourish and develop in an organization. Therefore, the same study could be applied for different situations and job conditions. Second, the underlying reasons causing these phenomena with respect to subcomponents of each factor can be the focus of further research. Also, the indirect relationships involved in the current or similar studies can be taken into account and the last point is that the findings of studies similar to the current one can be exploited for managerial and administrative purposes both in academic and business settings.

4. Conclusion
The results showed that LOC was positively and significantly related to OC. Further, it was concluded that OC was positively and significantly related to KSI. It was also found that there was a great positive and significant relationship between OCB and KSI. The results revealed that LOC was positively and significantly related to OC, and OCB. Furthermore, it was concluded that OCB was positively and significantly related to KSI. The results also indicated that there was a significant difference in the scores for KSI in EFL instructors and KSI in non-EFL instructors. There was a significant difference in the scores for OC in EFL instructors and OC in non-EFL instructors. There was a significant difference in the scores for OCB in EFL instructors and OCB in non-EFL instructors. On the other hand, there was not a significant difference in the scores for LOC in EFL instructors and LOC in non-EFL instructors. Based on the results of the study, LOC was a significant positive predictor of OC and KSI. It was also found that OC was a positive predictor of KSI and OCB was a positive predictor of KSI. However, LOC was not a significant predictor of OCB. OC was not a significant predictor of OCB as well.

Keywords

EFL and Non-EFL University Instructors; Knowledge Sharing Intention; Learning Organization Culture; Organizational Citizenship Behaviour; Organizational Commitment

References

1. بشلیده، ک.، ارشدی، ن.، و سخراوی، ر. (1395). بررسی رابطة فرهنگ یادگیری سازمانی با توانمندسازی روان‌شناختی نوآوری سازمانی با توجه به نقش میانجی‌گری یادگیری سازمانی در کارکنان شرکت ملی حفاری ایران. مدیریت بر آموزش سازمان‌ها، ۵(۱)، 163-188.

2. تقوی، م.، و شریفی‌میلایی، ح. (1389). رابطة بین رهبری خدمتگزار با تعهد‬ سازمانی و مؤلفه‌های آن در سازمان بهزیستی اصفهان. پژوهش‌های مدیریت، ۴(۱۱)، ۱۰۵-۱۲۴.

3. حسین‌پور، د.، اصغری‌اقدم، ب.، و محجوب، ع. (1394). تأثیر فرهنگ سازمانی بر یادگیری سازمانی. فصلنامة رسالت مدیریت دولتی، ۴(۱۱و۱۲)، ۵۷-۷۰.

4. زارعی‌متین، ح. (1391). مدیریت رفتاری سازمانی پیشرفته. تهران: آگه.

5. سلیمی، م.، حسنی، ا.، رعدآبادی، م.، طاهری‌میرقائد، م.، حسینی، س.ه، بختیاری، م. (1392)، همبستگی بین رفتار شهروندی سازمانی و ابعاد آن با مشارکت شغلی در کارکنان دو بیمارستان خصوصی و دولتی شهر تهران. فصلنامة مدیریت ارتقای سلامت، ۲(۴)، ۵۰-۵۶.

6. یوسفی‌امیری، م.، قلی‌پور، آ.، سیدجوادین، س. ر، و وکیلی، م. (1392). بررسی ارتباط ویژگی‌های شخصیتی پرستاران با رفتار شهروندی سازمانی در بیمارستان‌های آموزشی شهر زنجان سال 1391. مجلة مراقبت‌های پیشگیرانه در پرستاری و مامایی، ۳(۲)، ۷۰-۸۰.

7. Alavi, M., &Leidner, D.E. (1999). Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits. Communications of Association of Information Systems, 1(7), 1-37.

8. Allison, B.J., Voss, R.S. & Dryer, S. (2001). Student classroom and career success: The role oforganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 282 -288.

9. Al-Zu’bi, H., Ali (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Impacts on Knowledge Sharing: An Empirical Study. International Business Research, Vol. 4, No. 3.

10. Bolino, M.C. (2012). Citizenship behavior and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.

11. Bock, G., Lee, J., Zmud, R., & Kim, Y. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87-111.

12. Burud, S., &Tumolo, M. (2004).Leveraging the new human capital. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black.

13. Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687-710.

14. Cheng, J. (2004). The influential model of teachers' "organizational citizenship behavior" in

15. elementary and junior high schools. Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Education, 49, 41 - 62.

16. Cheng, M.,Y., Ho, J., S., Y., & Lau P. M. (2013) Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 7, Issue 3, (pp313 - 324).

17. Chun, C., Huang, & Ching, S., You (2010). The three components of organizational commitment on in-role behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors. African

18. Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5(28).

19. Dehghani M., R, Hayat, A., A, Kojuri J, Esmi, K. (2015). Role of organizational citizenship

20. behavior in promoting knowledge sharing. J Health Man & Info. 2015;2(4):126-131.

21. Demirel, Y.,&Goc, K.(2013). The impact of organizational commitment on knowledge

22. sharing.1st annual international interdisciplinary conference, AIIC 2013, 24-26 April, Azores, Portugal.

23. Ghorbanizadeh, V. (2008). Organizational learning and learning organization: An approach to knowledge management. Tehran: Baztab Press.

24. Hew,K., Hara,N.(2007).Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge

25. sharing. Educational Technology Research and Development,55( 6), 573-595

26. Husain, H., (2013). Mediating effect of OCB on the relationship between job attitudes on knowledge sharing behaviour. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Volume 5 Issue 1, January 2016.

27. Jacobson, C. M. (2008). KS Between Individuals. In Jennex, M. E. (Ed), KM: Concepts,Methodologies, Tools And Applications (Pp. 1633-1642). Hershey: Information Science Reference

28. Khajavy, Gholam Hassan; Ghonsooly, Behzad; Fatemi, Azar Hosseini; Choi, Charles W. (2016).

29. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, v50 n1 p154-180 .

30. Kim, S., &Ju, B. (2008). An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes towardknowledge sharing

31. and collaboration in an academic institution. Library &Information Science Research, 30, 282–290.

32. Kolekofski, K. E., &Heminger, A. R. (2003). Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share

33. information in an organizational setting. Information & Management, 40.

34. Lin, N. (2007). Building a network theory of social capital.Connections, 22, 28-51.

35. Lin, C. P. (2007). To Share or Not To Share: Modeling Tacit Knowledge Sharing, Its Mediators and Antecedents. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 411-428.

36. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

37. O’Reilly, CA,& Chatman J. (2013). Organizational commitment and psychological

38. attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocialbehaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 492–499.

39. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., &Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

41. Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990).The core competition of the corporation.Harvard Business Review, 68, 79–91.

42. Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C., & Ismail, H. (2009). The practice of knowledge

43. management processes: A comparative study of public and private higher education institutions in Malaysia. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 39, 203–222.

44. Reychav, I., & Weisberg, J., (2010) Bridging Intention And Behavior Of Knowledge Sharing.Journal Of Knowledge Management 14(2): 285–300.

45. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.

46. Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians inhospitals.

47. Expert Systems with Applications, 25, 113-122. doi:10.1016/S0957-4174(03)00011-3

48. SyedIhksan, F., and Rod., Roland (2004). Benchmarking Knowledge Management in a Public

49. with Social Intelligence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Education Office in Mahmud Abad. International Research Journal of Management Sciences, 3(4).

50. Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge Sharing in Context: The Influence of

51. Organizational Commitment, Communication Climate and CMC Use on Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117-130.

52. Wang X. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 2005. Relationships among Organizational

53. Learning culture, Job satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Chinese state–owned and Privately–owned Enterprises.

54. Yang, J. (2007).The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Organizational Learning and

55. Effectiveness.Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.

56. Yang, H.L., & Wu, T. C. T. (2008).Knowledge sharing in an organisation. Technological

57. Forecasting & Social Change, 75, 1128-1156. doi:10.1016/ j.techfore.2007. 11.008.

58. Zhao.h.,Peng,Z.,Chen,H.(2013)." Compulsory Citizenship Behavior and Organizational

59. Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Organizational Identification and Perceived Interactional Justice", the Journal of Psychology, Vol.148, No. 2, PP. 177–196.