Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship

between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

Shahnawaz Muhammed

, Valmira Osmanaj

, Atik Kulakli

and Syed Faizan Hussain Zaidi

College of Business Administration, American University of the Middle East, Egaila, Kuwait

Keywords: Task Knowledge, Knowledge Sharing, Innovation, Mediation, Survey Methodology.

Abstract: It is widely recognized that knowledge sharing contributes to innovation in organizations. The implicit

assumption in the linkage between individual knowledge sharing and their innovative work behaviour is that

individuals gain certain qualities while being engaged in knowledge sharing that enable them to become more

innovative. In this paper, we explore employee task knowledge as a key mediator in the relationship between

knowledge sharing and their innovative work behaviour. Data collected from knowledge workers from several

manufacturing and service based organizations is used to test the mediation hypotheses. Results support our

mediation hypothesis and show that task knowledge partially mediates knowledge sharing’s impact on

innovative work behaviour. Knowledge sharing had a positive impact on innovative work behaviour even

after considering task knowledge as a mediator, suggesting other mechanisms at work in addition to their task

knowledge in how knowledge sharing contributes to innovation. Theoretical and practical implications of the

findings are also discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Driven by the need to introduce new products faster,

increased competition, changing global environment,

and to simply maximize the use of available

resources, organizations today are increasingly

focused on fostering innovation within their

workforce. As Kahn (2018) noted “innovation is

everywhere today” (p. 453). It is gaining increasing

presence in organizational mission and vision

statements, and in business school curriculums

(Kahn, 2018).

Though the debate as to what innovation really

means in an organizational context is still an on-going

concern (Fagerberg, Mowery, & Nelson, 2005), Kahn

(2108) suggests that it could be understood from an

outcome, process, and a mind-set perspective. From

each of these perspectives, as organizations focus on

producing innovative outputs related to their

products, process and other organizational outcomes,

focus on the innovation process itself, and develop an

innovation supportive culture in their organizations,

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6031-5376

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9864-8627

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2368-3225

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1931-1004

they have to do this firstly by enabling their

workforce to be innovative (West & Farr, 1989). In

addition to innovations occurring in business

functions focused on it, such as in R&D and in new

product development, researchers have emphasized

the importance of innovations arising from all

functions of the organization due to their potential to

come up with creative ideas and the impact it could

have on organizations (Amabile, 1996; Bäckström &

Bengtsson, 2019; Hoyrup, 2012; Kesting & Ulhoi,

2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Smith et al.,

2012). We adopt such a broad perspective of

innovation and focus on innovative work behaviour

(IWB) of employees across the spectrum in this study.

Several authors have suggested that knowledge

sharing is an important element facilitating such

innovations in the workplace (Akram, Haider &

Hussain, 2019; Bontis, Bart, Sáenz, Aramburu, &

Rivera, 2009; Kamaşak & Bulutlar, 2010; Wang &

Wang, 2012; Ritala, Olander, Michailova, & Husted,

2015; Khan & Khan, 2019). While how knowledge

sharing facilitating development of intellectual

Muhammed, S., Osmanaj, V., Kulakli, A. and Zaidi, S.

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour.

DOI: 10.5220/0010015000400050

In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2020) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 40-50

ISBN: 978-989-758-474-9

capital that eventually leads to organizational

innovation is well documented in literature, a clear

understanding of how knowledge sharing may

contribute to innovation at the individual level is still

elusive. This research aims to contribute to a better

understanding of how such a contribution is possible

at the individual level. While studies have shown that

knowledge sharing impacts innovation at the

individual level (Akram et al., 2019; Ritala et al.,

2015; Khan & Khan, 2019), the tacit assumptions in

most of these studies have been that sharing

knowledge (both knowledge giving and knowledge

taking) bestows certain qualities in the individuals

that make them more innovative. However, very few

studies have empirically examined what these

qualities are in relation to knowledge sharing that

make employees more innovative. Similar to how

knowledge sharing at an organizational level

contributes to the organizational knowledge (Han,

Yoon, & Chae, 2020; Nonaka, 1994; Widén-Wulff &

Ginman, 2004; Yang, 2007), we present individual’s

task related knowledge as a key mediator in the

relationship between knowledge sharing and their

innovative work. In essence, the thesis of this article

is to empirically explore the contention that for

knowledge sharing to have an impact on workers

innovation, it does so by primarily enhancing their

task related knowledge.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing in organizations has received

substantial attention in the management literature and

specifically in the literature related to knowledge

management. This is not surprising since it is one of

the important processes in an organization by which

information essential to the organizational

functioning becomes available to the organizational

entities, no matter how small or large the organization

is. Though individual level contributions to society

are important in many ways, organizations amplify

such impact. An essential aspect of these

organizations and its success is their ability to

communicate and coordinate the actions of its sub-

units, and more fundamentally of the individual

entities in it, for a larger common purpose (Thomas,

Thomas, Manrodt & Rutner, 2001; Greenberg &

Baron, 2002). Knowledge sharing is one such key

form of communication where provider and recipient

are engaged in transferring ones understanding to the

recipient of that knowledge (Muhammed, Doll &

Deng, 2011; Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004).

Ipe (2003) indicates that knowledge sharing is

“the act of making knowledge available to others

within the organization. Knowledge sharing between

individuals is the process by which knowledge held

by an individual is converted into a form that can be

understood, absorbed, and used by other individuals.”

(p.341). In an organizational context, Bartol and

Srivastava (2002) define knowledge sharing as

“individuals sharing organizationally relevant

information, ideas, suggestions, and expertise with

one another” (p. 65). Similarly, building on

Cummings (2004) and Pulakos, Dorsey and Borman

(2003), Wang and Noe (2010) note that individual

knowledge sharing in an organizational context

involves “provision of task information and know-

how to help others and to collaborate with others to

solve problems, develop new ideas, or implement

policies or procedures” (p. 117).

Individual knowledge sharing being the

fundamental aspect of knowledge sharing that takes

place at all other higher levels of abstraction. In this

paper, we focus on knowledge sharing at this level.

Further we focus on the knowledge outflow of

individual level knowledge (knowledge giving), and

define knowledge sharing as an act of making

individual knowledge available to others, similar to

the definition adopted by Ipe (2003). We adopted this

perspective of knowledge sharing in this research, to

evaluate the extent to which individual knowledge

sharing contributes to their innovative work

behaviour through their task related knowledge.

2.2 Task Knowledge

Based on various objectives, knowledge has been

categorized from many perspectives. One such

perspective is to view individual knowledge that is

relevant to their work as task knowledge. In the

service innovation perspective, task knowledge is the

accumulation of facts, comprehensions, skills, and

lessons learned from previous and emergent service

development activities and originate from different

functions within the company (Storey & Kahn, 2010).

Task knowledge structures are functionally

equivalent to the knowledge structures that people

have and use when they carry out any task at their

work (Johnson, Johnson, Waddington, & Shouls,

2001). The foundation of the task approach relies on

influential work which divides workplace’s activities

into tasks. Tasks are constructed on the activities

accomplished by organizations’ employees related to

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

their particular occupations (Autor, Levy & Murnane,

2003).

Helfat and Peteraf (2003) describe organizational

capability as “the ability of an organization to

perform a coordinated set of tasks, utilizing

organizational resources, for the purpose of achieving

a particular end result” (p. 999). Therefore,

organizational knowledge plays a vital role to achieve

the successful completion of these set of tasks. Task

oriented knowledge is hence knowledge relevant for

organizational actions. Organizations are sustained

by acquiring knowledge relevant to its various tasks

and allocating these to right positions for

accomplishing the task. From this point, optimal level

of knowledge acquisition and talent is required to

determine the complexity of task knowledge.

Communication plays an important role in shaping

the relationship between individual talents and

administers the organizational process and structure

that integrates detached knowledge to perform tasks

more proficiently. The task based approach identifies

the organization process that optimizes the relations

between tasks and talents as the core of organizational

capital (Garicano & Wu, 2010).

Fonseca, de Faria and Lima (2017) explain the

firm innovation process from a task based viewpoint

and presented a view of human capital which is based

on the tasks that firms’ workers accomplish. Authors

proposed a measure of cognitive analytical and

interpersonal tasks as the degree of abstractism. They

content that “the level of abstractism of a firm not

only has an effect on a firm’s propensity to innovate,

but also on its product innovation performance” (p.

616). Further, authors propose measures of task

which allow the assessment of the optimal

organizational task structure to maximize the

inclination of a firm to innovate and subsequently

improve its product innovation performance. Thus,

innovation performance is exploited at transitional

value of the degree of abstractism in organizations.

Innovation management literature stresses this

relationship between human capital characteristics

and innovation performance (Faems & Subramanian,

2013).

While task knowledge can be viewed from many

perspectives in organizations, it is challenging to

measure it at the right level of abstraction that makes

it usable for substantive analysis. To be able to

maintain a generic abstraction that is required to

capture the full breadth of individual’s task

knowledge in differing contexts while at the same

time keeping the construct at a manageable level for

such research, we adopt the conceptualization

proposed by Muhammed, Doll and Deng (2009) and

view task knowledge comprising of conceptual,

contextual and operational knowledge. Conceptual

knowledge is the “deeper understanding of why a

person is engaged in a particular task” (p. 4) and it

provides the rationale for individuals for their actions

and addresses the ‘know-why’ aspect of a given task

(Garud, 1997; Hulme, 2014). It becomes easier to

assimilate other types of information when such

knowledge related to one’s organizational task is

present (Kim, 1993). Operational knowledge is the

knowledge individuals immediately need to

accomplish their task (such as know-what and know-

how) (Garud, 1997; Hulme, 2014). This is often

referred to as the declarative and procedural

knowledge that individuals carry (Schultze &

Leidner, 2002; Zack, 1999). Without a satisfactory

level of operational knowledge individuals may not

be able to even accomplish their routine tasks let

alone to be innovative in their work. Contextual

knowledge is what individuals know in addition to the

immediate knowledge required to complete the task

(operational knowledge) and may enrich the existing

knowledge with what may not be obvious (such as

know-who, know-where, and know-when) (Atherton,

2013; Howell & Boies, 2004). These three knowledge

components capture the breadth of knowledge that

employees bear on in accomplishing their

organizational tasks.

2.3 Innovative Work Behaviour

Increasing employees’ knowledge sharing, as a

means to generate new ideas, is considered vital for

the organizations which are striving to innovate

products and services, achieve competitive

advantages and attain a strong market position

(Masih, Sriratanaviriyakul, El-Den, & Azam, 2018;

Ologbo, Nor, & Okyere-Kwakye, 2015). “Creativity

and innovation at work are the process, outcomes, and

products of attempts to develop and introduce new

and improved ways of doing things.” (Anderson,

Potocnik & Zhou, 2014, p.4). According to Che, Wu,

Wang, & Yang (2019), innovation is a combination

of idea generation (generation of domain-specific,

novel and useful new ideas) and idea implementation

(implementing new ideas to practice).

While a substantial research investigates the

innovation process in organisations (Rothaermel &

Hess, 2007; Stalk, Evans, & Shulman, 1992), there is

an increasing focus on innovation at an individual

level and how it affects organizations (Grigoriou &

Rothaermel, 2014; Maqbool, Černe, & Bortoluzzi,

2019; Odetunde, 2019). Considering the fact that the

innovation capability of the organisations derives

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

from their employees’ innovation capabilities,

employee innovative work behaviour (IWB) is

crucial to the organization success and innovation

(Arsawan, Kariati, Prayustika, & Wirga, 2019;

Odetunde, 2019; Scott & Bruce, 1994). IWB

indicates the intentional creation, introduction and

application of new ideas, processes, products or

services within their work-role, group or

organizational context (Janssen, 2000; Odetunde,

2019; Radaelli, Lettieri, Mura, & Spiller, 2014; Scott

& Bruce, 1994). According to a study conducted by

Janssen (2000), IWB encompasses three main tasks:

idea generation (developing novel ideas); idea

promotion (obtaining external support); and idea

application (producing a model or prototype of the

idea).

The employee’s ideas are nurtured through

communication and exchange of expertise that are

substantial for stimulating innovative ideas (Masih et

al., 2018). Both the knowledge denoting and

knowledge collecting play an important influence on

employee's innovative behaviour (Hassan et al.,

2018). Ability to elaborate, re-combine and

disseminate knowledge is skill-set required both for

knowledge sharing and innovation (Radaelli et al.,

2014). However, how such innovations occur has not

been sufficiently explored. Thus, the focus of this

study is to analyse the impact knowledge sharing

have on employee’s ability to be creative, by

generating domain-specific, novel and useful new

ideas and implementing these new ideas into their

work, and the role of task knowledge in this

relationship.

3 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

The focus of this research is in understanding if and

how knowledge sharing contributes to employees

innovative work behaviour. A central theme in this

argument is that individuals become more innovative

when knowledge sharing helps them build knowledge

relevant to their work which we address in this paper

as ‘task knowledge’. In the next two sections we

develop this thesis further and propose the hypotheses

in the light of extant literature.

3.1 Knowledge Sharing and Innovative

Work Behaviour

Radaelli et al. (2014) claimed that employees who

share knowledge engage more in creating, promoting

and implementing innovations. According to Githii

(2014), exchanging ideas and information through

communication boost innovation. In a study

conducted by Arsawan et al. (2019), the authors

found out that employees who share knowledge can

improve self-quality by taking positive values in the

form of capability, competence, skill, and trust. Also,

Radaelli et al. (2014), found that knowledge sharing

enliven knowledge recombination and re-elaboration

that stimulates the generation, promotion and

application of new ideas.

Akram and Bokhari (2011) found in their study

that knowledge sharing is positively related to

individual performance. In addition, they argued that

successful knowledge transfer requires high level of

individual motivation so that knowledge seeker and

knowledge provider openly share and accept it. Based

on the review conducted by Githii, (2014), there is

overwhelming evidence showing that knowledge

management practices play a significant role in

innovation and suggest that employee innovation

should be supported by organizational systems and

structures that encourage their efforts to learn and

acquire new knowledge. Also, Masih et al. (2018)

content in their study that knowledge sharing

promotes employees’ innovation capabilities and the

employees should be given incentives by the

management in order to increase both their

knowledge sharing and innovative capabilities.

Phung, Hawryszkiewycz and Chandran (2019)

studied the impact of knowledge-sharing behaviour

on the innovative work behaviour in university

settings in developing countries, focusing on the

moderating role of transformational leadership. The

authors found that knowledge-sharing behaviour

positively affects innovative work behaviour, and

recommended leaders to focus on promoting

innovative behaviours of employees during their

daily work through encouraging knowledge sharing.

Several more studies point to the positive impact of

knowledge sharing on innovation (Bontis et al., 2009;

Jada Mukhopadhyay & Titiyal, 2019; Kamaşak &

Bulutlar, 2010; Kim & Park, 2017; Leonardi, 2014;

Radaelli et al., 2014).

H1: Knowledge sharing has a significant positive

effect on innovative work behaviour.

3.2 Task Knowledge as a Mediator

When organizations focus on knowledge

management, the emphasis is usually on the macro

elements, such as organizational level innovation,

improved performance, and competitive advantage.

While this is important from a strategic perspective,

such innovations are driven by amalgamation of

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

innovations by individual employees in their day-to-

day work. Further, organizations innovate when

employees share their knowledge and innovations

widely across the organization. Knowledge sharing

thus is key focus area in organizational knowledge

management initiatives. It refers to the delivery of

task information in collaborative environment to

resolve problems. Developing new ideas for

accomplishing the task and implementing policies

and procedures are the important aspects of

knowledge sharing (Cummings, 2004). Creativity,

learning, and performance are viewed as most

common factors in this context that are affected by

knowledge sharing (Ahmad & Karim, 2019).

Knowledge sharing hence contributes to building the

social capital in organizations that can drive

innovation (Widén-Wulff & Ginman, 2004).

According to Storey and Kahn (2010), a positive

relationship exist between task knowledge and

innovation due to the fact that task knowledge

increases the company stock knowledge that is further

utilized to increase proficiency and boost innovation

of new service development. Similar results were

found in the study of Akgün, Dayan and Di Benedetto

(2008), where the authors analysed the impact of the

team knowledge in the new product development.

The authors found that both declarative and

procedural knowledge of the team affected positively

the team’s knowledge base which led to a positive

impact in the new products’ creativity and success.

Moreover, Afsar & Umrani (2019) suggested that the

task complexity has a significant effect on motivation

to learn and develop their work related knowledge,

which enhances the innovative work behaviour of the

employees.

While there is some research suggesting that

knowledge could sometimes impede innovation, as in

the case when employees become too comfortable

with the knowledge that they have in doing their work

and resist change and seeking new knowledge. For

example, Subramaniam & Youndt (2005) discovered

in their study that human capital negatively impacted

the radical innovative capability (to generate

innovations that significantly transform existing

products and services). The authors argue that

possessing viciously independent experts, who

hesitate to share their ideas with their colleagues, may

be counterproductive for organizations. However, in

a knowledge sharing context, people seek out new

knowledge and are willing to share what they know.

While it is important to understand what prompts the

employees to share knowledge and a substantial work

has been done in this regard (Bock, Zmud, Kim, and

Lee, 2005; Lin, 2007), our focus is in exploring how

knowledge sharing impacts their innovative

capability by building their task related knowledge.

As discussed earlier, knowledge in the

organizational context could be conceptualized as

conceptual, contextual and operational knowledge

(Muhammed et al., 2009). As individuals share their

knowledge among their colleagues and other online

and offline communities related to their work, they

build a network of connections on which they could

depend on when they face certain roadblocks in their

work, and hence directly contributing to their

operational knowledge. Such forums and

communities also act as a platform where they may

come across a broad range of information

contributing to their contextual knowledge. Engaging

in sharing knowledge requires individuals to think

about what they may tacitly know and consciously

turn it into a form that is understandable and

receivable by the audience (Muhammed et al., 2011).

This process can enhance the conceptual

understanding of what they may already know and

acquire in this process. Hence, sharing knowledge can

contribute to gaining further knowledge. In fact this

may be a more effective way to quickly gain and

broaden one’s task knowledge eventually, leading to

new ideas and further innovations.

It is widely recognized that innovation involves

more than creating new ideas, and may involve

selection, development implementation of those ideas

at the least (Backstrom & Bengtsson, 2019; Dodgson

2017). While contextual knowledge helps individuals

to connect disparate ideas thus contributing to

creating novel outcomes in their work (Howell &

Boies, 2004), conceptual knowledge helps

individuals to develop a broader and more critical

perspective of such creation and would help in

evaluating which of those creative ideas may be best

implemented. Since operational task knowledge is the

knowledge related to the actual skill and know-how

of one’s task, a higher level of such operational task

knowledge would also help individuals to implement

their novel productions contributing to a successful

innovation. Given together, we can safely suggest that

their task knowledge conceptualized as comprising of

conceptual, contextual and operational knowledge

contributes to all the phases of innovation (Nurulin et

al., 2019). Hence, as hypothesized in the previous

section while knowledge sharing may directly impact

employees innovative work behaviour, there is

compelling rationale suggesting that a large portion

of this impact may be due to the enhanced task

knowledge that knowledge sharing may help gain. In

other words it is highly likely that task knowledge is

a key mediator in this relationship between

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

knowledge sharing and employee’s innovative work

behaviour.

H2: Task knowledge mediates the relationship

between knowledge sharing and innovative work

behaviour.

4 METHODS

This research uses a cross-sectional survey design to

collect the data used to test the hypothesized model.

Measures used in this study were developed based on

generally accepted psychometric principles

(Churchill, 1979). Face validity of the measures were

assessed in the pre-test stage by having five experts

and five target respondents examine the items against

the construct definition (Netemeyer, Bearden, &

Sharma, 2003). Measures were further refined based

on a pilot survey before using it in the large scale data

collection. After receiving the responses, the data was

evaluated for any potential problems and missing

values. Further it was assessed for any potential

biases, such as non-response bias and common

method bias. Next, before assessing the substantive

relationships, validity and reliability of the measures

were assessed. Once the measures were assessed to be

sound, substantive relationships and the related

hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear

regression and mediation analysis.

4.1 Measures

Responses to all measures were anchored on a five-

point Likert type scale except for the outcome

variable innovative work behaviour, which was

measured on a seven-point Likert type scale.

Participants were asked to reflect on the past six

months at their work to answer the questionnaire. The

final measure for knowledge sharing included three

items such as “I have shared my insights with others”

“I have shared my knowledge with others” and “I

have shared my work-related knowledge with

others”. For task knowledge, a three dimensional

measure inclusive of conceptual, contextual and

operational knowledge as proposed by Muhammed et

al. (2009) was used. Items for knowledge sharing and

tasks knowledge were anchored from (1) none or to a

very little extent to and (5) to a very great extent. For

innovative work behaviour, a three item measure

similar to De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), and Afsar

and Umrani (2019) were used. It included items such

as “my work was creative”, “my work was original

and practical”, and “I was the first to use certain ideas

in my kind of work”. Respondents were asked to

indicate the level of their innovative output compared

to other individuals in similar position, and the items

were anchored from (1) Not at all to (7) To an

exceptionally high degree. Further, respondent’s

position in the organization, level of education, age

and gender are used as controls.

4.2 Data Collection

Data was collected using a web-based survey

targeting knowledge workers in various

manufacturing and related industries. Most of the

responses were from US firms. A total of 154 usable

responses were received for a response rate of 24%

based on the click-through. Responses were received

from knowledge workers in wide spectrum of

industries. 42% of the respondents worked in various

manufacturing and related firms, 39% were from

computer, information technology or software firms

and the remaining 19% indicated that they were from

firms other than these two sectors. The respondents

also represented firms of various sizes with most

number of responses from individuals working in

large organizations that employed more than 500

individuals (40%), 25% of the responses were from

individuals in small firms that employed fewer than

50 and the rest were from medium sized

organizations.

5 RESULTS

5.1 Measurement Assessment

A confirmatory factor analysis was done initially to

assess the overall measurement model. Before testing

for substantive analysis, it is imperative that we assess

the convergent validity and the discriminant validity

of the measures. A confirmatory factor analysis with

all items including the summated scales of the three

dimensions of task knowledge was constructed.

Factor loading for all items in this measurement

model were significantly loaded on their respective

constructs, and exceeded the minimum requirement.

The loadings ranged from 0.73 to 0.94. The resultant

measurement model showed excellent fit (χ2 = 36.8,

df = 24, p-value=0.045, RMSEA=0.046, GFI=0.97,

NNFI=0.99, CFI=0.99). The composite reliabilities

(CR) were 0.92 for knowledge sharing, 0.80 for task

knowledge, and 0.89 for innovative work behaviour.

Similarly, AVE ranged from 0.58 (task knowledge) to

0.79 (knowledge sharing) indicating good convergent

validity of the measurement instruments.

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

Discriminant validity is the ability of the

constructs to differentiate from other unrelated

constructs and is assessed by evaluating the AVE for

each construct (Fornell & Larker, 1981; Kline, 2010).

The squared correlations for each construct were less

than its AVE, indicating sufficient discriminant

validity (Chin, 1998; Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Highest correlation was 0.45 (between knowledge

sharing and task knowledge) and was below the

recommended 0.70 providing further evidence of

discrimination (Ping, 2004). The scales also

displayed good reliabilities as assessed using

Cronbach’s alpha () and range from 0.79 (Task

knowledge) to 0.91 (knowledge sharing).

5.2 Mediating Effect of Task

Knowledge

A three-step regression procedure was used to test the

mediating effect of task knowledge in the relationship

between knowledge sharing and innovative work

behaviour (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The procedure

include first for testing the direct effect of

independent variable (knowledge sharing) on

dependent variable (innovative work behaviour) as

hypothesized in H1. If this relationship is significant

then two other models are evaluated. The second one

with the independent variable and the moderator, and

in the third model, the outcome variable- innovative

work behaviour is regressed on both knowledge

sharing and task knowledge. In order to test the

mediation hypothesis using hierarchical regression

analysis summated scales of the measures where

used. Table 1 shows the results of the three regression

models. The first model is represented as Model 1 and

indicates that, after considering the effect of the

control variables, knowledge sharing had a significant

impact on innovative work behaviour (β = .39, p <

.001) thus supporting hypotheses H1. From the

control variables except for education in Model 1 and

2, and age in Model 3, they did not have any

significant impact on innovative work behaviour or

task knowledge.

Model 2 shows the regression result of knowledge

sharing and task knowledge on innovative work

behaviour. In this model, both knowledge sharing (p

< .05) and task knowledge (p < .001) had a significant

positive impact on innovative work behaviour and

showed a significant increase in the variance

explained (9.2%) compared to Model 1. In order to

fully establish mediation, it is also essential that we

test task knowledge as the criterion variable with

knowledge sharing as the predictor (Model 3). This

model showed a strong significant relationship

between knowledge sharing and task knowledge (β

=.23, p < .001). The above findings combined support

the hypotheses related to task knowledge as the

mediator (Hypotheses H2). Support for both

hypothesis H1 and H2 indicate a partial mediation of

task knowledge in the relationship between

knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour.

Table 1: Results of regression analysis for testing mediation.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3



Std. Error t Sig.



Std. Error t Sig.



Std. Error t Sig.

(Constant) 4.953 0.602 8.230 0.000 3.247 0.700 4.639 0.000 2.702 0.312 8.651 0.000

Control variables

Pois ition -0.060 0.061 -0.993 0.322 -0.077 0.058 -1.340 0.182 0.027 0.032 0.858 0.392

Education

-0.265

0.083 -3.201 0.002

-0.224

0.079 -2.831 0.005 -0.065 0.043 -1.515 0.132

Age 0.084 0.085 0.988 0.325 0.032 0.082 0.387 0.699

0.083

0.044 1.880 0.062

Gender -0.182 0.230 -0.789 0.431 -0.250 0.219 -1.144 0.255 0.109 0.119 0.910 0.364

Main effect

Knowledge Sharing

0.387

0.101 3.825 0.000

0.240

0.102 2.356 0.020

0.232

0.052 4.422 0.000

Mediating effect

Task Knolwedge

0.631

0.150 4.204 0.000

N 154 154 154

F-Value 4.834 7.427 6.214

R-sq 0.140 0.233 0.174

∆ R-sq 0.092

Innovative Work Behavior Task Knowledge

Unstandardized

coefficients

Unstandardized

coefficients

Uns tandardized

coefficients

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

6 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS

AND LIMITATIONS

Knowledge sharing has been associated with

innovation in many different contexts but, how it may

contribute to innovation at an individual level has not

been investigated sufficiently well in the literature.

This research aimed to address this gap, and proposed

that one of the key mechanism by which individuals

can be more innovative by sharing knowledge is

when such knowledge sharing contributes to their

task related knowledge. As proposed in hypotheses

H1 and supported by results, this study confirms the

role knowledge sharing can play in helping

individuals to be more innovative in their workplace.

Managers looking for greater innovations from their

employees may take note of this and encourage

knowledge sharing within their organizations. They

should look at ways to motivate individuals to share

their knowledge and provide structural support

mechanisms such as technological platforms, and

incentives build into organizational reward systems

for this (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002; Le & Lei, 2019).

The results also supported our second hypotheses

related to the mediating role of task knowledge in the

relationship between knowledge sharing and

employee’s innovative work behaviour. This

provides important insights into how individuals can

become more innovative by sharing their knowledge.

As they engage in knowledge sharing, they should be

reflective of how it may improve their own

knowledge which could help them become more

innovative at work. Since knowledge sharing is one

of the main aspects of many knowledge management

initiatives, a better understanding of not only what

motivates employees to engage in knowledge sharing,

but also what impact it could have on individual’s

work and how such impact is manifested would be an

on-going concern for many managers. Findings are in

line with other studies that suggest that knowledge

sharing in organizations impacts its performance only

when employees utilize the knowledge that they gain

through knowledge sharing (Zaim, Muhammed &

Tarim, 2019).

While task knowledge is a significant mediator of

knowledge sharing’s impact on innovation, the

findings of this study show that it only partially

mediates this relationship. This opens up avenues for

future researchers to evaluate other aspects of

knowledge sharing’s impact on innovation. For

example, in a recent study Asurakkody and Hee

(2020) found self-leadership to be a mediator in this

relationship. While recognizing the limitation of

measuring individual knowledge in an organizational

context at a very broad scale and the varied

complexities that may be masked by such an

approach, this research shows the usefulness of

measuring task knowledge at such a scale and how

important substantive relations may be effected by it.

Future research could use similar measure of task

knowledge to evaluate other substantive

relationships, especially, the ones in the knowledge

management area since a better understanding of how

the various initiatives improve the knowledge stock

of individuals and organizations would be of interest

to researchers and practitioners in this field.

REFERENCES

Afsar, B. & Umrani, W.A. (2019). Transformational

leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of

motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation

climate. European Journal of Innovation Management,

23(3), 402-428.

Ahmad, F., & Karim, M. (2019). Impacts of knowledge

sharing: A review and directions for future

research. Journal of Workplace Learning, 31(3), 207-

230.

Akgün, A.E., Dayan, M., & Di Benedetto, A. (2008). New

product development team intelligence: Antecedents

and consequences. Information & Management, 45(4),

221-226.

Akram, F., & Bokhari, R. (2011). The role of knowledge

sharing on individual performance, considering the

factor of motivation-the conceptual framework.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and

Engineering, 2 (9), 44-48.

Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M.J., & Hussain, S.T. (2019).

The impact of organizational justice on employee

innovative work behavior: Mediating role of

knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation &

Knowledge, 5(2), 117-129.

Amabile, T. M. "Creativity and Innovation in

Organizations." Harvard Business School Background

Note 396-239, January 1996.

Anderson, N., Potocnik, K. & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation

and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science

review, prospective commentary, and guiding

framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297-1333.

Arsawan, I.W.E., Kariati, N.M., Prayustika, P.A., & Wirga,

I.W. (2019). Elucidating Knowledge Sharing on

Innovative Work Behavior: Multiperspective Analysis.

ICORE, 5(1), 670-686.

Asurakkody, T.A., & Hee, S. (2020). Effects of Knowledge

Sharing Behavior on Innovative work Behavior among

Nursing Students: Mediating role of Self-Leadership.

International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 12, 1-

Atherton, A. (2013). Organisational ‘know-where’and

‘know-when’: re-framing configurations and

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

distributions of knowledge in organisations. Knowledge

Management Research & Practice, 11(4), 410-421.

Autor, D.H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R.J. (2003). The skill

content of recent technological change: An empirical

exploration. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 118(4), 1279-1333.

Backstrom, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2019). A mapping study of

employee innovation: proposing a research agenda.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 22 (3),

468-492.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–

mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging

knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward

systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 9(1), 64-76.

Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., & Lee, J.N. (2005).

Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:

Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-

psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS

Quarterly, 87-111.

Bontis, N., Bart, C., Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., & Rivera, O.

(2009). Knowledge sharing and innovation

performance. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1),

22.36.

Che, T., Wu, Z., Wang, Y., & Yang, R. (2019). Impacts of

knowledge sourcing on employee innovation: the

moderating effect of information transparency. Journal

of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 221-239.

Chin, W.W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural

equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii-xv.

Churchill Jr, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better

measures of marketing constructs. Journal of

Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.

Cummings, J.N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity,

and knowledge sharing in a global

organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.

De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring

innovative work behaviour. Creativity and innovation

management, 19(1), 23-36.

Dodgson, M. (2017). Innovation in firms. Oxford Review of

Economic Policy, 33(1), 85-100.

Faems, D., & Subramanian, A.M. (2013). R&D manpower

and technological performance: The impact of

demographic and task-related diversity. Research

Policy, 42(9), 1624–1633.

Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R.R. (Eds.).

(2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford

University Press.

Fonseca, T., de Faria, P., & Lima, F. (2019). Human capital

and innovation: the importance of the optimal

organizational task structure. Research Policy, 48(3),

616-627.

Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Structural equation

modeling and regression: guidelines for research

practice. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Garicano, L. & Wu, Y. (2010). A Task-Based Approach to

Organization: Knowledge, Communication and

Structure," CEP Discussion Papers dp1013, Centre for

Economic Performance, LSE.

Garud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how,

know-what, and know-why. Advances in Strategic

Management, 14, 81-102.

Githii, S. (2014), Knowledge management practices and

innovation performance: a literature review. Journal of

Business and Management (IOSR-JBM). 16(2), 89-94.

Greenberg, J. & Baron, R. A. (2002). Behavior in

organizations: Understanding and managing the human

side of work. Prentice Hall, NY.

Grigoriou, K. & Rothaermel, F.T. (2014). Structural

microfoundations of innovation: The role of relational

stars. Journal of Management, 40(2), 586-615.

Han, S.H., Yoon, S. W., & Chae, C. (2020). Building social

capital and learning relationships through knowledge

sharing: a social network approach of management

students’ cases. Journal of Knowledge

Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2019-

0641

Hassan, H.A., Asif, J., Waqar, N., & Abbas, S.K. (2018).

The impact of knowledge sharing on innovative work

behaviour. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies,

6(5), 22-25.

Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M. (2003). The Dynamic Resource-

Based View: Capability Lifecycles. Strategic

Management Journal, 24, 997–1010.

Howell, J.M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of

technological innovation: The influence of contextual

knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea

promotion on champion emergence. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15(1), 123-143.

Høyrup, S. (2012). Employee-driven innovation: A new

phenomenon, concept and mode of innovation.

In Employee-driven innovation (pp. 3-33). Palgrave

Macmillan, London.

Hulme, P.E. (2014). Bridging the knowing–doing gap:

know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and

know-when. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(5), 1131-

1136.

Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A

conceptual framework. Human Resource Development

Review, 2(4), 337-359.

Jada, U.R., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Titiyal, R. (2019).

Empowering leadership and innovative work behavior:

a moderated mediation examination. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 23(5), 915-930.

Janssen, O. (2000), Job demands, perceptions of effort

reward fairness and innovative work behaviour.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 73(3), 287-302.

Johnson, P., Johnson, H, Waddington, R. & Shouls, A.

(2001). Task-Related Knowledge Structures: Analysis,

Modelling and Application, publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2401134

Kahn, K.B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business

Horizons, 61(3), 453-460.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

Kamaşak, R., & Bulutlar, F. (2010). The influence of

knowledge sharing on innovation. European Business

Review, 22(3), 306-317.

Kesting, P., & Ulhøi, J.P. (2010). Employeedriven

innovation: extending the license to foster

innovation. Management Decision, 48(1), 65-84.

Khan, N.A., & Khan, A.N. (2019). What followers are

saying about transformational leaders fostering

employee innovation via organisational learning,

knowledge sharing and social media use in public

organisations?. Government Information Quarterly,

36(4).

Kim, D.H. (1993). A framework and methodology for

linking individual and organizational learning:

Applications in TQM and product

development (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology).

Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural

relationships between work engagement, organizational

procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative

work behavior for sustainable organizations.

Sustainability, 9(2), 205.

Kline, R.B. (2010). edition 3. Principles and practice of

structural equation modeling.

Le, P.B., & Lei, H. (2019). Determinants of innovation

capability: the roles of transformational leadership,

knowledge sharing and perceived organizational

support. Journal of Knowledge Management.

Leonardi, P.M. (2014). Social media, knowledge sharing,

and innovation: Toward a theory of communication

visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796-

816.

Lin, C.P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling

knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a

moderator. Personnel Review, 36(3), 457-475.

Maqbool, S., Černe, M., & Bortoluzzi, G. (2019). Micro-

foundations of innovation. European Journal of

Innovation Management, 22(1), 125-145.

Masih, N., Sriratanaviriyakul, N., El-Den, J., & Azam, S.

(2018). The Role of Knowledge Sharing on Employees’

Innovation Initiatives. In 2018 8th International

Workshop on Computer Science and Engineering

(WCSE 2018), 697-704.

Muhammed, S., Doll, W.J., & Deng, X. (2009). A model of

interrelationship among individual level knowledge

management success measures. International Journal

of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 1 – 16.

DOI:104018/jkm.2009010101

Muhammed, S., Doll, W.J., & Deng, X. (2011). Impact of

knowledge management practices on task knowledge:

an individual level study. International Journal of

Knowledge Management, 7(4), 1–21.

doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2011100101

Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., & Sharma, S.

(2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications.

Sage Publications.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational

knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nurulin, Y., Skvortsova, I., Tukkel, I., & Torkkeli, M.

(2019). Role of Knowledge in Management of

Innovation. Resources, 8(2), 87.

Odetunde, O.J. (2019), Employee Innovation Process: An

Integrative Model, Journal of Innovation Management,

7(3), 15-40.

Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee

creativity: Personal and contextual factors at

work. Academy of management Journal, 39(3), 607-

634.

Oliver, D., & Jacobs, C. (2007). Developing guiding

principles: an organizational learning perspective.

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6),

813-828.

Ologbo, A.C., Nor, K.M., & Okyere-Kwakye, E. (2015).

The Influence of knowledge sharing on employee

innovation capabilities. International Journal of

Human Resource Studies, 5(3), 102-110.

Phung, V.D., Hawryszkiewycz, I., & Chandran, D. (2019),

How knowledge sharing leads to innovative work

behaviour: A moderating role of transformational

leadership. Journal of Systems and Information

Technology, 21(3), 277-303.

Ping Jr, R.A. (2004). On assuring valid measures for

theoretical models using survey data. Journal of

business research, 57(2), 125-141.

Pulakos, E. D., Dorsey, D. W. and Borman, W., (2003).

Hiring for Knowledge-Based Competition. In Jackson,

S. E., DeNisi, A., & Hitt, M. A. (Eds.). Managing

knowledge for sustained competitive advantage:

Designing strategies for effective human resource

management (Vol. 21). John Wiley & Sons, pp.155-

177.

Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M., & Spiller, N. (2014).

Knowledge sharing and innovative work behaviour in

healthcare: A microlevel investigation of direct and

indirect effects. Creativity and Innovation

Management, 23(4), 400-414.

Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., & Husted, K.

(2015). Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking and

relative innovation performance: An empirical study.

Technovation, 35, 22-31.

Rothaermel, F.T., & Hess, A.M. (2007). Building dynamic

capabilities: Innovation driven by individual-, firm-,

and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6),

898-921.

Schultze, U. & Leidner, D.E. (2002). Studying knowledge

management in information systems research:

discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly,

213-242.

Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of

innovative behavior: A path model of individual

innovation in the workplace, Academy of Management

Journal, 37(3), 580-607.

Smith, M., Busi, M., Ball, P., & Van der Meer, R. (2008).

Factors influencing an organisation's ability to manage

innovation: a structured literature review and

conceptual model. International Journal of Innovation

Management, 12(04), 655-676.

Evaluating Task Knowledge as a Mediator in the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Work Behaviour

Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L.E. (1992). Competing

on capabilities: The new rules of corporate

strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70(2), 57-69.

Storey, C., & Kahn, K.B. (2010). The role of knowledge

management strategies and task knowledge in

stimulating service innovation. Journal of Service

Research, 13(4), 397-410.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M.A. (2005). The influence

of intellectual capital on the types of innovative

capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3),

450-463.

Thomas, S.P., Thomas, R.W., Manrodt, K.B., & Rutner,

S.M. (2013). An experimental test of negotiation

strategy effects on knowledge sharing intentions in

buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain

Management, 49(2), 96-113.

Van Den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J.A. (2004). Knowledge

sharing in context: the influence of organizational

commitment, communication climate and CMC use on

knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 8(6), 117-130.

Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing,

innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with

Applications, 39(10), 8899-8908.

West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (1989). Innovation at work:

Psychological perspectives. Social Behaviour, 4(1), 15-

30.

Widén-Wulff, G., & Ginman, M. (2004). Explaining

knowledge sharing in organizations through the

dimensions of social capital. Journal of Information

Science, 30(5), 448-458.

Yang, J.T. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on

organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of

knowledge Management, 11(2), 83-90.

Zack, M.H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan

Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.

Zaim, H., Muhammed, S., & Tarim, M. (2019).

Relationship between knowledge management

processes and performance: critical role of knowledge

utilization in organizations. Knowledge Management

Research & Practice, 17(1), 24-38.

KMIS 2020 - 12th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems