Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Management, Instable Legislation Regarding Wages, and Employee Satisfaction/Motivation in Two Romanian Hospitals
Previous Article in Journal
Food Waste Reduction: A Test of Three Consumer Awareness Interventions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/su12030908
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: A Moderated Mediation Study

by
Munshi Muhammad Abdul Kader Jilani
1,2,
Luo Fan
1,*,
Mohammad Tazul Islam
3 and
Md. Aftab Uddin
4,*
1
School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
2
Department of Human Resource Management, Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management (BIGM), Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh
3
Bangladesh Institute of Bank Management (BIBM), Mirpur, Dhaka 1216, Bangladesh
4
Department of Human Resource Management, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(3), 908; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030908
Submission received: 30 December 2019 / Revised: 21 January 2020 / Accepted: 22 January 2020 / Published: 26 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The past few decades showed inadequate discussion of the impact of employees’ knowledge sharing and its diffusion on advancing banks’ long-term sustainability. The objective of the study is to examine the role of employees’ knowledge sharing on the sustainable performance of the banks operating in Bangladesh. Furthermore, this study tested the “moderated mediation model” of knowledge hiding and employees’ ambidexterity on the association above. The researchers applied the deductive reasoning method through the application of quantitative techniques, using structural equation modeling. Finally, 287 respondents from different banks were chosen through a self-administered questionnaire survey in the capital city of Dhaka. The findings indicated that all the predictor variables significantly explain the outcome variable, except the influence of knowledge sharing. Mediation analysis showed that employees’ ambidexterity mediated the association between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. Surprisingly, moderation analysis revealed that the influence of knowledge sharing on employees’ ambidexterity is not affected by knowledge hiding. This study adds to the existing literature by demonstrating the importance of knowledge hiding, along with explaining how knowledge sharing can motivate and influence employees to achieve sustainable performances. In addition, the main contribution of this study is to advance knowledge and add values in the forms of knowledge creation, preservation, and dissemination among practitioners, banking professionals, and academics for utilizing their domain-specific areas to increase long-term sustainability.

1. Introduction

Profit maximization as a mean of justifying a firm’s long-term sustainability has faced concerns and debates at the organizational level, the national level, and the global level [1]. As a consequence, achieving a sustainable performance among organizations has become a vital focus of academic interests in the fields of management and environmental science [2,3,4,5,6]. In effect, research on ambidexterity and sustainable performance has achieved robust growth in the last few decades [7,8] and knowledge sharing has turned into the center of this fusion [8]. As such, researchers are increasingly exploring processes that lead to knowledge creation and knowledge integration to achieve a sustainable performance [9]. Due to the status of banks as knowledge-based organizations in Bangladesh, it is necessary to pay specific attention to employee ambidexterity because knowledge management affects their subsistence and progress, which is adequately related to organizational sustainability [10]. Sustainability is reflected in the manifestation of fulfilling current desires without sacrificing the future needs of the next generation [6]. Tasleem, et al. [11] framed sustainable performance as the harmonization of the social, financial, and environmental performance of a business entity that drives it toward sustainable development [12,13,14].
Knowledge sharing emanates from the concept of knowledge management, which is defined as the identification and use of collective knowledge in an organization to regulate the business rivalry [15]. In this sense, an essential part of knowledge management is the dissemination and accessibility of knowledge within or between selected organizations. In knowledge management literature, knowledge sharing is defined as the exchange of information, data, and expertise to solve problems, develop new insights, or implement rules or measures [16,17] while other scholars define knowledge sharing as a multi-stage process of initiation, implementing, promoting, integrating [18], transferring or searching [19], or sharing and assimilation [20,21]. Surprisingly, human resource professionals neglected knowledge sharing for many years. Over time, especially in early 2000, they began to realize the importance of knowledge management. Since then, knowledge management and its processes have been at the center of the human resource field [22]. In particular, Macneil [23] highlights that tacit knowledge is the most valuable type of content involving experience, skills, or an understanding of people. Eventually, employees are encouraged to apply both explicit and tacit knowledge to problem-solving situations by creating a knowledge-sharing environment [24]. Earlier research found that knowledge sharing is more effective in influencing employees’ ambidexterity in the workplace [25,26]
However, within the domain of knowledge-based research, most studies focus on knowledge sharing along with knowledge hiding, which is meant to interrupt knowledge transfer [27,28]. Knowledge hiding is defined as the deliberate attempt to conceal knowledge requested by others [29]. It is an avoidance response (i.e., silence or denial) that withholds pertinent ideas, information, or feedback as a form of self-preservation which stems from a fear of losing control of the possession of knowledge [30]. Sharing collective knowledge is the natural intent and instinct of humanity, and people are generally willing to share their knowledge. However, if there is a barrier such as losing self-control of personal resource disposition or face value lost due to the sharing of knowledge, the knowledge sharing behavior among its employees is hindered, and the deterrents can have an undulation effect [31]. Nevertheless, Connelly, Zweig, Webster, and Trougakos [29] mentioned that knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding are not reverse of one another, rather these are diverse concepts with separate constructs conceptually.
Additionally, ambidexterity pertains to people’s ability to deploy their multi-dexterity, such as exploration and exploitative intents at work [32,33]. Employees’ ambidexterity is the involvement of employees equally in exploitation and exploration activities [9]. Thus, exploitation and exploration activities are symbiotic procedures that need to be shared to achieve collective scores altogether [34]. Even though the concept of ambidexterity has been discussed for more than a decade, it remains indistinct how organizations can best improve the ambidexterity of their employees [35,36]. While the conspicuous importance of ambidexterity has now been conceptualized and analyzed as a temporally stable structure, the study of employees’ ambidexterity is still in its infancy in developing and South Asian nations [37]. From the theoretical and empirical point of view, employee ambidexterity has been given remarkably little attention [26]. Empirical research showed that knowledge sharing is the central to employees’ ambidexterity [38].
In the above-presented logic, the scholarly focus on sustainable performance has emerged as a relevant area of research over the past few decades [1,8]. To address this issue clearly, the following research questions (RQ) should be answered.
RQ 1: How does knowledge sharing contribute to the sustainable performance of banking institutions?
RQ 2: What is the magnitude of indirect effects, if there is any, of knowledge hiding and employees’ ambidexterity in turning knowledge sharing into sustainable performance?
While there are few existing studies that use knowledge sharing processes and mechanisms to explain the impact of these impressive factors on organizational learning [39], innovation [40,41], and performance [25,42], the overall impression is that there is a lack of research investigating the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity concerning sustainable performance. Considering these variables in an integrated model, it provides a holistic view of sustainable performance in the banking industry. Thereby, the present study has made some notable contributions advancing previously held knowledge and empirical observations.
First, it provides a new conceptual framework that links employees’ ambidexterity with knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. This study fills the literature gap by providing further evidence of the predictor (knowledge sharing) and outcome (sustainable performance) of employees’ ambidexterity. Second, this study advances the knowledge sharing research stream and explores the impact of employees’ ambidexterity and sustainable performance in the banking sector. The present study is one of the first empirical studies to analyze the related factors of employees’ ambidexterity, particularly in the context of the banking institutions. Third, we have observed that previous studies have focused typically on sustainable advantage or innovation capability, with very little focus on sustainable performance. Interestingly, we found that none of studies linked employees’ ambidexterity to sustainable performance. Therefore, the present study on aforementioned variables with potential direct and indirect effects will advance prior conceptualization of employees’ ambidexterity and sustainability performance. Fourth, a large number of studies on knowledge sharing, employees’ ambidexterity, and sustainable performance shed light on researching developed countries, since most of the previous studies seem to have a Western-bias. Consequently, recent studies opined that future researchers should operationalize their research works in a different country context, particularly in non-Western contexts [8]. This study, conducted in the emerging Asian country of Bangladesh, will reinforce previous findings. Finally, while we observed few studies on sustainable performance in the context of developing countries, particularly in China [43,44,45], no study has been found encompassing knowledge sharing, employees’ ambidexterity, sustainable performance, and knowledge hiding from the perspectives of multi-theoretical lenses, which will fill the vacuum of looking into a particular object from multiple angles.
Following this introduction, Section 2 introduces the theoretical background, the research summary of studied variables followed by literature review, hypothesis development based on correlated theories, and empirical findings. In Section 3, the study delineates a methodology in conducting research and data analysis. Section 4 illustrates the practical results of the measurement and structural model. Section 5 presents the findings and is followed by discussion in the light of theory and empirical observations in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 concludes by enclosing theoretical contributions, managerial implications for practice, and both limitations and the scope of future research.

2. Theoretical Model and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Knowledge Sharing and Sustainable Performance

“Knowledge sharing” is a multifaceted domain. Knowledge could constitute additional value for an organization and is an invaluable resource for the advancement of organizations [46]. In addition, knowledge sharing is related to the absorption and integration of knowledge [47]. According to Chiu, et al. [48], generous knowledge sharing facilitates an increase in the allocation of resource intensity. Many companies have recognized that knowledge plays a vital role and is a crucial resource in achieving sustainable performance in any industry [49]. For many firms, gaining a sustainable advantage depends on their ability to create and apply intellectual knowhow. According to Ishak, et al. [50], developing and implementing influential knowledge management culture will deliver to achieve consistently higher performance. However, as cited by Hoopes and Postrel [51], the unique knowledge sharing model resulting from such an integrated approach can create potential sources of competitive advantage and thereby magnify sustainable performance. Likewise, the theory of human capital postulates the influence of employees’ knowledge, skill, ability, and other characteristics towards organizational sustainability [52]. In line with the ground of human capital theory, we attested that knowledge sharing behavior and attitudes among employees would accelerate and strengthen the organization’s dynamic capabilities toward doing things sustainably [13,53]. Thus, this paper posits that knowledge sharing mechanisms-act as ‘‘enablers’’ that can convey the transmission of information which can lead to more sustainable performance. Thus, this assertion underpins the recommendation of hypothesis H1:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Knowledge sharing effects sustainable performance.

2.2. Knowledge Sharing, and Employees’ Ambidexterity

As mentioned by Humborstad, Nerstad, and Dysvik [38], organizational level studies have shown that employee empowerment and a culture of knowledge sharing are critical to organizational sustainability [54]. Generally, the theoretical underpinning of these associations can be found in the social exchange theory. It explains an association between the organization and the employee, which is two-sided: reciprocal and interdependent [55,56,57]. Consistent with this theory, when an organization stimulates, motivates, and empowers employees, they develop an organizational culture that focuses on challenging and improving existing systems, procedures, structures, and strategies that generate innovation.
Therefore, a knowledge sharing culture may lead to employee ambidexterity. Currently, how a culture of knowledge sharing enables employee ambidexterity is not well known [26]. Knowledge sharing between employees allows for quick and easy access to relevant information [58]. Therefore, the culture of knowledge sharing will induce employees to motivate each other in the exploration of ideas. Van Grinsven and Visser [59] argued in their conceptual paper that a higher the employees’ alignment with organization policies helps to achieve this. So, it is expected when employees are intensely aware that the organization is committed to knowledge sharing, they will be able to improve and enhance their exploitation activities. Based on the theoretical assumptions and prior empirical observations, this study puts forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Knowledge sharing effects employees’ ambidexterity.

2.3. Employees’ Ambidexterity and Sustainable Performance

Employees’ ambidexterity provides a favorable environment for an organization’s individuals that dynamically adjusts through the process of exploration and exploitation, confirms the innate system, and enables the learning of new methods and improvements [32]. In contrast, sustainability performance has been marked as necessitating short-term actions to cover up compromising long-term actions that can be clustered into ‘‘triple bottom line’’ approaches, namely, financial, social, and environmental approaches [12]. Employees’ ambidexterity is an important pipeline for applying and achieving organizational sustainability goals [25,60]. Organizational structures should be adapted over time to accommodate employees’ exploitative and explorative desire to promote sustainability [61]. The influence of employees’ ambidexterity can be advanced through the process outlined by social exchange theory [56]. Through a mutual exchange process, ambidexterity reimburses and provides returns in the future, involving unspecified future obligations with a positive contribution [57]. The social exchange theory posits that knowledge sharing among the peers strengthens the merit of their ambidextrous activities, which in turn drives organizational sustainable performance. Therefore, based on the theoretical grounds and the previous literature review, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Employees’ ambidexterity influences sustainable performance.
The reciprocal relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity is found with the domain of social exchange theory. The theory advocates that the relationship between employees and organizational processes be mutually rewarding, interdependent, two-sided, and reciprocal [56]. Hence, knowledge sharing behavior multiplies employees’ ambidextrous abilities, which creates a sense of obligation toward regulating employees’ behavior for achieving organizational sustainable performance. Caniëls, Neghina, and Schaetsaert [26] asserted that in a knowledge sharing culture, employees discuss their mutual problems, spot out alternatives to address them, and eventually identify a novel solution, which makes them ambidextrous. Employees’ ambidexterity (exploratory and exploitive activities of employees) can contribute to any firm in a multi-faceted way, which triggers a more sustainable performance [21,62]. Based on the literature of the influence of knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity and the influence of employees’ ambidexterity on sustainable performance, it can be presumed that employees’ ambidexterity mediates the relationship between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Employees’ ambidexterity mediates the influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance.

2.4. Moderating Effect of Knowledge Hiding

Peng [63] suggested that knowledge sharing in the social exchange mechanism enhances the sharing of knowledge, which leads to employees’ ambidexterity. Perceived behavioral control as a consequence of shared knowledge among employees leads to hiding or sharing knowledge, depending on the type of control. Self-determination delineates that employee motivation plays a central role in determining the precise functioning of relationships between ambidexterity and organizational issues, such as knowledge sharing [64,65]. Contrastingly, Connelly, Zweig, Webster, and Trougakos [29] showed that knowledge hiding is the hidden secret of task information, concepts, or know-how that may interfere with the influence of knowledge sharing on ambidexterity.
Psychological ownership theory has been found to be an influential theory to justify the reason behind employees’ knowledge hiding [66]. As stated by this theory, psychological ownership is the frame of mind in which an individual has a sense of ownership over the target corporeal or incorporeal object [31]. Psychological ownership also happens when a person is expressively connected to a purpose, and this state of disposition might trigger them to hide or withhold their knowledge if they feel threatened with a negative emotional state or a loss of control over a possession or ownership [31]. In line with the theoretical lens, we assert that employees will be prevented from sharing knowledge (hiding it) depending on their magnitudes of phobia or if they experience an emotional state of loss or ambiguity while acquiring their resource (knowledge, skill, ability, and other characteristics) without receiving any prolonged and sustained benefits. Thus, a higher or a lower level of knowledge hiding will consequently bring a negative change to the observed relationship between knowledge sharing and employee ambidexterity. The theoretical framework of self-determination theory and psychological ownership theory also supports this proposition. The following hypothesis is endorsed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Knowledge hiding moderates the relationship between knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity.

2.5. Research Framework

Figure 1 demonstrates the conceptual model attesting to how knowledge sharing connects sustainable performance through the confounding effects of knowledge hiding and employees’ ambidexterity. Hence, we design a conceptual research framework (Figure 1) that comprises of four primary latent constructs: knowledge sharing, employees’ ambidexterity, knowledge hiding, and sustainable performance. This model presumes that knowledge sharing could have a positive impact on sustainable performance through the moderating and mediating effects of knowledge hiding and employees’ ambidexterity. It is noteworthy that all of the path relations are grounded through the lenses of multi-theoretical perspectives.

3. Research Design and Methods

In order to answer research questions, we collected data through a self-administrative survey and used the deductive reasoning method to examine relationships among variables. The population of this study is the professionals in the banking sector of Bangladesh. To test the associations between variables, cross-sectional data were collected from 31 different banks (five foreign banks, seven Islamic banks, four state-owned banks, and 17 private commercial banks) out of 59 banks located within the capital city of Dhaka [67]. The banking sector is preferred because it contributes to economic development by influencing production, commerce, and other economic activities through its financing, investing, and operating activities. Moreover, knowledge sharing is crucial for the banking sector to share information about the clients, personnel, and associates, thereby facilitating banking operations to achieve its goals [68,69,70].

3.1. Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

Bank branches located within the capital city of Dhaka were considered as sample respondents in this study. Data was collected primarily through a questionnaire survey. More than four hundred questionnaires were sent to different bank branches through personal visits and email attachments, of which 295 responses from bankers were received. Eight questionnaires have been excluded because of missing data and inappropriate data marking. In the end, we used 287 questionnaires, yielding a 70.52 per cent response rate.

3.2. Participants’ Information

The demography of respondents revealed that out of the 287 valid respondents, 210 (73.20%) were male, and 77 (26.80%) were female. For their academic qualifications, 147 (51.20%) had a postgraduate degree, followed by 27 (9.40%) graduates, and 113 which constituted the rest (39.40%) had other degrees. The respondents’ tenure experience in the banking sector ranged from six months to twenty years in different positions, varying from assistant officers to a vice-president of a bank who has been working in numerous branches. Data analytics revealed that 46 (16.02%) respondents were from foreign banks, 59 (20.56%) from Islamic banks, 40 (13.94%) from the state-owned bank, and 142 (49.48%) were from the private commercial banks. Table 1 demonstrates the demographic characteristics of the respondents from different banks.

3.3. Measurement Tools

We collected our survey instruments from prior studies, which were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, and 5 = strongly agree). To measure employees’ ambidexterity, this study adopted the measures of Rosing and Zacher [9], who in turn adapted the original measures of Mom, et al. [71]. The items represent employees’ exploratory and exploitative activities. There are five items for exploratory and six items for exploitative behavior. With regard to knowledge sharing, this study adopted the measures of O’Reilly, et al. [72]. There were four items used for knowledge sharing to self-assess the respondents’ firms and apply knowledge sharing-related knowledge in an organization. Knowledge hiding behaviors of knowledgeable workers was measured by using the method developed by Connelly, Zweig, Webster, and Trougakos [29]. To measure sustainable performance in the organization, this study adopted the measures of Lee and Ha-Brookshire [13].

4. Results

4.1. Common Method Bias and Multicollinearity

We applied AMOS 20 to check the reliability and validity issues by running confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In a line where two or more constructs were developed using a similar method, this can lead to inflated or deflated corrections between latent constructs [73]. To resolve the issue of common method variance and multicollinearity issues, Harman’s single factor test [74] and variance inflation factors (VIF) [75] were calculated. Estimates showed that the first factor explained only 23.82% (<50%) [76] of the result and the VIF score was reported to be below 5 [77]. Finally, we also investigated associations among all variables, using the method recommended by Pavlou, et al. [78]. It depicted that the highest correlation between any two variables was 0.620 (exploratory and exploitative ambidexterity), which was lower than the minimum threshold score (<0.90). Therefore, we observed no issues with method bias and multicollinearity issues.

4.2. Model Evaluation

This study used structural equation modeling (SEM), using AMOS 20. We applied multivariate regression analysis through SEM in place of simple regression because the former tested the whole model in an integrated manner [57,79,80]. In addition, bootstrapping of 5000 cases was used to test and examine the observed relationships.

4.2.1. Measurement Model Evaluation

We tested the measurement model to examine the items’ suitability representing the construct critically. Hence, we tested CFA, reliability, and validity for substantiating estimates endorsing the constructs. Figure 2 illustrated that the average regression weights of each construct are above 0.70, which yields good estimates. We also investigated alternative model fitness, as shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows the 7-factor model (CMIN/DF = 1.126, RMSEA = 0.029, RMR = 0.021, GFI = 0.913, TLI = 0.979, and CFI = 0.982) which is above the minimum cut-off value found in various studies [76,81].
Table 3 exhibits the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity reports of the study. The reliability score revealed the consistency of the results generated by the construct where the acceptable limit is >0.70 [75]. All of the constructs underlying the study were reliable, as the minimum reliability was 0.802 (Financial performance). Further, convergent validity refers to the magnitude of the constructs’ suitability to measure what it intends to measure, and the minimum acceptable limit for being convergent valid is with no less than 0.50 of its average variance extracted (AVE) [75,76]. The present study has no issue with convergent validity, since the minimum score of AVE is 0.530 (Knowledge sharing) [57,79,80,82]. Furthermore, we also investigated the discriminant validity result. It signifies the distinctiveness of each independent construct from others as the construct’s correlation with other constructs is lower than the square root of its AVE. [75,76,83]. Table 3 shows no correlation estimate with any construct that is higher than the square root of the given construct’s AVE. Thus, all the measurement models are discriminately valid.

4.2.2. Structural Model Evaluation

Using the same AMOS-SEM, we examined the structural model. Apart from the stipulated fit indices, we also investigated the β-coefficient, p-value, and R2 to confirm the genuineness of the result. Structural model fit indices are recommended between 0.50 to 0.80 for social science and management science disciplines in Hair Jr, Black, Babin, and Anderson [76]. However, our estimates reflected better indices (GFI = 0.881, TLI = 0.941, and CFI = 0.948). The RMSEA and RMR were 0.048 (<0.08) and 0.046 (<0.08), respectively, which were also within the threshold limit [84,85]. About β and R2, the former (β) reflects the vitality of the association between the observed variables, and the later (R2) asserts the overall predictability of the model [57,79]. According to Hair Jr., Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt [75], any score above 0.20 is acceptable in social and behavioral sciences. Surprisingly, both β and R2 in Figure 3 yielded above the cut-off value, except the impact of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance (β = 0.030). Thus, the overall model fit is acceptable in this study.

5. Findings

5.1. Hypothesis Testing

Table 4 shows the direct effects of independent variables on depended variables. In H1, it is hypothesized that KS significantly influences SP. The result shows that the influence of KS on SP is not significant (β = −0.03, p = 0.692). Thus, H1 is not supported. Further, in H2, we proposed that KS significantly impacts EA. The result in Table 4 endorses that KS has a significant effect on EA (β = 0.45, p = 0.000). Hence, H2 is supported. Finally, we also contended that EA significantly influences SP. Estimates in Table 4 endorse that the proposed impact is significant (β = 0.54, p = 0.000). Therefore, H3 is also supported.

5.2. Mediation Effect

We used process macros through bootstrapping of 5000 cases to test the mediation effect of EA on the influence of KS on SP because it involves a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (meaning it is non-zero). According to Hayes [86], the indirect impact (the mediation effect) is supported if the upper and lower limits of the confidence intervals do not include zero. Table 5 exhibits the mediation effect (KS→EA→SP), which is significant because a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval does not include zero. Besides, the direct impact became insignificant after adding the mediating variable. Table 5 highlighted that the direct effect (c/) became insignificant after adding a mediating variable. Hence, there is a full mediating effect of employees’ ambidexterity on the influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance. We conclude that mediation (KS→EA→SP) exists because the upper and lower limit does not include zero. Thus, H4 is also supported.

5.3. Moderating Effect of Knowledge Hiding

Similar to the investigation of the mediating effect, we also used process macros to examine the moderating effect [86]. Table 6 shows the moderating influence of knowledge hiding, which reveals that there is no significant moderating influence (β = −0.034, p = 0.599) of knowledge hiding over the hypothesized relationship. The insignificant influence of knowledge hiding on the hypothesized influence of knowledge sharing on employees’ ambidexterity asserts that more or less knowledge does not contribute to the fluctuation of the influence of knowledge sharing on employees’ ambidexterity. We plotted the statistical estimates in Figure 4. It unveils that knowledge hiding reduces, although not by a significant amount, the positive influence of knowledge sharing on employees’ ambidexterity. Therefore, H5 is also not supported.

6. Discussion

The present study seeks to investigate the influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance with the influence of knowledge hiding as a moderator and employees’ ambidexterity as a mediator. Accordingly, we describe and examine the structural relationships among four variables from the tenet of theoretical underpinnings such as social exchange theory, psychological ownership theory, human capital theory, and self-determination theory. Additionally, to test the model, five hypotheses were developed from the essence of both empirical and theoretical observations, and the result summarized in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. It was hypothesized that (H1) knowledge sharing has a positive influence on sustainable performance, however, the test statistics of the study were not supported. Interestingly, the result is inconsistent with previous research and does not significantly influence the sustainable performance [8,87,88,89,90]. However, the insignificant effect of knowledge sharing is not very surprising because of the mediating influence of employees’ ambidexterity. The dominant indirect effect via a mediating variable (full mediating influence) makes the significant direct influence insignificant [57,82,91]. In a way, employees’ ambidexterity might be more focused through knowledge sharing for enhancing organizational sustainable performance.
As far as H2 is concerned, it is also found to be consistent with the results of prior studies [9]. Van Grinsven and Visser [59] mention that the more sophisticated the degree of employee alignment and networking, the higher the level of exploitation. When employees are acutely aware that their organization is committed to knowledge sharing, they will be able to improve and enhance their exploitative activities and exploitative abilities of employees. Hence, the study of Caniëls, Neghina, and Schaetsaert [26] confirms that knowledge sharing affects employees’ ambidexterity. From the view of social exchange theory, we also contend that when employees share knowledge with their peers as to how they perform induction tasks and what they find, this interaction, in turn, stimulates enthusiasm and may further stimulate exploitative and explorative actions among employees.
H3 tested the influence of employees’ ambidexterity on sustainable performance, which is also supported by earlier research [62] and is consistent with the findings of Quartey [92] and Rao and Thakur [62]. The result underlined that ambidextrous behavior could attain sustainability through exploration and exploitation using three different styles: structural, sequential, and contextual. In addition, the influence of employees’ ambidexterity is found to have links to different types of performance, such as general performance [93,94], innovation performance [9,21,25], and environmental performance [21]. In this context, the reason behind the acceptance of H3 may be embedded in this inference that employees’ ambidexterity might be more pertinent to sustainable performance [62].
H4 tested the mediation effect between the variables, and the result showed that employees’ ambidexterity mediates the association between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. The results underlined that employees’ ambidexterity fully mediated the relationship between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. Every organization must try to facilitate individual ambidexterity through the activation of knowledge sharing to grow, sustain themselves, and be viable [95]. There is substantial evidence that knowledge sharing is a significant source of increased sustainable performance [96]. A study of Kim and Park [97] showed that knowledge sharing stimulated the performance of sustainable organizations through the facilitation of stakeholders’ engagement. Drawing our conceptualization from self-determination theory, human capital theory, and social exchange theory, we can conclude that an intention to share can improve employees’ ambidexterity (self-determination theory) [98,99], which, as a consequence, (social exchange theory and human capital theory) gives rise to the enhancement of sustainable performance [52,55,56,100].
Finally, H5 stated that knowledge hiding moderates the influence between knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity. This finding concerning knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity is in line with what has been discussed and proposed by Connelly, Zweig, Webster, and Trougakos [29] as well as Rosing and Zacher [9]. The findings in this paper may be surprising but could be relevant to the current transformation of the banking sector of Bangladesh. Based on the notion of psychological ownership theory [101], it seems impracticable with no significant influence of knowledge hiding. However, the results provide a positive message to the banking professionals that knowledge hiding matters less due to a wave of influence from knowledge sharing toward sustainable performance through the mediation of employees’ ambidexterity.

7. Conclusions

Knowledge sharing is one of the major research areas for academia in management science and other disciplines. However, only a few studies worldwide have focused on these factors. This study provides a theoretical outline for shaping the impact of knowledge sharing on the sustainable performance of employees, especially in banks. This study maps the relationships among knowledge sharing, employees’ ambidexterity, knowledge hiding, and sustainable performance in the Asian context. Overall, the study attempts to promote insight into how knowledge sharing pays attention to sustainable performance directly and indirectly. Henceforth, the study confirms that substantial knowledge sharing assists managers to promote employees’ skills, and thereby significantly explains sustainable performance. Equally and important, it validates the perception that the more an organization recognizes the requirement of knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity, the more sustainability it can achieve.
Specifically, it contributes to advance the literature and empirical findings in three different ways. First, we criticized using structural equation modeling empirically through the theorization of knowledge sharing and employees’ ambidexterity on methodological grounds. Second, we contended that previous studies were executed in individual settings. Hence, we advance the previous findings through the present study on a multi-level basis along with a multi-theoretical lens. Third, taken together, we suggest that connecting knowledge sharing, individual ambidexterity, and knowledge hiding might provide a wholesome view of conceptualizing organizational sustainable performance.

7.1. Theoretical Contributions

From the theoretical point of view, this study strengthens the existing literature of the banking industry in many respects. Particularly, the theoretical significance of this study can be divided into two parts: one related to sustainable performance and the other related to employee ambidexterity. First, the sustainable performance theme has become a major issue not only in the organization, but also in the academic arena, and this study has contributed to sustainability literature by demonstrating how employees’ ambidexterity might predict sustainable performance. Additionally, the study extended the ambidexterity literature by linking knowledge sharing along with knowledge hiding. Second, our study reveals how employees’ ambidexterity affects sustainable performance, while providing different consequences of knowledge sharing displays to those of previous studies. It signifies that practicing managers must shift their attention from the direct influence of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance towards the mediated influence of employees’ ambidexterity. In short, sustainable performance can be better explained with the mediated model than directly using knowledge sharing. Finally, our research broadens the understanding of knowledge sharing and views of employees’ ambidexterity as a predictor of sustainable performance, and responds to calls for more investigation to explore sustainability issues [62].

7.2. Managerial Implications

The results of this study imply that knowledge sharing enables employees to engage in ambidextrous activities. Notably, these findings are relevant for the banking companies, which want to be ambidextrous via their employees rather than by investing in ample training. Typically, banking businesses want to cater existing clients by continuously improving their services systems, while at the same time aim to remain practical by encouraging their employees to find anticipate future customer needs, creative insights, and search for new avenues for boosting sustainability. To stimulate the influence of employees’ ambidexterity on sustainable performance, supportive actions should be conducted that empower the workforce to undertake useful initiatives. Meanwhile, the banking industry has opened up new opportunities for people to limit knowledge hiding. Findings of this research further revealed that people could have developed mechanisms for hiding knowledge or information that they do not want to share. This may hinder knowledge integration and prevent employees’ ambidexterity from promoting sustainable performance. In a way, the inferential statistics might help practitioners and policymakers to suggest various insightful and practical implications that can help tackle the cross-cultural environment efficiently in distinct branches and further improve their level of performance to enhance sustainability.

7.3. Research Limitations and Further Research Directions

Even though the present study has various contributions, there are limitations that should be explicitly recognized and taken into account when interpreting its findings. First, the study explored the impacts of knowledge sharing on employees’ ambidexterity and organizational sustainability at the firm level using a single source. To verify such reforms, this study suggests that future researchers could use participants’ profile data and longitudinal data or an experimental research design [102]. Secondly, concerning the use of variables, the use of self-reports is another limitation, which leads to social desirability bias. In particular, the integration of knowledge sharing and employees ambidexterity might be prevented because of the presence of human boundary rationality [103]. Finally, in this study, we developed a research framework using prior valid constructs in the non-Western context. Nevertheless, the findings are sufficiently robust to provide experimental support for a direct explanation of knowledge sharing and indirect description of sustainable performance by employees’ ambidexterity as well as knowledge hiding. Further studies in similar/dissimilar contexts will increase the generalizability of these findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.A.K.J., L.F., and M.T.I.; methodology, M.A.U.; software, M.A.U.; validation, M.M.A.K.J., L.F., and M.T.I.; formal analysis, M.A.U.; investigation, M.M.A.K.J., L.F., and M.T.I.; resources, M.M.A.K.J. and L.F.; data curation, M.M.A.K.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.A.K.J. and M.A.U.; writing—review and editing, L.F., and M.T.I.; visualization, M.M.A.K.J., L.F., M.T.I. and M.A.U.; supervision, L.F.; project administration, M.M.A.K.J. and L.F.; funding acquisition, M.M.A.K.J. and L.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salvioni, D.M.; Gennari, F.; Bosetti, L. Sustainability and Convergence: The Future of Corporate Governance Systems? Sustainability 2016, 8, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Chuang, S.-H. A resource-based perspective on knowledge management capability and competitive advantage: An empirical investigation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2004, 27, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Das, A.K.; Biswas, S.R.; Jilani, M.M.A.K.; Uddin, M.A. Corporate Environmental Strategy and Voluntary Environmental Behavior—Mediating Effect of Psychological Green Climate. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Grosvold, J.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Roehrich, J.K. Squaring the circle: Management, measurement and performance of sustainability in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Roehrich, J.K.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Overland, V. Driving green supply chain management performance through supplier selection and value internalisation: A self-determination theory perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 489–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cohen, B.; Winn, M.I. Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007, 22, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yeganegi, S.; Laplume, A.O.; Dass, P.; Greidanus, N.S. Individual-Level Ambidexterity and Entrepreneurial Entry. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 1444–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zbuchea, A.; Pînzaru, F.; Busu, M.; Stan, S.-O.; Bârgăoanu, A. Sustainable Knowledge Management and Its Impact on the Performances of Biotechnology Organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Rosing, K.; Zacher, H. Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2017, 26, 694–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Valmohammadi, C.; Sofiyabadi, J.; Kolahi, B. How do Knowledge Management Practices Affect Sustainable Balanced Performance? Mediating Role of Innovation Practices. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Tasleem, M.; Khan, N.; Shah, S.T.H.; Saleem, M.; Nisar, A. Six steps implementation framework for corporate sustainability performance management. J. Innov. Sustain. 2017, 8, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lee, S.H.; Ha-Brookshire, J. Ethical Climate and Job Attitude in Fashion Retail Employees’ Turnover Intention, and Perceived Organizational Sustainability Performance: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Haseeb, M.; Hussain, H.I.; Kot, S.; Androniceanu, A.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Role of Social and Technological Challenges in Achieving a Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Sustainable Business Performance. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Alavi, M.; Leidner, D.E. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Mis Q. 2001, 25, 107–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, M.-H.; Wang, H.-Y.; Wang, M.-C. Knowledge sharing, social capital, and financial performance: The perspectives of innovation strategy in technological clusters. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2018, 16, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cummings, J.N. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Manag. Sci. 2004, 50, 352–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Yu, D.; Yang, J. Knowledge management research in the construction industry: A review. J. Knowl. Econ. 2018, 9, 782–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tamer Cavusgil, S.; Calantone, R.J.; Zhao, Y. Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2003, 18, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, R. Evolutionary game of knowledge sharing in master-apprentice pattern of innovative organization. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2019, 11, 436–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tamayo-Torres, J.; Roehrich, J.K.; Lewis, M.A. Ambidexterity, performance and environmental dynamism. Int. J. Oper. Amp; Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 282–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blankenship, S.S.; Ruona, W.E. Exploring knowledge sharing in social structures: Potential contributions to an overall knowledge management strategy. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2009, 11, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Macneil, C. The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams. J. Workplace Learn. 2001, 13, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, H.F. Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour. Manag. Decis. 2004, 42, 108–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Caniëls, M.C.J.; Veld, M. Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 565–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Caniëls, M.C.J.; Neghina, C.; Schaetsaert, N. Ambidexterity of employees: The role of empowerment and knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 1098–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Das, A.K.; Yi, L.; Uddin, M.A. Knowledge withholding in sharing knowledge within an organisation: The shadowy impediment in spreading innovation. Int. J. Knowl. Manag. Stud. 2018, 9, 381–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Holten, A.-L.; Hancock, G.R.; Persson, R.; Hansen, Å.M.; Høgh, A. Knowledge hoarding: Antecedent or consequent of negative acts? The mediating role of trust and justice. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Connelly, C.E.; Zweig, D.; Webster, J.; Trougakos, J.P. Knowledge hiding in organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 2012, 33, 64–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiao, M.; Cooke, F.L. Why and when knowledge hiding in the workplace is harmful: A review of the literature and directions for future research in the Chinese context. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2019, 57, 470–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. Toward a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Peng, M.Y.-P.; Lin, K.-H. Disentangling the antecedents of the relationship between organisational performance and tensions: Exploration and exploitation. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2019, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tushman, M.L.; O’Reilly, C.A. Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1996, 38, 8–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Floyd, S.W.; Lane, P.J. Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 154–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Charles, A.; O’Reilly, I.; Tushman, M.L. Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 324–338. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rafailidis, A.; Trivellas, P.; Polychroniou, P. The mediating role of quality on the relationship between cultural ambidexterity and innovation performance. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2017, 28, 1134–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, Y.-J.; Lee, J.-H. Knowledge workers’ ambidexterity: Conceptual separation of competencies and behavioural dispositions. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2016, 24, 22–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Humborstad, S.I.W.; Nerstad, C.G.L.; Dysvik, A. Empowering leadership, employee goal orientations and work performance: A competing hypothesis approach. Pers. Rev. 2014, 43, 246–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Enticott, G.; Walker, R.M. Sustainability, performance and organizational strategy: An empirical analysis of public organizations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, Z.; Wang, N. Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8899–8908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kamasak, R. Determinants of innovation performance: A resource-based study. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 195, 1330–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kobarg, S.; Wollersheim, J.; Welpe, I.M.; Spörrle, M. Individual ambidexterity and performance in the public sector: A multilevel analysis. Int. Public Manag. J. 2017, 20, 226–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gunasekaran, A.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L. Managing organizations for sustainable development in emerging countries: An introduction. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2014, 21, 195–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tseng, M.-L.; Chiu, A.S.F.; Liang, D. Sustainable consumption and production in business decision-making models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hao, Y.; Fan, C.; Long, Y.; Pan, J. The role of returnee executives in improving green innovation performance of Chinese manufacturing enterprises: Implications for sustainable development strategy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 804–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jeon, S.; Young-Gul, K.; Koh, J. An integrative model for knowledge sharing in communities-of-practice. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 251–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nooteboom, B.; Van Haverbeke, W.; Duysters, G.; Gilsing, V.; van den Oord, A. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1016–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Wang, E.T.G. Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Choi, S.Y.; Kang, Y.S.; Lee, H. The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing: An exploratory examination. J. Inf. Sci. 2008, 34, 742–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ishak, N.B.; Eze, U.C.; Ling, L.S. Integrating knowledge management and human resource management for sustainable performance. J. Organ. Knowl. Manag. 2010, 2010, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Hoopes, D.G.; Postrel, S. Shared knowledge, “glitches,” and product development performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 1999, 20, 837–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schultz, T.W. Investment in Human Capital. Am. Econ. Rev. 1961, 51, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zula, K.J.; Chermack, T.J. Integrative Literature Review: Human Capital Planning: A Review of Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2007, 6, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. O’Reilly, C.A.; Tushman, M.L. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res. Organ. Behav. 2008, 28, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Homans, G.C. Social behavior as exchange. Am. J. Sociol. 1958, 63, 597–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Blau, P.M. Justice in social exchange. Sociol. Inq. 1964, 34, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fan, L.; Mahmood, M.; Uddin, M.A. Supportive Chinese supervisor, innovative international students: A social exchange theory perspective. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2019, 20, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Jackson, S.E.; Chuang, C.-H.; Harden, E.E.; Jiang, Y. Toward Developing Human Resource Management Systems for Knowledge-Intensive Teamwork. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Chuang, C.-H., Joseph, J.M., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2006; Volume 25, pp. 27–70. [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Grinsven, M.; Visser, M. Empowerment, knowledge conversion and dimensions of organizational learning. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 378–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lourenço, I.C.; Branco, M.C.; Curto, J.D.; Eugénio, T. How Does the Market Value Corporate Sustainability Performance? J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 108, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nickerson, J.A.; Zenger, T.R. Being Efficiently Fickle: A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Choice. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 547–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rao, I.; Thakur, P. Knowledge workers, organisational ambidexterity and sustainability: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2019, 19, 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Peng, H. Why and when do people hide knowledge? J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 398–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Webster, J. Beyond knowledge sharing: Withholding knowledge at work. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Brown, G., Joseph, J.M., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2008; Volume 27, pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  67. BB. Banks; Bangladesh Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019.
  68. Pons, A.G.; Lezama, O.B.P.; Izquierdo, N.V.; Herrera, H.H.; Silva, J. Influence of Knowledge Management Between the Bank and the Local Socioeconomic Development: Correlational Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Big Data and Cloud Computing Challenges; ICBCC 2019; UMKC: Kansas City, MO, USA; Singapore, 2019; pp. 87–103. [Google Scholar]
  69. Torabi, M.H.R.; Kyani, A.; Falakinia, H. An Investigation of the Impact of Knowledge Management on Human Resource Performance in Management of Keshavarzi Bank Branches in Tehran. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 230, 471–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. White, G.R.T.; Parry, G.C.; Puckering, A. Knowledge Acquisition in Information System Development: A Case Study of System Developers in an International Bank. Strateg. Chang. 2016, 25, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mom, T.J.M.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. Investigating Managers’ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows. J. Manag. Stud. 2007, 44, 910–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.; Caldwell, D.F. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 487–516. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  77. Henseler, J. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Ringle Christian, M., Rudolf, R.S., Pervez, N.G., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  78. Pavlou, P.A.; Liang, H.; Xue, Y. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 105–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Mahmood, M.; Uddin, M.A.; Luo, F. Influence of Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Creative Process Engagement: A Multi-Level Analysis. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 741–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Uddin, M.A.; Priyankara, H.P.R.; Mahmood, M. Does a creative identity encourage innovative behaviour? Evidence from knowledge-intensive IT service firms. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Doll, W.J.; Xia, W.; Torkzadeh, G. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Q. 1994, 18, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Uddin, M.A.; Mahmood, M.; Fan, L. Why Individual Employee Engagement Matters for Team Performance? Mediating Effects of Employee Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 2019, 25, 47–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  84. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pattnaik, S.C.; Sahoo, R. Human Resource Practices as Predictors of Organizational Performance: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang, S.; Noe, R.A. Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Teng, J.T.; Song, S. An exploratory examination of knowledge-sharing behaviors: Solicited and voluntary. J. Knowl. Manag. 2011, 15, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Phung, T.-B. The relationships among information systems, knowledge sharing, and customer relationship management in banking industry. Int. J. Electron. Cust. Relatsh. Manag. 2016, 10, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Abbas, J.; Sağsan, M. Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and corporate sustainable development: A structural analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yi, L.; Uddin, M.A.; Das, A.K.; Mahmood, M.; Sohel, S.M. Do Transformational Leaders Engage Employees in Sustainable Innovative Work Behaviour? Perspective from a Developing Country. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Quartey, S.H. Knowledge and sustainable competitive advantage of the Eyre Peninsula’s fishing industry in Australia. Knowl. Process Manag. 2019, 26, 86–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Faisal Ahammad, M.; Mook Lee, S.; Malul, M.; Shoham, A. Behavioral Ambidexterity: The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity, Motivation, and Performance of Employees in Commercial Banks. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 54, s45–s62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chams-Anturi, O.; Moreno-Luzon, M.D.; Escorcia-Caballero, J.P. Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Pers. Rev. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nupap, S. Knowledge management system for supporting organizational management and sustainable development: A case study of a research group in a university. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), Phuket, Thailand, 12–13 October 2017; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  96. Rezaee, F.; Jafari, M. The effect of marketing knowledge management on sustainable competitive advantage: Evidence from banking industry. Accounting 2015, 1, 69–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kim, W.; Park, J. Examining Structural Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations. Sustainability 2017, 9, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Deci, E.L.; Connell, J.P.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination in a work organization. J. Appl. Psychol. 1989, 74, 580–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Handbook of Self-Determination Research; University of Rochester Press: Rochester, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 3–33. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hsu, S.-H. Human Capital, Organizational Learning, Network Resources and Organizational Innovativeness. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2007, 18, 983–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Huo, W.; Cai, Z.; Luo, J.; Men, C.; Jia, R. Antecedents and intervention mechanisms: A multi-level study of R&D team’s knowledge hiding behavior. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 880–897. [Google Scholar]
  102. Koryak, O.; Lockett, A.; Hayton, J.; Nicolaou, N.; Mole, K. Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Gsottbauer, E.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Environmental Policy Theory Given Bounded Rationality and Other-regarding Preferences. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 49, 263–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 12 00908 g001 550
Figure 1. Hypothesized conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Hypothesized conceptual framework.
Sustainability 12 00908 g001
Sustainability 12 00908 g002 550
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Estimates.
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Estimates.
Sustainability 12 00908 g002
Sustainability 12 00908 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural Model.
Figure 3. Structural Model.
Sustainability 12 00908 g003
Sustainability 12 00908 g004 550
Figure 4. Moderating effect of Knowledge Hiding.
Figure 4. Moderating effect of Knowledge Hiding.
Sustainability 12 00908 g004
Table
Table 1. Estimates of the demographic variables (N = 287).
Table 1. Estimates of the demographic variables (N = 287).
GenderAge Category of Participants
MaleFemaleAbove 25 YearsAbove 35 YearsAbove 35 YearsAbove 55 Years
210 (73.20%)77 (26.80%)42 (14.6%)115 (40.10%)92 (32.10%)38 (13.20%)
Educational QualificationsJob Experience
GraduateMasterOthersBelow 10 YearsAbove 15 YearsAbove 20 Years
27 (9.40%)147 (51.20%)113 (39.40%)92 (32.10%)163 (56.80%)32 (11.10%)
Bank Category
and Number of Respondents		Foreign BankIslamic BankState BankPrivate Bank
46 (16.02)59 (20.56)40 (13.94)142 (49.48)
Employee Size in BranchesBelow 20Below 30Below 40Below 50
248411267
Source: Survey Data.
Table
Table 2. Investigating alternative models.
Table 2. Investigating alternative models.
ModelsCMIN/DFRMSEARMRGFITLICFIAlternative Models
7-Factor Model1.1260.0290.0210.9130.9790.982EPI, EPO, KS, KH, SP, EP, FP
6-Factor Model2.4330.0710.0340.8020.8730.889EPI + EPO, KS, KH, SP, EP, FP
5-Factor Model4.6820.1130.0720.6730.6730.709EPI + EPO, KS + KH, SP, EP, FP
4-Factor Model5.4130.1240.0770.6490.6050.608EPI + EPO, KS + KH, SP + EP, FP
3-Factor Model6.0400.1330.0770.6220.5520.593EPI + EPO, KS + KH, SP + EP + FP
2-Factor Model6.8560.1430.0660.5810.4790.524EPI + EPO, KS + KH + SP + EP + FP
1-Factor Model7.1200.1460.0650.5830.4560.501EPI + EPO + KS + KH + SP + EP + FP
Threshold limit<0.050<0.050<0.050>0.90>0.90>0.90
Notes: EPI. Exploitative ambidexterity, EPO. Exploratory ambidexterity, KS. Knowledge sharing, KH. Knowledge hiding, SP. Social performance, EP. Environmental performance, FP. Financial performance.
Table
Table 3. Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Discriminant Validities.
Table 3. Reliability, Convergent Validity, and Discriminant Validities.
Latent variableCRAVE1234567
1. FP0.8020.5820.763
2. EPI0.8910.5770.3530.759
3. EPO0.8800.5950.4240.6200.771
4. KH0.8950.682−0.203−0.341−0.4470.826
5. KS0.8180.5300.1760.4260.486−0.0240.728
6. EP0.8490.6550.4190.4880.386−0.1660.2040.809
7. SP0.8630.7590.2690.3870.373−0.1340.2880.2840.871
CR. Composite reliability, AVE. Average variance extracted, EPI. Exploitative ambidexterity, EPO. Exploratory ambidexterity, KS. Knowledge sharing, KH. Knowledge hiding, SP. Social performance, EP. Environmental performance, FP. Financial performance.
Table
Table 4. Direct effects in a structural model.
Table 4. Direct effects in a structural model.
HypothesesPath RelationsEstimateC.R.p
H1SP<---KS−0.03−0.3960.692
H2EA<---KS0.453.726***
H3SP<---EA0.543.966***
SP. Sustainable performance, KS. Knowledge sharing, EA. Employees ambidexterity. ***. Significant at the 0.00.
Table
Table 5. The Mediation Effect of Employees’ Ambidexterity.
Table 5. The Mediation Effect of Employees’ Ambidexterity.
95% Confidence Interval
PathEstimateT-statisticsLowerUpperStandard Error
KS→EA→SP0.1843.3090.0840.3020.055
KS→SP (c/)−0.1270.3102−0.06810.09350.041
Table
Table 6. The Moderation Effect of Knowledge Hiding.
Table 6. The Moderation Effect of Knowledge Hiding.
VariablesβSET-Valuep-ValueLLCIULCI
Constant2.80530.48365.68290.00001.83363.7765
KS0.46710.11733.98330.00010.23630.6979
KH−0.19850.2672−0.74270.4583−0.72450.3275
KS×KH−0.03360.0638−0.52610.5992−0.15910.0920

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jilani, M.M.A.K.; Fan, L.; Islam, M.T.; Uddin, M.A. The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: A Moderated Mediation Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030908

AMA Style

Jilani MMAK, Fan L, Islam MT, Uddin MA. The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: A Moderated Mediation Study. Sustainability. 2020; 12(3):908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030908

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jilani, Munshi Muhammad Abdul Kader, Luo Fan, Mohammad Tazul Islam, and Md. Aftab Uddin. 2020. "The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: A Moderated Mediation Study" Sustainability 12, no. 3: 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030908

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop