Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Research in Management and Humanities

DWIJMH VOL. 4 NO. 1 (2025) ISSN: 2980-4817

Available online at www.dwijmh.org

Journal homepage: http://www.dwijmh.org
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6884-3504

The extent of knowledge management practices using

institutional memory and employees’ individual work
performance
Libertine Gertrude R. Macaspac: AQA Director, Divine Word College of Laoag, Philippines.

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT

This study examined the influence of knowledge management practices on individual work
Article history: October 20, 2024 performance. A review of relevant literature provided a deeper understanding of the study’s
key concepts. The research focused on all employees of Divine Word College of Laoag and
Received: October 20, 2024
employed a descriptive-correlational research design. Data were collected using validated
Received in rev. form. December 15, 2024 questionnaires and analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings revealed
Accepted: January 25, 2025 that both knowledge management practices and individual work performance were rated
Published: March 10, 2025 high, with Pearson’s r indicating a significant correlation between the two. However, the
study acknowledged its limitations, particularly the restricted population and measured
Keywords: knowledge management,
variables. Future research should explore additional dimensions of knowledge management
creating, capturing,
storing, sharing practices and involve a larger sample for broader insights.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This open-access article is distributed under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0
JEL Classification: I 26 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Introduction
Organizational success and high performance can only be achieved through effective resource
management. Resources encompass human resources, financial resources, and facilities, all of which play
a crucial role in organizational efficiency. Human resources refer to employees' skills and knowledge,
making it essential to hire individuals with the right competencies for the job. Financial resources, on the
other hand, enable employees to perform their duties effectively by providing necessary funding. Facilities
also play a critical role—regardless of employees' knowledge and skills, an organization that fails to
provide adequate facilities is bound to struggle. Among these three elements, human resources are the
most significant factor in determining an organization’s success or failure (Richman, 2015; Okoye &
Ezejiofor, 2013).

One of the most critical aspects of human resources is knowledge. Ensuring that employees acquire the
right knowledge is a primary concern for management, particularly human resource managers. To
facilitate this, human resource managers must develop strategies for creating, capturing, storing, and
sharing knowledge. Organizations must implement structured programs and activities to share knowledge
* Corresponding author. ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6884-3504
© 2025 by the authors. Hosting by DWIJMH. Peer review under
1315
responsibility of Divine Word International Journal of Management
and Humanities.
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

effectively. Through training and development initiatives, employees gain the relevant knowledge
necessary for performing their tasks efficiently (Richman, 2015).

A key concern for human resource managers is knowledge management, which involves systematically
creating, capturing, storing, and sharing knowledge to enhance organizational performance. Knowledge
exists within organizations in various forms—some of it is embedded in the minds of senior employees,
while other knowledge is stored in data or records maintained by the institution (Nonaka, 1994).
Knowledge is broadly categorized into tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is uncodified and
resides in an individual’s mind, shaped by personal experience, context, and practice, making it difficult
to articulate. In contrast, explicit knowledge is codified and stored in documents or institutional
repositories, forming an organization's institutional memory, which employees can access for reference
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2007). Effectively managing both types of
knowledge is essential for improving learning and organizational outcomes.

Knowledge management has emerged as a distinct field over the past three decades but remains under-
researched and inconsistently applied across organizations. Although it has historical roots, determining
its practical progression remains challenging (Spender, 2015). Many organizations struggle with creating,
capturing, storing, and sharing institutional knowledge due to the absence of systematic processes that
facilitate these activities. This gap results in inefficiencies, as employees lack access to essential
knowledge that guides their tasks (Rezaei et al., 2021; Andreev, 2022). It is crucial for institutions to
establish systems that systematically create, store, retrieve, share, and update knowledge accumulated over
the years by experienced practitioners.

This study is motivated by the observation that many organizations fail to recognize the value of tacit
knowledge, leading to a lack of programs that facilitate the transfer of expertise from seasoned employees
to younger staff or new teachers (Bajracharya & Masdeu, 2006). Additionally, employees often struggle
to locate institutional data and information necessary for decision-making (Human Resources, 2023).
Therefore, this research investigates knowledge management practices through the lens of institutional
memory and examines their impact on individual work performance. While knowledge management is a
broad discipline, this study focuses specifically on the use of institutional memory within an organizational
context.

The study is structured into several sections. The first section introduces the research by outlining its
background and rationale. The second section presents a literature review, synthesizing relevant theories
and concepts. The third section details the research methodology, including the study’s design, population,
setting, research instruments, data collection procedures, ethical considerations, and statistical analysis
methods. The fourth section presents and analyzes the collected data, incorporating tabular representations
followed by interpretations. The fifth and final section discusses the results in depth, highlighting their
implications for both theory and practice.

Literature review
This part presents the ideas from different literatures concerning knowledge, knowledge management,
different practices of knowledge management, institutional memory and individual work performance.

1316
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Knowledge
Before one can fully grasp the concepts and practices of knowledge management, it is essential to first
understand the nature of knowledge itself. A clear understanding of this concept enables readers to
appreciate knowledge management practices. Various scholars have attempted to define knowledge,
leading to different interpretations (Johansson, 2015). Philosophers have taken diverse positions on the
matter. Johansson defined knowledge as a justified true belief based on evidence and reliable procedures,
a perspective aligned with naturalism. This view considers knowledge as empirical, obtained through
scientific methods, and verified by various sciences (Kornblith, 2003).

However, this definition is contested by proponents of intuitionism, a metaphysical doctrine that asserts
intuition as an independent source of knowledge. Intuitionists such as L.E.J. Brouwer (1881–1966), W.D.
Ross (1877–1971), H.A. Prichard (1871–1947), G.E. Moore (1873–1958), and M. Dummett (1925–2011)
argue that knowledge cannot be acquired solely through inference, observation, reason, or experience
(Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia, 2003). Instead, they contend that knowledge emerges from the
mind as a priori insights (Stratton-Lake, 2020). The ongoing debate regarding the definition, origins, and
classification of knowledge has led to various taxonomies, the most fundamental of which distinguishes
between tacit (implicit) and explicit knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). This distinction has become a key
concept in knowledge management.

Tacit knowledge resides in individuals' minds, shaped by past experiences, and is often difficult to
articulate (Polanyi, 1966). In simple terms, people know more than they can express (Polanyi, 1966).
Those who have been with an institution or organization for a long time are often considered subject matter
experts, possessing valuable skills, knowledge, and experience within a specific field (Hopkins & Unger,
2017). These individuals accumulate expertise over time, refining their understanding of tasks and
processes. However, they may not always recognize the value of their knowledge or be able to document
it systematically. Donald Schön, as cited by Smith (2001, 2011), and Chris Argyris, as cited by Smith
(2001, 2013), describe this phenomenon as "knowing in action"—people understand how to perform a
task but may struggle to articulate their knowledge in writing.

Tacit knowledge is unstructured, non-verbalized, and embedded in personal experience and practice
(Hedlund, 1994). However, it can be transmitted through training, mentorship, or direct interaction with
experienced individuals. Semertzaki (2011) emphasized that tacit knowledge is highly personalized and
is best shared through face-to-face conversations and social networking. Parsaye (1988) identified three
primary methods for capturing tacit knowledge: expert interviews, learning by being told, and learning by
observation. Converting tacit knowledge into a documented form—thereby making it explicit—ensures
that it can be systematically stored and shared. O'Dell and Grayson (1998) noted that most knowledge
begins as tacit, developed over time through trial and error. However, it often remains underutilized
because organizations are unaware of the knowledge they possess (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998). This
knowledge is embedded in business processes and organizational practices that have evolved and
improved over time (King, 2009). Consequently, a core challenge in knowledge management is extracting
and making tacit knowledge accessible to others.

1317
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is codified and documented in various formats, including manuals,
books, databases, and electronic records (King, 2009). Wei Choo et al. (2006) defined explicit knowledge
as information that is systematically stored, explained, and disseminated through formal procedures and
information technologies. Because explicit knowledge is structured and accessible, it can be easily shared
among employees. It complements tacit knowledge and contributes to a more comprehensive
understanding of organizational knowledge (Koné, 2021). Explicit knowledge is often written, logically
organized, and acquired through hands-on experience, making it a critical asset for training and decision-
making.

For the purposes of this study, knowledge is conceptualized as a combination of tacit knowledge— which
cannot be treated merely as data (Mehrizi & Bontis, 2009)—and explicit knowledge, which includes both
documented information and the undocumented expertise, skills, and experiences of professionals that
contribute to decision-making and the achievement of organizational goals (European Guide to Good
Practice in Knowledge Management, Part 1, 2004, p. 6). Spender (2015) argued that knowledge cannot
be reduced to data alone and that attempting to define it narrowly is a strategic error. Therefore, a more
holistic approach is required to effectively manage both tacit and explicit knowledge within organizations.

Knowledge management and practices

The discussion on the significance of knowledge management dates back to the 1970s when Peter Drucker
and Paul Strassman, followed by Karl-Erik Sveiby in the 1980s, highlighted the value of information and
explicit knowledge as critical organizational assets (Spender, 2015). Over time, interest in knowledge
management has evolved, recognizing knowledge as a competitive advantage. However, early scholars
lacked concrete strategies for managing knowledge. During this period, Drucker and Sveiby explored the
concept of knowledge workers and the role of knowledge within organizations. By the late 1980s,
discussions on knowledge acquisition, knowledge engineering, and knowledge-based systems emerged,
laying the groundwork for knowledge management (Wiig, 1997). The formal discourse on knowledge
management (KM) gained traction in the Harvard Business Review in the late 1980s (Hansen, Nohria &
Tierney, 1999). By the 1990s, knowledge management was widely recognized as a key business practice,
with large corporations implementing KM solutions (Wiig, 1997).

Despite the development of knowledge management concepts, there remains no consensus on how to
implement KM within organizations due to varying definitions of knowledge. One perspective views
knowledge as explicit and focuses on technical approaches to acquiring knowledge from individuals,
computers, repositories, and other technology-based networks such as email and groupware (Amidon,
1996). Another perspective considers knowledge more broadly, encompassing all knowledge-related
aspects affecting organizational success (Wiig, 1997). Consequently, knowledge management extends
beyond technical approaches, as knowledge resides in individuals' minds and is not entirely captured by
computer systems. Tuomi (1999) argued that knowledge does not exist independently of a knower, leading
to the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Nonaka (1994) further classified knowledge into
tacit knowledge—held in individuals' minds—and explicit knowledge—documented in books,
repositories, and systems. Tacit knowledge includes cognitive and experiential elements, such as expertise
and intuition, which influence actions (John & Cook, 2001).

1318
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

The complexity of knowledge management stems from its interdisciplinary nature. Definitions vary across
fields, with IT experts, library science scholars, and business professionals offering different perspectives.
KM integrates disciplines such as organizational science, HR management, computer science, psychology,
and sociology (Chang-Albitres & Krugler, 2005). It also intersects with competitive intelligence, customer
relationship management, human-computer interaction, and information management (Australian
Standards, 2005). Among these, library science and information management are closely aligned with KM
theory due to their focus on organizing, preserving, and retrieving information. As a result, KM is often
viewed as an umbrella integrating multiple disciplines (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2007).

Girard and Sagology (2015) define KM as "the process of creating, sharing, using, and managing an
organization's knowledge and information," emphasizing the importance of knowledge creation, sharing,
and utilization. The Gartner Group, as cited by Duhon (1998), describes KM as "a discipline that promotes
an integrated approach to identifying, capturing, evaluating, retrieving, and sharing all of an enterprise's
information assets," highlighting the systematic management of an organization's knowledge base
(Koenig, 2018). The Australian Standard (2005) defines KM as "a trans-disciplinary approach to
improving organizational outcomes and learning through maximizing the use of knowledge,"
underscoring the role of both social and technological processes. Stachera-Włodarczyk (2019) further
argues that KM focuses on the creation and application of intellectual resources and practical skills.

This research paper defines KM as a learning process aimed at enhancing organizational outcomes through
the effective use of both tacit and explicit knowledge. It emphasizes that knowledge exists within the
organization and must be captured, stored, and shared for optimal utilization. Different KM approaches
result in varying practices, with some organizations focusing on HR-driven strategies, such as training
and exit interviews, while others employ computer-based systems for information storage and retrieval.

These variations are evident in corporate KM implementations. For instance, Dow Chemical Company
employed a knowledge value chain model that transformed intangible intellectual assets into measurable
patents (Lloyd, 1996). Siemens utilized groupware in research and development (R&D) to integrate
knowledge into practice (Lloyd, 1996). This paper adheres to a comprehensive perspective on KM,
recognizing it as a strategic process that involves creating, capturing, storing, and sharing both tacit and
explicit knowledge within an organization.

Institutional memory
To understand the meaning of institutional memory, it is important to define it based on dictionary and
expert definitions. Searching for the term in dictionaries like Merriam-Webster, Cambridge Dictionary,
and others yields little or no results, indicating that the concept is either relatively new or not yet widely
recognized. The term has gained prominence due to the rise of knowledge management discussions.

Institutional memory has been defined by various organizations. The Society of American Archivists
(SAA) (n.d.) defines it as "the information held in employees' recollections and experiences that provides
an understanding of the history and culture of an organization, especially the stories that explain the
reasons behind certain decisions or procedures." This definition emphasizes that institutional memory is

1319
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

embedded in the experiences and decisions of employees, often remaining unwritten yet crucial for
organizational continuity.

The United Nations (n.d.) defines institutional memory as "a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences,
and know-how held by a group of people." This perspective extends beyond individual recollections to
encompass group memory, highlighting that institutional experience is a shared and evolving process.
Similarly, IGI Global (n.d.) defines it as "the collective knowledge and learned experiences of a group."
The University of Cambridge describes institutional memory as "an information repository within
institutions." These definitions collectively suggest that institutional memory consists of individual
recollections, group experiences, and documented repositories that serve as a foundation for understanding
past decisions and actions within an organization.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2007) defines institutional memory as
"the body of knowledge, formal as well as informal, that is essential to the continuous and effective
functioning of the agency at all levels." This definition captures both tacit and explicit knowledge,
acknowledging the importance of both written records and unwritten practices.

Scholars studying knowledge management have also provided various definitions of institutional memory.
Jackson (2010) defines it as "storing knowledge," which extends beyond formal repositories to include
informal knowledge held by individuals and groups. Stein and Zwass (1995) view institutional memory
as an information system, particularly emphasizing the role of advanced technologies in capturing and
preserving organizational knowledge. Gibbons (2007) defines institutional memory as "the stored
knowledge within the organization," a definition that implies a focus on formal documentation. Brownlie
(2016) highlights that institutions possess founding aims, ideologies, official histories, and practices that
are remembered and passed down over time.

From these definitions, it is evident that institutional memory is a multidimensional concept,

encompassing both formal and informal knowledge. This paper adopts the definition provided by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2007), which integrates tacit and explicit
knowledge, individual and collective experiences, and both written and unwritten records. Institutional
memory, in this regard, serves as a vital component of an organization's knowledge management
framework, ensuring continuity and informed decision-making.

Individual work performance

The dimensions of individual work performance
Individual work performance is a primary concern for management, as organizational success depends on
it. Given its significance, management must regularly monitor and evaluate employee performance to
detect deviations from stated objectives as early as possible. Regular or real-time performance evaluations
should be conducted to assess whether employees are fulfilling their tasks and whether their work
contributes to achieving organizational goals (Armstrong, 2013; Murphy, 2019).

However, scholars have yet to reach a consensus on the dimensions of performance that should be
evaluated, primarily because there is no universally accepted definition of individual work performance
(Dalal, 2005). The lack of consensus on its definition creates confusion regarding which dimensions

1320
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

should be measured. Different scholars have proposed various elements, many of which overlap with one
another. Motowidlo (2003) defined job performance as "the total expected value to the organization of the
discrete behavioural episode that an individual carries out over a specified period." This definition frames
performance as the output of behavioral activities performed by employees over a certain period to achieve
organizational goals. Strengthening this perspective, Gulino (2022) defined work performance as "the
total of a worker's execution of assigned tasks," while Turanlıgil (2019) described it as "the overall
expected value from employees' behaviours carried out throughout a set period." These definitions
collectively highlight that work performance is primarily a result of behavioral activities.

Recent scholars align with earlier definitions, particularly that of Campbell (1990), who described
individual work performance as "behaviours or actions that are relevant to the goals of the organization."
This perspective views work performance as a means of achieving individual and organizational goals
rather than focusing on the actual outcomes of these behaviors. Campbell (1990) emphasized that job
performance is a behavioral matter, not an outcome-based one. His definition has influenced contemporary
scholars, such as Kasemsap (2016), who defined work performance as "the work-related activities
expected of an employee and how well those activities are executed." Ahmad (2011) described it as "the
ability of workers to perform their job," while Karapinar (2017) defined it as "an appraisal report indicating
how well an employee is fulfilling the expected related job activities." These definitions collectively
suggest that work performance is strictly behavioral and does not encompass outcomes, as outcomes may
be beyond employees' control (Campbell, 2013b). Furthermore, these definitions are applicable across
different occupations, as they focus solely on behavior.

Drawing from Campbell (1990) and other scholars, the concern regarding which dimensions of work
performance should be evaluated is now addressed—performance assessment should focus strictly on
behavioral dimensions rather than outputs. However, since behavior itself remains an abstract and broad
concept, the question persists: what constitutes work performance? To ensure its measurability, it must be
clearly defined (Viswesvaran, 2002). The earliest effort to identify work performance dimensions was
undertaken by Campbell in the 1980s (Campbell et al., 2001). Initially, Campbell identified five work
performance dimensions in the military: physical fitness and military bearing, technical performance, peer
leadership, supervisory leadership, extra effort/initiative, and personal discipline. Among these, only one
dimension was specific to military work, while the others could be applied to various occupations. Later,
in 1993, Campbell et al. (1993) expanded these five dimensions into eight: job-specific technical
proficiency, non-job-specific technical proficiency, communication, demonstrated effort and initiative,
personal discipline, facilitating peer and team performance, supervision/leadership, and
management/administration.

Inspired by Campbell’s (1990) work, Borman and Motowidlo (1993, 1997) consolidated these dimensions
into two categories: task performance and contextual performance. Task performance refers to core
responsibilities based on job descriptions, while contextual performance includes behaviors that, although
not directly related to job responsibilities, support the organization. Similarly, Organ (1988) introduced
organizational citizenship behavior as an additional dimension of work performance. Recognizing that
these dimensions alone were insufficient, researchers such as Bennett and Robinson (2000), Berry et al.
(2007), Gruys and Sackett (2003), and Dalal (2005) later introduced counterproductive work behavior as
another dimension.

1321
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Summarizing these contributions, Koopmans et al. (2011) proposed three primary components of work
performance: task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behavior. Later,
Koopmans et al. (2014) expanded these to four dimensions by adding adaptive performance. However,
based on the judgment of the current researcher, this study focuses solely on the three dimensions proposed
by Koopmans et al. (2011), excluding adaptive performance. These three dimensions are deemed most
relevant to the present investigation.

Borman and Motowidlo (1993), as cited by Silong et al. (2013), defined task performance as “the
effectiveness with which job incumbents carry out activities that contribute to the organization's 'technical
core,' either directly by executing a part of its technical process or indirectly by providing it with needed
materials or services.” This definition highlights the importance of competency and expertise in
effectively performing job functions (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006), which Campbell (1990) referred
to as task proficiency or technical core. These behaviors directly impact task completion and contribute
to the organization’s technical core. An employee must possess the necessary knowledge and skills to
perform assigned tasks effectively.

Doğru (2019) defined contextual performance as “the degree to which an employee behaves positively,
consisting of volunteering for extra duties, helping coworkers, and cooperating with them with an
expectation of a reward.” Organ (1988) classified these behaviors under organizational citizenship
behavior. Contextual performance includes actions voluntarily performed beyond job descriptions and
official responsibilities. These behaviors help maintain and enhance the organizational environment,
thereby supporting employees in executing their primary tasks. While these actions are not formally
required, they significantly contribute to an employee’s ability to perform core job functions. Studies
indicate that contextual performance is linked to both task performance (Diaz-Vilela et al., 2015) and
overall effectiveness (Griffin et al., 2001).

Fox and Spector (2005) defined counterproductive work behavior as negative actions that hinder an
organization’s ability to achieve its objectives and harm other individuals within the organization.
Robinson and Bennett (1995) categorized these behaviors into those directed at the organization and those
targeting individuals within it. Specific counterproductive behaviors include abuse, production deviance,
sabotage, theft, and withdrawal (Spector et al., 2006, as cited by Ispas & Borman, 2015). Within
workgroups, counterproductive work behavior may include laissez-faire leadership, neglecting
supervision, violating group norms or policies, damaging work relationships, and imposing personal
values on others (Braun & Hentschel, 2015). The primary aim of counterproductive work behavior is to
disrupt organizational success. These behaviors encompass a broad range of deliberate actions intended
to undermine workplace performance, often driven by hidden motives.

1322
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Conceptual framework
Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Knowledge Management Practices

(Using Organizational Memory):
Individual Work Performance:
- Creating knowledge
Task Commitment
management practices
Contextual Performance
-capturing knowledge practices
Counterproductive behavior
- storing knowledge management
practices
- sharing knowledge management
practices
Source: Ward (2007) and Koopmans, et al. (2013).

Figure 1: the conceptual framework explains the relationship between knowledge management
practices and individual work performance. It indicates that the purpose of knowledge is for the
attainment of organizational objectives which can only be realized through individual work
performance.

Statement of the problems

The study determined the influence of knowledge management practices through using institutional
memory on the individual work performance of employees.

Specifically, it answered the following questions:

1. What is the level of knowledge management practices in terms of
a. Creating knowledge management practice,
b. Capturing Knowledge Management Practices
c. Storing Knowledge Management Practice
d. Sharing knowledge management practice

2. What is the level of individual work performance of employees in terms of

a. Task performance
b. Contextual performance
c. Counterproductive behavior

3. Is there a relationship between knowledge management practices and individual work

performance?

1323
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Assumptions
The study assumes that knowledge management practices affect the individual work performance of the
employees and they can be measured.

Hypothesis
Knowledge is an asset because knowledge can help the organization or institution achieve its goals. Good
knowledge management practices can affect organizational performance through individual work
performance. Thus, the current study hypothesizes that knowledge management practices using
institutional memory affect the individual work performance of employees.

Research methodology
As required in scientific research, this study follows a systematic research methodology to ensure a
structured and reliable investigation. According to Wilkinson (2000) and Leedy (1974), research
methodology is an established process for conducting inquiry, involving specific methods to determine,
select, and analyze data related to the research topic. Accordingly, this study employs various research
methods, including the research design, data gathering instruments, population and locale of the study,
data gathering procedures, and statistical treatment of data.

Research design of the Study

This study employs a descriptive assessment and descriptive correlational research design. According to
Ariola (2006), a descriptive correlational study aims to describe relationships among variables without
establishing causal connections. Meanwhile, descriptive research focuses on providing a detailed account
of a population, situation, or phenomenon. It is commonly used to describe profiles, frequency
distributions, and characteristics of people, situations, or events. In essence, it answers the questions
"what," "when," "how," and "where," but not "why" (McCombes, 2020)

Locale of the study

The study was conducted at Divine Word College of Laoag, located in Laoag City, the capital of Ilocos
Norte.

Population
The respondents of this study were the employees of the college. Given the limited number of employees,
total enumeration sampling was employed, meaning that all faculty members and staff of the college were
included as respondents.

Data gathering instruments

The study utilized validated questionnaires from Ward (2007) on preserving and utilizing institutional
memory through knowledge management practices and Koopmans et al. (2013) on work performance.
These instruments were adopted after obtaining formal permission from the respective authors.

1324
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Data gathering procedures

To uphold the integrity of scientific research, data collection commenced only after obtaining approval
from the college president. The researcher formally requested approval through a letter, and upon
receiving consent, the questionnaires were distributed by the researcher's representatives. The collected
responses were then compiled and submitted to the researcher for tabulation.

Ethical procedures
The study adhered to ethical research standards. The Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved
the study, ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines and confirming that it posed no harm to human
participants or the environment.

Statistical treatment of data

The study employed both descriptive and inferential statistics for data analysis. The weighted mean was
used to assess the level of knowledge management practices in relation to creating, capturing, storing, and
sharing knowledge and individual work performance. Additionally, ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was
used to examine the correlation between knowledge management practices and individual work
performance.

The following range of values and their corresponding descriptive interpretations were applied:
Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation
4.21-5.00 strongly agree/ Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree / High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/ Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low

Data presentation and analysis

The data are presented and interpreted following the statement of the problems of the study. The study
intends to examine the influence of knowledge management practice on individual work performance. It
specifically answers the following questions:

Problem 1: What is the level of the knowledge management practices in terms of

a. creating knowledge management practice,
b. capturing knowledge management practices
c. storing knowledge management practice
d. sharing knowledge management practice

Table 1: Knowledge Management Practices

Indicator Mean DI
Creating knowledge
The institution encourages creative ideas to solve existing institutional problems 3.75 A/H
It allows flexibility in carrying out one's duties and responsibilities, not required to
3.44 A/H
follow strict official rules and procedures.

1325
Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

It establishes an environment that supports brainstorming, trial and error and

3.62 A/H
unstructured interaction
It allows freedom for employees to experiment and work autonomously. 3.77 A/H
Motivates employees/teachers to conduct collaborative research projects 3.67 A/H
Encourages employees/teachers to produce peer-reviewed research publications 3.61 A/H
Composite Mean 3.64 A/H
Capturing knowledge
The institution requires exit interviews for retiring or exiting staff, and the institution
3.79 A/H
documents the results.
The institution has a policy about the ways to retain key workers. 3.62 A/H
Uses retirees' expertise by implementing formal programs to reemploy recent retirees,
3.72 A/H
especially on a contract or part-time basis
Systematically records knowledge of employees on the verge of retirement by using
3.54 A/H
video, interviews, and documentation
The institution Encourages workers to mingle across department boundaries to
3.59 A/H
facilitate knowledge transfer
Assign individuals to document expertise 3.51 A/H
Composite Mean 3.63 A/H
Storing knowledge
The institution has a clear policy for storing knowledge assets (Employees understand
3.56 A/H
what data or information needs to be stored).
Employees generally understand how to get resources from their possession into
3.51 A/H
storage. The process is well-defined for most resource types.
Storage practices are well-defined for some critical resources, such as legal or
3.63 A/H
financial documents, but not necessarily for all.
The institution's electronic resources are stored in an institutional repository. 3.67 A/H
The institution defines retention periods for most resource types. The institution
works with stakeholders such as legal counsel, professionals, managers, or
historians—and also consults laws and regulations, plus records and knowledge 3.90 A/H
management experts and best practices to determine appropriate retention policies
(how long a record is kept in a repository).
The repository for electronic resources has adequate capacity for long-term storage
of electronic resources and is reasonably secured against environmental damage, 3.62 A/H
natural disasters, or intrusion, either computer-borne or physical.
Physical storage uses established records management or archival practices, with
3.85 A/H
adequate shelving, durable boxes, folders, labelling, etc
The employees know where to find most resources that have been captured, stored,
3.59 A/H
and preserved.
Composite Mean 3.67 A/H
Sharing knowledge
The institution has a practice of knowledge sharing through face-to-face skill training
3.73 A/H
programs or roundtable discussions with the tacit knowledge experts
The institution has a regular program for orientation for new employees related to
3.65 A/H
institutional policies and practices
The employees are given or provided copies of the policies of the institution so that
3.50 A/H
they know
It encourages employees to share their expertise and connect with other team members
3.58 A/H
who can learn from or build upon that expertise.
Create a learning platform to help workers/faculty learn new technologies or work
3.46 A/H
methods that the institution is considering adopting in the future.

1326
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Gives employees signals that it's okay to step away from their desks, to talk to their
3.57 A/H
colleagues, or to not always be working on a concrete task.
Composite Mean 3.58 A/H
Overall Mean 3.63 A/H
Source: Ward (2007)

Legend:
Statistical Range Descriptive Interpretation
4.21-5.00 strongly agree/ Very High
3.41-4.20 Agree / High
2.61-3.40 Somewhat agree/ Moderate
1.81-2.60 Disagree/Low
1.00-1.80 Strongly disagree/Very Low

The data indicate that the institution's knowledge management practices received an overall mean rating
of 3.63, categorized as "agree/high." This suggests that while the institution's knowledge management
practices are not exceptionally high, they are consistently strong across all dimensions. Employees
acknowledge that the institution engages in creating, capturing, storing, and sharing knowledge. They
agree that it fosters creativity, encourages trial and error, supports experimentation, and motivates
employees to conduct research and publish. Beyond formal research, knowledge creation occurs through
individual and group discussions, where brainstorming enables employees to share diverse perspectives,
enriching organizational knowledge and practices. In essence, knowledge is generated through
interactions and synthesis (Rollett, 2003; Allard, 2004; Nonaka & Toyama, 2015).

However, knowledge management extends beyond thought showers. Capturing existing knowledge within
the institution—particularly the tacit knowledge embedded in employees—requires deliberate strategies.
This includes interviewing senior or retiring employees, retaining key figures, rehiring retirees,
encouraging collaboration, and documenting expertise (Damij & Damij, 2013; Harkiolakis, 2013; Prasad,
2001). Once captured, knowledge must be effectively stored for future retrieval. A well-structured filing
system should classify different types of information, ensuring accessibility for future users. This storage
can be either physical or electronic (Agasi, 1981; Harkiolakis, 2013; Bennett et al., 2010, 2011; Xing et
al., 2019; Braf, 2002).

Complete knowledge management practice does not end with storage—it must be shared to maximize its
impact. Knowledge sharing fosters continuous learning and enhances organizational efficiency. It can take
the form of roundtable discussions, orientation programs for new employees, provision of shared
resources, technological tools, seminars, and informal interactions that encourage employees to exchange
insights (Dupuy, 2004; Huysman & Wit, 2002; van den Hoff et al., 2003; Valeri, 2024; Lam et al., 2013;
Chernenko, 2023).
By integrating these processes—creation, capture, storage, and sharing—the institution ensures that
knowledge remains an asset that continuously evolves, informs decision-making, and enhances work
practices.
Problem 2: What is the level of individual work performance of employees in terms of
a. Task performance
b. Contextual performance
c. Counterproductive behavior

1327
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Table 2: Individual work performance

Indicator Mean DI
Task performance
I managed to plan my work so that it was done on time 4.18 A/H
My planning was optimal 4.03 A/
I kept in mind the results that I had to achieve in my work 4.15 A/H
I was able to separate main issues from side issues at work 4.26 SA/VH
I knew how to set the right priorities 4.19 A/H
I was able to perform my work well with minimal time and effort 4.01 A/H
Composite Mean 4.14 A/H
Contextual performance
I took on extra responsibilities 4.10 A/H
I started a new task myself when my old ones were finished 4.11 A/H
I took on a challenging work task, when available 4.11 A/H
I worked at keeping my job knowledge up-to-date 4.16 A/H
I worked at keeping my job skills up-to-date 4.15 A/H
I came up with creative solutions to new problems 4.03 A/H
I kept looking for new challenges in my job 4.06 A/H
I did more than was expected of me 4.15 A/H
I actively participated in work meetings 4.16 A/H
I actively look for ways to improve my performance at work 4.29 SA/VH
I grasped opportunities when they presented themselves 4.17 A/H
I knew how to solve difficult situations and setbacks quickly 4.12 A/H
Composite Mean 4.13 A/H
Counterproductive performance
I complained about unimportant matters at work 2.99 SWA/M
I made problems greater than they were at work 2.70 SWA
I focused on the negative aspects of a work situation, instead of on the positive D/L
aspects 2.54
I spoke with colleagues about the negative aspects of my work 2.67 SWA
I spoke with people from outside the organization about the negative aspects of SWA
my work 2.65
I did less than was expected of me 2.62 SWA
I managed to get off from a work task easily 2.91 SWA
I sometimes did nothing, when I should have been working 2.68 SWA
Composite Mean 2.72 SWA
Overall Mean 3.66 A/H
Source: Koopmans, et al. (2013).

The data indicate that employees' individual work performance received an overall mean rating of 3.66,
categorized as "agree/high." This suggests that while individual work performance is not exceptionally
high, it is consistently strong. However, when analyzed separately, task performance and contextual
performance were both rated high (4.14, 4.14), whereas counterproductive work behavior received a
moderate rating (2.72).

This result aligns with expectations—strong task and contextual performance are essential for sustaining
high work performance, while counterproductive behavior must be minimized. Task performance directly
influences productivity by requiring technical knowledge and skills that contribute to achieving

1328
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

organizational goals (Adekiya, 2023; Paulus, 1983; Wigglesworth, 2008). However, knowledge and skills
alone are insufficient—positive work behavior, known as contextual performance, is equally crucial.
Contextual performance consists of three key behaviors: helping others, supporting the organization, and
demonstrating job dedication (Nikiforow & Wagener, 2020; Urdan, 2001; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997;
Taibah & Ho, 2022).

A strong individual work performance profile also means fewer counterproductive behaviors. These
negative behaviors hinder organizational success (Fatime et al., 2012; Ji & Yan, 2023; Beck-Krala, 2020;
Fox et al., 2001). The findings indicate that employees exhibited lower counterproductive behaviors
compared to their task and contextual performance levels, reinforcing a positive work environment and a
commitment to organizational objectives.

Problem 3: Is there a relationship between knowledge management practices and individual work
performance?
Knowledge management Individual work performance
practices Task Contextual Counterproductive Overall
performance performance performance
Creating Pearson .620** .523** .098 .579**
knowledge correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .153 .000
Capturing Pearson .604** .511** .102 .571**
knowledge correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .139 .000
Storing Pearson .677** .569** .084 .611**
knowledge correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .222 .000
Sharing Pearson .389** .347** .213** .505**
knowledge correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .002 .000
Overall Pearson .638** .543** .138* .497**
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .044 .000

The table presents the correlation between different dimensions of knowledge management practices
(creating, capturing, storing, and sharing knowledge) and individual work performance (task performance,
contextual performance, and counterproductive behaviour).

The results indicate a strong positive correlation between knowledge management practices and task
performance (r = .638, p = .000), highlighting that employees with access to well-managed knowledge
resources perform tasks more efficiently. Among the four dimensions of knowledge management, storing
knowledge has the strongest correlation with task performance (r = .677, p = .000), emphasizing that
employees perform better when knowledge is systematically stored and easily accessible. Creating (r =
.620, p = .000) and capturing knowledge (r = .604, p = .000) also show strong correlations, underscoring
the importance of fostering innovation and retaining institutional knowledge for task execution. Sharing

1329
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

knowledge, while still significant (r = .389, p = .000), has a lower correlation, suggesting that structured
documentation and storage have a more direct impact on task performance.

In terms of contextual performance, which refers to employees' willingness to go beyond core

responsibilities, a moderate to strong positive correlation was found (r = .543, p = .000). Storing
knowledge again shows the highest correlation with contextual performance (r = .569, p = .000),
suggesting that employees with well-documented knowledge are more likely to engage in extra-role
behaviours. Creating (r = .523, p = .000) and capturing knowledge (r = .511, p = .000) also correlate
strongly, indicating that a culture of knowledge generation and retention fosters proactive employee
behaviour. Sharing knowledge (r = .347, p = .000) has the lowest correlation, reaffirming that structured
storage and accessibility have a greater influence on employees' willingness to take on additional
responsibilities.

For counterproductive work behaviour (CWB), the correlation with knowledge management practices is
weak but still statistically significant (r = .138, p = .044), suggesting that better knowledge management
practices slightly reduce CWB. Sharing knowledge has the highest negative correlation with CWB (r = -
.213, p = .002), indicating that employees engaged in knowledge-sharing activities are less likely to exhibit
counterproductive behaviours. Creating, capturing, and storing knowledge show weak, non-significant
correlations with CWB, implying that while structured knowledge management helps with performance,
its direct impact on reducing workplace negativity is limited.

Results and discussion

The findings of this study reveal that the institution's knowledge management practices are rated high
across all four dimensions—creating, capturing, storing, and sharing knowledge—a trend that also applies
to individual work performance. Pearson r correlation analysis further confirms a significant relationship
between knowledge management practices and individual work performance. This underscores a crucial
implication: enhancing individual work performance can be achieved by effectively implementing
knowledge management strategies (Harb et al., 2024; Almuayad & Chen, 2024).

Knowledge management serves as a structured system for creating, capturing, organizing, storing, and
sharing knowledge within an organization (North & Kumta, 2018; Harkiolakis, 2013; Maier, 2002).
Knowledge creation extends beyond research and books—it thrives in environments that encourage
employees to express creative ideas, experiment, and learn from failures. Therefore, fostering a workplace
culture that promotes autonomy, creativity, and innovation is essential.

Capturing knowledge is equally critical, as a significant portion of institutional knowledge remains

undocumented (Zamid et al., 2016; Mobus, 2022). Tacit knowledge—stored in the minds and experiences
of senior employees—is invaluable for organizational growth (Damij & Damij, 2013; Harkiolakis, 2013).
To harness this wealth of expertise, organizations must actively interview experienced employees,
facilitate roundtable discussions, and organize knowledge-sharing seminars.

Once created and captured, knowledge must be stored systematically for future use. Effective record
management ensures that past and emerging best practices are well-documented, classified, and easily
retrievable (Wang & Meng, 2019; Wobeser, 1994; Lappin et al., 2021). A well-structured filing system

1330
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

accelerates work efficiency and reduces stress by providing quick access to essential information when
needed.

However, knowledge management does not end with storage—knowledge must be shared to drive
continuous improvement. Knowledge should not be hoarded but actively disseminated to benefit all
organizational members (Huysman & Wit, 2002; Lam et al., 2013). This can be achieved through regular
thoughtshower sessions, seminars, roundtable discussions, and digital platforms that facilitate knowledge
exchange.

Implementing knowledge management effectively boosts employee productivity and minimizes

counterproductive work behaviors. The challenge for management is to create a work environment that
fosters autonomy, openness, and a culture of knowledge sharing (Allen et al., 2024). Employees perform
at their best when they have access to the right knowledge, and knowledge-sharing practices help align
individual performance with organizational goals.

The study’s findings call for a shift in leadership and management practices. A bureaucratic leadership
style may hinder knowledge flow; therefore, adopting a transformational leadership approach that
encourages open intellectual discussions is recommended. Additionally, HR policies on retirement and
retention should be reconsidered to preserve institutional knowledge, particularly that of key senior
employees. Finally, organizations should establish structured knowledge-sharing platforms and upgrade
electronic filing systems to incorporate the latest technology, ensuring seamless knowledge access and
management.

Conclusion
This study explored the impact of knowledge management practices on individual work performance,
revealing that both are rated high within the institution. The significant correlation found through Pearson
r analysis underscores a key insight: effectively implementing knowledge management practices can
directly enhance employee performance and productivity. By fostering a culture of knowledge creation,
capture, storage, and sharing, organizations can empower employees, streamline operations, and drive
overall success.

However, this study acknowledges its limitations, particularly the restricted sample size and scope of
measured variables. Future research should expand the population size and explore additional dimensions
of knowledge management to provide a more comprehensive understanding of its role in organizational
performance.

Author contribution: The paper is written by the author

Conflict of interest: The author declares no conflict of interest over the paper to be published.

1331
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

References
Adekiya, A. (2023). Perceived job insecurity and task performance: what aspect of performance is related to which
facet of job insecurity? Current Psychology, 43, 1340–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04408-4

Agassi, J. (1981). Storage and communication of knowledge. In: Science and society. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6456-6_11

Ahmad, N. (2011). Research-Based Insights Inform Change in IBM M-Learning Strategy. Pennsylvania: IGI Global
Publisher of Timely Knowledge

Allard, S. (2004). Knowledge creation. In: Holsapple, C.W. (eds) Handbook on knowledge management. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24746-3_18

Almuayad, K.M.A., & Chen, Y. (2024). Effect of knowledge management on employee job performance in Yemeni
Banking Sector: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(3).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01791-6

Amidon, D.M. (1996). The Ken Awakening: Management Strategies for Knowledge Innovation. London: Routledge.

Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and Methods of Research. Manila: National Bookstore

Armstrong, M. (2013). Managing performance: performance management in action. World Journal of Education, 2
(1), 62-69.

Andreev, I. (2022). Knowledge Management. Valamis. Retrieved from

https://www.valamis.com/hub/knowledge-management

Australian Standard (2005). Knowledge Management—A Guide, AS 5037-2005, 2nd ed. Australia: Standards
Australia.

Bajracharya, P. & Masdeu, N.R. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer in small segment of small enterprise. Retrieved
from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:21701/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Beck-Krala, E. (2020). Counterproductive work behaviors. In: Idowu, S., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del
Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of sustainable management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-02006-4_212-1

Bennett, R.J., & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85,349–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

Bennett, G., Fisher, M., Lees, B. (2010a). Storing information. In: Objective-C for absolute beginners. Apress.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-2833-2_13

Bennett, G., Fisher, M., Lees, B. (2011b). Storing information. In: Objective-C for absolute beginners. Apress.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-3654-2_11

1332
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Berry, C.M., Ones, D., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common
correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–24.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410

Borman, W.C, Motowidlo S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. Jossey-Bass.

Borman W.C, Motowidlo S.J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel
selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3

Braf, E. (2002). Knowledge or information. In: Liu, K., Clarke, R.J., Andersen, P.B., Stamper, R.K., Abou-Zeid, ES.
(eds) Organizational semiotics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35611-2_5

Braun, S. & Hentschel, T. (2015). Group Process in Organization. In International Encyclopedia of the Social &
Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Elsevier

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia (2023, October 23). Intuition. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/intuition

Brownlie, S. (2016). Institutional Memory. In: Mapping memory in translation. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137408952_7

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modelling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 686–707).
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance: In N. Schmitt & W.
C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 35-70). Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, J.P., Hanson, M.A. & Oppler, S.H. (2001). Modeling performance in a population of jobs. Erlbaum

Campbell, J.P. (2013b). Leadership, the old, the new, and the timeless: a commentary. Oxford Handbook Online.,
401–22. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398793.013.0024

Chang-Albitres, C.M. & P.E. Krugler (2005). A Summary of Knowledge Management Information Gathered from
Literature, Web Sites, and State Departments of Transportation. Texas Transportation Institute.

Chernenko, M. (2023). Sharing your knowledge. In: The rational software engineer. Apress,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-9795-7_19

Dalal, R.S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and
counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,1241–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1241

Dalal, R.S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and
counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,1241–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.90.6.1241

1333
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Damij, N., & Damij, T. (2014). Knowledge management. In: Process management. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36639-0_6

Diaz-Vilela, L.F. Rodriquez, N.D., Isla-Diaz, R., Diaz-Cebrera, D., Hernandez-Fernaud, E., & Rosales-Sacnchez,
C. (2015). Relationships between contextual and task performance and interrater agreement: Are there any? Plos
One, 10(10), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139898

Doğru, C. (2019). The effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange on contextual
performance: A study in the banking sector. In handbook of research on contemporary approaches in
management and organizational strategy. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge

Duhon, B. (1998). It's all in our heads. Inform, 12, 8-13.

Dupuy, F. (2004). Sharing knowledge. Springer Nature.

Fatima, A., Iqbal, M.Z., Imran, R. (2013). Organizational commitment and counterproductive work behaviour: Role
of employee empowerment. In: Xu, J., Yasinzai, M., Lev, B. (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international
conference on management science and engineering management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-
4600-1_57

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E.
Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007

Fox, S., Spector, P.E. & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behaviour in response to job stressors and
organizational justice: Some moderator and mediator test for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 59(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1803

Gibbons, D. E. (2007-01-01). Communicable crises: Prevention, response, and recovery in the global arena.
National Bookstore.

Girard, J.P. & Sagology, J.P. (2015). Defining knowledge management: Toward an applied compendium. Online
Journal of Applied Knowledge, 3(1), 1-20.

Griffin, M., Neal, A. & Neale, M. (2001). The contribution of task performance and contextual performance to
effectiveness: Investigating the role of situational constraints. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 517-533.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00029

Gruys, M.L., & Sackett, P.R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behaviour.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11,30–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00224

Gulino, D. (2022). Assistive technologies and design for people with autism spectrum disorders: A selective
overview. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7430-0.ch003

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. & Tierney, T. (1999). What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/1999/03/whats-your-strategy-for-managing-knowledge

1334
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Harb, Y., Alakaleek, W., & Shang, Y. (2024). The effect of knowledge management practices exploration and
exploitation on individual performance and empowerment. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15, 1801–1822.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01165-4

Harkiolakis, N. (2013). Knowledge management. In: Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Gupta, A.D. (eds)
Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28036-8_421

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons
of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 305-325.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786077

Hedlund, G. (1994). A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal,
15, (Special Issue), 73–90.

Hopkins, P. Unger, M. (2017). What is a subject matter expert? The Journal of Pipeline Engineering, 16(4), 227-
230.

Human Resource (2023). Institutional Knowledge. VALAMIS. Retrieved from

https://www.valamis.com/hub/institutional-knowledge

Huysman, M. & Wit, D. (2002). Knowledge sharing in practice. Springer Nature.

IGI Global (n.d). Institutional memory. Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com

Ispas, D. & Borman, W.C. (2015). Counterproductive work behavior. Elsevier

Jackson, P. (2010). Organizational memory: Storing knowledge. In Web 2.0 Knowledge Technologies and
Enterprise. Elsevier.

Ji, H., Yan, J. Why does counterproductive work behavior lead to pro-social rule-breaking? The roles of
impression management motives and leader-liking. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 40, 1323–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09818-9

Johansson, LG. (2016). Knowledge. In: Philosophy of science for scientists. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-26551-32

John, M.A. & Cook, L. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management system: A conceptual
foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1). 107-136.

Karapinar, P.B. (2017). Well-Being at work: A comprehensive review about its predictors and outcomes. IGI Global
Publisher of Timely Knowledge

Kasemsap, K. (2016). A unified framework of organizational perspectives and knowledge management and their
impact on job performance. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge

King, W.R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning. Annals of Information System, 4.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1_1

1335
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Koenig, M.E.D. (n.d). What is km? Knowledge management explained. KM World. Retrieved from
https://www.kmworld.com

Kone, M.T. (2021). What is explicit knowledge? IGI Global.

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V.H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual framework
of individual work performance. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856-66.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A.J. and de Vet, H.C.W. (2013).
Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 62(1), 6-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Measuring
individual work performance: identifying and selecting indicators. Work (Reading, Mass.), 48(2), 229–238.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-131659

Kornblith, H. (2003). Knowledge and its place in nature. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews: An Electronic Journal.
Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/RAC/Documents/Knowledge.pdf

Lam, J., Li, K.C., Cheung, S.K.S. & Wang, F.L. (2013). Knowledge sharing through technology. Springer Nature.

Lappin, J., Jackson, T., Matthews, G. & Ravenwood, C. (2021). Rival records management models in an era of
partial automation. Archival Science, 21, 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-020-09354-9

Leedy, P.D. (1974). Practical research: planning and design. Macmillan

Lloyd, B. (1996). Knowledge management: the key to long-term organizational success. Long Range Planning,
29(4), 576-80.

Maier, R. (2002). Knowledge management system. Springer Nature.

McCombes, S. (2020). Descriptive research. Scibbr. Retrieved from

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/

Mehrizi, M. H. R. & Bontis, N. (2009). A cluster analysis of the KM field. Management decision, 47(5), 792-805

Mobus, G.E. (2022). Capturing knowledge of the system. In: Systems science: Theory, analysis, modelling, and
design. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93482-8_8

Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of
psychology. Industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 39–53.

Murphy, K.R. (2019). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal,
30(1), 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2007). Preserving and using institutional memory
through knowledge management practices. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/14035.

1336
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Nikiforow, N., & Wagener, S. (2020). The contextual effect of completion on the effectiveness of performance
feedback. Journal of Business Economics, 91, 61–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00996-w

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2015). The Knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing
process. In: Edwards, J.S. (eds) The essentials of knowledge management. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137552105_4

North, K. & Kumta, G. (2018). Knowledge management. Springer Nature

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books

Parsaye, K. (1989). Intelligent databases. Wiley.

Paulus, P.B. (1983). Group influence on individual task performance. In: Paulus, P.B. (eds) Basic group processes.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5578-9_5

Richman, N. (2015). Human resource management and human resource development: Evolution and contributions.
Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 1(2), 120-129.

O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C.J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best
practices. California Management Review 40(3), 154–174.

Okoye, P.V.C. & Ezejiofor, R. A. (2013). The effect of human resources development on organizational productivity.
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(10).

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension of knowledge. Routledge.

Prasad, B. (2001). Languages for knowledge capture and their use in the creation of smart models. In: Roy, R. (eds)
Industrial knowledge management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0351-6_32

Rezaei, F., Khalilzadeh, M. & Soleimani, P. (2021). Factors affecting knowledge management and its effect on
organizational performance: Mediating the role of human capital. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction,
221. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8857572

Rollett, H. (2003). Creating knowledge. In: Knowledge management. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-

0345-3_5

Semertzaki, E. (2011). Knowledge Management. In Special libraries as knowledge management centers. Elsevier.

Silong, A.D., Daryoush, Y., Omar, Z., & Othman, J. (2013). Improving job performance: Workplace learning is the
first step. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 1(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.1n.1p.100

Smith, M. K. (2001, 2011). Donald Schön: learning, reflection and change. The encyclopedia of pedagogy and
informal education. Retrieved from https://infed.org/mobi/donald-schon-learning-reflection-change/.

1337
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

Smith, M. K. (2001, 2013). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning. The
encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. Retrieved from https://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-
of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/.

Society of American Archive (n.d). Institutional Memory. Retrieved from https://dictionary.archivists.org

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E.
Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behaviour: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10893-007

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of
counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviours created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68
(3), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

Spender, J.C. (2015). Knowledge Management: Origins, history, and development. In for Advances in Knowledge
Management. Springer.

Stachera-Włodarczyk, S. (2019). The concept of knowledge management in modern enterprises. Sciendo, 1(1), 987-
995. https://doi.org/doi: 10.2478/czoto-2019-0125

Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995). Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems
Research, 6(2), 85–117. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23011005

Stratton-Lake, P. (2020). Intuitionism in ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/

Taibah, D., & Ho, T. (2023). Improving Gen Z contextual work performance through Langford’s leadership big 5
and structural empowerment. In: Alareeni, B., Hamdan, A. (eds) Explore business, technology opportunities and
challenges after the COVID-19 pandemic. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08954-1_76

Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed hierarchy for knowledge management
and organizational memory. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1999

Turanlıgil, F.G. (2019). Work-life balance in the tourism industry. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-5760-9.ch010

United Nations (n.d). Institutional memory. Retrieved from https://archive.unescwa.org

Urdan, T. (2001). Contextual influences on motivation and performance: An examination of achievement goal
structures. In: Salili, F., Chiu, C.Y., Hong, Y.Y. (eds) Student motivation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4615-1273-8_9

Valamis (2022). Knowledge Management. Retrieved from https://www.valamis.com/hub/knowledge-management

Valeri, M. (2024). Knowledge management and knowledge sharing. Springer Nature.

1338
 Abun et al.,Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities 4(1)(2025) 1315-1339

van den Hooff, B., Elving, W., Meeuwsen, J.M., & Dumoulin, C. (2003). Knowledge sharing in knowledge
communities. In: Huysman, M., Wenger, E., Wulf, V. (eds) Communities and technologies. Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0115-0_7

Viswesvaran, C. (2002). Assessment of individual job performance: a review of the past century and a look ahead.
In: Anderson N, Ones DS, Sinangil HK, Viswesvaran C, eds. Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational
Psychology. Vol 1: Personnel Psychology. Sage Publications Ltd; 110–126

Wang, H. & Meng, X. (2019). Transformation from IT-based knowledge management into BIM-supported
knowledge management: A literature review. ScienceDirect.

Ward, M. (2007). Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices.
Washington: National Academic Press.

Wei Choo, C., Furness, C., Paquette, S., van den Berg, H.A., & Detlor, B. (2006). Working with information:
Information management and culture in a professional services organization. Journal of Information Science,
32(6), 491-510. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0165551506068159

Wigglesworth, G. (2008). Task and performance-based assessment. In: Hornberger, N.H. (eds) Encyclopedia of
language and education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_171

Wilkinson, D. (2000). The researcher’s toolkit: The complete guide to practitioner research. Routledge

Wobeser, G.A. (1994). Records and record keeping. In: Investigation and management of disease in wild animals.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5609-8_8

Xing, F., Cambria, E., & Welsch, R. (2019). Storage and update of knowledge. In: Intelligent asset management.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30263-4_6

Zammit, J.P., Gao, J., & Evans, R. (2016). A framework to capture and share knowledge using storytelling and video
sharing in global product development. In: Bouras, A., Eynard, B., Foufou, S., Thoben, KD. (eds) Product
lifecycle management in the era of the Internet of things. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33111-
9_24

Publisher’s Note: DWIJMH stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities. DWIJMH is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

1339