0% found this document useful (0 votes)
17 views13 pages

Shaukat Et Al 2023 Impact of Personality Traits On Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Academicians A Case of University of

This research investigates the influence of personality traits on the knowledge sharing behavior of academicians at the University of Sargodha, Pakistan. The study finds that traits such as openness to experience significantly enhance knowledge sharing, while extraversion and agreeableness positively affect specific dimensions of this behavior. The findings aim to assist university administrators in fostering a knowledge-sharing culture to improve collaboration and organizational effectiveness.

Uploaded by

narasisosial23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
17 views13 pages

Shaukat Et Al 2023 Impact of Personality Traits On Knowledge Sharing Behavior of Academicians A Case of University of

This research investigates the influence of personality traits on the knowledge sharing behavior of academicians at the University of Sargodha, Pakistan. The study finds that traits such as openness to experience significantly enhance knowledge sharing, while extraversion and agreeableness positively affect specific dimensions of this behavior. The findings aim to assist university administrators in fostering a knowledge-sharing culture to improve collaboration and organizational effectiveness.

Uploaded by

narasisosial23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

Original Research

SAGE Open
January-March 2023: 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Impact of Personality Traits on DOI: 10.1177/21582440231160984
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Knowledge Sharing Behavior of
Academicians: A Case of University of
Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan

Rozeen Shaukat1 , Shakil Ahmad2 , Muhammad Asif Naveed3 ,


and Shafiq Ur Rehman4

Abstract
This study examined the impact of personality traits on the knowledge sharing behavior of academicians in the public sector.
The data were collected from 237 respondents using a questionnaire. The results showed that the personality trait openness
to experience had a significant and positive impact on the knowledge sharing behavior and its sub-dimensions such as written
contributions, organizational communication, personal interactions, and communities of practice. Furthermore, the personal-
ity traits extraversion and agreeableness positively predicted the knowledge sharing behavior for the dimensions of commu-
nities of practice and organizational communication, respectively. The results of this study would be helpful for the
administrative staff of universities to develop programs to promote a knowledge sharing culture in universities and improve
collaborative learning, research, organizational effectiveness, and performance. It would also be a worthy contribution to the
existing literature as only a limited number of studies have addressed the role of personality traits in the knowledge sharing
behaviors in the academic environment of a non-western country.

Keywords
personality traits, knowledge sharing, academicians, impact, Pakistan

Introduction benefit (Fullwood & Rowley, 2017; Hislop, 2013; Van


den Hooff & de Leeuw van Weenen, 2004; Yi, 2009).
Understanding the factors influencing individuals’ Prior literature has indicated that knowledge sharing
knowledge sharing behavior (KSB) has been of funda- has been extensively investigated among professional
mental importance for knowledge management (KM) and non-professional groups working in different envir-
professionals. Knowledge sharing (KS) is considered an onments worldwide. Researchers have investigated KS in
essential prerequisite for the success of all KM initiatives medical practitioners (Razzaque et al., 2013), engineers
in modern organizations (Dutta et al., 2015; Lee & Al- (Zhen et al., 2011), managers (Tangaraja et al., 2015),
Hawamdeh, 2002). It is recognized as one of the corner- accountants (Phang & Foong, 2010), IT personnel (Teh
stones of efficient and effective knowledge management & Sun, 2012), employees of different industries (Yang,
(Yesil & Dereli, 2013). KS not only improves organiza- 2007; Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010; Zhang & Fai Ng,
tional learning, innovation, performance, and effective- 2012), teachers (Bibi & Ali, 2017; Chen & Wang, 2011),
ness but also provides a sustainable competitive
advantage to organizations (Al-Alawi et al., 2007; Alavi 1
University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
& Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Fullwood 2
Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
et al., 2019; Fullwood & Rowley, 2017; T. T. Kim et al., 3
University of Sargodha, Pakistan
4
2013; Nieves & Haller, 2014; Tseng & Lee, 2014; Yang, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
2007; Yesil & Dereli, 2013; Yi, 2009). KS refers to the
Corresponding Author:
mutual exchange of knowledge and expertise within an Shakil Ahmad, Prince Sultan University, Rafha Street, Riyadh 11586, Saudi
organization which is done deliberately and voluntarily Arabia.
for not only personal gain but also for the organizational Email: [email protected]

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open

and students (Isika et al., 2013; Rafique & Anwar, 2017, a need to identify the factors influencing their knowledge
2019). However, there is a dearth of studies investigating sharing behaviors. Personality is an important factor
academic environments such as universities (Fullwood influencing an individual’s knowledge sharing behavior.
et al., 2013). In Pakistan, few studies have addressed Researchers have investigated its impact on the
knowledge sharing in the academic environment (Baig knowledge-sharing behaviors of professionals working in
et al., 2014; Baig & Waheed, 2016; Farrukh et al., 2020; diverse environments (e.g., Lotfi et al., 2016; Pour &
Shahid & Naveed, 2020). Taheri, 2019; Van Greunen et al., 2019). However, the
Higher academic institutions are knowledge power- context of academicians working in universities has
houses that play a pivotal role in the sustainable lacked attention. Only a few recent studies examined the
socio-economic development of countries. They enable influence of personality traits on knowledge sharing in
continuous learning, knowledge creation, and innova- academia (Farrukh et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2018;
tion. The knowledge emerging from these institutions is Van Greunen et al., 2019).
transferred to other organizations, both profitable and The study by Farrukh et al. (2020) empirically investi-
non-profitable, via research publications and training pro- gated how individual characteristics (e.g., Emotional
grams for the workforce. It is accomplished by developing intelligence, religiosity, and personality) influence knowl-
linkages and collaboration with industries, business orga- edge sharing in academia. The limitation of this study
nizations, and socio-cultural enterprises (Farrukh et al., was that it used a unidimensional scale (four-items) of
2020; Shahid & Naveed, 2020; Ramachandran et al., knowledge sharing by Bock et al. (2005). In contrast,
2009). Thus, these educational institutions have to adopt a Rahman et al. (2018) focused only on tacit knowledge
proactive approach toward knowledge management stra- sharing. Van Greunen et al. (2019) have also investigated
tegies and effective management of their knowledge assets the influence of personality traits on knowledge sharing
(Fullwood et al., 2013). However, this aspect of knowledge intention. None of these studies addressed the influence
management has been generally neglected in most univer- of personality traits on knowledge sharing behavior.
sities. It is especially true for those in developing countries Also, knowledge sharing needed to be considered a
such as Pakistan. There appears to be a very passive or multi-dimensional construct so that a more comprehen-
inconsistent approach toward knowledge management sive and robust understating and insights may be devel-
initiatives in these universities (Farrukh et al., 2020). oped into knowledge sharing behavior and its sub-
There is a need to investigate the policymakers’ lack of dimensions. Therefore, the present study is intended to
attention to knowledge management initiatives and fill this gap in the existing research and investigate the
optimization of their knowledge assets. Furthermore, impact of personality traits on the knowledge sharing
there is also a need to examine academicians’ attitudes, behavior (KSB) of academicians at the University of
actions, and behaviors related to knowledge management Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan. This study should make a
and knowledge-sharing in academic environments. KS is contribution to the body of research on knowledge shar-
especially of substantial concern in academic institutions ing by considering the knowledge sharing behavior as a
due to increasing faculty demands for sharing quality multi-dimensional construct from the perspective of the
resources and expertise (S. Kim & Ju, 2008; Ramayah big five-factor model of personality, as no such study
et al., 2014). appeared in the academic context. This research specifi-
cally addressed the following research questions:

Problem Statement RQ1: What is the nature of the relationship between


the personality traits and the knowledge sharing beha-
Despite several research studies on knowledge sharing, it
vior of academicians?
was noted that there was a relative lack of inquiries into
RQ2: How do academicians’ personality traits impact
the knowledge sharing behavior of academicians and the
their knowledge sharing behavior?
various factors that influence their KS behavior
(Farrukh et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2020; Raza & Awang,
2020; Shahid & Naveed, 2020). Universities need to Literature Review and Hypotheses
understand the inner working of their employees’ minds Development
to help them reach their maximum potential for learning
and research. In this regard, knowledge sharing by aca- Knowledge Sharing (KS)
demicians can play an instrumental role in improving the Knowledge is meaningful information which is being
quality of learning, teaching and research, ultimately internalized by the person consuming it. Nonaka (1994)
enhancing university performance, ranking, and effec- divided knowledge into two dimensions; tacit and explicit
tiveness. However, even though university employees knowledge. Tacit knowledge refers to personal knowl-
need to be facilitated in sharing their knowledge, there is edge comprising viewpoints, intuitions, and values
Shaukat et al. 3

gathered through experiences. In contrast, explicit individual’s willingness to share knowledge assets such
knowledge is the codified knowledge found in books or as ideas, experiences, and lessons learned from work pro-
documents as symbols, words, numbers, formulae, and cesses and personal interactions (Farrukh et al., 2020).
photographs. In the organizational context, tacit, and Personality appears to influence the knowledge-sharing
explicit knowledge complement each other through behaviors of individuals as it affects their cognition,
social interactions. Employees also share a mix of tacit motivation, and behavior (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019;
and explicit knowledge (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Ryckman, 2004). Several personality dimensions have
Farrukh et al., 2020; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). KS is a been highlighted in the existing literature on knowledge
dynamic activity in which people, groups and organiza- sharing. Although there has been no consensus on the
tions spread, transmit and exchange knowledge, both conceptualization and measurement of an individual’s
tacit and explicit, through socialization. As a result, personality, many scholars have considered the big five
knowledge is internalized and externalized simultane- personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, con-
ously at individual and organizational levels (Farrukh scientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience)
et al., 2020; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). KS must be seen as one of the most fundamental, widespread, stable, and
as an inherent organizational activity rather than a sup- robust taxonomy for the classification of personality
plementary activity the knowledge workers carry out in traits observed within and across different organizational
everyday dialogues and daily operations and processes communities (Digman, 1990; Gupta, 2008; Peabody &
(Farrukh et al., 2020; Raza & Awang, 2020). Goldberg, 1989; Teh et al., 2011). Several studies have
postulated that the big five personality factors could pre-
dict why some people share knowledge while others do
Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB) not (Farrukh et al., 2020; Teh et al., 2011). The following
KSB is an information exchange process among individu- paragraphs outline the big five personality characteristics
als to create new and valuable knowledge, learn new tech- separately, discuss their relationship with knowledge
niques, solve problems, and achieve sustainable sharing, and develop research hypotheses based on the
innovation and organizational goals efficiently and effec- review of the related literature.
tively (Phong et al., 2018; Raza & Awang, 2020). There
are several theories which predict the knowledge sharing Extraversion. Individuals having extroverted personal-
behavior of individuals. Notably, those related to altruism ities are sociable, assertive, talkative, energetic, enthusias-
(e.g., Obrenovic et al., 2020), emotional intelligence (e.g., tic, and optimistic (Besser & Shackelford, 2007; Cabrera
Farrukh et al., 2020), interpersonal trust (e.g., Javaid et al., 2006; Farrukh et al., 2017; Rahman et al., 2018).
et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2018; Raza & Awang, 2020; Extroverts are emotionally optimistic and self-confident
Raza & Tariq, 2016; Simeonova, 2018), cultural diversity individuals and contribute to the overall team satisfac-
management (e.g., Raza & Awang, 2020), leader empow- tion (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Barrick et al., 1998;
ering behavior, religiosity (e.g., Farrukh et al., 2020), and McCrae, 1996). It is, therefore, quite logical to expect
self-efficacy, motivation (e.g., Rahman et al., 2018). them to be more inclined toward knowledge sharing. A
Theories related to personality can potentially explain the recent study by Pour and Taheri (2019) also reported a
knowledge sharing behavior of individuals. Researchers statistically significant effect of extraversion on knowl-
have examined the effects of personality traits on knowl- edge sharing behavior. Other scholars have also reported
edge sharing among different professionals in different that an individual’s extraversion personality positively
contexts (Farrukh et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2020; Lotfi influences knowledge sharing behavior (Agyemang &
et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2011; Pour & Taheri, 2019; Boateng, 2019; Lotfi et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2018;
Van Greunen et al., 2019). This study intends to explain Van Greunen et al., 2019). Therefore, it could be said
the academicians’ knowledge sharing behavior from the that academicians with highly extroverted personalities
perspective of O. P. John’s (1990) big five-factor model of would share more knowledge. Teh et al. (2011) have also
personality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious- reported a significant but positive relationship between
ness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. The discus- extraversion and knowledge sharing behavior in the aca-
sions on these five personality traits related to knowledge demic environments in Malaysia. Similarly, Farrukh
sharing are as follows. et al. (2020) have also reported a positive association
between extraversion and knowledge sharing in higher
education institutions in Pakistan. It was, therefore,
Personality Traits and Knowledge Sharing hypothesized that:
Individuals engaged in sharing knowledge usually differ
in their behaviors and personalities (Teh et al., 2011). H1: Extraversion positively impacts knowledge shar-
The process of KS relies overwhelmingly on an ing behavior.
4 SAGE Open

Agreeableness. The agreeableness personality trait knowledge sharing than others. Individuals with high
encompasses altruism, tolerance, generosity, and cooper- emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and low anxiety usu-
ation. An agreeable person has a mild temperament and ally adopt knowledge sharing behaviors (Agyemang &
is interpersonally pleasant with a harmonious nature Boateng, 2019; Lotfi et al., 2016). On the other hand,
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Besser & Shackelford, 2007; academicians with high scores on neuroticism would be
Farrukh et al., 2017). People with highly agreeable per- reluctant to share their knowledge. Farrukh et al. (2020)
sonalities are supportive, helpful, and team players. They have recently reported a negative association between
are also more inclined toward knowledge sharing than neuroticism and knowledge sharing behavior of academic
others (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Memon et al., 2016; staff in higher education institutions in Pakistan. While
Pour & Taheri, 2019; Rahman et al., 2018; Van Greunen on the other side, the studies of Rahman et al. (2018) and
et al., 2019). Therefore, academicians with high agree- Van Greunen et al. (2019) reported Neuroticism as a pos-
ableness in their personalities could be expected to fit in itive predictor of knowledge sharing in higher education
an intensive knowledge sharing environment such as institutions in Bangladesh. Hence, it was hypothesized
teaching and research. Farrukh et al. (2020) have also that:
reported a positive correlation between agreeableness
and knowledge-sharing behavior among academic staff H4: Neuroticism positively impacts knowledge sharing
in Pakistani higher education institutions. The second behavior.
research hypothesis was, therefore, developed based on
the attributes of agreeableness in a personality as follows: Openness to Experience. It involves multiple character-
istics and describes personality as imaginative, creative,
H2: Agreeableness positively impacts knowledge shar- curious, cultured, original, artistic, and broad-minded
ing behavior. (Bozionelos, 2004; Digman, 1990; McCrae & John, 1992;
Thoms et al., 1996). People with high openness to experi-
Conscientiousness. Individuals with the conscientious- ence were more likely to share knowledge than other per-
ness personality trait were persistent, well mannered, reli- sonalities. Some studies have also reported a significant
able, responsible, disciplined individuals, and high impact of openness to experience on sharing their knowl-
achievers (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Thoms et al., 1996). edge with others (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Farrukh
Very conscientious employees were also cooperative and et al., 2020; Lotfi et al., 2016; Matzler et al., 2011;
cultivated interdependence and interpersonal relation- Memon et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2018; Van Greunen,
ships with others. These attributes have been identified 2019). However, no effect of openness to experience on
as essential success factors for exchanging knowledge online knowledge sharing was reported by Baig and
with one another (Teh et al., 2011), and employees with Waheed (2016). Given the personality attributes attached
conscientiousness tend to help others while going beyond to openness to experience, it was anticipated that the
their responsibilities. Such employees were also expected academicians with high scores on openness to experience
to be more willing to share their knowledge (Gupta, would be more likely to share their knowledge.
2008; Matzler et al., 2011; Lotfi et al., 2016). Memon Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
et al. (2016) have also reported a positive correlation
between conscientiousness and knowledge sharing beha- H5: Openness to experience positively impacts knowl-
vior. Based on the existing literature and characteristics edge sharing behavior.
of conscientiousness, the third research hypothesis was
formulated as follows:
Research Framework
H3: Conscientiousness positively impacts knowledge Figure 1 presents the research framework based on the
sharing behavior. research hypotheses discussed above. It was formulated
to understand the way personality traits affect the knowl-
Neuroticism. Neuroticism has been linked to negative edge sharing behavior of individuals and its various
moods such as anxiety, worry, sadness, insecurity, sub-dimensions such as written contributions (WC),
instability, and nervousness (Benet-Martinez & John, organizational communication (OC), personal interac-
1998; Gupta, 2008; McCrae & John, 1992). Individuals tions (PI), and communities of practice (CoP).
with neurotic personalities usually lack emotional intelli-
gence and stability. They also generally express a nega-
tive attitude toward people (Benet-Martinez & John, Methods and Procedures
1998; Lepine & Dyne, 2001). Therefore, people with low The survey method was employed to investigate the
scores on neuroticism would be more likely to engage in impact of personality traits on the knowledge sharing
Shaukat et al. 5

Figure 1. Research framework.

behavior of academicians in this study. This method was The knowledge sharing behavior constructs items
considered adequate for systematically collecting data were adopted from the Knowledge Sharing Behavior
from a large and geographically dispersed population Scale (KSBS) developed by Yi (2009). KSBS is a 28-item
through a small sample (Gay & Airasian, 2003; Powell & measure with four dimensions: (1) written contributions
Connaway, 2004). The questionnaire consisted of two (five statements, CA = 0.458); (2) organizational com-
scales; the big five personality (BFP) scale by O. P. John munication (eight statements, CA = 0.905); (3) personal
(1990) and the Knowledge Sharing Behavior Scale interactions (eight statements, CA = 0.723); and (4)
(KSBS) by Yi (2009). Additional personal and academic communities of practice (seven statements, CA = 0.934).
variables related to gender, age, social background, and Each statement was measured on a five-point Likert
qualification were also included in the questionnaire. The scale (1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometime, 4 = often,
big five-factor model of personality is considered to be a and 5 = always). The use of KSBS has gained momen-
comprehensive and robust framework for understanding tum since its development to measure knowledge sharing
personality and its traits (Digman, 1990; R. John et al., behaviors and has been applied successfully in varied
2020). The selection of John’s BFP to measure personal- contexts across different countries (Eaves, 2014;
ity traits was made due to its widespread usage and high Kularajasingam et al., 2021; Ramayah et al., 2013, 2014;
reliability and validity reported in the existing literature Shahid & Naveed, 2020). KSBS has also been considered
on personality traits (e.g., Digman, 1990; M€ uller & to be a reliable and validated instrument for the assess-
Schwieren, 2020; Schermer et al., 2020; Teh et al., 2011). ment of knowledge sharing behavior in academia which
BFP is a 38-item instrument comprised of five dimen- has been reported to have adequate reliability at a . 70
sions: (1) extraversion (seven items); (2) agreeableness (Kularajasingam et al., 2021; Ramayah et al., 2014;
(eight items); (3) conscientiousness (nine items); (4) neu- Shahid & Naveed, 2020).
roticism (seven items); and (5) openness to experience The University of Sargodha was purposively selected
(seven items). BFP is a well-known reliable measure as the research setting because it is one of Pakistan’s
widely used to determine different personality traits major public sector universities in Punjab, Pakistan.
observed within different organizational communities Furthermore, it is the only public sector university in the
(Teh et al., 2011). The respondents were required to indi- salt range and the fastest growing general category uni-
cate how they felt by rating the degree of their feelings on versity in Punjab. This university has three campuses
a five-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, located in Sargodha, Mianwali, and Bakhar. All three
3 = Neither agreed nor disagreed, 4 = Agreed, and have characteristics similar to other public sector univer-
5 = Strongly agree). sities. The faculty members serving at the selected
6 SAGE Open

Table 1. Correlation Between Personality Traits and Knowledge Sharing Behavior (N = 237).

Knowledge sharing behavior


Written Organizational Personal Communities Overall
contributions communications interactions of practice scale
Personality traits r Sig. r Sig. R Sig. r Sig. r Sig.

Extraversion .128* .049 .150* .021 .207** .001 .260** .000 .252** .000
Agreeableness .252** .000 .320** .000 .307** .000 .184** .004 .353** .000
Conscientiousness .184** .004 .124 .057 .200** .002 .192** .003 .230** .000
Neuroticism .161* .013 .175** .007 .266** .000 .245** .000 .285** .000
Openness .257** .000 .419** .000 .423** .000 .296** .000 .471** .000

*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
**
Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

university were considered the unit of analysis for this and academic variables of the respondents. Then the
study. Approximately 700 faculty members, including composite variables were developed by computing the
the 279 PhDs working in 23 Departments at the selected means of the statements for each personality trait and
university, were considered a sample for this study. The the various dimensions of knowledge sharing behavior.
calculated sample size for this study was 258 based on a Finally, inferential statistics such as Pearson correlation
95% confidence interval. The participants were selected and multiple linear regression were applied to investigate
through a convenient sampling process as a list of all the the impact of personality traits on knowledge sharing
faculty members was unavailable for a random selection. behavior.
The researcher distributed a questionnaire with a cov-
ering letter in each department. One of the researchers
Results
personally visited each university department to self-
administrate the survey questionnaire. The questionnaire Demographic Profile
was distributed to those faculty members available in
Of the 237 survey participants, 132 were males (55.7%),
each department during the researchers’ visit. The avail- and 105 were females (44.3%). The age of the respon-
able faculty members were requested to complete the sur- dents ranged from 23 to 66 years of age. The majority of
vey instrument within 1 or 2 weeks. The required the respondents were less than 40 years old (n = 189,
duration to complete the survey was approximately 79.74%), followed by those who were 41 to 50 years
15 minutes. The respondents voluntarily participated in (n = 36, 15.18 %) and 51 to 60 years old (n = 10, 4.21%).
the survey and had the freedom to decline participation. Only two respondents were older than 60 years of age
They were also informed about research purpose and (0.84 %). Most of the survey participants belonged to an
their contributions’ value. Furthermore, they were urban background (n = 157, 66.2%). Only 80 were from
assured about the confidentiality and anonymity of sur- rural backgrounds (33.8%). As far as qualifications are
vey data and its usage only for research purposes. The concerned, more than half of the respondents had com-
researchers revisited the university to collect the filled pleted postgraduate level of education (MS/M.Phil.
questionnaires. Some faculty members could not com- degrees) (n = 124, 52.3%), followed by a doctoral degree
plete the survey questionnaire in the given time and were (n = 69, 29.1 %). Only 44 participants had just under-
given an additional week for completion. A concerted graduate level of education (BS/MA/MSC degrees)
effort was made to collect data from respondents of var- (n = 44, 18.6 %). Most of the academicians had com-
ied gender, age groups, qualifications, and social pleted their postgraduate education (n = 193, 81.4%),
backgrounds. which is quite encouraging in the context of a developing
The researchers received 253 completed questionnaires country.
indicating a 90.3% response rate. These questionnaires
were then screened for completeness and accuracy of RQ1: Correlation between personality traits and
information. This process excluded 16 cases due to knowledge sharing behavior
incomplete information. The resultant 237 questionnaires
were then analyzed using the SPSS for data analysis soft- Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to check
ware. Initially, descriptive statistics such as frequencies the relationship between personality traits and the knowl-
and percentages were applied to describe the personal edge sharing behavior of academicians. Table 1 outlines
Shaukat et al. 7

Table 2. Impact of Personality Traits on the Written Contributions.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients


Model B SE b t Sig. F Sigb R2

(Constant) 1.374 0.424 3.243 .001 5.254 .000 .083


1 Extraversion 0.006 0.066 .007 0.098 .922
2 Agreeableness 0.214 0.127 .132 1.688 .093
3 Conscientiousness 0.110 0.083 .092 1.336 .183
4 Neuroticism 0.041 0.097 .030 0.423 .673
5 Openness 0.208 0.079 .180 2.616 .009

a
Dependent variable: written contributions.
b
Predictors: (constant), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness.

Table 3. Impact of Personality Traits on Organizational Communication.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients


Model B SE b t Sig. F Sigb R2

(Constant) 1.407 0.368 3.822 .000 11.900 .000 .488


1 Extraversion 20.017 0.057 2.019 20.293 .770
2 Agreeableness 0.278 0.110 .185 2.518 .012
3 Conscientiousness 20.012 0.072 2.011 20.169 .866
4 Neuroticism 0.027 0.084 .021 0.315 .753
5 Openness 0.371 0.069 .349 5.378 .000

a
Dependent variable: organizational communication.
b
Predictors: (constant), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness.
Bold text indicates p\.05.

the results of the analysis. A statistically significant and written contribution. A significant regression equation
positive correlation can be seen between the personality was found (F (5, 231) = 5.254, p \ .000), with an R2 of
traits studied (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious- .083. Table 2 reveals that the personality trait openness
ness, neuroticism, and openness) and the overall knowl- (b = .180, p = .009 \ .05) was a statistically significant
edge sharing behavior along with all its sub-dimensions and positive predictor of written contributions. None of
such as written contributions, organizational communi- the other personality traits predicted the written contribu-
cation, personal interactions, and communities of prac- tion as p-values were greater than alpha at .05.
tice, except for conscientiousness and organizational
communication. Interestingly, the p-value (.057) for these Impact of Personality Traits on Organizational
two variables was very close to the alpha value (.05). In Communication. Table 3 presents the results of a multiple
other words, the academicians’ personality traits and linear regression performed to see the impact of different
knowledge sharing behaviors were strongly correlated personality traits on the dimension of organizational com-
with one another, indicating that multiple linear regres- munication of the knowledge sharing behavior. A signifi-
sion could be calculated to determine the impact of per- cant regression equation was found (F (5, 231) = 11.900,
sonality traits on knowledge sharing behavior. p \ .000), with an R2 of .488. These figures reveal a statis-
tically significant and positive impact of agreeableness
RQ2: Impact of personality traits on knowledge shar- (b = .185, p = .012 \ .05) and openness to experience
ing behavior (b = .349, p = .000 \ .05) on organizational communica-
tions. It was not true for the other personality traits, such
as extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism.
Impact of Personality Traits on the Written
Contribution. Multiple linear regression was performed to Impact of Personality Traits on Personal
determine the impact of personality traits (extraversion, Interactions. Multiple linear regression was performed to
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and open- identify the impact of different personality traits on the
ness) on the knowledge sharing behavior’s dimension of dimension of personal interactions. Table 4 shows a
8 SAGE Open

Table 4. Impact of Personality Traits on Personal Interactions.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients


Model B SE b t Sig. F Sigb R2

(Constant) 0.846 0.371 2.277 .024 13.164 .000 .405


1 Extraversion 0.043 0.057 .047 0.742 .459
2 Agreeableness 0.127 0.111 .083 1.139 .256
3 Conscientiousness 0.069 0.073 .061 0.955 .341
4 Neuroticism 0.154 0.085 .120 1.818 .070
5 Openness 0.367 0.070 .337 5.263 .000

a
Dependent variable: personal interactions.
b
Predictors: (constant), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness.

Table 5. Impact of Personality Traits on Communities of Practice.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients


Model B SE b t Sig. F Sigb R2

(Constant) 0.911 0.428 2.126 .035 8.440 .000 .436


1 Extraversion 0.177 0.066 .177 2.674 .008
2 Agreeableness 20.120 0.128 2.071 20.935 .351
3 Conscientiousness 0.124 0.084 .099 1.485 .139
4 Neuroticism 0.217 0.098 .152 2.219 .027
5 Openness 0.265 0.080 .220 3.299 .001

a
Dependent variable: communities of practice.
b
Predictors: (constant), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness.

significant regression equation (F (5, 231) = 13.164, p extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti-
\ .000), with an R2 of .405. These figures also reveal cism, and openness on the overall knowledge sharing
openness to experience (b = .337, p = .000 \ .05) as the behavior. A significant regression equation was found (F
positive predictor of personal interactions. However, (5, 231) = 17.866, p \ .000), with an R2 of .479. The fig-
personality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, ures in Table 6 indicate that the personality trait open-
conscientiousness, and neuroticism do not appear to pre- ness to experience (b = .370, p = .000 \ .05) was a
dict the knowledge sharing behavior for the dimension statistically significant and positive predictor of the
of personal interactions. knowledge sharing behavior of the respondents.
However, the personality traits such as extraversion
Impact of Personality Traits on Communities of Practice. Table (b = .075, p = .223 . .05), agreeableness (b = .103,
5 indicates a significant regression equation (F (5, p = .141 . .05), conscientiousness (b = .076,
231) = 8.440, p \ .000), with an R2 of .436 while predict- p = .221 . .05), and neuroticism (b = .078,
ing communities of practice on different personality traits. p = .112 . .05) were not found to be statistically signifi-
The figures in Table 5 show the statistically significant but cant predictors of knowledge sharing behavior. In other
positive impact of extraversion (b = .177, p = .008 \ .05) words, academicians possessing the personality trait
and openness to experience (b = .220, p = .001 \ .05) on openness to experience would have a positively predicted
knowledge sharing behavior for the dimension of commu- knowledge sharing behavior compared to those with per-
nities of practice. However, the rest of the personality sonality traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, con-
traits, such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuro- scientiousness, and neuroticism.
ticism, do not appear to predict the knowledge sharing
behavior for the dimension of personal interactions. Summary of Results for Hypotheses Testing. Table 7 sum-
marizes the results of the hypothesis testing based on the
Impact of Personality Traits on Overall Knowledge Sharing data analysis for the impact of personality traits on the
Behavior. Multiple linear regression was performed to overall knowledge sharing behavior and its sub-dimen-
predict the impact of personality traits such as sions. The results indicate that the personality dimension
Shaukat et al. 9

Table 6. Impact of Personality Traits on the Overall Knowledge Sharing Behavior.

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients


Model B SE b t Sig. F Sigb R2

(Constant) 1.117 0.280 3.991 .000 17.866 .000 .479


1 Extraversion 0.053 0.043 .075 1.221 .223
2 Agreeableness 0.124 0.084 .103 1.478 .141
3 Conscientiousness 0.067 0.055 .076 1.228 .221
4 Neuroticism 0.113 0.064 .112 1.772 .078
5 Openness 0.314 0.052 .370 5.989 .000
a
Dependent variable: Overall KSB Scale.
b
Predictors: (constant), openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness.

Table 7. Summary of Results for Hypotheses Testing.

Knowledge sharing behavior


Personality traits WC OC PI CoP KSBS Decision

Extraversion (H1) Rejected Rejected Rejected Supported Rejected Partially supported


Agreeableness (H2) Rejected Supported Rejected Rejected Rejected Partially supported
Conscientiousness (H3) Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected
Neuroticism (H4) Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected
Openness (H5)a Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Fully Supported
a
Openness to experience is the dominant and positive predictor of knowledge sharing behavior.

‘‘openness to experience’’ appeared to be a strong but As for the impact of personality traits on the knowl-
positive predictor of knowledge sharing behavior in aca- edge sharing behavior, openness to experience appeared
demicians. It influenced the overall knowledge sharing as a significant and positive predictor of the overall
behavior and its sub-dimensions. Furthermore, the per- knowledge sharing behavior and its sub-dimensions of
sonality traits ‘‘extraversion’’ and ‘‘agreeableness’’ posi- written contributions, organizational communication,
tively predicted the knowledge sharing behavior for the personal interactions, and communities of practice. It
dimensions of communities of practice and organiza- was expected as people with personality attributes such
tional communication, respectively. as imagination, creativity, curiosity, broadmindedness,
and originality, and a cultured and artistic nature are
more likely to share their knowledge. This finding aligns
Discussion with Farrukh et al. (2020), who have reported that open-
This research investigated the impact of personality traits ness to experience was a positive predictor of knowledge
on the knowledge sharing behavior of academicians at sharing behavior with the largest effect size (0.38).
the University of Sargodha, Pakistan. The results have Similar results have been reported by Lotfi et al. (2016).
indicated a statistically significant and positive correla- They found that the academic staff with high openness
tion between personality traits and the overall knowledge to experience were more likely to share their knowledge.
sharing behavior along its various dimensions like writ- This finding is also supported by Teh et al. (2011), who
ten contributions, organizational communication, per- have reported a positive relationship between these two
sonal interactions, and communities of practice. The variables in the Malaysian academic environment. The
exception was conscientiousness and organizational com- results of several other studies have also reported a
munication. Interestingly, these two variables’p-values strong and significant impact of openness to experience
(.057) were very close to the alpha value (Table 1). These on the knowledge sharing behavior of individuals
results partially align with Teh et al. (2011), who have (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Agyemang et al., 2016;
also reported a positive relationship between extraver- Matzler et al., 2011; Memon et al., 2016). However, Baig
sion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and knowl- and Waheed (2016) have reported that openness to expe-
edge sharing at Malaysian universities. rience did not affect KS in an online environment. The
10 SAGE Open

present study has revealed that the academicians who Implications for Theory and Practice
were curious, original, imaginative, and open-minded This study is a unique contribution to the body of
toward learning and research were more likely to share research on knowledge sharing. It has examined the
their knowledge with others than those who were not. knowledge sharing behavior for both tacit and explicit
Although it seems logical that extraversion, agreeable- knowledge as a multi-dimensional construct from the
ness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism would influence perspective of the big five-factor model of personality.
the knowledge sharing behavior, this research does not No such study has appeared previously in the context of
support it. These personality traits were not found to be academicians, especially one conducted in a developing
predictors of the knowledge sharing behavior of the aca- country such as Pakistan. Furthermore, the scope of the
demicians. These results were not anticipated but were present study is more comprehensive and robust than
partially aligned with Teh et al. (2011). They have before. It deals with the impact of the big five personality
reported no association of agreeableness and conscien- traits on the knowledge sharing behavior at a multi-
tiousness with knowledge sharing. These results also par- dimensional level. It also provides insights into how each
tially agree with Agyemang et al. (2016). They reported personality trait affects the knowledge sharing behavior
that the personality trait conscientiousness did not cause and its various sub-dimensions in the academic setting.
a significant change in the teachers’ knowledge sharing It provides valuable information that can help the aca-
attitudes and behaviors. demic leadership design policies and strategies for creat-
On the other hand, Farrukh et al. (2020) have ing and promoting a knowledge sharing culture in higher
reported that the extraversion, agreeableness, and con- education institutions. These micro-level empirical
scientiousness traits were positive knowledge sharing results could have potential implications for policy-
predictors with a medium effect size. This study also dis- makers engaged in decision making regarding higher
covered a negative association of neuroticism with learning institutions and their hiring practices. The uni-
knowledge sharing among academic staff of higher edu- versity administration should consider these results dur-
cation institutions in Pakistan, with the largest effect size ing faculty recruitment. Candidates with high levels of
(0.38). These results also contradicted the results of openness, extroversion, and agreeableness should be pre-
Agyemang and Boateng (2019) and Memon et al. (2016). ferred. They would most likely aid in establishing a
They have reported that individuals with highly extro- knowledge sharing culture in the university.
verted, agreeable, and conscientious personalities were
more inclined to share their knowledge. However, the
present research found that extraversion and agreeable- Limitations and Future Research Directions
ness positively predicted knowledge sharing behavior for The contributions and findings of the study should be
the dimensions of communities of practice and organiza- considered given its limitations: (1) The results of this
tional communication, respectively. This finding par- study cannot be generalized as the data for the study was
tially supports the results of Esmaeelinezhad and collected from only one public sector university and do
Afrazeh (2018), who have reported a positive effect of not represent all academicians in Pakistan. Future stud-
agreeableness on the knowledge sharing behavior. ies should address knowledge sharing in other universi-
The finding concerning extraversion as a predictor ties in Pakistan and other developing countries in Asia
of knowledge sharing disagrees with the results of Teh and Africa. (2) The dispositional factor limits this study.
et al. (2011). They have reported a significant but posi- This research only used the big five personality factor
tive relationship between extraversion and knowledge model to investigate the personality traits of academi-
sharing behavior at Malaysian universities. This study’s cians. Other traits of personality which might affect the
results also do not support the proposition of Rahman holistic view of the impact of personality traits on knowl-
et al. (2018) that the characteristics of extroverted per- edge sharing in an academic environment were ignored.
sonalities force individuals to share their knowledge. Future investigations should incorporate other personal-
The impact of neuroticism on knowledge sharing, ity attributes to study their impact on knowledge sharing.
either positive or negative, has been reported in several (3)This study adopted a convenient sampling technique
studies (Agyemang & Boateng, 2019; Benet-Martinez & for recruiting participants due to the non-availability of
John, 1998; Farrukh et al., 2020; Lepine & Dyne, a comprehensive list of academic staff and time con-
2001). However, this study found that academicians straints. It might have led to a sampling bias. Therefore,
with high scores on neuroticism were reluctant to the results of this study must be interpreted carefully,
engage in knowledge sharing. The results of a recent keeping these limitations in mind. Future research should
study by Farrukh et al. (2020) were also not supported include research on knowledge sharing using qualitative
by the findings of this study. research methods to cross-validate our findings. Further
Shaukat et al. 11

in-depth research is needed to learn how Pakistani acade- ORCID iDs


micians share their knowledge by investigating their per- Rozeen Shaukat https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8490-9075
sonality traits and other factors considered important in Shakil Ahmad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7775-4917
knowledge sharing. Muhammad Asif Naveed https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9104-
8143
Shafiq Ur Rehman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8169-0132
Conclusions
The results have indicated that the academicians with a References
higher level of openness to experience were more likely
Agyemang, F. G., & Boateng, H. (2019). Tacit knowledge
to share knowledge with others for all KSBS dimensions. transfer from a master to an apprentice among hairdressers.
In contrast, academicians with extraversion, agreeable- Education + Training, 61(1), 108–120.
ness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism personality Agyemang, F. G., Dzandu, M. D., & Boateng, H. (2016).
traits were less likely to do so. However, extroverts and Knowledge sharing among teachers: The role of the Big
agreeable academicians are more likely to share their Five Personality Traits. VINE Journal of Information and
knowledge in communities of practice and organiza- Knowledge Management Systems, 46(1), 64–84.
tional communication, respectively. This research has Al-Alawi, I. A., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F.
contributed to the existing research by focusing on (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Criti-
knowledge sharing among academicians using personal- cal success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management,
ity traits as a dispositional factor. Few studies have pre- 11(2), 22–42.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management
viously addressed KS in the context of academicians.
and knowledge management systems: Conceptual founda-
This research has generated insights that might help the tions and research issues, MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.
universities’ administrative staff develop programs that Baig, N., Khan, A. W., & Chaudhry, B. (2014). Role of demo-
can help promote a knowledge sharing culture in univer- graphic diversity in online knowledge sharing. Pakistan
sities. Furthermore, it would help them improve colla- Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 8(2), 279–304.
borative learning and research in universities and Baig, N., & Waheed, A. (2016). Significance of factors influen-
contribute to organizational innovation capability, inter- cing online knowledge sharing: A study of higher education
national ranking, organizational performance, and effec- sector in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social
tiveness. Effective knowledge sharing behaviors cannot Sciences, 10(1), 1–26.
be forced but can be fostered through motivation and Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personal-
encouragement (Tan & Ramayah, 2014). The university ity dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26
administrations should design training programs to
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M.
develop the personality trait ‘‘openness’’ among the aca- K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-
demic staff to encourage knowledge exchange. Some team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied
socio-economic reward systems should be launched to Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.
motivate extroverted, agreeable, conscientious, or neuro- Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes
tic academicians to share their knowledge with others. across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod
These results would also help the human resource analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of
departments during the hiring process for university aca- Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729–750.
demic personnel. Besser, A., & Shackelford, T. K. (2007). Mediation of the
effects of the big five personality dimensions on negative
mood and confirmed affective expectations by perceived
Acknowledgment situational stress: A quasi-field study of vacationers. Person-
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Prince ality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1333–1346.
Sultan University for paying the Article Processing Charges Bibi, S., & Ali, A. (2017). Knowledge sharing behaviour of aca-
(APC) of this publication. demics in higher education Journal of Applied Research in
Higher Education, 9(4), 550–564.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psycholo-
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this gical forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly,
article. 29(1), 87–111.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). The big five of personality and work invol-
vement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1), 69–81.
Funding Cabrera, A., Collins, W., & Salgado, J. (2006). Determinants of
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International
authorship, and/or publication of this article. Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264.
12 SAGE Open

Chen, H.-J., & Wang, Y.-H. (2011). Emotional geographies of John, R., John, R., & Rao, Z. R. (2020). The Big Five person-
teacher–parent relations: Three teachers’ perceptions in Tai- ality traits and academic performance. Journal of Law and
wan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 185–195. Social Studies, 2(1), 10–19.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Har- Kim, S., & Ju, B. (2008). An analysis of faculty perceptions:
vard Business School Press. Attitudes toward knowledge sharing and collaboration in
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the an academic institution. Library & Information Science
five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), Research, 30, 282–290.
417–440. Kim, T. T., Lee, G., Paek, S., & Lee, S. (2013). Social capital,
Dutta, B., Madalli, D. P., Tangaraja, G., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, knowledge sharing and organizational performance: What
M., & Samah, B. A. (2015). Fostering knowledge sharing structural relationship do they have in hotels? International
behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5),
model for the Malaysian public service. Journal of Knowl- 683–704.
edge Management, 19(1), 121–140. Kularajasingam, J., Subramaniam, A., Sarjit Singh, D. K., &
Eaves, S. (2014). Middle management knowledge by possession Sambasivan, M. (2021). The impact of knowledge sharing
and position: A panoptic examination of individual knowl- behaviour and social intelligence of university academics on
edge sharing influences. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge their performance: The mediating role of competencies.
Management, 12, 69–86. Journal of Education for Business, 97, 1–13.
Esmaeelinezhad, O., & Afrazeh, A. (2018). Linking personality Lee, C. K., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002). Factors impacting
traits and individuals’ knowledge management behaviour. knowledge sharing. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(3), 234–251. Management, 1(1), 49–56.
Farrukh, M., Sajid, M., Zreen, A., & Khalid, R. (2020). Knowl- LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and cooperative
edge sharing in higher education institutes: An empirical behaviour as contrasting forms of contextual performance:
investigation of individual characteristics. Journal of Applied Evidence of differential relationships with big five personal-
Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 311–329. ity characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Farrukh, M., Ying, C. W., & Mansori, S. (2017). Organiza- Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.
tional commitment: An emp analysis of personality traits. Lotfi, M., Muktar, S. N., Ologbo, A. C., & Chiemeke, K. C.
Journal of Work-Applied Management, 9(1), 18–34. (2016). The influence of the big-five personality traits dimen-
Fullwood, R., & Rowley, J. (2017). An investigation of factors sions on knowledge sharing behaviour. Mediterranean Jour-
affecting knowledge sharing amongst UK academics. Jour- nal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 241–250.
nal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1254–1271. Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., Von Krogh, G., &
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Knowledge M€ ulleret, J. (2011). Personality traits, affective commitment,
sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing. The
Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123–136. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Fullwood, R., Rowley, J., & McLean, J. (2019). Exploring the 22(2), 296–310.
factors that influence knowledge sharing between academics. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(8), 1051–1063. openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 323–337.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Compe- McCrae, R. R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the Five-
tencies for analysis and application (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Factor Model and its applications. Journal of Personality,
Gupta, B. (2008). Role of personality in knowledge sharing 60(2), 175–215.
and knowledge acquisition behaviour. Journal of the Indian Memon, M. A., Nor, K. M., & Salleh, R. (2016). Personality
Academy of Applied Psychology, 34(1), 143–149. traits influencing knowledge sharing in student–supervisor
Hislop, D. (2013). Knowledge Management in organizations. relationship: A structural equation modelling analysis. Jour-
Oxford University Press. nal of Information & Knowledge Management, 15(2),
Iqbal, M. S., Ishaq, M. A., Akram, A., & Habibah, U. (2020). 1650015.
Personality traits predicting knowledge hiding behaviour: M€uller, J., & Schwieren, C. (2020). Big five personality factors
Empirical evidence from academic institutions of Pakistan. in the trust game. Journal of Business Economics, 90(1),
Business Information Review, 37(4), 154–166. 37–55.
Isika, N. U., Ismail, M. A., & Khan, A. F. A. (2013). Knowl- Nieves, J., & Haller, S. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities
edge sharing behaviour of postgraduate students in Univer- through knowledge resources. Tourism Management, 40,
sity of Malaya. Electronic Library, 31(6), 713–726. 224–232.
Javaid, J., Soroya, S., & Mahmood, K. (2020). Impact of per- Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowl-
sonal and organizational factors on knowledge sharing atti- edge creation, Organization Science, 5, 14–38.
tude of university teachers in Pakistan. The Electronic Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating
Library, 38(2), 317–336. company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of
John, O. P. (1990). The ‘‘Big Five’’ factor taxonomy: Dimen- innovation. Oxford University Press.
sions of personality in the natural language and question- Obrenovic, B., Jianguo, D., Tsoy, D., Obrenovic, S., Khan, M.
naires. In L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: A. S., & Anwar, F. (2020). The enjoyment of knowledge
Theory and research (pp. 66–100). Guilford Press. sharing: Impact of altruism on tacit knowledge-sharing
Shaukat et al. 13

behaviour. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1496. https://doi. Big Five personality factors. Personality and Individual Differ-
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01496. ences, 156, 109764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109764
Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. (1989). Some determinants of fac- Shahid, Q., & Naveed, M. A. (2020). Knowledge sharing beha-
tor structures from personality trait descriptions, Journal of vior of academicians in Pakistan. Library Philosphy & Prac-
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552–567. tice, 3986, 1–15. Retrieved on March 23, 2021, from https://
Phang, M. M. S., & Foong, S. Y. (2010). Information commu- digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3986
nication technologies (ICTs) and knowledge sharing: The Simeonova, B. (2018). Transactive memory systems and web
case of professional accountants in Malaysia. World of Jour- 2.0 in knowledge sharing: A conceptual model based on
nal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, activity theory and critical realism, Information Systems
7(1), 21–35. Journal, 28(4), 592–611.
Phong, L. B., Hui, L., & Son, T. T. (2018). How leadership and Tan, C. N., & Ramayah, T. (2014). The role of motivators in
trust in leaders foster employees’ behaviour toward knowl- improving knowledge-sharing among academics. Informa-
edge sharing. Social Behaviour and Personality: An Interna- tion Research, 19(1), 606.
tional Journal, 46(5), 705–720. Tangaraja, G., Rasdi, R. M., Ismail, M., & Samah, B. A. (2015).
Pour, M. J., & Taheri, F. (2019). Personality traits and knowledge Fostering knowledge sharing behaviour among public sector
sharing behaviour in social media: Mediating role of trust and managers: A proposed model for the Malaysian public service.
subjective well-being. On The Horizon, 27(2), 98–117. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(1), 121–140.
Powell, R. R., & Connaway, L. S. (2004). Basic research meth- Teh, P., & Sun, H. (2012). Knowledge sharing, job attitudes
ods for librarians (4th ed.). Libraries Unlimited. and organisational citizenship behaviour. Industrial Man-
Rafique, G. M., & Anwar, M. A. (2017). Motivating knowledge agement & Data Systems, 112(1), 64–82.
sharing among undergraduate medical students of the uni- Teh, P., Yong, C., Chong, C., & Yew, S. (2011). Do the Big
versity of Lahore, Pakistan. Journal of Information & Knowl- Five Personality Factors affect knowledge sharing beha-
edge Management, 16(4), 1750041. viour? A study of Malaysian universities. Malaysian Journal
Rafique, G. M., & Anwar, M. A. (2019). Barriers to knowledge of Library & Information Science, 16(1), 47–62.
sharing among medical students in Pakistan. Journal of Hos- Thoms, P., Moore, K. S., & Scott, K. S. (1996). The relation-
pital Librarianship, 19(3), 235–247. ship between self-efficacy for participating in self-managed
Rahman, M. S., Mannan, M., Hossain, M. A., Zaman, M. H., work groups and the big five personality dimensions. Jour-
& Hassan, H. (2018). Tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour nal of Organizational Behaviour, 17(4), 349–362.
among the academic staff. International Journal of Educa- Tohidinia, Z., & Mosakhani, M. (2010). Knowledge sharing
tional Management, 32(5), 761–782. behaviour and its predictors. Industrial Management & Data
Ramachandran, S. D., Chong, S. C., & Ismail, H. (2009). The Systems, 110(4), 611–631.
practice of knowledge management processes: A compara- Tseng, S. M., & Lee, P. S. (2014). The effect of knowledge
tive study of public and private higher education institutions management capability and dynamic capability on organiza-
in Malaysia. VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowl- tional performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Man-
edge Management Systems, 39, 203–222. agement, 27(2), 158–179.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., & Ignatius, J. (2013). An empiri- Van den Hooff, B., & de Leeuw van Weenen, F. (2004). Com-
cal inquiry on knowledge sharing among academicians in mitted to share: Commitment and CMC use as antecedents
higher learning institutions. Minerva: A Review of Science, of knowledge sharing, Knowledge and Process and Manage-
Learning and Policy, 51, 131–154. ment, 11(1), 13–24.
Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A., & Ignatius, J. (2014). Assessing Van Greunen, C., Venter, E., & Sharp, G. (2019). Knowledge-
knowledge sharing among academics: A validation of the sharing intention in knowledge-intensive organisations: The
knowledge sharing behaviour scale (KSBS). Evaluation influence of personality traits. Management Dynamics: Jour-
Review, 38(2), 160–187 nal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scien-
Raza, I., & Awang, Z (2020). Knowledge sharing in multicul- tists, 28(2), 2–13.
tural organizations: Evidence from Pakistan. Higher Educa- Yang, J. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organiza-
tion, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(3), 497–597. tional learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Man-
https://doi.org/10.1108/heswbl-09-2019-0114 agement, 11(2), 83–90.
Raza, I., & Tariq, F. (2016). Effect of HR diversity management Yesil, S., & Dereli, S. F. (2013). An empirical investigation of
practices on employee knowledge sharing: Examining the the organisational justice, knowledge sharing and innovation
mediating role of trust on leadership and moderating role of capability. Social and Behavioural Sciences, 75, 199–208.
cooperative norms. Journal of Business Studies, 12(1), 1–20. Yi, J. (2009). A measure of knowledge sharing behaviour: Scale
Razzaque, A., Eldabi, T., & Jalal-Karim, A. (2013). Physician development and validation. Knowledge Management
virtual community and medical decision making: Mediating Research & Practice, 7(1), 65–81.
role of knowledge sharing, Journal of Enterprise Information Zhang, P., & Fai Ng, F. (2012). Attitude toward knowledge
Management, 26(5), 500–515. sharing in construction teams. Industrial Management &
Ryckman, R. (2004). Theories of personality. Thomson/ Data Systems, 112(9), 1326–1347.
Wadsworth. Zhen, L., Jiang, Z., & Song, H.-T. (2011). Distributed knowl-
Schermer, J. A., Bratko, D., & Bojić, J. M. (2020). A test of the dif- edge sharing for collaborative product development. Inter-
ferentiation of personality by intelligence hypothesis using the national Journal of Production Research, 49(10), 2959–2976.

You might also like