The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Leveraging knowledge sharing and Knowledge

sharing and
innovation culture into SMEs innovation
culture
sustainable competitive advantage
I Wayan Edi Arsawan 405
Department of Business Administration, Politeknik Negeri Bali, Bali, Indonesia
Received 10 May 2020
Viktor Koval Revised 21 September 2020
Odessa Institute of Trade and Economics of Kyiv 28 October 2020
Accepted 14 November 2020
National University of Trade and Economics, Odessa, Ukraine
Ismi Rajiani
Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik, Gresik, Indonesia
Ni Wayan Rustiarini
Accounting, Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar, Denpasar, Indonesia, and
Wayan Gede Supartha and Ni Putu Santi Suryantini
Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Udayana, Bukit Jimbaran, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed to examine and explain the role of knowledge sharing in shaping innovation culture
to improve business performance and build sustainable competitive advantage. Most empirical research tended
to be conducted in large companies, and there are limited studies on this topic in the SME sector. Thus, the study
needs to re-examine whether the theories developed to understand large companies apply to SMEs.
Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study involved 259 respondents from a 59 sampling
frame consisting of three levels of management of export SMEs in the Bali province of Indonesia. The
questionnaire used to gather the data used a semantic differential scale, and the data were analyzed using
SmartPLS software.
Findings – The results showed that knowledge sharing significantly influenced innovation culture, business
performance and sustainable competitive advantage. Theoretically, this research provides insight into the
body of knowledge in innovation culture and business performance as a mediator variable.
Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional design limits the authors from drawing definitive
generalizations, and self-reported measures used in the study increase the chances of bias.
Practical implications – The study’s findings could motivate managers and practitioners to place emphasis
on knowledge sharing and innovation culture in the SME sector.
Originality/value – The role of knowledge sharing has been focused on large companies in several countries.
However, research examining the role of knowledge sharing in building an innovation culture is still rare in the
SME sector, particularly in Indonesian SMEs. Therefore, research on this topic is needed because Indonesia has
not only a different culture but also different business practices.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Innovation culture, Business performance,
Sustainable competitive advantage, SMEs
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Small medium enterprises (SMEs) is a sector that needs significant attention in the Industrial
Revolution 4.0 era. It has a sustainable competitive advantage in increasing growth
opportunities and optimizing profits, therefore contributing to the country’s GDP (Anwar International Journal of
et al., 2018). Previous studies indicated that the inability of SMEs to manage resources has Productivity and Performance
Management
increased the failure of this enterprise, both in developed and developing countries. Vol. 71 No. 2, 2022
pp. 405-428
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
Thank you to the reviewer for the valuable comments, suggestions and improvements to this paper. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2020-0192
IJPPM This phenomenon is not only the primary concern of managers and public policymakers but
71,2 also includes academics (Singh and Verma, 2019).
The sustainable competitive advantage plays a crucial role in the long-term resilience and
success of SMEs (Anwar et al., 2018). Organizations also continue to focus on identifying
different product strategies, building core competencies related to service delivery,
employing skilled personnel and accumulating intellectual property (Eidizadeh et al., 2017).
According to Gutierrez-Martinez and Duhamel (2019), the sustainable competitive advantage
406 determined by the four transversal dimensions include leadership orientation, organizational
culture, team-based structure, human resources and control management systems. Other
research identified that sustainable competitive advantage was influenced by learning
organization (Mahmoud et al., 2016), human resource capabilities (Khandekar and Sharma,
2005; Petrova et al., 2020), intellectual capital and innovation (Chahal and Bakshi, 2015),
creativity and effective solution (Bari et al., 2019), entrepreneurial competency (Zainol and Al
Mamun, 2018), innovation culture (Wolf et al., 2011) and knowledge management (Bashir and
Farooq, 2019). Therefore, the synergy between knowledge management and innovation
business model shaped the sustainable competitive advantage (Malhotra, 2001).
One of the management dimensions required in creating a competitive advantage is
knowledge sharing (Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009). This is the primary key of
organizational learning, innovation (Ahmad, 2018) and functions as a crucial driver in
creating values for business excellence and performance (Aboramadan et al., 2019; Exposito
and Sanchis-llopis, 2018), especially for SMEs (Jordao et al., 2019). Most of these empirical
research studies were conducted in large companies, with limited topic in SME sector. Also, it
has restricted resources, such as labour, finance and small number of customers and market
(Saunila, 2016). In the innovation context, the studies also focused on large firms, while the
patterns in small enterprise had widely been neglected (Singh et al., 2017). Therefore, there is a
need to re-examine whether the theories developed for understanding large companies were
also applicable to SMEs. Therefore, the competitive advantage in the SMEs needs to be
investigated (Sergeeva and Andreeva, 2016).
The issue of competitive advantage of a business entity was examined around the world.
But, it has been investigated using various variables representing the concept of competitive
advantage, which was not explained comprehensively. This study attempts to address the
following four gaps and offer a substantial share to the theory of sustainable competitive
advantage literature. First, besides many contributions of similar research, there is a
significant gap, that is, no research adopted a single conceptual framework to achieve
sustainable competitive advantage in business organizations (Gutierrez-Martinez and
Duhamel, 2019). Other studies found that the innovation culture, mostly in SMEs, was too
fragmented and needs consolidating (Bashir and Farooq, 2019; Wolf et al., 2011). This
research is the first to build a comprehensive framework.
Second, the research on innovation culture in SMEs is still limited; however, it needs to
improve in performance and have a sustainable competitive advantage (Ahmad and
Alaskari, 2014; Dabic et al., 2019; Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019). The aim of innovation culture
in the SME context is to develop and understand the intentions, build supporting
infrastructure, promote behaviour to influence market and value orientation and
understand the environment to implement innovation (Hanifah et al., 2019b). Several
theories and empirical studies of innovation culture were focused on large companies or
organizations, such as those conducted in Greece (Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes, 2018;
Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019), Spain (Exposito and Sanchis-llopis, 2018), Brazil–Portugal
(Teixeira et al., 2019) and Malaysia (Hanifah et al., 2019a, b). The findings showed that in
countries where SMEs are actively implementing innovation culture, their business
performance has improved. Although the results of these empirical studies have been
successfully applied elsewhere, it has not been proven in Indonesia. Further investigation is
needed in this country, because it has a different culture, , with various business practices. Knowledge
This survey is the first to examine the innovation culture of the SME sector in Indonesia. sharing and
Third, sustainable competitive advantage is crucial for the success and long-term survival
of SMEs (Anwar et al., 2018). Therefore, organizations that have a high level of innovation
innovation
culture had succeeded in developing and maintaining competitive advantage (Chatzoglou culture
and Chatzoudes, 2018; Soetjipto et al., 2018). However, the relationship between the
innovation culture and competitive advantage has not been rigorously examined. Fourth, the
sustainable competitive advantage associated with innovation knowledge and culture is still 407
rare; therefore, it is worth researching in developing countries (Sajjad et al., 2018; Singh and
Verma, 2019). The issue of sustainability is related to various realities in developing countries
(Orazalin et al., 2019). Meanwhile, each company has significant opportunities to differentiate
personal sustainability. This means that competitive advantage shows a higher self-image
than competitors (Gutierrez-Martinez and Duhamel, 2019).
This study aims to explore the role of knowledge sharing in building innovation culture to
improve business performance and sustainable competitive advantage (Amoako, 2019),
particularly in the SME sector in Indonesia. In the SME context, innovation culture is still
considered as not crucial, as no benefits have been shown through empirical validation (Abdul-
Halim et al., 2018). Besides, most studies on innovation culture have been focusing on employees
and large companies. Only a few analyses have examined how small companies become
essential players in the global market (Chang et al., 2017). Therefore, this is one of the first
studies that examine business performance antecedent, relating to sustainable competitive
advantage. Based on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976) and perspective of
knowledge sharing (Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes, 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019), this topic is important
in understanding the dynamic scenarios and provides a better analysis in explaining
sustainable competitiveness in Indonesian SMEs. This study uses intellectual capital as a
mediator between knowledge sharing and sustainable competitive advantage. Also, business
performance serves as a mediator of intellectual capital and sustainable competitive advantage.
Section 2 discusses the literature review and formulation of hypotheses development.
Section 3 discusses research methodology, and then data analysis and findings in Section 4.
In Section 5, this paper presents the conclusion. The last section has to do with limitations and
suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 Sustainable competitive advantage
Sustainability competitive advantage is the most popular concept in the strategic
management field. It explains the factors influencing performances across companies
(Sigalas and Papadakis, 2018). It occurs when other companies do not replicate the benefits of
competitive advantage. Organizations focus on identifying different product strategies,
building core competencies, employing skilled personnel and accumulating intellectual
property to achieve performance in competitive markets (Bhat and Darzi, 2018). According to
Amoako (2019), sustainable competitive advantage is achieved through the role of leadership
and the effectiveness of implementing strategies that affect the organization’s environmental
activities. Gutierrez-Martinez and Duhamel (2019) discovered that the four transversal
dimensions, such as leadership orientation, organizational culture, team-based structure,
human resources and control management systems, are the main factors for building a
competitive advantage based on sustainability. According to Bari et al. (2019), organization
needs to make practical innovations to maintain competitive advantage and success.

2.2 Business performance

Business performance is one of the most investigated variables to measure organizational
success (Iqbal et al., 2019), particularly on knowledge-based company operations. It also
IJPPM shows the progress and development of the organization in order to measure the level of
71,2 effectiveness and efficiency achieved in various fields (Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019). To examine
business performance, this study considers the dimensions of product quality, customer
satisfaction (Aboramadan et al., 2019), financial performance and new product development
(Khandekar and Sharma, 2005) and types of innovation (Exposito and Sanchis-llopis, 2018).
Also, it is shaped by the maturity and alignment of management processes (Vuks and Sus,
2019) as well as competitiveness (Jordao et al., 2019). This proves that business performance
408 variable is a multidimensional construct; therefore, it needs to be measured comprehensively
(Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019).

2.3 Innovation culture

To encourage an organization to have high performance, entrepreneurs need to be more
innovative, for example, in the development of human resources (Onkelinx et al., 2016) and
good leadership (Schell, 2019). In an energetic and fast-moving business environment, the
characterization of business operations requires high innovation to create profits and
improve performance and productivity (Hanifah et al., 2019b). Improved performance and
productivity can be achieved through application of ideas, new discoveries to development of
products or new services, managerial strategies, procedures, work methods and technology
(Chahal and Bakshi, 2015). Therefore, innovation is an important instrument for adapting to a
rapidly changing business environment (Aboramadan et al., 2019) because it is capable of
playing an important role to improve organizational performance and maintain its
competitive advantage (Bari and Fanchen, 2017). However, the speed and quality of
innovation is more important in complex and ever-changing business environments (Wang
et al., 2016a, b). Ghasemzadeh et al. (2019) stated that innovation is one of the leading
strategies and the critical factor in determining organizational sustainability.

2.4 Knowledge sharing

One of the main processes in knowledge management is sharing and a value-added activity in
organizational strategy (Eidizadeh et al., 2017) that should be understood, changed and
combined in order to be implemented (Bari et al., 2019). Knowledge sharing among
individuals produces new experience (Ahmad, 2018; Masa’deh et al., 2016) that contributes
and facilitates synergy, collective learning and creativity (Singh and Verma, 2019; Tassabehji
et al., 2019), accelerating innovation (Dahiyat, 2015) as well as the creation of shared values
and standards (Singh et al., 2018). The benefits of sharing knowledge are concerned with
network expansion, business opportunities and improvement of new processes for products
and services development (Steffen et al., 2017). Also, it is more evident when individuals are
involved in the collection and donation of knowledge, which results in the synergy between
people, therefore increasing creativity, eliminating redundancy and leading to innovation
acceleration (Teixeira et al., 2019). According to Bari et al. (2020), knowledge sharing is
referred to as employees’ willingness to share information (in the form of ideas, experiences,
facts, processes, formulas) with other individuals in the organization.

2.5 Research hypotheses

A review of 88 scientific articles in the period 1997–2018 found that knowledge sharing shapes
innovation culture and business performance (Singh and Verma, 2019). Also, knowledge
management builds an innovation orientation in shaping the values of the business model
(Wichitsathian and Nakruang, 2019) and competitive advantage (Bashir and Farooq, 2019).
Teixeira et al. (2019) stated that it has a strong relationship with innovation, while the culture of
SMEs is determined by employee knowledge sharing (Arsawan et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2011).
Bari et al. (2016) showed that the practice of sharing knowledge is developed from the Knowledge
interaction and exchange of beneficial intangible assets. Therefore, knowledge sharing has a sharing and
significant effect on organizational innovation (Berraies, 2019; Boroujerdi et al., 2019; Lin and
Chen, 2008). Based on the description, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
innovation
culture
H1. Knowledge sharing has a positive effect on innovation culture.
Knowledge-sharing activities contribute to building competitive advantage (Magnier-
Watanabe and Senoo, 2009). Also, knowledge-sharing shapes new information and improves 409
competitive advantage (Connell and Voola, 2013; Lin and Chen, 2008) through several activities,
such as sharing experiences, brainstorming ideas and practice (Ayanbode, 2020). Furthermore,
knowledge sharing has a positive effect on competitive advantage, because organizations
(SMEs) do not achieve competitive advantage – they only prioritize tangible assets without
enhancing knowledge sources (Eidizadeh et al., 2017; Soetjipto et al., 2018). The knowledge-
based assets are the foundations of success and the basis of sustainable competitive advantage
(Bashir and Farooq, 2019). Based on the description, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H2. Knowledge sharing has a positive effect on sustainable competitive advantage.
Innovation culture is referred to as shared values, beliefs and assumptions embraced by
organizational members that facilitate transformational process (Dabic et al., 2019). Also, it
consists of a combination of beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviours of employees that leads
to the improved performance of products, services and innovations (Sattayaraksa and
Boon-itt, 2016; Saunila et al., 2014). Therefore, companies need to build a shared value system,
including the activities that stimulate open communication, opinions and new ideas to
achieve sustainable innovation. Furthermore, internal innovation instructions help
organizational members to send messages to members that their new ideas are valued.
When the innovation culture permeates, employees are free to express their ideas and try new
methods in order to contribute to the organizational performance (Ghasemzadeh et al., 2019;
Grimsdottir and Edvardsson, 2018). Previous studies found positive effects of innovation
culture on business performance (Exposito and Sanchis-llopis, 2018; Kafetzopoulos et al.,
2019; Kneipp et al., 2019). Based on the description, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H3. Innovation culture has a positive effect on business performance.
Kneipp et al. (2019) stated that companies implementing innovative sustainable practices are
able to minimize the potential negative impacts. Also, those that implement high-level
innovation are able to develop and maintain a competitive advantage (Soetjipto et al., 2018).
Therefore, innovation is a crucial factor in the organization’s competitive capacity (Chen et al.,
2015; Saji and Ellingstad, 2016) through effective use of organizational resources (Bari and
Fanchen, 2017). However, the development of competitive advantage means that the
organization has resources and capabilities of making products superior to its competitors,
and also providing excellent value to customers (Iqbal et al., 2019). Companies that have
innovation culture are more flexible, with greater capacity to adapt and respond to changes
quickly in periods of instability, and detect new opportunities (Kneipp et al., 2019). Therefore,
comprehensive benefits are obtained from the flexibility of an organization and its capacity to
react to change appropriately (Anning-Dorson and Nyamekye, 2020; Chatzoglou and
Chatzoudes, 2018). Based on the description, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H4. Innovation culture has a positive effect on sustainable competitive advantage.
Significant effects of business performance on sustainable competitive advantage have been
examined. The study conducted by Soetjipto et al. (2018) found a significant relationship
between performance and sustainable competitive advantage. Therefore, to build
competitive advantage, radical innovation is needed to achieve substantial performance
IJPPM (Cavaleri and Shabana, 2018). The adaptive leaders and management are required to
71,2 effectively implement organizational strategies in building business alignment and
intelligence maturity for sustainability (Vuks and Sus, 2019). Also, to achieve a
competitive advantage, companies should create positive values that are equal to, or more
than, competitors’ values (Wang, 2019). Organizational internal resources and capabilities
(i.e. leadership orientation, culture, human resource-based structures and control
management systems) should be integrated to produce a business performance and
410 sustainable competitive advantage (Gutierrez-Martinez and Duhamel, 2019). Based on this
description, the hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H5. Business performance has a positive effect on sustainable competitive advantage.
The role of human resources is very strategic in creating business performance and building
sustainable competitive advantage through attracting appropriate talent, selecting the best
employees, developing and improving skills, motivating innovation and retaining valuable
employees (Iqbal et al., 2019; Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Rustiarini et al., 2019). For this
reason, organizations should understand the knowledge that employees have and create
adequate mechanisms to form superior human capital. Obtaining the best employees create
knowledge sharing, innovation culture and synergize their contributions in building
sustainable competitive advantage (Khandekar and Sharma, 2005). Therefore, innovation
has a significant effect on competitive advantage (Chahal and Bakshi, 2015; Chatzoglou and
Chatzoudes, 2018) and is a critical factor in the organization’s competitive capacity (Chen
et al., 2015; Saji and Ellingstad, 2016). Based on this, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H6. Innovation culture partially mediates the relationship between knowledge sharing
and sustainable competitive advantage.
It is further suggested that the relationship between innovation culture and sustainable
competitive advantage is partial, because business performance acts as a mediator between
them. However, the dimensions of innovation culture (i.e. organizational culture, the product,
process management and objectives innovation) provide the basis for creating business
performance (Ghasemzadeh et al., 2019), overcoming uncertainty of the external environment
(Eidizadeh et al., 2017) and facilitating the development of sustainable competitive advantage
(Kafetzopoulos et al., 2019). This is because innovation culture lays the foundation for
maintaining business performance (Chatzoglou and Chatzoudes, 2018). Based on this
description, a hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H7. Business performance partially mediates the relationship between innovation
culture and sustainable competitive advantage.
Therefore, this study examined the relationship between knowledge sharing, culture
innovation, business performance and sustainable competitive advantage in both direct and
mediation relationships. The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

3. Research methodology
3.1 Data collection and sample demographics
This survey study was conducted at export SMEs in Bali province, Indonesia, as they were
carrying out active transactions to the American, European and Middle Eastern markets.
Some considerations were underlying the selection of research sites. Firstly, export SMEs are
always required to innovate in order to adapt to environmental changes. Secondly,
innovation is only done with knowledge and creativity. In this case, export SMEs should be
supported by good knowledge management (knowledge sharing) to create a sustainable
competitive advantage. Therefore, high innovation potential and dynamic organizational
strategies are needed.
 C ust
S atisf
Knowledge
Q uality
(B P 2)
F inanc
sharing and
O bjectv
(B P 1) (B P 3)
innovation
(IC 5)

NPD
culture
(B P 4)
M anag
(IC 4)

411
B usiness
P rocess
P erform ance
(IC 3)
Innovation H3 (B P )
V alue
culture
(S C A 1)
(IC )

P roduct
(IC 2)
H5
H4
SDS
(S C A 2)
C ulture
(IC 1) H1
S ustainable
C om p A dv
(S C A )
GP
(S C A 3)
S oc
H2
(K S 1)

K now ledge
MS
sharing (S C A 4)
(K S )
Ex
(K S 2)

C om IP
(K S 3) (S C A 5)
R are
IN I
(S C A 6)
(S C A 7)
In
Figure 1.
(K S 4) Research framework

The sample included 69 export SMEs divided into six business sectors, namely, fashion
designers and manufacturers, furniture and home decor, spa, aromatic and specialty products,
accessories and jewelry and services. Using the formula proposed by Krejcie and Morgan
(1970), a total of 59 SMEs as a sampling frame was derived. This selection was carried out using
random sampling (lottery method). The population and sample are presented in Table 1.
From the 59 SMEs, five respondents were recruited from each for filling out the research
questionnaire. The total number of the participants was 295, which included managers from
three levels, namely, low (supervisors), middle (assistants) and top (export-SME). Their selection
was triggered by the assumption that they possess organizational strategy and run and make
policies related to performance, sustainability, and competitive advantage. The demographic
profile of the respondents is presented in Table 2. The questionnaire was distributed through
two methods, namely, through a mail survey and through manually submitting when visiting
the SMEs. The filling out time of questionnaire was seven months, from March to October 2019.
In the mail survey, questionnaires were sent via email and the participants were reminded
once a week to fill the questionnaire naturally. The cover letter also guaranteed that the
respondents’ answers will be only used for research purposes and confidentiality would be
maintained. While distributing questionnaires directly and achieving high response rates,
self-managed surveys were used in a drop-off and pick-up approach, with the help of research
assistants, namely, students. For this purpose, meetings were arranged with SME, either with
general or human resources managers, to seek consent for participation in the study and have
IJPPM SMEs export Percentage of (x)
71,2 specialized Population population Samples Samples Respondents
No (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 Fashion designer and 26 0.377 22.240 22 110

manufacturer
2 Furniture and home 22 0.319 18.820 19 95
412 decor
3 Spa and aromatic 1 0.014 0.826 1 5
product
4 Specialties product 9 0.130 7.670 8 40
5 Accessories and 4 0.058 3.422 3 15
Table 1. jewellery
Population and 6 Service 7 0.102 6.018 6 30
samples Total 69 1.000 59.00 59 295

Criteria Percentage

Gender
Male 67.12
Female 32.88
Age
21–30 17.97
31–40 41.69
41–50 27.46
51–60 12.88
Education level
Bachelor 91.53
Master 7.79
Doctoral 0.68
Experience in export
5 years or less 22.03
6–10 years 54.92
10 years or more 23.05
Level of management
Table 2. Lower management 15.25
Participant Middle management 72.89
demographic factors Top management 11.86

them fill out a questionnaire. To maintain anonymity, respondents were not required to write
their names. To comply with the university’s ethical standards, a cover letter was attached to
the questionnaire, explaining the objectives of the research, emphasizing that participation in
the survey was purely voluntary and stating that the data would only be analyzed on an
aggregate basis for scientific purposes. To test the validity and reliability, the questionnaires
were distributed to the first 30 respondents with the help of SPSS 25.0

3.2 Measures
All measures were adopted and modified from previous studies. All constructs were designed
using a self-assessment report with a semantic differential scale approach of 1–7 (1: strongly
disagree to 7: strongly agree). The questionnaire was developed using simple and easily Knowledge
understood language for the research objectives to be achieved. To measure knowledge sharing and
sharing, the SECI model was used which consists of socialization, externalization,
combination and internalization, adopted from Ayanbode (2020), Berraies (2019),
innovation
Boroujerdi et al. (2019), Julpisit (2019), Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo (2009) and Steffen culture
et al. (2017).
The measurement of the innovation culture used five dimensions, namely, organizational
culture, product, process, management and objectives innovation (Dabic et al., 2019; Exposito 413
and Sanchis-llopis, 2018; Ghasemzadeh et al., 2019; Hanifah et al., 2019a, b; Sattayaraksa and
Boon-itt, 2016; Soetjipto et al., 2018). Business performance was measured by four
dimensions, namely, product quality, customer satisfaction, financial performance and
new product development (Aboramadan et al., 2019; Anwar et al., 2018; Charoenrat and
Harvie, 2017; Dabic et al., 2019; Exposito and Sanchis-llopis, 2018; Khandekar and Sharma,
2005; Kneipp et al., 2019; Sigalas and Papadakis, 2018; Vuks and Sus, 2019; Zainol and Al
Mamun, 2018).
The sustainable competitive advantage used seven dimensions, namely, innovation
practices, service delivery systems, growth and performance, market share (Singh and
Verma, 2019; Soetjipto et al., 2018; Zainol and Al Mamun, 2018), value, rareness and
imperfectly non-imitable (Anwar et al., 2018; Bhat and Darzi, 2018; Sigalas and Papadakis,
2018). In measuring these dimensions, modified and elaborated measurements were adopted
to best suit the research topic (see Table 3).

Variables Dimensions Source

Knowledge sharing (KS) Socialization (KS1) Ayanbode (2020), Berraies (2019), Boroujerdi et al. (2019), Julpisit
Externalization (KS2) (2019), Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo (2009), Steffen et al. (2017)
Combination (KS3)
Internalization (KS4)
Innovation sulture (IC) Organizational culture Dabic et al. (2019), Exposito and Sanchis-llopis (2018),
(IC1) Ghasemzadeh et al. (2019), Hanifah et al. (2019b, 2019a),
Innovation product Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt (2016), Soetjipto et al. (2018)
(IC2)
Innovation process (IC3)
Innovation
management (IC4)
Innovation objective
(IC5)
Business performance Product quality (BP1) Aboramadan et al. (2019), Anwar et al. (2018), Dabic et al. (2019),
(BP) Customer satisfaction Exposito and Sanchis-llopis (2018), Khandekar and Sharma
(BP2) (2005), Kneipp et al. (2019), Sigalas and Papadakis (2018),
Financial performance Vuks and Sus (2019), Zainol and Al Mamun (2018)
(BP3)
New product
development (BP4)
Sustainable competitive Value (SCA1) Anwar et al. (2018), Bhat and Darzi (2018), Sigalas and
advantage (SCA) Service delivery Papadakis (2018), Singh and Verma (2019), Soetjipto et al. (2018),
systems (SCA2) Zainol and Al Mamun (2018)
Growth and
performance (SCA3)
Market share (SCA4)
Innovation practices
(SCA5)
Rareness (SCA6)
Imperfectly non- Table 3.
imitable (SCA7) Dimensions and
Source(s): researcher elaboration (2020) variables source
IJPPM 4. Data analysis and findings
71,2 The data were analyzed using PLS-3.0 software with a second-order approach, starting from
evaluation of the measurement model, which was aimed at determining the validity and
reliability of the dimensions’ indicators used and subsequently testing the inner model
through the resampling bootstrapping process.

414 4.1 Outer model measurement

This study used three methods for reliability measurement, namely, convergent, discriminant
and composite validity for each indicator in measuring research variables. The convergent
method was used to measure the validity of the indicator and expressed by the value of the
outer loading factor. For the early stages of developing a measurement scale, referred to as
exploratory study, the loading factor value 0.50–0.60 was still considered sufficient. In this
research, the outer loading value of each indicator was between 0.539 and 0.993, meeting the
convergent validity requirement (see Table 4). According to the criteria, the HTMT ratio should
be less than 0.90 for the formation of the discriminant validity model (Hair et al., 2013, 2016).
Table 5 confirmed that all the HTMT ratios were less than 0.90.
The second step was to test discriminant validity of an indicator in a variable, comparing
the square root coefficient of variance extracted (√AVE) from each latent factor with the
correlation coefficient between others in the model. The recommended AVE value was
above 0.50.
The AVE value for knowledge sharing was 0.819, which was greater than the correlation
coefficient between other variables, namely, 0.773, 0.661 and 0.748. The AVE value for
innovation culture was (0.931) greater than the correlation coefficient between other
variables, namely, 0.857 and 0.747. The AVE value for business performance was (0.896)
greater than the correlation coefficient between other variables (0.660). This showed that the
indicators representing the dimensions of variables in this study had good discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The third step used composite reliability to measure the
value between indicators of the variable. The results were reliable when the value of the
composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha was >0.70 (Chin, 1998) (see Table 6).

Coefficient of correlation*
Variables AVE √AVE KS IC BP SCA

Knowledge sharing 0.672 0.819 1.000

Innovation culture 0.867 0.931 0.773 1.000
Table 4. Business performance 0.803 0.896 0.661 0.857 1.000
AVE, √AVE and Sustainable CA 0.871 0.933 0.748 0.747 0.660 1.000
correlation of latent Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable
variables competitive advantage

Constructs KS IC BP

Knowledge sharing
Innovation culture 0.803
Business performance 0.784 0.832
Table 5. Sustainable CA 0.748 0.800 0.879
Heterotrait-monotrait Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable
ratio (HTMT) competitive advantage
 Cronbach’s Composite Average variance
Knowledge
Second-order constructs Items* alpha Rho_A reliability extracted (AVE) sharing and
Knowledge sharing KS 1.000
innovation
Second order scale type; KS1 0.823 0.870 0.871 0.538 culture
reflective-reflective KS2 0.873 0.877 0.914 0.728
KS3 0.834 0.855 0.889 0.669
KS4 0.889 0.893 0.924 0.755
Innovation culture IC 1.000 415
Second-order scale type; IC1 0.919 0.919 0.949 0.860
reflective-reflective IC2 0.931 0.939 0.956 0.878
IC3 0.979 0.980 0.986 0.960
IC4 0.892 0.911 0.932 0.821
IC5 0.896 1.016 0.930 0.817
Business performance BP 1.000
Second-order scale type; BP1 0.972 0.972 0.982 0.947
reflective-reflective BP2 0.856 0.887 0.911 0.773
BP3 0.741 0.896 0.809 0.587
BP4 0.947 0.948 0.966 0.904
Sustainable competitive SCA 1.000
advantage
Second- order scale type; SCA1 0.699 0.725 0.868 0.766
reflective-reflective SCA2 0.934 0.934 0.968 0.938
SCA3 0.781 0.789 0.901 0.820
SCA4 0.886 0.887 0.946 0.898
SCA5 0.849 0.853 0.930 0.869
SCA6 0.877 0.880 0.942 0.890
SCA7 0.953 0.960 0.969 0.913 Table 6.
Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable Instrument
competitive advantage reliability test

The results of the calculation of composite reliability ranged from 0.809 to 0.986 (>0.70),
indicating that the dimensions of the variable were reliable. Also, the Cronbach’s alpha values
ranged from 0.699 to 0.979 (>0.70), meaning that the dimensions and indicators were reliable
and were declared free from the problem of random error (MacKenzie et al., 2011; Singleton
and Straits, 2010).

4.2 Inner model measurement

After the outer model was tested, the next step was to examine the inner model using three
approaches, first, by evaluating the feasibility of the model by observing the results of the R2
analysis; second, by testing the model holistically using the predict relevance method (Stone,
1974); and, finally, by calculating the goodness of fit (GoF). Q2 and GoF calculations used the
R-square coefficient (R2). R2 showed the strength of relationships/information between
exogenous and endogenous variables. The R2 value of 0.67 was classified as a robust, 0.33 as
a moderate and 0.19 as a weak model (Chin, 1998).
As shown in Table 7, the R2 value of innovation culture was 0.661, business performance
was 0.735 and sustainable competitive advantage was 0.753. Meanwhile, according to Chin
(1998), the R2 value showed that the model was robust, because it was greater than 0.67. The
average value of 0.716 means that the model of the relationship between constructs was
explained by 71.6%, while the remaining 28.4% was expressed by other external factors. The
distribution of the adjusted R2 value was smaller than that of the normal R2 value, meaning
that a change or expansion of the research model by including other latent variables was still
possible (Hair et al., 2014).
After understanding that the R2 test passed with good value, the next step was to examine
using Q square predictive relevance (Q2). This was to measure how good the observations
IJPPM produced by the model are. The Q2 had values ranging from 0 to 1, and the closer they were to
71,2 1, the better was the predictive ability of the model (Stone, 1974). The Q2 value was calculated
using the following formula:
Q2 5 1
[ð1 − R2 y1Þ ð1 − R2 y2Þ ð1 − R2 y3Þ]
Q2 5 1
[(1–0.661) (1–0.735) (1–0.753)]
Q2 5 1–[(0.339) (0.265) (0.247)]
Q2 5 1–0.022189
416 Q2 5 0.977811 (Q2 very good predictive relevance)
Q2 calculation produced a value of 0.9778, which means that the model represented an
excellent observation, therefore explaining 97.78% of the relationship between the variables.
In comparison, the remaining 2.22% was a factor of error or others not included in the
research model. After Q2 testing was carried out, the next step was to validate the overall
model by testing the GoF criteria, with the measurement and the structural type.
GoF 5 √com 3 R2
GoF 5 √0.683 3 0.716
GoF 5 √0.489028
GoF 5 0.699305
GoF calculation produced a value of 0.699305, close to 1, indicating that the research model
was a very fit predictive model. This suggested that the overall measurement accuracy of the
model was outstanding. This was based on the criteria set for the value of GoF, 0.10 (small),
0.25 (moderate) and 0.36 (large). A value of 0.699305 indicated that the research model was
categorized as having large GoF.
The next step was to test the effect size (f2) aimed to obtain more detailed information about
the amount of variance in the dependent and independent variables in a structural equation
model. The criteria for the effect size (f2) were as follows: 0.02–0.15 (weak), 0.15–0.35 (medium) and
>0.35 (strong) (Cohen et al., 1998). When f2 5 0.02, the research model was classified as weak;
when f2 5 0.15, it was moderate; when f2 5 0.35 or above, it showed strong effect (Chin, 2010).
The results analysis in Table 8 showed a mean of 0.163, which means that there was an
indication that a mediation relationship pattern was formed in this study. Furthermore,

Variables R2 R2 adjusted

Innovation culture 0.661 0.659

Business performance 0.735 0.734
Table 7. Sustainable competitive advantage 0.753 0.749
R2 and R2 adjusted Average 0.716 0.714

Original sample Sample mean Standard deviation T statistics p

Construct* (O) (M) (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) values

KS → SCA 0.211 0.208 0.104 1.810 0.071

IC → SCA 0.115 0.133 0.087 1.181 0.238
Table 8. Average 0.163
Cohen effect size Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable
analysis competitive advantage
Figure 1 presented that the highest dimension that reflected the knowledge-sharing variable Knowledge
was the externalization (X.2), with a coefficient value of 0.952, which should be given due sharing and
attention because it significantly contributed to the source of competitive advantage
(Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo, 2009). The highest dimension that reflected the innovation
innovation
culture was organizational culture (Y1.1) with a coefficient value of 0.976, meaning that it was culture
an essential predictor in building an innovation culture (Aboramadan et al., 2019). The
highest dimension that reflected business performance was the new product development
(Y2.4) with a coefficient value of 0.975, meaning that it was essential in building competitive 417
advantage (Lin and Chen, 2008). The highest dimension that reflected the sustainable
competitive advantage variable was the innovative practices (Y3.5) with a value of 0.934,
which means that it was critical in building superior performance (Kneipp et al., 2019).

4.3 Testing research hypotheses

After the outer and inner model tests were completed, the next important step was examining the
hypothesis which was carried out through two stages, namely, testing the direct and indirect
effects of the exogenous and endogenous variable. In the output path coefficient, as shown in
Table 8, the direct relationship between variables was presented in the original sample.
Table 9 presented the information about the analysis of the direct relationship between
research variables. The path coefficient of the direct relationship between knowledge sharing
and innovation culture was 34.000 > 1.96, which means that it was significant, and
hypothesis 1 was accepted. These results were consistent with the survey conducted by Iqbal
et al. (2019), which found that knowledge sharing played a crucial role in building innovation
(Boroujerdi et al., 2019). Meanwhile, organizations that absorbed, changed and applied new
idea quickly and competitively (Ghasemzadeh et al., 2019) were found to promote the process
of sharing knowledge more successfully in innovation (Berraies, 2019; Boroujerdi et al., 2019;
Singh and Verma, 2019). In the business context, SMEs should build a cultural structure that
recognizes and encourages learning, creativity, employee motivation, ambition for the
openness of knowledge and collaboration (Grimsdottir and Edvardsson, 2018). These results
contradicted that of the survey carried out by Teixeira et al. (2019) and Susanty et al. (2019),
which found that knowledge sharing did not contribute significantly to innovation.
The coefficient of the relationship of knowledge sharing with sustainable competitive
advantage was 10.969 > 1.96, which means that it was significant; therefore, hypothesis 2 was
accepted. This finding was consistent with the study conducted by Connell and Voola (2013),
which found that knowledge sharing was a source of competitive advantage because it had a
significant effect on competitive advantage (Lin and Chen, 2008). Another study conducted
by Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo (2009) examined the knowledge-sharing dimension (SECI
activities) as a source of competitive advantage, assuming that the idea provided unique,
inimitable and powerful intangible assets (Eidizadeh et al., 2017).

Standard
Original Sample deviation T statistics p
Construct* sample (O) mean (M) (STDEV) (jO/STDEVj) values Decision

KS → IC 0.813 0.820 0.024 34.000 0.000 Supported

KS → SCA 0.781 0.804 0.071 10.969 0.000 Supported
IC → BP 0.857 0.860 0.022 38.768 0.000 Supported
IC → SCA 0.368 0.371 0.099 3.704 0.000 Supported
BP → SCA 0.459 0.446 0.096 4.778 0.000 Supported
Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable Table 9.
competitive advantage Path coefficients
IJPPM The coefficient of the relationship between innovation culture and business performance
71,2 was 38.768 > 1.96, which means that it was significant; therefore, hypothesis 3 was accepted.
Consequently, innovation culture had a significant positive relationship with business
performance. This suggested that to achieve superior performance, innovation culture should
not be underestimated. Furthermore, a study conducted by Sayyadi (2019) found that
creating ideas and sharing new knowledge increase creativity and efficiency and help achieve
the intended targets (Hanifah et al., 2019a, b). Furthermore, they increase organizational
418 innovation and motivate employees to solve problems, leading to increased performance.
Hanifah et al. (2019a, b) found that innovation culture enabled SMEs to react in an attempt to
secure their competitive position in the challenging markets. Also, Kafetzopoulos et al. (2019)
found that it was a key variable for achieving business performance (Dabic et al., 2019)
because it supported and built sustainable innovation culture (Anning-Dorson, 2018; Kneipp
et al., 2019). A study conducted by Aboramadan et al. (2019) found that technological and
market innovation had a significant effect on performance.
The path coefficient of the direct relationship between innovation culture and sustainable
competitive advantage was 3.704 > 1.96, which means that it was significant, and hypothesis 4
was thus accepted. These results were in line with previous research (Grimsdottir and
Edvardsson, 2018; Lin and Chen, 2008), which found that SMEs benefitted from innovation to
create new products, prototypes and processes and to enhance competitive advantage. This
finding showed that export SMEs inevitably have to be creative and innovative to survive and
gain a competitive advantage in the global market (Eidizadeh et al., 2017; Singh and Verma,
2019). However, in today’s dynamic and changing environment, innovation culture is the key
to gaining competitive advantage, achieving high performance and surviving in the global
economy. The path coefficient of the direct relationship between business performance and
sustainable competitive advantage was 4.778 > 1.96, which means that it was significant, and
hypothesis 5 was accepted. Therefore, business performance is an essential predictor for
creating sustainable competitive advantage. These results were in consistence with the
research conducted by Cavaleri and Shabana (2018), which found that building a competitive
advantage was carried out through innovation. The improvement in the organizational
performance was obtained through the exploitation of internal and external capabilities, as
well as the creation of ambitious strategies to achieve diversification during turbulence
periods (Lin et al., 2020).
The results of research output with the SmartPLS software are presented in Figure 2.
After obtaining the results of a direct relationship between variables, the next step was to
determine the position of the mediating factors indirectly (see Table 10). In this research
model, there were two paths of mediation that were tested, namely, the innovation culture and
business performance. Following Hair et al. (2014), the method used was by examining the
value of VAF < 0.20, which means that there was no mediation, while 0.20–0.80 indicated

Independent Mediator-
variable- dependent Total VAF
Link* Mediator* mediator variable Direct Indirect effect (%) Decision

KS–SCA IC 0.813 0.368 0.781 0.635 1.003 0.633 Partial

mediation
IC–SCA BP 0.857 0.459 0.368 0.393 0.761 0.517 Partial
mediation
Table 10. Note(s): *KS 5 knowledge sharing, IC 5 innovation culture, BP 5 business performance, SCA 5 sustainable
Testing of mediation competitive advantage
effects VAF: Variance accounted for
 Knowledge
sharing and
innovation
culture

419

Figure 2.
SmartPLS second-
order analysis
IJPPM partial and VAF value > 0.80 means full. Table 8 showed the results of the mediation variable
71,2 test. To examine the effects of mediation in the research model, the non-parametric
bootstrapping was used. To assess the role of mediation, the mediating variable should
absorb some direct effects of the independent factors from the dependent. Finally, to assess
mediation, the value of the variance accounted for (VAF) was calculated to obtain the size of
the indirect and the total links. When the VAF was greater than 80%, then it should be argued
as full mediation; between 20 and 80%, it was partial; and below 20%, it means that there was
420 no mediating effect (Hair et al., 2014). Because there were two mediation channels tested in
this study, it was concluded that innovation culture partially mediated the relationship
between KS and SCA, where the VAF value was equal to 63.30%, indicating that hypothesis 6
was accepted. At the same time, business performance also served as a partial mediation
relationship between innovation culture and sustainable competitive advantage, with a VAF
value of 51.66%, which means hypothesis 7 was accepted.

5. Conclusion
Amidst a rapid change in the Industrial Revolution 4.0, the role of SME sector in solving social
and environmental problems was manifested through innovation and competition, being
sensitive to change, knowledge mapping and valuing intellectual capital (Nakruang et al.,
2020). The SMEs also developed through innovation, creation and knowledge sharing to
create new products, services and meet changing customer needs to maintain a sustainable
competitive advantage (Berraies, 2019).
SMEs that were unable to learn, manage knowledge according to changing situations and
innovate did not have the ability to survive (Wichitsathian and Nakruang, 2019). This
encouraged SMEs to build a system of mutually beneficial values and trust to create cohesion
and support mechanisms (Vesna et al., 2019), building healthy interactions and sharing of
intangible assets (Bari et al., 2016). They were also able to change business strategies by
integrating knowledge in order to remain competitive in the dynamic market, as well as to
build a research and development network in strengthening the performance of sustainable
innovation (Julpisit, 2019; Zhang, 2019). The ability to apply knowledge management was the
most relevant in gaining a sustainable competitive advantage (Arsawan et al., 2018; Bashir
and Farooq, 2019). Optimizing knowledge sharing was expected to create and strengthen
problem-solving strategies, which ultimately promote their innovation culture.

5.1 Academic implication

This research has contributed to four domains, namely, offering knowledge and
conceptualization of new models, which were more comprehensive, providing a clear and
systematic understanding of the variables’ relationship (Gutierrez-Martinez and Duhamel,
2019). Therefore, sustainable competitive advantage testing was performed with new variables,
models, analytical tools and different research methodologies. More specifically, this study has
introduced a second-order approach to all research variables that were evaluated indirectly
through the assessment of sub-factors. Also, this study offered a reliable and valid model that
provides empirical evidence of supporting the notion that knowledge sharing, innovation
culture, business performance and sustainable competitive advantage were measured through
their respective dimensions. This research has also answered the second gap that innovation
culture is critical, particularly in SMEs. Generally, this enterprise has reactive, flexible and risky
organizations; however, it has more innovative than larger companies. This indicated that SME
managers have innovated to compete with established larger companies successfully. These
innovations should be in line with organizational change management (Mitra et al., 2019)
because innovation is a source of creativity and practical solutions in maintaining competitive
advantage (Arsawan et al., 2020; Bari et al., 2019).
 These results proved to answer the third gap, stating that competitive advantages were Knowledge
associated with knowledge and innovation culture, especially in developing countries (Singh sharing and
and Verma, 2019). It was concluded that sustainable competitive advantage played a vital
role in the long-term survival and success of SMEs (Anwar et al., 2018). This indicated that
innovation
SMEs in Indonesia have a high level of innovation culture to successfully develop and culture
maintain competitive advantage (Soetjipto et al., 2018). Fourth, sustainable competitive
advantage deserves to be examined in the context of developing countries (Sajjad et al., 2018),
as evidenced by considering their determinants, as well as export SMEs in Indonesia facing 421
challenges of global market. This also indicated an important issue that sustainability is
worth being performed by developing countries (Orazalin et al., 2019). Moreover, companies
have substantial opportunities to differentiate through sustainability. This means that
competitive advantage showed a higher self-image than competitors.
This research also contributed to the literature on innovation culture as a mediator in the
relationship of knowledge sharing and business performance. A fair idea sharing produced
innovation culture that strengthens the business performance. Organizations should
understand the knowledge of employees (Bari et al., 2019), gather and able to synergize
their contributions in building sustainable competitive advantage (Khandekar and Sharma,
2005). These results changed the point of view of Barney (2001) regarding the competitive
advantage and resource-based view. They also explained that the firms building their
strategies on pathway-dependent, ambiguous, socially involved and intangible causes
outperformed those that make theirs only on tangible assets. Therefore, the role of sharing
knowledge as an intangible asset in shaping innovation was the foundation in building
sustainable competitive advantage. Also, business performance was a mediator between
innovation culture and sustainable competitive advantage. The dimensions of innovation
culture (i.e. culture, product, process, management and objective) provided the basis for
creating business performance and sustainable competitive advantage. The culture of
innovation was a fundamental element and a source of sustainable competitive advantage,
and it was relevantly used to maintain SME’s performance (Iqbal et al., 2019).
The 2019 Global Competitiveness Index report showed that individuals or institutions
originating from Indonesia have weak internal drivers, especially in business dynamism
(11th pillar) and innovation capabilities (12th pillar). This statistical report also showed that
Indonesia ranks 74th out of 141 countries. The research and development activity ranking
was also still low, at 83rd. This figure means that Indonesia did not yet have sufficient
capacity to innovate (WEF, 2019).

5.2 Managerial implications

From a managerial point of view, this research provided a grid for practitioners to understand
better what they should develop to optimize the role of knowledge sharing and innovation
culture in SMEs. In this case, following the results of this study, analytical skills should be
developed to enhance knowledge-sharing interactions at all managerial levels and building
an organizational culture which supports this process (Vesna et al., 2019). In particular,
managers should realize that knowledge sharing not only signifies its ownership but also
makes great efforts to develop metacognitive strategies in adopting, disseminating and
creating new idea. Reflecting on the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees that
received awards are expected to pay back with high behaviour and motivation in providing
support to the organization (Shaheen et al., 2019). For this reason, knowledge-sharing culture
was strengthened to increase innovative behaviour (Arsawan et al., 2020).
Knowledge-sharing culture was also built to manage intellectual capital for each employee
to develop in skills, fostering collective intelligence as the driver of innovation and
professional development (Ayanbode, 2020), and also building trust among employees to
IJPPM prevent knowledge-hiding behaviour (Bari et al., 2020). However, it was crucial to focus on the
71,2 right innovation strategy in developing policy designs from a multidimensional approach
(Exposito and Sanchis-llopis, 2018). Also, developing managerial skills contributes to
business performance and its sustainability in terms of human resource management,
marketing, sales, production and logistics (Popescu et al., 2020). Finally, to anticipate a
dynamic business environment, organizations should implement change management,
organizational renewal, direction and restructure in response to the demands of changing
422 stakeholders (Mitra et al., 2019).

6. Research limitations and future research

The limitations encountered were as follows. First, this was a behavioural study which
involved data collection and conducted only on export SMEs, which produced results that
were inconsistent with other contexts. Therefore, these findings require further validation.
Secondly, this study used a self-report instrument to collect data from the variables.
Subsequently, this was used for the appropriate measurement of psychological ownership
and variables; therefore, it was the best data collecting method, since only the informants
were cognisant of their knowledge. However, this approach was not free from the effects of
bias. Third, the implementation of the resulting framework required a considerable amount of
time. However, before this process, applied studies need to be conducted.
In the future research, behavioural factor is recommended to investigate the relationship
between knowledge sharing and innovation culture, and it should be conducted
longitudinally using more variables. Comparative study also needs to be undertaken to
compare SMEs and other sectors, such as education, banking and information technology.
Also, the SMEs maintaining a sustainable competitive advantage are capable of experiencing
expansion and attaining international level. Therefore, the research on the opportunities of
linking competitive advantage and internationalization is an interesting study, in addition to
using control variables, such as firm size, age and the ownership type.

References
Abdul-Halim, H., Ahmad, N.H., Geare, A. and Thurasamy, R. (2018), “Innovation culture in SMEs: the
importance of organizational culture, organizational learning and market orientation”,
Entrepreneurship Research Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
Aboramadan, M., Albashiti, B., Alharazin, H. and Zaidoune, S. (2019), “Organizational culture,
innovation and performance: a study from a non-western context”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 437-451.
Ahmad, M.M. and Alaskari, O. (2014), “Development of assessment methodology for improving
performance in SME’s”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 477-498.
Ahmad, F. (2018), “Knowledge sharing in a non-native language context : challenges and strategies”,
Journal of Information Science, Vol. I No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Amoako, G.K. (2019), “A conceptual framework: corporate environmental management activities and
sustainable competitive advantage”, Management of Environmental Quality: An International
Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 331-347.
Anning-Dorson, T. and Nyamekye, M.B. (2020), “Be flexible: turning innovativeness into competitive
advantage in hospitality firms”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 605-624.
Anning-Dorson, T. (2018), “Innovation and competitive advantage creation: the role of organisational
leadership in service firms from emerging markets”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 35
No. 4, pp. 580-600.
Anwar, M., Rehman, A.U. and Shah, S.Z.A. (2018), “Networking and new venture’s performance: Knowledge
mediating role of competitive advantage”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 13
No. 5, pp. 998-1025. sharing and
Arsawan, I.W.E., Rajiani, I. and Suryantini, N.P.S. (2018), “Investigating knowledge transfer
innovation
mechanism in five star hotels”, Polish Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 22-32. culture
Arsawan, I.W.E., Rajiani, I., Wirga, I.W. and Suryantini, N.P.S. (2020), “Harnessing knowledge sharing
practice to enhance innovative work behavior: the paradox of social exchange theory”, Polish
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 60-73. 423
Ayanbode, O.F. (2020), “Collaborative technologies and knowledge management in psychiatric
hospitals in South West Nigeria”, Information Development, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1177/
0266666919895563.
Bari, M.W. and Fanchen, M. (2017), “Personal interaction drives innovation: instrumental Guanxi-
based knowledge caf
e approach”, Handbook of Research on Tacit Knowledge Management for
Organizational Success, pp. 176-200.
Bari, M.W., Fanchen, M. and Baloch, M.A. (2016), “Management practices and performance of mergers
and acquisitions in Pakistan: mediating role of psychological contract”, SpringerPlus, Vol. 5
No. 1, doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-3184-3.
Bari, M.W., Abrar, M., Shaheen, S., Bashir, M. and Fanchen, M. (2019), “Knowledge hiding hehaviors
and team creativity: the contingent role of perceived mastery motivational climate”, SAGE
Open, Vol. 9 No. 3, doi: 10.1177/2158244019876297.
Bari, M.W., Ghaffar, M. and Ahmad, B. (2020), “Knowledge-hiding behaviors and employees’
silence: mediating role of psychological contract breach”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
doi: 10.1108/JKM-02-2020-0149.
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 643-650.
Bashir, M. and Farooq, R. (2019), “The synergetic effect of knowledge management and business
model innovation on firm competence: a systematic review”, International Journal of Innovation
Science, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 362-387.
Berraies, S. (2019), “Effect of middle managers’ cultural intelligence on firms’ innovation performance:
knowledge sharing as mediator and collaborative climate as moderator”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1015-1038.
Bhat, S.A. and Darzi, M.A. (2018), “Service, people and customer prientation: a capability view to CRM
and sustainable competitive advantage”, Vision, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 163-173.
Blau, P.M. (1964), “Social exchange theory”, p. 62, available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=social+exchange+theory+blau&oq=social+exchange+ (accessed
3 September 2007).
Boroujerdi, S.S., Hasani, K. and Delshab, V. (2019), “Investigating the influence of knowledge
management on organizational innovation in higher educational institutions”, Kybernetes,
Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 442-459.
Cavaleri, S. and Shabana, K. (2018), “Rethinking sustainability strategies”, Journal of Strategy and
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
Chahal, H. and Bakshi, P. (2015), “Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage
relationship: role of innovation and organizational learning”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 376-399.
Chang, W.-J., Liao, S.-H. and Wu, T.-T. (2017), “Relationships among organizational culture,
knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: a case of the automobile industry in Taiwan”,
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 471-490.
Charoenrat, T. and Harvie, C. (2017), “The performance of Thai manufacturing SMEs: data
envelopment analysis (DEA) approach”, Global Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1178-1198.
IJPPM Chatzoglou, P. and Chatzoudes, D. (2018), “The role of innovation in building competitive advantages:
an empirical investigation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
71,2 pp. 44-69.
Chen, S., Bu, M., Wu, S. and Liang, X. (2015), “How does TMT attention to innovation of Chinese firms
influence firm innovation activities? A study on the moderating role of corporate governance”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 1127-1135.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly,
424 Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. vii-xvi.
Chin, W.W. (2010), “How to write up and report PLS analyses”, Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
pp. 655-690.
Cohen, J.D., Usher, M. and McClelland, J.L. (1998), “A PDP approach to set size effects within the
Stroop task: reply to Kanne, Balota, Spieler, and Faust (1998)”, Psychological Review, Vol. 105
No. 1, pp. 188-194.
Connell, J. and Voola, R. (2013), “Knowledge integration and competitiveness: a longitudinal study of
an industry cluster”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 208-225.
Dabic, M., Laznjak, J., Smallbone, D. and Svarc, J. (2019), “Intellectual capital, organisational climate,
innovation culture, and SME performance: evidence from Croatia”, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 522-544.
Dahiyat, S.E. (2015), “An integrated model of knowledge acquisition and innovation: examining the
mediation effects of knowledge integration and knowledge application”, International Journal of
Learning and Change, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 101-135.
Eidizadeh, R., Salehzadeh, R. and Chitsaz Esfahani, A. (2017), “Analysing the role of business
intelligence, knowledge sharing and organisational innovation on gaining competitive
advantage”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 250-267.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-362.
Exposito, A. and Sanchis-llopis, J.A. (2018), “Innovation and business performance for Spanish SMEs :
new evidence from a multi-dimensional approach”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 36
No. 8, pp. 911-931.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Ghasemzadeh, P., Nazari, J.A., Farzaneh, M. and Mehralian, G. (2019), “Moderating role of innovation
culture in the relationship between organizational learning and innovation performance”, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 289-303.
Grimsdottir, E. and Edvardsson, I.R. (2018), “Knowledge management, knowledge creation, and open
innovation in Icelandic SMEs”, SAGE Open, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Gutierrez-Martinez, I. and Duhamel, F. (2019), “Translating sustainability into competitive advantage:
the case of Mexico’s hospitality industry”, Corporate Governance (Bingley), Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 1324-1343.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
Nos 1-2, pp. 1-12.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L. and Kuppelwieser, V.G. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM)”, European Business Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-121.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L.M. and Ringle, C.M. (2016), “Identifying and treating
unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method”, European Business Review, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Hanifah, H., Halim, H.A., Ahmad, N.H. and Vafaei-Zadeh, A. (2019a), “Can internal factors improve
innovation performance via innovation culture in SMEs?”, Benchmarking, Vol. 2020,
pp. 2016-2020.
Hanifah, H., Halim, H.A., Ahmad, N.H. and Vafaei-Zadeh, A. (2019b), “Emanating the key factors of Knowledge
innovation performance: leveraging on the innovation culture among SMEs in Malaysia”,
Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 559-587. sharing and
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U.F. and Hussain, S. (2019), “From knowledge
innovation
management to organizational performance: modelling the mediating role of innovation and culture
intellectual capital in higher education”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 36-59.
Jordao, R.V.D., Novas, J. and Gupta, V. (2019), “The role of knowledge-based networks in the 425
intellectual capital and organizational performance of small and medium-sized enterprises”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 116-140.
Julpisit, A. (2019), “A collaborative system to improve knowledge sharing in scientific research
projects”, Information Development, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 624-638.
Kafetzopoulos, D., Gotzamani, K. and Skalkos, D. (2019), “The relationship between EFQM enablers
and business performance: the mediating role of innovation”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 684-706.
Khandekar, A. and Sharma, A. (2005), “Managing human resource capabilities for sustainable
competitive advantage: an empirical analysis from Indian global organisations”, Education and
Training, Vol. 47 Nos 8-9, pp. 628-639.
Kneipp, J.M., Gomes, C.M., Bichueti, R.S., Frizzo, K. and Perlin, A.P. (2019), “Sustainable innovation
practices and their relationship with the performance of industrial companies”, Revista de
Gest~ao, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 94-111.
Krejcie, R.V. and Morgan, D.W. (1970), “Determining sample size for research activities”, Educational
and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 607-610.
Lin, M.J.J. and Chen, C.J. (2008), “Integration and knowledge sharing: transforming to long-term
competitive advantage”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 16 Nos 1-2, pp. 83-108.
Lin, H., Hsu, I., Wenhsin, A. and Chung, H. (2020), “Technological forecasting and social change
creating competitive advantages: interactions between ambidextrous diversification strategy
and contextual factors from a dynamic capability perspective”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 154, January, pp. 1-11.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334.
Magnier-Watanabe, R. and Senoo, D. (2009), “Congruent knowledge management behaviors as
discriminate sources of competitive advantage”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 109-124.
Mahmoud, M.A., Blankson, C., Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S. and Trang, T.P. (2016), “Market
orientation, learning orientation and business performance: the mediating role of innovation”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 623-648.
Malhotra, Y. (2001), Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation, IGI Global,
Pennsylvania.
Masa’deh, R., Obeidat, B.Y. and Tarhini, A. (2016), “A Jordanian empirical study of the associations
among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job
performance, and firm performance: a structural equation modelling approach”, The Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 681-705.
Mitra, A., Gaur, S.S. and Giacosa, E. (2019), “Combining organizational change management and
organizational ambidexterity using data transformation”, Manajemen Decision, Vol. 57
No. 8, pp. 1-24.
Nakruang, D., Donkwa, K. and Suvittawat, A. (2020), “The causal factors influencing corporate
sustainability performance: case of community SMEs in three southern border provinces,
Thailand”, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1459-1471.
IJPPM Onkelinx, J., Manolova, T.S. and Edelman, L.F. (2016), “Human capital and SME internationalization:
empirical evidence from Belgium”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6,
71,2 pp. 818-837.
Orazalin, N., Mahmood, M. and Narbaev, T. (2019), “The impact of sustainability performance
indicators on financial stability: evidence from the Russian oil and gas industry”,
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 8157-8168.
Petrova, M., Koval, V., Tepavicharova, M., Zerkal, A., Radchenko, A. and Bondarchuk, N. (2020), “The
426 interaction between the human resources motivation and the commitment to the organization”,
Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 897-908.
Popescu, L., Iancu, A., Avram, M., Avram, D. and Popescu, V. (2020), “The role of managerial skills in
the sustainable development of SMEs in Mehedinti County, Romania”, Sustainability, Vol. 12
No. 1119, pp. 1-16.
Rustiarini, N.W., Sutrisno, S., Nurkholis, N. and Andayani, W. (2019), “Fraud triangle in public
procurement: evidence from Indonesia”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 951-968.
Saji, B.S. and Ellingstad, P. (2016), “Social innovation model for business performance and
innovation”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 256-274.
Sajjad, A., Jillani, A. and Raziq, M.M. (2018), “Sustainability in the Pakistani hotel industry: an
empirical study”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 714-727.
Sattayaraksa, T. and Boon-itt, S. (2016), “CEO transformational leadership and the new product
development process”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6,
pp. 730-749.
Saunila, M., Pekkola, S. and Ukko, J. (2014), “The relationship between innovation capability and
performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63
No. 2, pp. 234-249.
Saunila, M. (2016), “Performance measurement approach for innovation capability in SMEs”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 162-176.
Sayyadi, M. (2019), “How effective leadership of knowledge management impacts organizational
performance”, Business Information Review, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 30-38.
Schell, W.J. (2019), “Leadership and Change Management”, Traffic Safety Culture: Definition,
Foundation, and Application, Emerald Publishing, pp. 191-218.
Sergeeva, A. and Andreeva, T. (2016), “Knowledge sharing research : bringing context back in”,
Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 240-261.
Shaheen, S., Bari, M.W., Hameed, F. and Anwar, M.M. (2019), “Organizational cronyism as an
antecedent of ingratiation: mediating role of relational psychological contract”, Frontiers in
Psychology, Vol. 10, July, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01609.
Sigalas, C. and Papadakis, V.M. (2018), “Empirical investigation of relationship patterns between
competitive advantage and superior performance”, Journal of Strategy and Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 81-111.
Singh, A.K. and Verma, R. (2019), “Understanding role of market-orientated IT competence and
knowledge sharing mechanism in gaining competitive advantage”, Global Business
Review, pp. 1-18.
Singh, D., Khamba, J.S. and Nanda, T. (2017), “Influence of technological innovation on performance of
small manufacturing companies”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 66 No. 7, pp. 838-856.
Singh, J.B., Chandwani, R. and Kumar, M. (2018), “Factors affecting Web 2.0 adoption: exploring the
knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking aspects in health care professionals”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 21-43.
Singleton, R. and Straits, B. (2010), “Survey research”, Approaches to Social Research, pp. 263-308. Knowledge
Soetjipto, B.E., Murwani, F.D. and Wahyono, H. (2018), “The role of SMEs’ innovation and learning sharing and
orientation in mediating the effect of CSR programme on SMEs’ performance and competitive
advantage”, Global Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 99, pp. S21-S38.
innovation
Steffen, M.O., Oliveira, M. and Balle, A.R. (2017), “Knowledge sharing among companies in a science
culture
and technology park”, Business Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 101-108.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the 427
Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-133.
Susanty, A.I., Yuningsih, Y. and Anggadwita, G. (2019), “Knowledge management practices and
innovation performance: a study at Indonesian government apparatus research and training
center”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 301-318.
Tassabehji, R., Mishra, J.L. and Dominguez-P
ery, C. (2019), “Knowledge sharing for innovation
performance improvement in micro/SMEs: an insight from the creative sector”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 30 Nos 10-12, pp. 935-950.
Teixeira, E.K., Oliveira, M. and Curado, C. (2019), “Linking knowledge management processes to
innovation: a mixed-method and cross-national approach”, Management Research Review,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 332-349.
Vesna, S.-A., Eric Nielsen, J. and Boskovic, A. (2019), “Organizational prerequisites for knowledge
creation and sharing: empirical evidence from Serbia”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1543-1565.
Vuks, V.B. and Sus, D. (2019), “BPM and BI in SMEs: the role of BPM/BI alignment in organizational
performance”, International Journal of Engineering Business Management, Vol. 11, pp. 1-16, doi:
10.1177/1847979019874182.
Wang, Z., Sharma, P.N. and Cao, J. (2016a), “From knowledge sharing to firm performance: a
predictive model comparison”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 10, pp. 4650-4658.
Wang, Z., Wang, N., Cao, J. and Ye, X. (2016b), “The impact of intellectual capital–knowledge
management strategy fit on firm performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 8,
pp. 1861-1885.
Wang, C.H. (2019), “How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive
advantage: the mediating role of green innovation”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 666-683.
WEF (2019), “The global competitiveness report”, available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_
TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf.
Wichitsathian, S. and Nakruang, D. (2019), “Knowledge integration capability and entrepreneurial
orientation: case of Pakthongchai Silk Group”, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 977-989.
Wolf, P., Kaudela-baum, S. and Meissner, J.O. (2011), “Exploring innovating cultures in small and
medium-sized enterprises: findings from Central Switzerland”, International Small Business
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 242-274.
Zainol, N.R. and Al Mamun, A. (2018), “Entrepreneurial competency, competitive advantage and
performance of informal women micro-entrepreneurs in Kelantan, Malaysia”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 299-321.
Zhang, J. (2019), “Reconciling the dilemma of knowledge sharing: a network pluralism framework of
firms ‘R&D’ alliance network and innovation performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45
No. 7, pp. 2635-2665.

Further reading
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., de Vries, B. and Weggeman, M. (2017), “Knowledge sharing behavior : the role
of spatial design in buildings”, Environment and Behavior, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 874-903.
IJPPM About the authors
I Wayan Edi Arsawan is an associate professor at the Department of Business Administration, State
71,2 Polytechnic of Bali, Indonesia. He holds a doctoral degree in management science, specializing in human
resource management from the University of Udayana, Indonesia. His areas of research interests are
human resource management, organizational behaviour, leadership, strategic management, knowledge
management and sustainability. I Wayan Edi Arsawan is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
428 Viktor Koval is a professor and head of the Department of Accounting, Economics and Management
of Odessa Institute of Trade and Economics of Kyiv National University, Ukraine. His research interests
are earth and planetary sciences; business, management and accounting; environmental science; energy;
engineering; decision sciences economics, econometrics and finance.
Ismi Rajiani is an associate professor at University of Muhammadiyah Gresik, Indonesia. He holds a
PhD degree from University of Brawijaya, Indonesia. He is an external examiner to many universities in
Asia as well as a reviewer to many international journals in management. His research interest are
business, management and accounting; medicine; engineering; social sciences; decision sciences;
computer science; energy; environmental science;and mathematics.
Ni Wayan Rustiarini is an assistant professor at Faculty of Economic and Business, University of
Mahasaraswati Denpasar Bali, Indonesia. She holds a PhD degree from University of Brawijaya,
Indonesia. Her research interests are business and management, accounting, intellectual capital,
financial managemen, and strategic management.
Wayan Gede Supartha is a professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Udayana, Indonesia. As Head of Doctoral of Management Science, he has more than 15 years of
experience in management science. His research interests are human resource management,
organizational behaviour, leadership, strategic management and decision sciences.
Ni Putu Santi Suryantini is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Udayana, Indonesia. Her research interests are financial management, behavioral finance,
finance, stock exchange, human resource management and knowledge management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]