組織氣候與個人動機對知識分享意圖之影響

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：64

、訪客IP：52.15.83.59

姓名

李宛霖(Wan-lin Lee) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

資訊管理學系

論文名稱

組織氣候與個人動機對知識分享意圖之影響
(The influence of organizational climate and personal motivations on intention to share knowledge)

相關論文

★ 以個案研究法探討機械式組織之資訊系統導入	★ 銀行企業內部網路導入TCP/IP通信協定之研究
★ 後金控時代臺灣地區金融服務業薪資決策支援系統之設計研究 --以一家中型證券商為例	★ 影響數位在職訓練之學習態度及行為意向研究
★ 台灣銀行業導入電子商務線上金流訊息標準之研究	★ 國防訓儲軍士官制度評估
★ 以關係承諾角度探討組織中軟體專案開發之個案研究	★ 企業工作流程再造之研究─以銀行發卡流程為例
★ 以個案研究法探討B2B電子商務導入之研究—以汽車售後服務件製造商為例	★ 以個案研討方法探討公文簽核流程再造之研究－以變更資訊部門服務為例
★ 醫療資訊系統之資訊安全危安因素探討以台北某醫學中心為例	★ 資訊部門專案經理派遣人員之個案研究
★ 綠色供應鏈管理資訊系統導入問題分析與探討-以A公司為例	★ 企業導入企業資源規劃(ERP)對作業流程之影響－以A公司為例
★ 客訴處理電子化流程管理－以飲料業為例	★ 以個案研究法探討企業垃圾郵件防堵

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

至系統瀏覽論文 ( 永不開放)

摘要(中)

隨著網路技術的蓬勃發展及網路使用者的逐日增加，這樣的便利性將世界上的人們都連結在一起。因此，人們可以不受到距離和時間上的限制，自由地與他人溝通。同時，網路的便捷性也改變了人們聚集的方式，特別是受到虛擬社群的所帶來的巨大影響。通常來說，虛擬社群提供了一種線上的平台，可以讓人們針對自己喜歡的社群內容或是擁有共同興趣，做進一步的交流、溝通以及分享知識。然而，現今網路上愈來愈多虛擬社群擁有各自不同的風格和社群類型，吸引不同的使用者聚集於此。
在這樣的虛擬社群裡，最重要的議題就是如何促進社群內個人的知識分享，在本研究中，納入了過去文獻鮮少探討的組織氣候，探討在虛擬社群的環境中，以理性行為理論為模型基礎，探討個人的動機和組織氣候對於知識分享態度、主觀規範和意圖的影響。其中，在個人的動機部份，主要是納入個人和社群結果預期、互惠、知識分享效能以及樂於幫助他人等因素，探討是否會影響個人的知識分享態度。在組織氣候的部份則涵蓋了結構、支持、獎酬的問項來做調查。
本研究對象是以台灣最知名的專業Java語言的社群—JavaWorld@TW的參與者為主。透過線上網路問卷，並公開張貼於部份大型BBS以及JavaWorld@TW網站。最後總共收到207份問卷，但是刪除一份無效問卷，因此最後總計是206份問卷。研究結果顯示，動機因素中的互惠和社群結果預期是對知識分享態度是有正向影響。而在組織氣候的部份（結構、支持、獎酬）對於主觀規範有正向的影響。主觀規範和知識分享對於意圖也有正向的影響。

摘要(英)

With the prosperous development of Internet and increasing internet users, the convenience connects people worldwide. Thus, people are freely able to communicate with each other without the limitation of time and distance. Also, they way people to gather are changed dramatically by the Internet, especially the virtual communities (VCs). In general, virtual communities provide the online platform for people to interact with each other, and share knowledge based on the specific and favorable topics. However, there is a wide variety type of virtual communities which contains different type of professional content, which is also called knowledge communities. The most critical issue is that sharing knowledge is an important factor in discourse on motivations and organizational context, that is, organizational climate, which is rarely discussed in virtual communities in the previous literatures. In this study, “Personal and Community-related Outcome expectations”’, “Reciprocity”, “Knowledge sharing self-efficacy” and “Enjoy helping others” are included in motivational factors. And, “organizational climate” ranges from structure, support and reward in the survey.
Therefore, this study analyzes the influence of motivational factors and organizational climate, and further adopted on TRA-based (Theory of Reasoned Action) model, in order to examine the knowledge sharing attitude, subjective norm, and further, to intention. The object of research is the well-known professional Java language communities in Taiwan— “JavaWorld@TW”. The survey is supported by respondents who have experiences in participating in JavaWorld@TW.
The questionnaire was publicly published in BBSs and JavaWorld@TW. Total 207 samples were collected from the web-based survey, and 1 invalid sample was deleted. Consequently, total 206 valid samples were collected. The result shows motivational factors (“Reciprocity” and “Community-related outcome expectations”) has positive influence on “Attitude toward knowledge sharing”, and “Organizational Climate” (Structure, Support, Reward) is also significant in this study. Furthermore, “Subject Norm” and “Attitude toward knowledge sharing” affects individuals’ intentions to share knowledge.

關鍵字(中)

★ 理性行為理論
★ 動機
★ 虛擬社群
★ 知識分享
★ 組織氣候

關鍵字(英)

★ Virtual Communities
★ Knowledge sharing
★ Motivation
★ Theory of Reasoned Action
★ Organizational Climate

論文目次

Table of Content
中文摘要 i
Abstract ii
誌謝辭 iii
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Research background and motivation 1
1.2 Research objectives 3
1.3 Research procedure 5
2 Theoretical Foundation 8
2.1 Knowledge sharing 8
2.1.1 Definition of knowledge 8
2.2 Organizational Climate 11
2.3 Knowledge sharing self-efficacy 13
2.4 Community 14
2.4.1 Definition of Virtual community 15
2.4.2 The definition of Community of practice, CoPs) 18
2.5 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) 19
2.6 Individual motivations 20
2.7 Barriers to participate in virtual communities 21
3 Research Method 24
3.1 Research model 24
3.2 Research Hypothesis 27
3.2.1 Outcome expectations 27
3.2.2 Reciprocity 28
3.2.3 Knowledge Sharing Self-Efficacy 28
3.2.4 Enjoy Helping Others 30
3.2.5 Organizational Climate 30
3.2.6 Attitude toward knowledge sharing 32
3.2.7 Subjective norm 32
3.3 Constructs Definition and Operationalization 33
3.4 Research Design 36
3.4.1 Questionnaire Design 37
3.4.2 Data collection 38
4 Data Analysis 40
4.1 Descriptive Statistics 41
4.2 Questionnaire data analysis 45
4.2.1 Convergent validity. 45
4.2.2 Discriminant Validity 47
4.2.3 Reliability 49
4.3 Hypotheses Testing 49
5. Conclusions and Suggestions 52
5.1 Results 52
5.2 Contributions 55
5.3 Managerial implications 55
5.4 Research Limitations 57
Reference 59
Appendix 64

參考文獻

1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual fundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
2. Anderson, J.C.and Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3) 411–423.
3. Andrews & Kacmar (2001). M.C. Andrews and K.M. Kacmar, Discriminating among organizational politics, justice, and support, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 347–366
4. Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentiling, T. (2003). Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge – sharing communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(1), 64–77.
5. Argote, L., and Beckman, S.L., and D. Epple. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140-154.
6. Argote, L., and P. Ingram. (2000). Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
7. Araujo, L. (1998), Knowing and learning as networking, Management Learning, 29(3), 17-36.
8. Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ.
9. Baum, J. A., P. Ingram. (1998). Survival-Enhancing Learning in the Manhattan Hotel Industry 1898-1980, Management Science, 44(7), 996-1016.
10. Bartol, M. K., Srivastava A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems.
11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
12. Baron, J.N. and Kreps, D.M. (1999). Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. New York: Wiley.
13. Beckman, T. (1997). A Methodology for Knowledge management. International Association of Science and Technology for Development (IASTED) AI and Soft Computing Conference. Banff, Canada.
14. Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
15. Blumentitt, R. and Johnston, R. (1999). Towards a strategy for knowledge management Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,11, 287-300
16. Bock, G. W. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing, Information Management Resources Journal,15(2). 14-21.
17. Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005). Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-PsychologicalnForces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-112.
18. Bross, J., Sack H., Meinel C. (2007). Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities: The “IT-summit-blog” Case. IADIS International Journal on WWW/INTERNET, 5(2), 113-129.
19. Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E. (2002). The Knowledge Sharing Dilemma, Organization Studies, in press. Zarraga, C. and Bonache, J. (2003).
20. Chin W. W., (1998). Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
21. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares,” in Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, R. H. Hoyle (ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
22. Chin, W.W. PLS-Graph User’s Guide, Version 3.0, February, 2001 edition.
23. Chiu, C-M., Hsu, M-H., & Wang, E.T.G. (2006). Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities：An Integration of Social Capital and Social Cognitive Theories. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872-1888.
24. Nielsen, J. (2006). Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from “useit.com” web site: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
25. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of aMeasure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19, (2), 189-211.
26. Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1996). The Kindness of Strangers: The Usefulness of Electronic Weak Ties for Technical Advice. Organization Science 7(2), 693-703.
27. Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
28. Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems,18, 215-233.
29. Elliott, S., & O'Dell, C. (1999). Sharing knowledge and best practices: The hows and whys of tapping your organization's hidden reservoirs of knowledge Health Forum Journal, 42, 34-37.
30. Eriksson, I. V., and Dickson, G. W. (2000). Knowledge Sharing in High Technology Companies. Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information
31. Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back (1950). Social Pressures in
Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing, New York: Harper.
32. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
33. Fornell, C., and Bookstein, F. (1982). Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440-452.
34. Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E., and Neale, M.A. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in
teams: managing the love triangle of organizations. Individuals and Information
Technology, MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287.
35. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(10), 109-122.
36. Von Krogh, G. (1998), Care in knowledge creation, California Management Review 40(3), 133–153.
37. Glew D.J., O’Leary-Kelly A.M., Griffin R.W., Van Fleet D.D. (1995). Participation in organizations: a preview of the issues and proposed framework for future analysis. J Manage 21, 395–421
38. Hendriks, P. (1999). Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of ICT on Motivation of Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
39. Holthouse, Dan. (1998). Knowledge Research Issues. California Management
Review, 43(3), 277-280.
40. Janz, B. D. and Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.
41. Janz, B. D., Wehterbe, J. C., Colquitt, J. A., and Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904.
42. Kankanhalli A., Tan, B.C.Y., & Wei, K-K. (2005). Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories：An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly,
29(1), 113-143.
43. Leonard, D.(1995). Wellsprings Of Knowledge: Building And Sustaining
The Source of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
44. Lee, F. S. L., Vogel, D. and Limayem, M. (2003). Virtual Community Informatics: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(1), 47-61.
45. Litwin, G. H. and Stringer, R. A., (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate, Division of Research, Harvard Business School, Boston.
46. Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,17(1), 93-108.
47. Miller, D. and Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal 39 (3), 519–543.
48. Moffett , S., McAdam ,R.& Parkinson ,S. (2003). An Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Management Applications, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 95-111.
49. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
50. Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create theDynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
51. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, M. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company – How Japaness Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation Oxford: The Oxford University Press
52. O'Dell, C., and C. Grayson. (1998). If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification And Transfer Of Internal Best Practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174.
53. Osterloh, M. & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550.
54. Pan, S. L., Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory Case Study of Buckman Labs Technology Analysis and Strategic Management,11(3), 359-74
55. Platts, M.J., Yeung, M.B. (2000). Managing learning and tacit knowledge. Strategic Change (UK), 9(6), 347-356.
56. Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D. (2004).The top 5 reasons for lurking: Improving community experiences for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 1 (in press)
57. Polanyi, M. (1996). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Day.
58. Ryu, S., Ho, S.H., and Han, I. (2003).Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Physicians in Hospitals. Expert Systems With Applications, 25(1), 113-122.
59. Stolterman, E., Croon, A. & Agren, PO. (1997). Virtual communities - why and how are they studied.
60. Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning by knowledge intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 713-740.
61. To‥nnies, F. (1967). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In C. Bell & H. Newby (Eds.), The sociology of community (pp. 7–12). London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd.
62. Wasko, M.M, and Faraj, S. (2005). Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.
63. Wasko, M.M., and Frarj, S. (2000). It Is What One Does”: Why People Participate and Help Others in Electronic Communities of Practice. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, (9), 155-173.
64. Wijnhoven, F. (1998). Knowledge Logistic in Business Contexts: Analyzing and
Diagnosing Knowledge Sharing by Logistics Concepts. Knowledge and Process
Management, 5(3), 143-157.
65. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickness: Impediments to the
transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(10), 27-43.
66. Schneider, B. (1990). The climate for service: An application of the climate construct. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and
culture (pp. 383–412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Systems (AMCIS), 1330-1335.
67. Z rraga, C., Bonache, J., (2003)Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: an empirical analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7). 1227 – 1245
68. Yang, S.C. (2006) “A Study on Tacit Knowledge Acquisition and Sharing among Group Members from a Social Exchange Theory Perspective,” Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Information Management, National Central University.

指導教授

范懿文(Yi-wen Fan)

審核日期

2009-6-23

推文