SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 65 - Sayı: 4

Knowledge sharing behavior in organizations: A view from social capital dimension

Örgütlerde bilgi paylaşım davranışı: Sosyal sermaye boyutundan bir bakış

Aykut GÖKSEL
Belgin AYDINTAN
Dursun BİNGÖL
Pages
87–109
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the other handexternal locus of control has not any meaningful relation on the tacit knowledge sharing behavior.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:As the sharing of tacit knowledge is crucial for the organizations, we focus our intention on the relationbetween three social capital’s dimensions and tacit knowledge sharing behavior.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study we intend to answerby suggesting a research model 2 main research questions: (1) Do the three dimensions of social capital influenceindividual’s tacit knowledge sharing behavior? and (2) do the internal and external locus of control influence tacitknowledge sharing behavior?As tacit knowledge is highly and densely created, developed, shared and transferred in medical sciencefrom masters to the students along six years, we designate our research subject as the medical interns of a greatand important university hospital in Turkey.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other handexternal locus of control has not any meaningful relation on the tacit knowledge sharing behavior.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

As the sharing of tacit knowledge is crucial for the organizations, we focus our intention on the relationbetween three social capital’s dimensions and tacit knowledge sharing behavior. In this study we intend to answerby suggesting a research model 2 main research questions: (1) Do the three dimensions of social capital influenceindividual’s tacit knowledge sharing behavior? and (2) do the internal and external locus of control influence tacitknowledge sharing behavior?As tacit knowledge is highly and densely created, developed, shared and transferred in medical sciencefrom masters to the students along six years, we designate our research subject as the medical interns of a greatand important university hospital in Turkey. At the end of this research it is found that the main dimensions of social capital and internal locus ofcontrol have statistically meaningful positive relation on the tacit knowledge sharing behavior. On the other handexternal locus of control has not any meaningful relation on the tacit knowledge sharing behavior.

Özet

Örtülü bilgi paylaşımının örgüt için yaşamsal öneminden hareketle çalışmanın odağı sosyal sermayeboyutları ile örtülü bilgi paylaşım davranışı ilişkisine yönelmiştir. Bu çerçevede çalışma, bir ala iki temel soruya cevap aramaktadır. (1) Sosyal sermaye boyutları örtülü bilgraştırma modeliyoluyiyi paylaşma davranışınıetkiletmekte midir? ve (2) içsel ve dışsal kontrollülük örtülü bilgi paylaşım davranışını etkilemekte midir?Örtülü bilginin yoğun olarak üretildiği, paylaşıldığı ve ustalıkların 6 yıl boyunca öğrencilere aktarılmasısürecini kapsayan tıp eğitimi, çalışmanın uygulama alanı olarak seçilmiş ve bir üniversite hastanesi intörnleriüzerinde çalışma gerçekleştirilmiştir.Çalışmanın sonucunda, sosyal sermaye boyutlarının ve içsel kontrolün örtülü bilgiyi paylaşım davranışınıolumlu yönde etkilediği istatistikî olarak kanıtlanmış, buna karşın dışsal kontrolün örtülü bilgi paylaşımı ileistatistikî bir ilişkisi bulunamamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖKSEL, A., AYDINTAN, B., BİNGÖL, D. (2022). Knowledge sharing behavior in organizations: A view from social capital dimension. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt: 65 - Sayı: 4, 87–109. https://ajindex.com/articles/443078

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.
  2. Ajzen, I. (2002), “Perceived Behavior Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control and the Theory of Planned Behavior,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 665-683.
  3. Ajzen, I. (1985), “From Intention to Behavior: A Theory of Planned Behavior,” J. Kunl ve J. Beckman (eds.), Action Control: From Cognitions To Behaviors, 11-39 (New York: Springer). Alavi, M., ve D. E. Leidner(2001), “Knowledge Management And Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107–136.
  4. Armitage, C. J., Conner, M., Loach, J., ve D.Willetts (1999), “Different Perceptions of Control: Applying An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior to Legal and Illegal Drug Use,” Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(4), 301-316.
  5. Armitage, C. J. ve M.Conner (2001), “Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: Ameta-Analytic Review,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 471-499.
  6. Berger, P. L. ve T.Luckman (1966), The Social Construction of Reality (London: Penguin Press). Berman, S. L., J. Down ve C. W. L. Hill (2002), “Tacit Knowledge as a Source of Competitive Advantage in the National Basketball Association,” Academy of Management Journal, 45(1): 13-31.
  7. Bock, G. W., R. W. Zmud, R, Y. G. Kim ve J.N. Lee (2005), “Behavioral Intention Formation In Knowledge Sharing: Examining The Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social–Psychological Forces, And Organizational Climate,” MIS Quarterly, 29(1): 1-26.
  8. Bolino, M. C., W. H Turnley,. ve J. M. Bloodgood (2002), “Citizenship Behavior An The Creation of Social Capital In Organizations,” Academy of Management Review, 27(4): 505-522.
  9. Brashear, T. G.,, J. S. Boles Bellenger ve C. M. Brooks (2003), “An Empirical Test of Trust-Building Processes and Outcomes in Sales Manager–Salesperson Relationships,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2): 189–200.
  10. Burt, R. S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press). Burt, R. S. (1997), “The Contingent Value of Social Capital,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 42: 339-365.
  11. Choi, B., ve H.Lee (2003). “An Empirical Investigation of Km Styles and Their Effect on Corporate Performance,” Information & Management, 40: 403-417.
  12. Coleman, J. S. (1988), “Social Capital in The Creation Of Human Capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94: 95-120.
  13. Coleman, J. S. (1990), Foundations Of Social Theor