Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior Among Engineers in Electrical and Electronic MNCs in Malaysia
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior Among Engineers in Electrical and Electronic MNCs in Malaysia
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior Among Engineers in Electrical and Electronic MNCs in Malaysia
https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2020-58-11
ABSTRACT
Innovative behavior is vital for organizations as competition based on innovation can serve as a basis for sustainable
development, especially for multinational companies in the Electrical and Electronic sector in Malaysia. Grounded by
the social cognitive theory, this study utilized a research framework examining ICT usage as a predictor of innovative
behavior with knowledge sharing (knowledge giving and knowledge receiving) as mediating variables. A total of 309
engineers from multinational companies in the electrical and electronic manufacturing firms in Malaysia participated
in this study. By using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) for analysis, the study revealed
that ICT usage has a significant relationship with knowledge receiving. It also found that knowledge receiving played
a mediating role in the relationship between ICT usage and innovative behavior. The findings of this study are useful to
both academics and practitioners who wish to understand the predictors of innovative behavior so that the innovative
behavior can be inculcated among organizational members, and thus, increasing the success of the companies.
ABSTRAK
Tingkah laku inovatif adalah penting kepada organisasi kerana persaingan yang berasaskan inovasi boleh dijadikan
asas untuk pembangunan mampan, terutamanya bagi syarikat-syarikat multinasional dalam sektor elektrik dan
elektronik di Malaysia. Berdasarkan teori kognitif sosial, kajian ini menggunakan satu kerangka penyelidikan yang
menyatakan kesan penggunaan ICT sebagai pemboleh ubah bebas terhadap tingkah laku inovatif dengan perkongsian
pengetahuan (memberi dan menerima ilmu) sebagai pembolehubah perantara. Sejumlah 309 jurutera dari syarikat-
syarikat multinasional dalam sektor kejuruteraan elektrik dan elektronik di Malaysia mengambil bahagian dalam
kajian ini. Berdasarkan analisis menggunakan pemodelan persamaan struktur (PLS), hasil kajian tersebut mendapati
bahawa penggunaan ICT mempunyai hubungan yang signifikan dengan penerimaan pengetahuan. Hasil kajian juga
mendapati bahawa menerima pengetahuan memainkan peranan sebagai pembolehubah perantara dalam hubungan
antara pemboleh ubah bebas dan tingkah laku yang inovatif, serta memainkan peranan untuk meningkatkan hubungan
antara perkongsian pengetahuan (memberi dan menerima pengetahuan) dengan tingkah laku inovatif. Dapatan kajian
ini sangat berguna kepada kedua-dua pihak sama ada ahli akademik dan pengurusan syarikat yang ingin mengetahui
peramal tingkah laku inovatif supaya tingkah laku inovatif boleh ditingkatkatkan antara ahli-ahli organisasi, dan
seterusnya, meningkatkan kejayaan syarikat.
and determine product viability in the future (Kuncoro to policies, and regulations, to enhance innovative
& Suriani 2017). However, according to 2020 Budget behavior among their employees.
Speech by Ministry of Finance, Malaysian economy
growth is still in average of 5.1 percent since 2000,
and trapped as a middle income nation that hindered LITERATURE REVIEW
from becoming a economy based on productivity and
innovation (BNM 2019). KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Innovative behavior among the employees is an
important factor for the realization of innovation, as While previous studies have been conducted on
it can lead the change to a more improved innovation knowledge sharing and has established the various
process either in the production of materials or new ideas factors that affect an individual’s willingness to share
(Zhou, Velamuri & Dauth 2017). Employees can help knowledge, such as costs and benefits, incentive
improve organizational performance and capabilities systems, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, organization
through their behavior to generate new ideas and make it climate, and management championship (Lin 2007a,
as building blocks for new and better products, services, 2007b; Suppiah & Sandhu 2011; Wasko & Faraj 2005),
and work processes (Michailova & Minbaeva 2012), however, there is a lack of emphasis on knowledge
and thus positioning themselves as a potential source sharing in the context of innovative behavior as a
for creativity and innovation for organizations (Farid, consequence of knowledge sharing influenced by ICT
Hakimian & Ismail 2017). To address innovative behavior usage. Donate and Guadamillas (2011) and Donate et al
among employees, Podrug, Filipovic and Kovac (2017) (2017) argue that knowledge sharing is a major concern
reveals that ICT use positively influence firm innovation because of the recognition of the value of organizational
performance and innovativeness. learning in knowledge creation and innovation within
However, the most important resource an an organization. In line with this, the literature reviews
organization can ever have is their employees and in this study attempt to lay the foundation for the
their knowledge because each employee has valuable relationship between the variables, thus, providing a
knowledge and it plays a very important role to holistically basis for the research framework.
improve the organizational environment. The importance Knowledge sharing can be defined as the culture
of knowledge workers has been discussed by previous of social interaction, including the exchange and
studies and Annett (2019) highlighted that knowledge sharing of knowledge, experience, and expertise
workers as an important source to achieve competitive among employees through the entire department or
advantage and tackle the risk. Knowledge employees organization. Knowledge sharing is confirmed as one of
are the most important asset to any organization the important aspects of knowledge management (Singh,
because their knowledge is able to improve overall Chadwani & Kumar 2018) and the key to the success
workplace environment and personal productivity (Kim of knowledge management is dependent on knowledge
et al 2019). With the increasing use of new technology sharing (Wang & Noe 2010; Obeidat, Al-Suradi &
to disseminate knowledge and information among Tarhini 2016). There are various factors that influence the
employees, will enhance innovative behaviour among behavior of sharing knowledge, such as communication,
employees and consequently, this will have a positive information systems, rewards, organization structure,
impact on organizational performance. Knowledge job satisfaction, organizational culture, organizational
sharing is a fundamental for an organization to make climate, leadership, the norm of reciprocity and trust,
a positive contributions and impact among employees and intrinsic-extrinsic, and motivation (Ali, Paris
through knowledge application and innovation (Kim & & Gunasekaran 2019; Chmielecki 2017; Goh et al.
Park 2017; Pian, Jin & Lee 2019) . 2020; Kaabi, Elanain, & Ajmal 2018; Kucharska &
However, knowledge sharing is not a behavior that Bedford 2019; Razmerita, Kirchner & Nielson 2016).
occurs naturally (Abdelrahman & Papamichail 2016). All the information and knowledge sharing is entirely
While there is a growing body of literature emphasizing dependent on the provider and supplier knowledge, not
on innovative behavior and knowledge sharing and knowledge recipient (Hussein et al. 2016). While the
its importance in the workplace, but very few studies two-way information sharing is different, it involves
adequately examined these concepts within the context the exchange of information and knowledge between
of MNCs, and very rarely in the electrical and electronic individuals and other individuals through giving and
manufacturing sector in Malaysia. Thus, this study was receiving knowledge. It is also known as collecting and
conducted to determine whether the ICT usage is able donating knowledge process (Belle & Oliveira 2018;
to influence the employee’s innovative behavior through Hooff & Ridder 2004). This perspective was shared and
knowledge sharing as the mediator. In line with Social demonstrated by other researchers such as Karkoulian,
Cognitive theory which is the underpinning theory of Harake and Messarra (2010); Lin (2007b); and Tohidinia
this research, the key factor all operates as variables that and Mosakhani (2010).
influence the behavior to innovate, can be used by the Knowledge sharing process consist of two
organization to predict the appropriate decisions related processes which are bringing (or ‘donating’) and getting
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior 135
(or collecting) knowledge (Hooff & Ridder 2004; blogs, online communities, social networking sites, and
Yadav, Choudhary & Jain 2019; Nguyen et al. 2020). micro-blogging.
Hooff and Ridder (2004) has combined both these From an organizational perspective, the employee’s
perspectives and named them as ‘knowledge donating’ task is typically complicated and may involve multiple
and ‘knowledge collecting’. ‘Knowledge donating’ sub-processes (Yuan et al. 2013), especially in an
involves communicating to other individuals with regard established organization with a huge and multiple
to the personal capital available to an individual. While levels such as the manufacturing firms. Employees are
‘knowledge collecting’ involves negotiations between also involved in assimilating the knowledge, and these
an individual with other individuals to share and gain requires both the search and shared processes that by using
knowledge of their intellectual capital. Both of these different tools to satisfy their work needs. As a result, the
dimensions have different properties and have dynamic task complexity, along with the availability of different
considerations. According to Hooff and Ridder (2004), types of ICTs, calls for more extensive research on media
both of these dimensions have been accepted and used multiplicity (Haythornthwaite & Wellman 1998; Usman,
by various studies. Ahmad & Burgoyne 2019), explaining how ICTs can
In the context of this study, knowledge sharing refers be used in combination to support communication and
to the exchange of information between individuals knowledge sharing needs. Previous studies have shown
through active knowledge donating and collecting that the usage of ICTs in organizations can be used by
knowledge. By applying this concept, this study combining the different tools to serve communication’s
highlights the term of knowledge donating as knowledge need for knowledge sharing (Abdelrahman, Papamichail
giving and collecting knowledge as receiving knowledge & Wood-Harper 2016; Amin et al 2018; & Jasimuddin &
as it is more concise and easier to understand because the Perdikis 2019).
term is often applied widely, especially in the Malaysian However, there is also a controversy about a
context. The concept of sharing knowledge through role of ICT with regard to knowledge sharing, when
bidirectionally (two ways) is chosen for the current authors stress and argued the potential benefits of ICTs
study because it is more appropriate in an organizational in knowledge management (e.g Hachicha & Mezghani
environment such as manufacturing firms, as it involves 2018; Ibrahim & Jebur 2019) as ICTs is also widely
various structures, parts, and department, require criticized for their limitation in facilitating knowledge
employees to exchange views and information among process in organization (Madhavaram et al 2017). Apart
each other. Otherwise, one-way knowledge sharing from that, the advocates of ICT as a driver for knowledge
approach may be only appropriate for adaptation in the management approach are also blamed because it only
study involving a specialist who delivers information focuses on the explicit side of knowledge, while ignoring
to the individual needs and does not require advice or the tacit side (Khanam et al 2017; Panir, Xiolin & Zijun
other information from that individual. Therefore, the 2019). However, without no doubt, Kaabi et al (2018)
‘giving knowledge’ and ‘receiving knowledge’ is used and Maimone (2018) approved that technology is
in this study is derived from the concept of ‘knowledge accepted for learning and knowledge, and very dominant
donating’ and ‘knowledge collecting’ by Hooff and in knowledge management area.
Ridder (2004).
UNDERLYING THEORY
ICT USAGE
According to Bandura (1971), Social Cognitive Theory
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (SCT) provides guidance, understanding, and prediction
as ‘web-base technologies’ is approved expended the of human behavior to change in line with changes in
quantity, quality, and density of knowledge (Khawaja personal and environment factors. SCT is based on
2017). ICT is recognized as the most prominent tool assumptions of human behavior, where individual
for facilitating the knowledge sharing intention and behavior is influenced by the interaction of personal,
recognized as a platform and an umbrella term that social, and environmental.
includes computer hardware and software, digital SCT also explain that individual abilities and
broadcast and telecommunications technologies as well individual factors have a high possibility of receiving
as digital information repositories online or offline and influence from environmental factors (Bandura 2001;
this includes contemporary social networking aspect Stajkovic et al 2018). Bandura (1971) has classified
for online file sharing system (Khawaja 2017). This is environmental factors into two categories, namely, social
because ICTs is able to provide a wide range of tools to and physical. The social environment is identified as a
support knowledge sharing processes (Alavi & Leidner socio-environment relationship, such as the relationship
2001). The use of ICTs in the organization might be that exists between workers and management, relations
in a combination of both long-standing tools, such as between colleagues, relationships between family
e-mails, telephones, teleconferencing, intranets, group members, and the organization policy. While the physical
decision support systems, or databases. It also consists environment, refers to the physical factors existing in
of newer interactive social media tools, such as wikis, the surroundings of an individual such as buildings,
136 Jurnal Pengurusan 58
infrastructure, temperature conditions, and equipment. H1 ICT use has a positive effect on knowledge giving.
He also explained that the interaction exists between the H2 ICT use has a positive effect on knowledge receiving.
environment and individual factors, including human
beliefs and cognitive capabilities, individual factors will KNOWLEDGE SHARNG AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
determine the condition of the environment, and vice
versa, the environment can also change and determine Chen, Huang and Hsiao (2010) in their study found
the behavior of an individual. In the context of the that knowledge management (creation and sharing
organization, organizational innovative climate factors, knowledge) is positively related to innovativeness. A
namely support for innovation and organizational culture study conducted by Yu, Yu-Fang and Yu-Cheh (2013)
can be classified as environmental factors that affect shows that knowledge sharing among employees will
the organization and impact of the employees in the be able to increase individual innovative behavior and
organization (Bandura 2001). their ability to innovate. More workers doing knowledge
SCT is a theory that is the most suitable as sharing, more knowledge can be internalized. Mura et al.
the underlying theory in this study because it (2013) proved that there is a positive role by behaviors
comprehensively covers the research framework. The in sharing information to give effect to the sharing of
interaction between environmental and personal factors innovation. It can be seen through the propensity and
can change the behavior of individuals as theorized in capacity to promote and implement new ideas within
SCT could be explained by the comprehensive coverage the organization. In other words, knowledge sharing
on the relationship between ICT usage, knowledge behavior has a positive role to give the impression of
sharing and innovative behavior. The study proposes that sharing innovation among employees. Indirectly, this
the behavior of knowledge sharing through giving and sharing of knowledge can create a positive relationship
receiving knowledge of employees will be affected by to the existence of innovative behavior. Therefore, this
ICT usage, which in turn affects individual innovative study empirically investigates the direct linkage between
behavior (Bandura 1989; Phung, Hawryszkiewycz & knowledge sharing (giving and receiving) and innovative
Binsawad 2017). Therefore, SCT is an ideal theory to behavior. Hypothesis three and four is as follows:
explain the research framework of the current study.
H3 Knowledge giving has a positive effect on innovative
behavior.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICT USAGE, H4 Knowledge receiving has a positive effect on
KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR innovative behavior.
ICT USAGE AND KNOWLEDG SHARING MEDITING EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING BETWEEN
ICT USAGE AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR
According to Hooff et al. (2003), the use of ICT directly
facilitates easier exchanges and help create connectivity According to Arvanitis, Loukis and Diamantopoulou
that promotes knowledge sharing. Their research (2013), little attention has been given to possible direct
on knowledge sharing in knowledge communities effects of ICT to enhance innovation. They suggest that
has proven by the result that ICT’s most important ICT enabler is more efficient when cooperation with
contribution to knowledge sharing in communities, innovative employees since the exchange of knowledge
consist of realization of shared information base and and information is easy and will go beyond the normal
facilitating communication independent of time and boundaries. ICT is seen as a tool that is able to increase
place as connectivity. Lin (2007b) in his empirical knowledge sharing and communication process in MNCs,
study of knowledge sharing and firm capability found automatically realized of new ideas and innovation
that there is a positive relationship between ICT use implementation. Thus, this study expects to explore this
and knowledge collecting (knowledge taking), but not relationship in E&E MNCs in Malaysia, and hypothesis
significant in knowledge donating (knowledge giving). five and six is proposed as follows:
In other words, the analytical result has proved that most
of the respondent agreed that the use of various ICT tools H5 Knowledge giving mediates the relationship between
helps them receiving the knowledge. Consistent with this, ICT usage and innovative behavior.
Cheng, Ho and Lau (2009) in their study on knowledge H6 Knowledge receiving mediates the relationship
sharing in academic institutions argued that it is essential between ICT usage and innovative behavior.
to create an environment which is people-oriented, in
order to promote knowledge sharing activity, rather
than technological-oriented. Although technology plays METHODOLOGY
important roles in minimizing the barriers and increase
the propensity to share knowledge, they suggested that The target population of this research is engineer
knowledge sharing is still people-process. Based on the employed by MNCs in the Malaysian electrical and
previous literature and assumptions of this study, the electronic manufacturing sector. Thus, the study
following hypotheses were formulated: utilized purposive sampling technique for data
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior 137
collection. The main criteria are that they are emploted the measure applies a five-point scale ranges from
as engineers and have subordinates to engage in ‘1=Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5=Strongly Agree’. The
knowledge sharing activities. The study focuses on summary of the items measure is shown in Table 2.
engineers because they are in the best position that
can provide reliable information to the researcher in
studying knowledge sharing and innovative behavior TABLE 1. Measurement of innovative behavior
in organizations, because their jobs are specifically
No. Innovative Behavior Items
related to innovativeness and sophisticated knowledge
that requires sharing information with other employees. 1 Idea Generation
The survey method of self-administered questionnaire a. Creating new ideas for difficult issues.
b. Searching out new working methods, techniques,
approach have been recognized as the most appropriate
or instruments.
method for this study. This study adopts postal mail c. Generating original solutions for problems.
and ‘drop-off and collect’ for data collection. The
2 Idea Promotion
combination of these techniques is based on the ability
d. Mobilizing support for innovative ideas.
of these techniques to have higher response rates e. Getting approval for innovative ideas.
(Ahmad, Husin & Saad 2017; Couper 2017). This study f. Making important organizational members excited
is a cross-sectional study which relies on the engineer’s about innovative ideas
responses to the questionnaires. The questionnaires 3 Idea Realization
were distributed and collected from the multinational
g. Transforming innovative ideas into useful
companies in electrical and electronic sector in Malaysia,
applications.
listed in the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers h. Introducing innovative ideas into the work
Electrical and Electronic Directory 2016. A total of 1550 environment in a systematic way.
questionnaires was distributed and 550 questionnaires i. Evaluating the utility of innovative ideas.
were collected. However, only 309 questionnaires were
found to be useful. Before analyzing the data, the data
were screened for missing data, outliers, normality, and TABLE 2. Measurement of ICT usage
common method variance. There are no missing data
responses found, and no outliers were deleted because No. ICT Usage Items
they were not influential responses. The examination of 1 Employees make extensive use of electronic stage
the skewness and kurtosis of the variable revealed that (such as online databases) to access knowledge.
the data were not extremely non-normal, indicating that 2 Employees use knowledge networks (such as
there were no issues regarding to normality. groupware, intranet, virtual communities) to
communicate with colleagues.
MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES 3 My company uses technology that allows employees
to share knowledge with other persons inside the
Dependent Variable Innovative behavior. The measures organization.
are adopted from Janssen (2000) scale for individual 4 My company uses technology that allows employees
innovative behavior in the workplace with nine items to share knowledge with other persons outside the
scales (Cronbach’s alfa = 0.95). The nine items have organization.
divided into three stages of innovation, which is idea
generation (three items), idea promotion (three items),
and idea realization (three items). All the items are
measured with the questions “With what frequency do Mediating Variable Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge
you engage in the behaviors listed below?”, by five points sharing in this study is measured using by giving and
behavioural frequency range from (1) for ‘Never’, (2) for receiving knowledge by the employee. It is derived
‘Almost Never’, (3) for ‘Sometimes’, (4) for ‘Often’, and from Hooff and Weenen (2004), it assesses the degree
(5) for ‘Very Often’. The details of the items have been of employee’s willingness to contribute and collect the
explained in Table 1. knowledge to and from each other. Giving knowledge
is measured using six items adopted from Hooff and
Independent Variable ICT Usage. The application of Weenen (2004) as knowledge donating, while taking
ICT is closely related to knowledge sharing as it enables knowledge is measured using eight items adopted from
and effects employees’ effectiveness and innovativeness Hooff and Weenen (2004) as knowledge collecting, it
(Bock et al. 2005; Lin 2007a; Taylor & Wright 2004; refers to collective beliefs or behavioral routines related
Wasko & Faraj 2005). In this study, ICT usage construct to the spread of learning among the employees. The
was measured by four items adopted from (Lin 2007b), measures apply a five-point Likert scale with (1) for
with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83. The purpose is to define ‘strongly disagree’, (2) for ‘agree’, (3) for ‘neutral’, (4)
the degree of employee’s ICT usability and capability for ‘agree’, (5) for ‘strongly agree’. The details of the
towards knowledge sharing. In the questionnaire, items are as follows.
138 Jurnal Pengurusan 58
TABLE 5. Tolerance and VIF values for the variables TABLE 8. Direct effects sizes of ICT usage on knowledge
sharing and innovative behavior
Variables Tolerance Values VIF Values
ICT Usage 0.454 2.204 H Structural Path Effect Size (f2) Effect Size Rating
Knowledge Giving 0.855 1.169 H1 ICTU KGIV 0.007 No Effect
Knowledge Receiving 0.855 1.169 H2 0.217 Medium
ICTU KREC
Note: Dependent variable: Innovative behavior (IB) H3 KGIV IB 0.010 No Effect
H4 KREC IB 0.038 Small
Note: Effect size (f ) 0.02 = small effect; 0.15 = medium effect, 0.35 =
2
The results of mediating path coefficients reveled large effect of the exogenous latent variable (Cohen 1988)
that indirect effect of the relationship through knowledge
giving as mediator were not significant as ICTU (ẞ
= -0.006, t = 0.542, p < 0.05). Therefore, H5 were not TABLE 9. Mediating effects sizes of ICT usage on innovative
supported. However, the results of ICT usage (ẞ = 0.109, behavior through knowledge sharing
t = 2.585, p < 0.01) have a significant indirect effect on
innovative behavior through receiving knowledge as the H Structural Path Effect
Effect Size Rating
mediator, as the confidence intervals did not straddle a Size (f2)
zero in between and therefore, the indirect effects were H5 ICTU KGIV IB 0.007 No Effect
significant. Therefore, H6 were supported. The results as H6 ICTU KREC IB 0.007 No Effect
shown in Table 7.
Note: Effect size (f ) 0.02 = small effect; 0.15 = medium effect, 0.35 =
2
In Table 8, ICT usage were not statistically significant
large effect of the exogenous latent variable (Cohen 1988)
as the effect size on giving knowledge sharing is below
in the threshold based on Cohen (1988) rule of thumb.
However, the results indicated that ICT use (f2 = 0.217) ANALYSIS
had medium effects on receiving knowledge sharing.
The results also indicated that knowledge receiving (f2 In terms of demographics, the majority of the respondents
= 0.038) had medium effects on innovative behavior.
are males (59.2%), age between 26-40 years (57.3%),
Whereas knowledge giving (f2 = 0.010) were not
Malaysian, educated with Bachelors’ Degree (71%),
statistically significant have an effect size which is below
in the threshold based on Cohen (1988) rule of thumb. have work experience in 1-5 years, worked in their
The R2 values of 0.505 for innovative behavior suggests current company within 1-5 years, and majority of the are
that 50.5% of the variance in innovative behavior can employed in American multinationals. Several remedies
be accounted for by receiving knowledge sharing. A R2 for common method bias have been taken during the
value of 0.505 (exceed to 0.50) indicated that receiving development of the questionnaire, including having a
knowledge sharing has a medium explanatory power and cover letter assuring the anonymity and confidentiality
deliver sufficiently R2 values respectively (Hair et al. responses, and using Likert scale endpoints for the
2014). independent, mediating and dependent variables. Based
TABLE 7. Mediating path coefficients of ICT usage on innovative behavior through knowledge sharing
on the PLS-SEM analysis, the measurement model was is a possibility that ICT may not be the main medium
assessed first, followed by structural model. The purpose of communication in the organizations thereby reducing
of examining the measurement model is to examine its’ importance as a tool for knowledge giving. Beside
the validity and reliability of the constructs. The PLS that, the respondents, who are engineers, might not
algorithm was run to produce the outer loadings, AVE, feel comfortable or unable to guarantee with regard to
and composite reliability of each construct. The construct ICT security of sharing information on the electronic
validity of the constructs can be determined by examining medium. The result is also consistent with the findings
the convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent by Syed and Rowland (2004) which mentioned that the
validity is assessed by looking at the outer loadings reason for non-significant in these relationship may be
and AVE of each construct. Discriminant validity was related to the fact that employees used their knowledge
assessed by comparing between the squared root of as a source of power for personal advantage rather than
the AVEs and inter-correlations of the construct. The organizational organizational. The engineers might feel
examination of the measurement model demonstrated that knowledge as their own properties which could
adequate convergent validity, discriminant validity, and not easily shared with other colleagues. ICT usage (H2)
reliability. was also hypothesized to have a positive and significant
After assessing the measurement model, the relationship with knowledge receiving. The results
structural model was examined to test the hypothesized supported the hypothesis and approved that the engineers
relationships between the variables. Collinearity perceived that ICT is important to receive knowledge
assessment was also examined as a part of structural or information from colleagues or subordinates. ICT
models and collinearity was not found to be an issue in usage in the organization has always been considered
this study. PLS algorithm and bootstrapping were run to as the main tools for sharing knowledge or information
produce the R2, path coefficients, t values, and confidence through the use of emails, databases, and intranet. Thus,
intervals. Out of 6 hypotheses, 3 hypotheses were ICT usage was useful in terms of receiving knowledge
supported. In addition to the hypothesis testing, the direct and information from their colleagues or organizational
and indirect effect size was also assessed to complement information. The result is consistent with the previous
the statistical significance testing. studies by Alashwal, Rahman and Beksin (2011);
For the first step, the direct effect of the relationship Antonova, Csepregi and Marchev Jr (2011); Hendriks
was tested. In the relationship between the independent (1999) and Lin (2007b).
variables and knowledge giving, it was found that ICT In the current study, knowledge giving was
use (H1) were not significant with knowledge giving. hypothesized to have a positive relationship with
In the relationship between independent variables with innovative behavior (H3). However, the results
knowledge receiving, it was found that ICT use (H2) have indicated that knowledge giving as non-significant in
a significant relationship with receiving knowledge. In its’ relationship with innovative behavior. Again,the
the relationship between the mediating variables and the rationale behind this result mirrors the result in H1, as
dependent variable, it was found that knowledge giving the respondents may perceive that the knowledge and
(H3) were not significant with innovative behavior, while information that they have is exclusive and private
knowledge receiving (H4) was found to have a significant information and could not be shared with other
relationship with innovative behavior. organizational members, as it is of more value to them
After testing the direct effects, the indirect effects and therefore they are unwilling to share it with others.
were examined. In testing the mediating role of While, knowledge receiving was hypothesized to have a
knowledge giving, it was found that the hypotheses positive relationship with innovative behavior (H4), and
which is ICT use (H4) were not significant to have an the result is consistent with the hypothesis. The study
indirect relationship with innovative behavior. While in found that knowledge receiving to have a significant and
testing the mediating role of knowledge receiving, it was positive relationship with innovative behavior. These
found that ICT use (H5) have a significant relationship findings are consistent with previous research. The
with innovative behavior. In summary, H2, H4, and H6 results from this study also revealed the independent
were supported. variables do not have a significant indirect relationship
with innovative behavior through knowledge giving as
mediator (H5). This signifies that knowledge givens were
DISCUSSION not significant as a mediator between ICT usage and
innovative behavior.
ICT usage was hypothesized to have a positive
relationship with knowledge giving (H1). However, the
study found that ICT usage was not significant in the CONCLUSION
direct relationship with knowledge giving. The reason
for the non-significant relationship in the present study This study has enriched the literature on innovative
is possibly due to the lack of impact ICT usage on behavior by investigating the consequence of ICT
giving knowledge activities in the organization. There usage on knowledge sharing and whether it influences
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior 141
innovative behavior in a manufacturing context. The acquisition of host-country national workers in foreign
result from this study may also provide valuable MNCs in Malaysia. Journal of Advanced Research in
information to the industry as it proved that while Business Marketing and Supply Chain Management
employees willingly utilize ICT as a medium for 14(16): 603-618.
Alashwal, A.M., Rahman, H.A. & Beksin, A.M. 2011.
receiving knowledge, the same could not be said for
Knowledge sharing in a fragmented construction industry:
knowledge contributing or giving, as indicated by Syed On the hindsight. Scientific Research and Essays 6(7):
and Rowland (2004) where knowledge or information is 1530-1536.
considered as a personal advantage, rather kept them to Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. 2001. Review: Knowledge
be shared. Specifically, the process of knowledge sharing management and knowledge management systems:
to encourage innovative behavior may not achieve its’ Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS
full prospect if employees consider knowledge as part of Quarterly 25(1): 107-136.
their personal domain, to be used for personal advantage Ali, A.A., Paris, L. & Gunasekaran, A. 2019. Key factors
instead for organizational benefit. The management or influencing knowledge sharing practices and its
relationship with organizational performance within the
decision makers of organizations should take heed from
oil and gas industry. Journal of Knowledge Management
the findings of this study to urge their organizations to 23(9): 1806-1837.
implement appropriate steps to encourage knowledge Amin, N.A.H.N., Almunawar, M.N., Hasnan, A.S. & Besar,
sharing as empirical evidence has established that with N.N. 2018. Preferences, benefits, and barriers of web
knowledge sharing it will lead to innovative behavior 2.0 tools for knowledge sharing in Brunei Darussalam’s
among their employees. As mentioned earlier, ICT usage Tertiary. In Education Management Strategies and
was significantly related to receiving knowledge. Based Technology Fluidity in the Asian Business Sector, 253-
on the f2 effect sizes, ICT usage has medium effects on 276. Hershey: IGI Global.
Annett, M. 2019. Human resource risk and knowledge workers:
knowledge receiving. Knowledge giving was found Propositions for the theory and research. Journal of
not significantly related to innovative behavior while Management Policy and Practice 20(4): 10-20.
knowledge receiving was found significantly related to Antonova, A., Csepregi, A. & Marchev Jr, A. 2011. How to
innovative behavior. Based on the f2 effect size, knowledge extend the ICT used at organizations for transferring
giving does not have any effects on innovative behavior. and sharing knowledge. IUP Journal of Knowledge
Management 9(1): 37-56.
In contrast, knowledge receiving has a medium effect Arvanitis, S., Loukis, E.N. & Diamantopoulou, V. 2013. Are
on innovative behavior. It implies that more attention ICT, workplace organization and human capital relevant
should be paid to knowledge receiving because it has for innovation? A comparative study based on Swiss and
an effect in increase innovative behavior. The results Greek micro data. KOF Working Papers No. 333, Zurich.
suggest that the management to prioritize their actions in Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
promoting knowledge giving because the result indicated
Science 16(1): 74-94.
that it has the strongest influence on innovative behavior Belle, A.R. & Oliveira, M. 2018. The life cycle process
among other variables in this study. of knowledge sharing in free software communities:
Sharing profiles and motivations. Knowledge and Process
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Management 25(3): 143-152.
Bandura, A. 1971. Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes.
The authors wish to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia for In The Nature of Reinforcement, edited by R. Glaser, 228-
funding this research under Research University Grant 278. New York: Academic Press.
1001/PMGT/8016008. Bandura, A. 1989. Human agency in social cognitive theory.
American Psychologist 44(9): 1175-1184.
Bandura, A. 2001. Social cognitive theory: An agentic
REFERENCES
perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 1-26.
BNM. 2019. 2020 Budget Speech. Available at https://www.
Abdelrahman, M. & Papamichail, K.N. 2016. The role of bnm.gov.my/documents/budget/bs2020.pdf
organisational culture on knowledge sharing by using Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G. & Lee, J.-N. 2005.
knowledge management systems in MNCs. 22nd Americas Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Conference on Information Systems, 11-14 August, San Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
Diego. psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS
Abdelrahman, M., Papamichail, K.N. & Wood-Harper, T. Quarterly 29(1): 87-111.
2016. To share or not to share: An exploratory review Chen, Huang, J.-W. & Hsiao, Y.-C. 2010. Knowledge
of knowledge management systems and knowledge management and innovativeness: The role of organizational
sharing in multinasional corporations. UK Academy for climate and structure. International Journal of Manpower
Information System (UKAIS) 21st Annual Conference, 11- 31(8): 848-870.
13 April, Oxford. Cheng, M-Y., Ho, J.S-Y. & Lau, P.M. 2009. Knowledge sharing
Agarwal, N., Brem, A. & Dwivwdi, S. 2020. Frugal and in academic institutions: A study of Multimedia University
reverse innovation for harnessing the business potential Malaysia. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
of emerging markets - The case of a Danish MNC. 7(3): 313-324.
International Journal of Innovation Management 24(1). Chmielecki, M. 2017. Knowledge Sharing in MNCs
Ahmad, F., Husin, H. & Saad, M.S. 2017. The influence of Intercultural Interactions in the Multicultural Workplace.
individual absorptive capacity on individual knowledge New York: Springer.
142 Jurnal Pengurusan 58
Cohen. 1988. Some new evidence on the seriousness of crime. Hussein, A.T.T., Singh, S.K., Farouk, S. & Sohal, A.s. 2016.
Criminology 26(2): 343-353. Knowledge sharing enables, process and firm innovation
Couper, M.P. 2017. New developments in survey data capability. Journal of Workplace Learning 28(8): 484-495.
collection. Annual Review of Sociology 43: 121-145. Ibrahim, S.K. & Jebur, Z.T. 2019. Impact of information
Danquah, M. & Amankwah-Amoah, J. 2017. Assessing the communication technology on business firms.
relationships between human capital, innovation and International Journal of Science and Engineering
technology adoption: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Applications 8(2): 53-56.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 122: 24-33. Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward
DonatE, M.J., de Pablo, J.D.S., Guandamilas, F. & Gonzalez- fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of
Ramos, M.I. 2017. The role of knowledge management Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(3): 287-
strategies in corporation agreements. In Strategic 302.
Information Systems and Technologies in Modern Jasimuddin, S.M., Li, J. & Perdikis, N. 2019. An empirical
Organizations, edited by C. Howard & K. Hargiss, 128- study of the role of knowledge characteristics and tools
150. Hershey: IGI Global. on knowledge transfer in China-based multinationals.
Donate, M.J. & Guadamillas, F. 2011. Organizational factors to Journal of Global Information Management 27(1): 165-
support knowledge management and innovation. Journal 195.
of Knowledge Management 15(6): 890-914. Kaabi, A.A., Elanain, H.A. & Ajmal M.M. 2018. HRM practices
Farid, H., Hakimian, F. & Ismail, M.N. 2017. How Malaysian and innovation performance with the mediating effect of
managers persuade employees’ innovative behaviour? Int. knowledge sharing: Empirical evidence from Emirati
J. Management and Enterprise Development 16(4): 291- ICT companies. International Journal of Innovation and
307. Learning 24(1): 41-61.
Goh, S.-K., Jayaraman, K., Mostafiz, M.I. & Leow, Y.M. 2020. Karkoulian, S., Harake, N.A. & Messarra, L.C. 2010. Correlates
The effect of organisational climate on employees creative of organizational commitment and knowledge sharing via
performance through knowledge sharing behavior. emotional intelligence: An empirical investigation. The
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 18(1): Business Review, Cambridge, Hollywood 15(1): 89-89.
1-14. Khanam, L. Mahfuz, M.A., Yuanjian, Q. & Alam, M.Z. 2017.
Groth, K. & Bowers, J. 2001. On finding things out: Situating Exploring the role of ICT usage and collaborative climate
organisational knowledge in CSCW. Paper presented at on explicit knowledge sharing behavior of Chinese
the ECSCW 2001. university students. MIST International Journal of Science
Hachicha, Z.S. & Mezghani, K. 2018. Understanding and Technology 5(1): 73-84.
intentions to switch toward cloud computing at firm’s Khawaja, K.F. 2017. Why should I trust ICT? An empirical
level: A multiple case study in Tunisia. Journal of Global study examining teachers and students usage of ICT
Information Management 26(1): 136-165. for knowledge sharing and seeking. Paper presented at
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. & Sarstedt, M. 2014. the International Conference on Advances in Business,
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Management and Law (ICABML).
Modelling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: SAGE Publication, Kim, Y.-H., Choe, E.K., Lee, B. & Seo, J. 2019. Understanding
Inc. personal productivity: how knowledge workers define,
Hair Jr, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. & Gudergan, evaluate, and reflect on their productivity. Paper presented
S.P. 2017. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares at Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human
Structural Equation Modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Factors in Computing Systems.
Publications. Kucharska, W. & Bedford, D.A. 2019. Knowledge sharing and
Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. 1998. Work, friendship, organizational culture dimensions: does job satisfaction
and media use for information exchange in a networked matter? Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management
organization. Journal of the American Society for 17(1): 1-18.
Information Science 49(12): 1101-1114. Kuncoro, W. & Suriani, W.O. 2017. Achieving sustainable
Hendriks, P.H. 1999. Why share knowledge? The influence of competitive advantage through product innovation and
ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge market driving. Asia Pacific Management Review 23(3):
and Process Management 6(2): 91-100. 186–193.
Hooff, B.V.D., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, J.M. & Dumoulin, C. Lin, H.-F. 2007a. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation
2003. Knowledge sharing in knowledge communities. In on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of
Communities and Technologies, edited by M. Huysman, Information Science 33(2):135-149.
E. Wenger & V. Wulf, 119–141. Neitherlands: Kluwer, Lin, H.-F. 2007b. Knowledge sharing and firm innovation
B.V. capability: An empirical study. International Journal of
Hooff, B.V.D. & Ridder, A. 2004. Knowledge sharing in manpower 28(3/4): 315-332.
context: the influence of organizational commitment, Lind, C.H., Kang, O., Ljung, A. & Forsgren, M. 2018.
communication climate and CMC use on knowledge MNC involvement in social innovations: The issue of
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(6): 117- knowledge, networks and power. Critical Perspectives on
127. International Business 16(1): 79-99.
Hooff, B.V.D., Ridder, J.d. & Aukema, E. 2004. The eagerness Madhavaram, S., Matos, V., Blake, B.A. & Appan, R. 2017.
to share: Knowledge sharing, ICT and social capital. ICTs in the context of disaster management, stakeholders,
Working Paper. and implications. Journal of Information, Communication
Hooff, B.V.D. & Weenen, F.D.L.V. 2004. Committed to share: and Ethics in Society 15(1): 32-52.
Commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge Maimone, F. 2018. An integrated approach to facilitate
sharing. Knowledge and Process Management 11(1): 13- knowledge sharing among and beyond cultural barriers,
24.
Investigating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Usage, Knowledge Sharing and Innovative Behavior 143
using social media. In Intercultural Knowledge Sharing in between organizational elements and the performance of
MNCs, edited by F. Maimone, 157-189. Springer. knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management
Malhotra, Y. 2000. Knowledge management for e-business 8(2): 95-111.
performance: advancing information strategy to “internet Taylor, W.A. & Wright, G.H. 2004. Organizational readiness
time”. Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal for successful knowledge sharing: Challenges for public
16(4): 5-16. sector managers. Information Resources Management
Michailova, S. & Minbaeva, D.B. 2012. Organizational values Journal 17(2): 22-37.
and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations: The Tohidinia, Z. & Mosakhani, M. 2010. Knowledge sharing
Danisco case. International Business Review 21(1): 59-70. behaviour and its predictors. Industrial Management &
Mura, M., Lettieri, E., Radaelli, G. & Spiller, N. 2013. Data Systems 110(4): 611-631.
Promoting professionals’ innovative behaviour through Tseng, C.-J. & Tsai, S.-C. 2011. Effect of consumer
knowledge sharing: the moderating role of social capital. environmental attitude on green consumption decision-
Journal of Knowledge Management 17(4): 527-544. making. Pakistan Journal of Statistics 27(5): 699-708.
Nguyen, T., Tran, N., Doan, X. & Nguyen, H. 2020. The impact Usman, M., Ahmad, M.I. & Burgoyne, J. 2019. Individual
of knowledge sharing on innovative work behavior of and organizational learning from inter-firm knowledge
Vietnam telecommunications enterprises employees. sharing: A framework integrating inter-firm and intra-firm
Management Science Letters 10(1): 53-62. knowledge sharing and learning. Canadian Journal of
Obeidat, B.Y., Al-Suradi, M.M. & Tarhini, A. 2016. The impact Administrative Sciences 36(4): 484-497.
of knowledge management on innovation. Management Wang, & Noe, R.A. 2010. Knowledge sharing: A review
Research Review 39(10): 1214-1238. and directions for future research. Human Resource
Oldenkamp, J.H. 2001. Limitations of managing knowledge Management Review 20(2): 115-131.
sharing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second Wasko, M.M. & Faraj, S. 2005. Why should I share? Examining
European Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled, social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic
Slovenia. networks of practice. MIS Quarterly 29(1): 35-57.
Panir, M.J.H., Xiolon, X. & Zijun, M. 2019. Integration of ICT Yadav, M., Choudhary, S. & Jain, S. 2019. Transformational
with knowledge management to foster digital innovation: leadership and knowledge sharing behavior in freelancers:
the case of Bangladesh public sector. International A moderated mediation model with employee engagement
Journal of Managing Public Sector Information and and social support. Journal of Global Operations and
Communication Technologies 9(4): 1-16. Strategic Sourcing 12(2): 202-224.
Phung, D., Hawryszkiewycz, I. & Binsawad, M. 2017. Yuan., Y.C., Zhao, X., Liao, Q. & Chi, C. 2013. The use of
Exploring how environmental and personal factors different information and communication technologies to
influence knowledge sharing behavior leads to innovative support knowledge sharing in organizations: From e‐mail
work behavior in Vietnamese higher education institution. to micro‐blogging. Journal of the American Society for
Information Systems Development: Advances in Methods, Information Science and Technology 64(8): 1659-1670.
Tools and Management (ISD2017 Proceedings), 1-10. Yu, C., Yu-Fang, T. & Yu-Cheh, C. 2013. Knowledge sharing,
Podrug, N., Filipovic, D. & Kovac, M. 2017. Knowledge organizational climate, and innovative behavior: A cross-
sharing and firm innovation capability in Croation ICT level analysis of effects. Social Behavior and Personality:
companies. International Journal of Manpower 38(4): An International Journal 41(1): 143-156.
632-644. Yu, L., Li, H., Wang, Z. & Duan, Y. 2019. Technology imports
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K. & Nielsen, P. 2016. What factors and self-innovation in the context of innovation quality.
influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social International Journal of Production Economics 214: 22-
dilemma perspective of social media communication. 52.
Journal of Knowledge Management 20(6): 1225-1246. Zhou, W., Velamuri, V.K., Dauth, T. 2017. Changing innovation
Singh, J.B., Chandwani. R. & Kumar, M. 2018. Factors affecting roles of foreign subsidiaries from the manufacturing
web 2.0 adoption: Exploring the knowledge sharing and industry in China. International Journal of Innovation
knowledge seeking aspects in health care professionals. Management 21(1): 1-32.
Journal of Knowledge Management 22(1): 21-43.
Stajkovic, A.D., Bandura, A., Locke, E.A., Lee. D. & Sergent,
K. 2018.Test of three conceptual models of influence of Hazril Izwar Ibrahim
the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic School of Management
performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality Universiti Sains Malaysia
and Individual Differences 120: 238-245. 11800 USM Penang, MALAYSIA.
Stephens, K.K. 2007. The successive use of information and E-Mail: [email protected]
communication technologies at work. Communication
Theory 17(4): 486-507. Wan Maisara Wan Mohamad (corresponding author)
Stephens, K.K., Sørnes, J.O., Rice, R.E., Browning, L.D. & School of Management
Sætre, A.S. 2008. Discrete, sequential, and follow-up Universiti Sains Malaysia
use of information and communication technology by 11800 USM Penang, MALAYSIA
experienced ICT users. Management Communication E-Mail: [email protected]
Quarterly 22(2): 197-231.
Suppiah, V. & Sandhu, M.S. 2011. Organisational culture’s Khairul Anuar Mohammad Shah
influence on tacit knowledge-sharing behaviour. Journal School of Management
of Knowledge Management 15(3): 462-477. Universiti Sains Malaysia
Syed, O.S.S.-I. & Rowland, F. 2004. Knowledge management 11800 USM Penang, MALAYSIA
in a public organization: A study on the relationship E-Mail: [email protected]