Intention to share knowledge

In the organizational environment, knowledge is a strategic ingredient, and taking advantage of it will depend to a large extent on managing it. It represents a combination of values, experiences, and skills, which serve as a basis for the generation of new knowledge, its improvement, or a modification of previous knowledge (^{Li, Zhang, & Zhou, 2017}). The most viable option to avoid the risk of losing it is to share it, since in this way, not only can organizational results be achieved, but also the perceived individual benefits of those who share it as an act of reciprocity (^{Chang-Wook, Hea & Myungweon, 2017}; ^{Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz, 2015}). Sharing knowledge involves two actors: on the one hand, the one who shares it (sender), and on the other hand, the one who receives it (receiver). This act is expected to be voluntary since, according to ^{Castañeda (2015)}, it does not arise spontaneously because it depends largely on human variables that must be analyzed.

According to ^{Ming-Tien, Kun-Shiang, and Jui-Lin (2012)}, intention is the subject’s willingness or desire to contribute to something or someone, as long as it is in a positive way, voluntarily, and unconditionally, since sharing knowledge is an act of reciprocity and the organization cannot impose any internal control on employees to share their knowledge with others. Nevertheless, to arouse this intention to participate, it is necessary to assess the subject’s behavior, because intention is the most obvious indication of the subject’s willingness to manifest a certain collaborative behavior (^{Fauzi, Ling Tan, Thurasamy & Ojo, 2019}; ^{Punniyamoorthy & Asumptha, 2019}).

Psychological contract

The psychological contract is a process of exchanging mutual expectations between the employee and the organization, where both expect common benefits (^{Zhike & Ting, 2018}). The psychological contract can be studied through the transactional and relational psychological contracts. The latter is established indefinitely, usually long-term (^{Rousseau, 1989}). It is characterized by being emotional and subjective because loyalty and trust prevail between the parties involved (^{Martinez, 2018}), and both the employee and the organization are committed to contributing to achieving mutual goals (^{Adamska, Jurek & Rózicka-Tran, 2015}). The relational psychological contract plays a very important role when talking about organizational results since its study focuses on the beliefs and work expectations of individuals (^{Vesga, 2011}), which are usually not manifested but can affect the perception of the subject and experience poor job performance and commitment to the organization (^{Rousseau, 1989}). In addition, the subject’s beliefs are implicit in their behavior when deciding to contribute to the organization and share their knowledge since these and related social relationships are connected to work and based on day-to-day experiences (^{Adamska et al., 2015}). Likewise, the type of attachment that the subject has to the organization is an individual factor that determines how they perceive the events that happen around them and allow them to decide how they will participate by awakening in them the intention to share their knowledge (^{Schmidt, 2016}) as well as the willingness to work in a team and adapt to change (^{García & Forero, 2018}).

Alternatively, during the term of the employment relationship, situations of various kinds may occur, and the psychological contract may be violated, or agreements may not be fulfilled. This condition is detrimental to both parties, especially for employees, as they may experience a sense of failure and develop a negative attitude, which will consequently be reflected in low satisfaction and productivity and in their organizational commitment (^{Rousseau, 1989}; ^{García & Forero, 2018}). Hence, the organization must comply with the agreements and promises agreed in the psychological contract so that the employee feels committed to their work and collaboration is mutual for the benefit of both parties (^{Zhike & Ting, 2018}).

The relational psychological contract has been addressed and related to several variables, such as job satisfaction (^{Millward & Hopkins, 1998}), work stress (^{García & Forero, 2018}), noncompliance, performance, and organizational commitment (^{Zhike & Ting, 2018}; ^{Rousseau, 1989}; ^{Guerrero, 2016}), among others. There is empirical evidence that the relational psychological contract is closely linked to the subject’s intention in their desire to contribute, since when the employee feels comfortable and satisfied with their work relationship, they have a greater willingness to contribute and provide their support to the organization once their intention to share their knowledge with their coworkers is triggered (^{Day & Wang, 2016}). Based on the above, it is proposed that:

H1.- The relational psychological contract is positively and significantly related to the intention to share tacit knowledge.

Affective commitment

In the organizational environment, several variables are associated with the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge; among them is the individual’s affective commitment. Organizational commitment is recognized as an important component in understanding people’s work behavior and is studied in three dimensions: normative commitment, continuance commitment, and affective commitment. According to ^{Meyer, Allen, and Smith (1993)}, affective commitment is characterized as an employee’s strong attachment to the company’s objectives and values, which generates a great sense of pride in being part of it and the decision to stay there by choice (^{Loli, Montgomery, Cerón, Carpio, Navarro, & Llacho, 2015}; ^{Sadiya & Maimunah, 2016}). ^{Mercurio (2015)} conceives it as the essence of organizational commitment because it stands as the most important indicator of organizational results. Affective commitment works as a reducer of uncertainty and decreases the intention of abandonment. If the company induces high levels of affective commitment among its staff, positive benefits can also be achieved in the subject’s loyalty (^{Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz, 2015}).

The effect of affective commitment has also been analyzed in both young and not-so-young generations, and the results are similar. This confirms that the subject tends to be more motivated and enthusiastic about their work in an environment with high levels of affective commitment (^{Li et al., 2017}). Together with the relationship with the leader, it allows them to develop a positive attitude, better interrelationships with their colleagues, and consequently, contribute to their desire and willingness to collaborate with the organization and coworkers (^{Mitonga-Monga, Flotman & Cilliers, 2018}; ^{Chang-Wook et al., 2017}; ^{Faraz & Lenka, 2017}; ^{Sadiya & Maimunah, 2016}; ^{Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz, 2015}).

Affective commitment has been widely studied in different settings and contexts and in relation to several variables, notably job satisfaction (^{Mitonga-Monga et al., 2018}; ^{Lizote, Verdinelli, & do Nascimento, 2017}), job performance (^{Kaplan & Kaplan, 2018}; ^{Chang, Leach, & Anderman, 2015}), socialization (^{Calderón, Laca, Pando, & Pedroza, 2015}), personality traits (^{Izzati, Suhariadi, & Hadi, 2015}; ^{Emecheta, Hart, & Ojiabo, 2016}), perceived organizational support, work experience, trust (^{Gupta, Agarwal, & Khatri, 2016}; ^{Mercurio, 2015}), and knowledge transfer within the organization (^{Máynez, 2016}).

In addition, affective commitment arises from organizational knowledge. Evidence suggests that, both at group and individual levels, knowledge can be shared when there are high levels of affective commitment (^{Chang-Wook et al., 2017}) as it is closely related to the subject’s intention and behavior in their desire to participate when they perceive that the organization values their contribution and well-being (^{Máynez, Cavazos, Ibarreche, & Nuño de la Parra, 2012}; ^{Faraz & Lenka, 2017}; ^{Contreras-Pacheco, 2018}; ^{Curtis & Taylor, 2018}). Based on the above, it is proposed that:

H2.- Affective commitment is positively and significantly related to the intention to share tacit knowledge.

On the other hand, ^{Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1972)} Theory of Reasoned Action has been widely used in different disciplines to predict human behavior. According to this, to awaken the subject’s intention to perform a certain action, both attitudinal and normative beliefs should be evaluated because they directly influence their behavior when making personal decisions in the face of a given situation (^{Flores-Alarcón, 2018}).

Attitude is characterized by the subject’s feelings of liking or disliking when manifesting certain behavior to perform a certain action (^{Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005}) so that they evaluate to decide whether it is convenient or not to act based on the perception of their actions, consequences, and values (^{Ajzen & Fishbein, 1972}). Moreover, the subjective norm is manifested through the social pressure that the subject experiences when they receive comments or suggestions from people they consider important, which they evaluate in conjunction with the power they exert over them, and coupled with their level of motivation, will allow them to react and manifest a certain behavior when deciding on a certain situation that is presented to them (^{Shin-Yuan, Hui-Min, & Yu-Che, 2015}; ^{Punniyamoorthy & Asumptha, 2019}). In this study, to determine the degree of willingness and participation that the employee has toward the organization and their coworkers, both the attitude and the subjective norm were analyzed as antecedents of the intention to share knowledge, adopting the Theory of Reasoned Action in its evaluation. In terms of attitude, the collaborator analyzes whether or not it is convenient for them to share their tacit knowledge with other coworkers once they assess the factors that have influenced them to acquire the knowledge they possess (^{Shuang-Shii, Kun-Siang, & Ming-Tien, 2015}). As for the subjective norm, the collaborator responds to social pressures by assessing whether it is important to heed or ignore the comments or suggestions issued by their superiors or coworkers, and depending on their level of motivation at that moment, they will manifest a certain behavior based on whether or not they desire to share their tacit knowledge (^{Young, Byoungsoo, & Heeseok, 2016}; ^{Smith, 2017}).

Furthermore, ^{Asrar-ul-Haq and Anwar (2016)} note that in order to share knowledge, it is not enough to have the intention to do so, as the subjective norm can be induced by factors that can facilitate or impede knowledge sharing and transfer, such as trust and organizational culture, as well as by the reward and motivation system implemented by organizations. Other studies suggest that when people have good social interrelationships with their coworkers and a positive perception of the ethics of their superiors, they develop a more favorable attitude (^{Bock et al., 2005}), thus confirming that both attitude and subjective norm are closely related to the subject’s intention to share their knowledge (^{Woolley, 2015}; ^{Razmerita, Kirchner, & Nielsen, 2016}; ^{Fauzi et al., 2019}). Based on the above, it is proposed that:

H3.- Attitude is positively and significantly related to the intention to share tacit knowledge.

H4.- The subjective norm is positively and significantly related to the intention to share tacit knowledge.

Internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge

In knowledge management, two types of organizational knowledge can be differentiated according to their structuring and codification: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge lies in the subject’s subjectivity, ideas, and hunches. It is highly personal because it is rooted in the individual’s experience, making it difficult to express in words and limiting its scope and dissemination; its dissemination can be costly since it is only shared through direct contact with people, i.e., face to face (^{Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1999}; ^{Máynez, 2011}). Due to the nature and importance of this type of knowledge, it is necessary to share it with other people so that it can be transferred to different organizational levels and thus be used for the benefit of all company members.

To ensure that the transfer of tacit knowledge within the organization is successful, ^{Nonaka and Takeuchi (1999)} suggest transforming it into different forms of communication so that all members understand it and the organization is also involved in the transfer (^{Argote & Fahrenkopf, 2016}). When this happens, changes in organizational practices and policies are triggered because the new knowledge lies in the structure, rules, procedures, strategies, and technologies (^{Shin-Yuan et al., 2015}; ^{Loebbecke et al., 2016}; ^{Máynez & Noriega, 2015}). Consequently, the organization becomes an entity capable of transforming itself and achieving respect among its members since by applying this new knowledge in the development of the tasks and activities of its collaborators, it improves work performance, productivity, and the generation of ideas and concepts that contribute to innovation and the development of sustainable competitive advantages (^{Loebbecke et al., 2016}; ^{Máynez, 2011}).

Furthermore, for knowledge transfer to take place, the participation of both the employee and the organization is necessary, and several factors influence it, among them intention and affective commitment. On the one hand, the subject’s intention to share their knowledge is supported by their willingness to do so and their expectation of reciprocity from the company (^{Máynez et al., 2012}; ^{Máynez, 2016}). On the other hand, when the employee has a high level of commitment (^{Chang-Wook et al., 2017}), knowledge transfer within the company can be successful since affective commitment acts as a facilitator in this process (^{Sadiya & Maimunah, 2016}; ^{Faraz & Lenka, 2017}; ^{Mitonga-Monga et al., 2018}). Based on the above, it is proposed that:

H5.- Affective commitment is positively and significantly related to the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge.

H6.- The intention to share tacit knowledge is positively and significantly related to the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge.

The basic research model is shown below in Figure 1.

Source: created by the authors

Figure 1 Basic research model 

Sample and data collection

A quantitative, non-probabilistic, explanatory, cross-sectional, and non-experimental study was conducted. A questionnaire was used for data collection, adapted, and answered by middle management collaborators, whose main function is implementing coordination strategies, managing assigned resources, and supervising the processes in their area. These personnel also maintain close communication with other personnel to achieve organizational goals and objectives in two ways: internally with operational personnel in their area and with collaborators from other departments, and externally with suppliers and clients. The sample comprised engineers, supervisors, analysts, and technicians from the morning and afternoon shifts, working in several companies in the export manufacturing industry, specifically in the automotive sector in the northern border of Mexico. The fieldwork was carried out from August to October 2016, and in total, 346 questionnaires were collected with 33 valid items for analysis, of which 273 were male (78.9%), 72 were female (20.8%), and one person did not indicate their gender (0.3%). Of these, 54.9% reported being between 20 and 30 years of age. The majority reported being single (48.6%). 64.6% had a bachelor’s degree, and 46.5% held a technical position, as shown in Table 1.

Assessment of the constructs

A questionnaire was used to assess the variables under study, the process of which consisted of four stages: (a) a literature review was made to learn about the various ways in which the variables had been evaluated; (b) the instrument was selected, translated (where necessary) and adapted to the cultural context; (c) the first version of the questionnaire was made and submitted for consideration to a group of experts to achieve a better understanding of the items formulated; and (d) according to the comments and suggestions of the experts, the pertinent corrections were made and the final version was formulated. The questionnaire items were designed with statements evaluated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “totally disagree,” to 5, “totally agree.” To measure the variables under study, 8 items were adapted from the Psychological Contract Scale (PCS) developed by ^{Millward and Hopkins (1998)} to assess the relational psychological contract. 6 items were adapted from the Three-Component Model (TCM) developed by ^{Meyer et al. (1993)} to assess affective commitment. 5 items were adapted based on ^{Bock et al. (2005)} and ^{Máynez (2011)} to assess intention to share tacit knowledge. 4 items were adapted to assess the subjective norm and 3 items to assess attitude, both based on ^{Bock et al. (2005)}. Finally, 7 items were used based on ^{Máynez (2011)} to assess the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge. The statistical analysis of the data was performed by structural equation modeling (SEM) based on partial least squares (PLS) using Smart PLS3 software (^{Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015}).

Model assessment

The reliability of the indicators was assessed and verified, as well as the reliability of the internal consistency of the constructs, as shown in Table 2. Regarding the reliability of both the indicators and the internal consistency of the constructs, ^{Bagozzi and Yi (1988)} recommend that the cut-off point should preferably reach a value of 0.70 or higher. Nevertheless, concerning the indicators, ^{Chin (1988)} suggests that indicators with loadings lower than 0.70 can be retained if there are indicators in the construct with loadings higher than the indicated value. Consequently, and following the recommendations of the experts, this condition was met in the assessment of the model, as the loadings were higher than 0.70 for most of the indicators, except for two items corresponding to the construct relational psychological contract (cpr1 and cpr8), one item belonging to the construct intention to share tacit knowledge (ic18), and one item of the construct subjective norm (ns23), which did not exceed the cut-off point. Nonetheless, following Chin’s (1988) criteria, the indicators were retained as most of the indicators of the constructs had loadings above 0.70. The internal consistency reliability of the constructs was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability as suggested by ^{Bagozzi and Yi (1988)} to corroborate it, obtaining scores above 0.70 for both criteria. Likewise, the convergence validity of the constructs was assessed through the average analysis of variance extracted (AVE) to measure the degree to which the indicators of a construct share a portion of variance among them-with the recommendation that the value reached be 0.50 or higher, according to the experts (^{Chin, 1988}; ^{Bagozzi, and Yi, 1988})-fully complying with these criteria in the research model. The above is shown in Table 2.

The discriminant validity of the model was also assessed to analyze the relation between the latent variables and the extent to which an indicator represents only the construct to which it corresponds. In this regard, ^{Fornell-Larcker (1981)} indicates that the square root of the average analysis of variance extracted (AVE) of each construct should be greater than the correlation levels of the construct to verify that the variables really measure what they are supposed to measure. An alternative tool used to corroborate that the indicators corresponding to each construct are measuring only that construct is the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT), which indicates that the values obtained should preferably be less than 0.85 to ensure that there is a solid discriminant validity between the constructs (^{Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015}). Table 3 shows the values obtained in both criteria, where the square root of the AVE can be seen above the diagonal and the corresponding correlations below the diagonal. In all cases, the values obtained are below 0.85, thus corroborating the discriminant validity of the model.

The structural model, shown in Figure 2, presents the factor loadings obtained for each of the observable variables and the path values of the structural relations. The relation of the relational psychological contract with the intention to share tacit knowledge was 0.209, of the affective commitment with the intention to share tacit knowledge was -0.017, of the attitude with the intention to share tacit knowledge was 0.560, of the subjective norm with the intention to share tacit knowledge was 0.119, of intention to share tacit knowledge with organizational internal transfer of tacit knowledge was 0.248, and of affective commitment with organizational internal transfer of tacit knowledge was 0.416.

Source: created by the authors based on SMART PLS results

Figure 2 Structural model 

Regarding the prediction of the structural model, the coefficient of determination (R²) obtained for the intention to share tacit knowledge construct was 0.544. That is, the latent variables relational psychological contract, affective commitment, subjective norm, and attitude explain more than 50% of the variance of this construct. Regarding the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge, the coefficient of determination (R²) was 0.303, so affective commitment and intention to share tacit knowledge together explain 30.3% of the variance of this construct.

On the other hand, regarding the hypotheses proposed, the values obtained at a reliability level of 95% were: H1, t=3.92; H2, t=0.31; H3, t=10.68; H4, t=2.26; H5, t=8.47; and H6, t=8.03. Therefore, the hypotheses proposed in the present study are not rejected except for H2, where it was stated “H2. - Affective commitment is positively and significantly related to the intention to share tacit knowledge,” as a statistically non-significant association with the intention to share tacit knowledge (-0.017) was obtained. Nevertheless, it maintains a positive effect on the internal organizational transfer of tacit knowledge (0.416), confirming the association between the other constructs.