成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	羅際群 Lo, Ji-Chun
論文名稱：	以理性行為理論探討組織內部知識分享行為 Exploring Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Internal Organization Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action
指導教授：	蔡明田 Tsai, Ming-Tien
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	管理學院 - 企業管理學系 Department of Business Administration
論文出版年：	2008
畢業學年度：	96
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	72
中文關鍵詞：	信任、關係強度、吸收能力、豐富的管道、知識管理、組織文化、態度、主觀性規範、激勵、知識分享、理性行為理論
外文關鍵詞：	Channel richness, Knowledge management., Organizational culture, Absorptive capacity, Trust, Strength of ties, Incentive, Attitude (toward the act/knowledge sharing), Subjective norm, Knowledge sharing, TRA (Theory of Reasoned Action)
相關次數：	點閱：130 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

基於理性行為理論，這份研究主要是在調查個人知識分享的態度及主觀性規範對知識分享行為的影響。我們用結構方程式模型作為我們主要的研究方法。五種變數包含激勵、信任、關係強度、豐富的管道及吸收能力等變數並用來調查其是否會影響個人知識分享的態度。在主觀性規範方面，研究中則使用組織文化來做調查。大部分的樣本來自高科技產業。結構性的調查方式則用來測試知識分享的態度與五種變數之間的關係。然後接著測試組織文化與主觀性規範的關係。研究結果顯示激勵, 信任與豐富的管道對於知識分享的態度是沒有影響的，而其他兩個變數則有顯著的影響。組織文化則對主觀性規範有顯著的影響，尤其是以支持型文化最為顯著，但是官僚型文化出乎我們假設的意料之外。官僚型文化在我們的研究中對於主觀性規範有正面的且顯著影響。最後我們再次證實了理性行為理論是一個非常好的理論模型。

Based on the theory of reasoned action, this study is focused on the individual behavior of knowledge sharing, investigating their attitude towards knowledge sharing, and subjective norm which is examined by organizational culture. We apply SEM analysis to our major analysis method. There are five variables examined as influential factors to affect people's attitude towards knowledge sharing, namely, incentive, absorptive capacity, trust, channel richness and strength of ties. Most of our samples collect from Hi-Tech industry. In a structural survey, we test the relationships between the attitude and the five variables. Then, we test the relationships between organizational culture and subjective norm. The results show that incentive, trust and channel richness indicate no influence on individual attitude towards knowledge sharing while the other two factors play a significant part. In addition, Organizational culture has significant influence upon subjective norm, especially supportive culture. However, Bureaucratic organizational culture does not accord to our hypotheses owing to its positive effect upon subjective norm. Consequently, we validate TRA was a great model to application in our research.

CONTEXT
Cover	I
致謝	III
Abstract	IV
中文摘要	V
CONTEXT	VI
Chapter1. Introduction	1
1.1 Research Background and Motivation	1
1.2 Research Questions	3
1.3 Research Process and Thesis Structure	4
Chapter 2 Literature Review	5
2.1 Knowledge Management	5
2.2 Knowledge Sharing	7
2.3 The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)	10
2.4 The Exogenous Variable of Knowledge Behavior	16
2.4.1 Strength of Ties	16
2.4.2 Absorptive Capacity	17
2.4.3 Trust	18
2.4.4 Channel Richness	21
2.4.5 Incentive	22
2.4.6 Organization Culture	24
2.5 Barriers of Knowledge Sharing	25
Chapter3. Methodology	29
3.1 Research Model	29
3.2 Research Hypotheses	30
3.3 Questionnaire Design	34
3.4 Sampling Selection	36
3.5 Analysis Method	36
Chapter 4 Data Analysis Results	39
4.1 Descriptive Statistical Analysis	39
4.1.1 Response Rate	39
4.1.2 Characteristics of Sample	39
4.2 Measurement Results for Relevant Research Variables	40
4.2.1 Factor and Reliability Analysis	41
4.2.2 Structural Equation Model	48
4.2.3 Hierarchical Regression Analyses	54
4.3 Summaries of Hypotheses Testing	57
4.4 Discussions	58
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions	61
5.1 Research Conclusions	61
5.2 Limitations	63
5.3 Suggestions	64
5.4 Suggestions for the Future Study	64
References	65
Appendix: Questionnaire (in Chinese)	70

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Result of Reliability Test	35
Table 3.2 SEM Indicator	38
Table 4.1 Characteristics of Respondents	39
Table 4.2 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Incentive	41
Table 4.3 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Incentive (Revision).	42
Table 4.4 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Richness Channel	42
Table 4.5 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Absorptive Capacity	43
Table 4.9 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Attitude Toward Knowledge Sharing	45
Table 4.10 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Subjective Norm	46
Table 4.11 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Knowledge Sharing Intention	46
Table 4.12 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Knowledge Sharing Behavior	47
Table 4.13 Result of Factor and Reliability Analysis for Knowledge Sharing	47
Table 4.14 Results of Structural Equation Model	52
Table 4.15 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses (Internal Barriers)	55
Table 4.16 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses (External Barriers)	56
Table 4.17 Summaries of Hypotheses	57

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Research Procedure	4
Figure 2.1 Interaction of Knowing and Types of Knowledge	6
Figure 2.2 Nonanaka and Takeuchi Based Four Stages of Knowledge Creation	7
Figure 2.3 The Theory of Reasoned Action	12
Figure 3.1 Research Framework	29
Figure 4.1 Structural Equation Model of This Study	50
                                    

1. E-Government: An Empirical Study.
2. Interpersonal skills are the key in office of the future. (1999). TMA Journal, 19(4), 53.
3. Adel Ismail Al-Alawi, N. Y. A.-M. a. Y. F. M. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, 11, 22-42.
4. Adler, P. S., S. Kwon. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad.Management Rev, 27, 14-40.
5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
6. Ajzen, I., Timko, C. & White, J. B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 426-435.
7. Ajzen, i. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 179-211.
8. Ajzen, I. a. F., M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc.
9. Ajzen, I. F., M. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research: Mass: Addison-Wesley.
10. Alavi, M. a. D. E. L. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
11. Andrew, C. T. S. a. (2005/2006). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing: A review. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 5, 153–169.
12. Bartol, K. M., and Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-77.
13. Beijerse, R. (1990). Questions in knowledge management: defining and conceptualizing a phenomenon. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(2), 94-110.
14. Bock. (2005). Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87-111.
15. Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21.
16. Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,MA.
17. Cabrera, A. a. C., E.F. (2002). Knowledge sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23(5), 687-710.
18. Cohen, W. M. a. D. A. L. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
19. Constant, D., L. Sproull, S. Kiesler. (1996). the kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization. Science, 7, 119–135.
20. Cross, L. a. (2004). Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.
21. Cummings, J. (2003). Knowledge Sharing: A Review of the Literature.
22. Daniel Z. Levin, R. C. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 50(11), 1477–1490.
23. Davenport, T. H. (1997). Information Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Davenport, T. H., and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge.
25. Dawson, J. I. (2001). Latvia’s Russian minority: balancing the imperatives of regional development and environmental justice. Political Geography, 20, 787-815.
26. Dietz, G. a. d. H., D.N. (2005). Measuring trust inside organizations, working paper.
27. Dixon, N. M. (2000). Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
28. Fahey, L. a. L. P. (1998). The Eleven Deadly Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.
29. Fishbein, M. (1967). Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement.
30. Gabbay, S. M. a. L., R.Th.A.J. (2003). Creating trust through narrative strategy. Rationality & Society, 15, 553-583.
31. Gammelgaard, J. a. R., T (Ed.). (2000). Knowledge retrieval process in multinational consulting firms.
32. Ghosh, T. (2004). CREATING INCENTIVES FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING DRAFT. MIT Sloan School of Management.
33. Ghoshal, S., H. Korine, G. Szulanski. (1994). Inter unit communication in multinational corporations. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 40, 9-16.
34. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. Amer. J. Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
35. Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited.
36. Haavelmo, T. (1943). The statistical implications of a system of simultaneous equations. Econometrica, 11, 1-2.
37. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis: Prentice Hall.
38. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Science, 44, 82–111.
39. Helmstadter, E. (2003). The Institutional Economics of Knowledge Sharing: Basic Issues. In E.Helmstadter.
40. Holtham, C. a. N. C. (1998). The Executive Learning Ladder: A Knowledge Creation Process Grounded in the Strategic Information Systems Domain. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore.
41. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications: Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
42. Iske, P. a. B., W. (2005). Connected brains-question and answer systems for knowledge sharing: concepts, implementation and return on investment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 126-145.
43. Krackhardt, D. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of phials in organizations.
44. Lee, C. a. Y., J. (2000). Knowledge value chain. The Journal of Management Development, 19(9), 783-794.
45. Leenders, M. B. a. R. T. A. J. (2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594-605.
46. Lin, W.-B. (2008). the effect of knowledge sharing model. Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 1508–1521.
47. Mayer, R. C., J. H. Davis, F. D. Schoorman. (1995). an integration model of organizational trust. Acad. Management Rev, 20, 709–734.
48. McElroy, M. W. (2003). The New Knowledge Management: Complexity, Learning, and Sustainable Innovation. In Butterworth-Heinemann (Ed.). USA.
49. Morgan, R. i. D. F. H. a. M. S. (1995). He Foundations of Econometric Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 477--490.
50. N. Nohria, R. E., eds. (1992). Networks and Organizations: Structures, Form and Action. In B. Harvard Business School Press (Ed.), (MA ed., pp. 216–239).
51. Newell, A., &Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving: NJ: Prentice Hall.
52. Nonaka, I. a. T., H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How the Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
53. Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and Evaluation of Satisfaction Process in Retail Settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.
54. Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11(5), 538–550.
55. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models. Cambridge University Press.
56. Politis, J. D. (2003). Power and knowledge acquisition: the implications for team performance. Paper presented at the Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities.
57. Riege, A. a. O. K., M. (2003). Influences of human resources on knowledge management and its contributions on faster speed to market time. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the European International Business Academy, Copenhagen.
58. Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 9(3), 18-35.
59. ROB CROSS, A. P., LAURENCE PRUSAK, STEPHEN P. BORGATTI. (2001). Knowing What We Know: Supporting Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Social Networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100–120.
60. Robertson, M., J. Swan, and S. Newell. (1996). the Role of Networks in the Diffusion of Technological Innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 335-361.
61. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
62. Ruddy, T. (2000). Taking knowledge from heads and putting it into hands. Knowledge and Process Management, 7(1), 37-40.
63. Rupp, S. (2002). Communication and Loyalty among Knowledge Workers: a resource of the firm theory view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 207-223.
64. SAI HO KWOK, S. G. (2005/2006). ATTITUDE TOWARDS KNOWLEDGE SHARING BEHAVIOR. Journal of Computer Information Systems.
65. Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(3), 843-851.
66. Soonhee Kim, H. L. (2004). Organizational Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Capabilities in. dg.
67. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(special issue), 45-62.
68. Sveiby, K. E. (1997). The new organizational wealth. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler.
69. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
70. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embedded ness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociological Rev, 61, 674–698.
71. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in inter firm networks: The paradox of embedded ness. Admin. Science. Quart, 42, 35–67.
72. Uzzi, B., R. Lancaster. (2003). Relational embedded ness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science, 49, 383–399.
73. Wright, S. S. (1921). Correlation of causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557-585.

校內：2010-06-24公開
校外：2013-06-24公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文