在知識爆炸的時代，知識為企業競爭力的重要來源，唯有知識才是個人及整體經濟的主要資源，因此，知識將成為企業成功的因素。但知識分享卻是一個相當棘手的問題，因為在根深蒂固的觀念裡，個人往往都會認為自己的知識是有價值且為重要的競爭資源，且吝於在組織內進行分享，因此推動知識管理最大的困難是改變人們分享知識的行為，影響組織成員分享知識之意願的關鍵因素，往往並非是在技術，而是在人與組織文化上面。
知識分享是目前組織學習理論中的重要課題，而員工是否能夠勇於知識分享，表現出組織學習的良效，關鍵因素在於員工本身對於知識分享行為的認知與組織所提供的環境是否良好，綜觀今日的資訊人員已無法獨自處理資訊科技的變化，需要不同專長領域的資訊人員互相合作，及分享專業知識，以有效因應快速變動的資訊科技。
本研究基於Bandura的理論觀點，試圖從社會認知理論(SCT)探討組織氣候對自我效能與預期成果之影響，從而對知識分享意圖與行為產生之影響。
自我效能的概念為組織知識分享的實施關鍵因素，所以一般認為自我效能與預期成果是預測員工知識分享行為的重要具體指標之一，因此除了回顧知識分享、社會認知理論、理性行為理論與自我效能理論等相關文獻外，並探討組織環境對組織分享的重要性。
因此，本研究欲使用問卷調查法來收集資訊專業人員對於知識分享相關構面的資料，並採用結構方程式模式的分析方法，對於研究架構進行分析、檢驗。最後，希望能藉由本研究的結果，能進一步了解對於資訊專業人員的知識分享行為，並可作為後續知識分享研究之重要參考與建議。

Knowledge has been an important source of corporate competitiveness in the knowledge-exploding era; therefore, knowledge will inevitably become the decisive factor of business success and significant resource for our society and the whole economy. However, due to our firmly-developed conception, knowledge-sharing has become a harsh and tough issue because people always consider their knowledge valuable resource and core competence; meanwhile, we are even reluctant to share our knowledge with others in the organizations. As a result, how to change people’s behaviors among knowledge sharing has become the most difficult challenge when implementing and promoting knowledge management (KM). The key factors which affect organization members on knowledge sharing are not simply from the technology but majorly from the organization culture and people.
It has been indicated that Knowledge-sharing is an important issue in current organization learning theories. The major factors of whether employees are willing to share their knowledge and show great performance of organization learning tremendously depend on employees’ cognition on knowledge-sharing behaviors and the environment conditions provided by their organizations. As a result from IT professionals’ insufficient abilities to handle the fast-moving changes of IT technologies, it is definitely necessary that IT personnel from various fields must cooperate and share professional know-how and domain knowledge with each other in order to efficiently face the changes and challenges.
On a comprehensive basis of Bandura’s theoretical view points, this study mainly attempts to explore the impacts and influences of what and how organization climate would affect self-efficacy and knowledge-sharing intention and behaviors generated from Social Cognitive Theory (SCT).
The concept of self-efficacy is the crucial elements for organization knowledge-sharing. We usually view self-efficacy and outcome expectancies as the critical indexes to predict employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviors. In addition to reviewing knowledge-sharing, SCT、Theory of Reasoned Action(TRA), self-efficacy theory and other relative information, we also investigate the importance of organization sharing.
Consequently, to sum up, in order to collect information from IT professionals on knowledge-sharing, this study uses questionnaire research and adopts structural equation modeling to analyze and test the research structures and relative statistics data. Finally, the research results enable us to comprehend more about knowledge-sharing behaviors among IT professionals. This study also plays an important role in critical reference and suggestion, not to mention the fact that it offers significant use and beneficial purposes for knowledge sharing-related research.

一、中文部分
1. 陳靖旻(2008)，影響虛擬社群成員知識分享因素之探討-社會資本理論觀點。
2. 吳淑敏、徐村和、唐國銘(2007)，情緒智慧組織氣候與服務品質之關係研究—以台灣銀行產業為例。
3. 廖國鋒、吳建平(2007)，個體工作滿足、知識分享與組織創新能力之關聯性研究。
4. 陳怡辰(2007)，以計畫行為理論和科技接受模式探討知識分享。
5. 袁玉菁(2006)，組織氣候、組織知識管理與組織學習之相關研究-以某保險公司通訊為例，中原大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
6. 廖述賢、費吳琛、王儀雯(2006)，信任關係、工作滿足與知識分享關聯性之研究。
7. 吳盛、林東清、林杏子(2005)，以社會交換理論觀點探討影響虛擬團對成員知識分享行為因素，中華民國資訊管理學報。
8. 吳盛(2003)，以計畫行為理論探討資訊人員得知識分享行為，中山大學資訊管理研究所博士論文。
9. 王思峰、林于荻、陳禹辰(2003)，組織文化如何影響知識分享之探索性個案研究。
10. 林于荻(2001)，組織文化如何影響知識分享之探索性研究，東吳大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
11. 蔡立旭（2000），組織氣候、組織學習與自我效能之關係，大葉大學事業經營研究所碩士論文。
二、英文部分
1. Allport, G.W. Pattern and Growth in Personality, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961.
2. Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, No. 3, 1988, 411-423.
3. Bagozzi, R.P. “Assessing Method Variance in Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices: The Case of Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions at Work,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, 1990, 547-560.
4. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
5. Bandura, A. “Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” American Psychologist, Vol. 37, No. 2, February 1982, 122-147.
6. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
7. Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. “Differential Engagement of Self-Reactive Influences in Cognitive Motivation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 38, 1986, 92-113.
8. Bandura, A. and Cervone, D. “Self-Evaluate and Self-Efficacy Mechanisms Governing the Motivational Effects of Goal Systems,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45, 1983, 1017-1028.
9. Bandura, A. and Jourden, F. J. “Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing the Impact of Social Comparison on Complex Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 6, 1991, 941-951.
10. Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. “Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude,” MIS Quarterly, March 1994, 59-82.
11. Baum, W.M. “The Correlation-Based Law of Effect,” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Vol. 20, 1973, 137-153.
12. Bentler, P.M. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual, Encino, CA: Multivariate Software Inc., 1995.
13. Bostrom, R.P., Olfman, L., and Sein, M. “The Importance of Learning Style in End-User Training,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1990, 101-119.
14. Compeau, D. R. and Higgins C.A. “Application of Social Cognitive Theory to Training for Computer Skill,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1995a, 118-143.
15. Compeau, D. R. and Higgins C.A. “Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test,” MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 1995b, 189-211.
16. Freud, S. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. In Standard Edition (Vol. 22). Hogarth, London, 1964.
17. Gist, M.E. “Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Resource Management,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1987, 472-485.
18. Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. “Self-Efficacy: A Theroretical Analysis of its Determinants and Mallebility, ” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1992, 183-211.
19. Gist, M.E. Schwoerer, C., and Rosen, B. “Effects of Alternative Training Methods on Self-Efficacy and Performance in Computer Software Training,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, No. 6, 1989, 884-891.
20. Guidice, G.P. “Making the Most of CMM,” PEM: Plant Engineering and Maintenance, 1990, 30-32.
21. Henry, J.W. and Stone, R.W. “A Structural Equation Model of End-User Satisfaction with a Computer-Based Medical Information System,” Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1994, 21-33.
22. Henry, J.W. and Stone, R.W. “Computer Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy: The Effects on the End-User's Job Satisfaction,” Computer Personnel, 1995, 15-34.
23. Hollenbeck, J.R. and Brief, A.P. “The Effects on Individual Differences and Goal Origin on Goal Setting and Performance,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 40, 1987, 392-414.
24. Igbaria, M., Parvi, F.N., Huff, S.L. “Microcomputer Applications: An Empirical Look at Usage,” Information and Management, Vol. 16, 1989, 187-196.
25. Karloy, P. “Mechanisms of Self-Regulation: A Systems View,” Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 44, 1993, 23-51.
26. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New York, 1984.
27. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990.
28. Locke, E.A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., and Bobko, P. “Effect of Self-Efficacy, Goals, and Task Strategies on Task Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 2, 1984, 241-251.
29. Marakas, M.M., Yi, M.Y., and Johnson, R.D. “The Multilevel and Multifaceted Character of Computer Self-Efficacy: Toward Clarification of the Construct and an Intergrative Framework of Research,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 1998, 126-163.
30. Martocchio, J.J. “Effects of Conceptions of Ability on Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and Learning in Training,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, No. 6, 1994, 819-825.
31. Martocchio, J.J. and Dulebohn, J. “Performance Feedback Effects in Training: The Role of Perceived Controllability,” Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, No. 2, 1994, 357-373.
32. Nelson, R.R. and Cheney, P.H. “Training Ender User: An Exploratory Study,” MIS Quarterly, 1987.
33. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory (2nd Ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.
34. Pajares, F. and Miller, M.D. “ Role of Self-Efficacy and Self-Concept Beliefs in Mathematical Problem Solving: A Path Analysis,” Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 86, 1994, 193-203.
35. Pennefather, S. “Key to Productivity,” Computerdata, Vol. 14, No. 70, 1989, 16-17.
36. Rooney, R. and Osipow, S.H. “Task-Specific Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale: The Development and Validation of a Prototype,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 40, 1992, 14-32.
37. Schunk, D.H. “Self-Efficacy and Achievement Behaviors,” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 1, 1989, 173-208.
38. Simon, S.J. and Werner, J.M. “Computer Training Through Behavior Modeling, Self-Paced, and Instructional Approaches: A Fields Experiment,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 6, 1996, 648-659.
39. Skinner, B.F. Science and Human Behavior, Macmillan, New York, 1953.
40. Tannenbaum, S.I. “Human Resource Information Systems: User Group Implications,” Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1990, 27-32.
41. Warner, L. and Smith, T. “Computer Training: Necessity Not Luxury,” Management Accounting, Vol. 68, No. 3, 1990, 48.
42. Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. “Microcomputer Playfulness: Development of a Measure with Workplace Implication,” MIS Quarterly, 1992, 201-226.
43. Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. “Turning Work into Play: Implications for Microcomputer Software Training,” Journal of Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1993, pp. 127-146.
44. Webster, J. and Martocchio, J.J. “The Differential Effects of Software Training Previews on Training Outcomes,” Journal of Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1995, 757-787.
45. Webster, J., Heian, J.B., and Michelman, J.E. Computer Training and Computer Anxiety in the Educational Process: An Experimental Analysis. Pp. 171-182 in J.I. DeGross, M. Alavi, and H. Oppelland (Eds.), Proceeding of the Eleventh International Conference on Information Systems. Copenhagen: ICIS, 1990.
46. Wood, R. and Bandura, A. “Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-Regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 3, 1989a, 407-415.
47. Wood, R. and Bandura, A. “Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1989b, 361-384.
48. Wood, R. and Bandura, A., and Bailey, T. “Mechanisms Governing Organizational Performance in Complex Decision-Making Environments,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 46, 1990, 181-201.
49. Zimmerman, B.J. “Self-Regulating Academic Learning and Achievement: An Overview,” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 2, 1990, 173-201.