tseng2017

Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Investigating the moderating effects of organizational culture and leadership style on IT adoption and
knowledge sharing intention
Shu-Mei Tseng,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Shu-Mei Tseng, (2017) "Investigating the moderating effects of organizational culture and leadership style on IT adoption
and knowledge sharing intention", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 30 Issue: 4, doi: 10.1108/
JEIM-04-2016-0081
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2016-0081
Downloaded on: 20 May 2017, At: 06:39 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 06:39 20 May 2017 (PT)
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Investigating the moderating effects of organizational culture and
leadership style on IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention
Purpose – In light of the important roles of organizational culture and leadership style in IT
adoption and knowledge sharing intention, the purpose of this study is to investigate the
relationships among IT involvement, IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention, as well as
the moderating effects of organizational culture and leadership style on IT adoption and
knowledge sharing intention.
Design/methodology/approach – This study begins with a literature review followed by the
use of a questionnaire method and statistical analytical techniques (hierarchical regression
analysis) to investigate the relationships among IT involvement, IT adoption intention,
knowledge sharing intention, organizational culture and leadership style.

Findings – The results showed that IT involvement has a significant and positive influence
on IT adoption intention of which further affects the knowledge sharing intention. Moreover,
organizational culture and leadership style have moderating effects on the IT adoption and
Research limitations/implications – This research applied a purposive sampling method and
obtained a slightly inadequate number of respondents. Therefore, it is suggested that future
research should apply random sampling method to collect more responses and to increase the
generalizability of the findings.
Practical implications – This research suggests that organizations which adopt servant
leadership or charismatic leadership, as well as organizations with clan or hierarchy cultures
should work on enhancing staff’s knowledge sharing intention by first raising their IT
adoption intention.
Originality/value – If an enterprise would like to encourage its staff to be more proactive at
adopting IT and more willing to share knowledge, then it should first examine its current
leadership style and organizational culture in order to propose concrete and effective methods
to achieve this, and at the same time this can help stimulate organizational learning and
generate new ideas and knowledge.
Keywords – Involvement, Information technology adoption, Intention, Knowledge sharing,
Organizational culture, Leadership style
Paper type – Research paper
0
1. Introduction
Information technology (IT) not only provides more channels for sharing information,
but also reduces barriers to information flow, and hence improves the information sharing
process (Hendriks, 1999). The most valuable aspects of IT in knowledge management (KM)
are in allowing the expansion and universalization of the scope of knowledge, and the
enhanced speed of knowledge transfer. IT thus plays a crucial role in promoting knowledge
sharing, although the support from the top management is required for an organization to
accept, adopt, and implement IT projects (Neufeld et al., 2007). Previous studies on IT
adoption have been based on individual and organizational perspectives to investigate staff’s
willingness to utilize IT. From the individual perspective, most studies are based on the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and investigate how decision makers’ individual
knowledge and attitudes influence the adoption of IT. From the organizational perspective,
many studies have examined the organizational background, culture, technological factors,
and external environment in order to investigate the key issues behind an organization’s IT
adoption (Liang et al., 2005). However, there are few studies that take both individual and
organizational factors into consideration when examining the relationships among IT
involvement, IT adoption intention and knowledge sharing intention.
In addition, organizational culture affects the way in which employees think, act, and
respond to process improvement missions (Lee et al. 2016). Moreover, culture influences
employees' willingness and behavior in terms of knowledge sharing (Jones et al. 2006).
Different organizational cultures may impact members' willingness to share their knowledge,
and firms thus should further identify what culture better supports knowledge sharing as a
natural activity in employees' daily work (De Long and Fahey 2000; McDermott and O'dell
2001). Leadership includes shared roles and activities among members of a team (Lee et al.
2015) and empowering leadership fostered knowledge sharing among members in
1
management teams (Srivastava et al. 2006). For example, in terms of team communication
styles, an agreeable style affects team members’ willingness to share their knowledge,
whereas an extraverted communication style within a team is positively related to both
eagerness and willingness to share (De Vries et al. 2006). Yao, et al. (2007) further stated that
leadership is critical for cultivating a knowledge sharing culture. Thus, intensified research on
organizational cultures, leadership styles and knowledge sharing is justified.
In light of the important roles of organizational cultures and leadership styles in IT
adoption and knowledge sharing intention, the purpose of this study is to answer the question:
How would IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention in relation to various leadership
styles and organizational cultures? By addressing this gap in the existing research (Chumg et
al. 2016; Cunningham et al. 2016; Malik et al. 2016), this study seeks to make three key
contributions. First, this study attempts to enrich the research on the complex effects of IT
Involvement on IT adoption intention, and knowledge sharing intention. Therefore, this
research is based on the concept of IT involvement and investigates whether this influences
IT adoption intention and then further affects knowledge sharing intention. Second, this study
focuses on two core variables, i.e., organizational cultures and leadership styles, as two
moderators between IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. In other words, this study
posits that IT adoption intention can enhance knowledge sharing intention through the
mechanisms of organizational cultures and leadership styles. Third, this study proposes
concrete suggestions that can be used as references by enterprises seeking to increase their
staff's willingness to share knowledge.
The paper is organized as follows. The theoretical background and hypotheses section
introduces the key constructs of the study and develops the hypotheses. The methodology
section explains the procedures used for data collection and validation of the measurement
properties of the constructs, and the results section presents the results of this empirical study.
2
Along with the implications for practice and research are presented in the discussion and
implications. Finally, this study concludes with a discussion of the findings and suggestions
for future research in the conclusion section.
2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
This study aims to investigate the relationships among IT involvement, IT adoption
intention, knowledge sharing intention and the moderating effects of organizational culture
and leadership style on IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. It initially studies the
influence of IT involvement on IT adoption intention, then the influence of IT adoption
intention on knowledge sharing intention, and finally the moderating effects of organizational
culture and leadership style on IT adoption intention and knowledge sharing intention. The
aim of this work is to provide specific suggestions for improving knowledge sharing intention
in an organization. The research model is shown in Figure 1 with each concept and research
hypothesis elaborated below.
2.1 Information Technology
Leavitt and Whisler (1958) defined IT as the simulation of higher-order thinking through
computer programs, and the related techniques for processing large amounts of information
rapidly. IT thus includes technologies such as mathematical programing and methodologies
3
like operations research, as well as the application of statistical and mathematical methods to
decision-making problems. Expanding this definition, Kroenke (2013) noted that IT includes
all products, methods, inventions and standards that can be used to generate information,
while Laudon and Laudon (2013) stated that IT consists of all the hardware and software that
a firm needs to use to achieve its objectives. IT can help enterprises reduce costs and increase
efficiency, thus achieve and maintain greater competitiveness.
Davenport and Prusak (2000) described IT as a tool to control, store and disseminate
structured knowledge, thus helping people to spread documents or knowledge to every

corner of the organization. Gottschalk (2000) claimed that when an enterprise implements
KM, it needs support from IT to systemize and simplify abstract knowledge and enable its
collection, storage, transmission and reuse, IT can thus support communication,
collaboration and knowledge searches. Khandelwal and Gottschalk (2003) conducted a
case study on lawyers in Norway and Australia. They investigated how IT enables law
firms to transfer knowledge internally. Their results showed that IT has been successfully
used to support KM in the organizations they examined and that it was able to increase
effectiveness of teamwork. Spiegler (2003) utilized a conventional hierarchy of data,
information and knowledge to explain how IT can support the generation of knowledge
through various recursive stages. His study found that techniques such as data mining can
help the organization to retrieve valuable information from databases, particularly for
marketing, customer relationship management (CRM), e-commerce, and other purposes.
Yu et al. (2010) studied the factors influencing knowledge sharing behaviors on blogs, and
found that IT provided both the base and mechanism for communication and interaction in
such online communities. With the support of IT, a community can process and present
information in a flexible way to help accumulate knowledge. Based on these and other
studies, IT is widely seen as useful due to its ability to support better communication and
4
collaboration, facilitate organizing and searching for knowledge, and even stimulating
innovation (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 2000).
2.2 Involvement
The concept of involvement was proposed by Sherif and Cantril (1947) and defined as
the perceived personal importance and interest stimulated from a certain impulse within a
particular environment, or the degree of perceived personal relevance that a certain item has
(Zaichkowsky, 1985). When a particular scenario and individual are highly correlated, the
subsequent degree of involvement will be higher, and more focus will be put on the object of
interest. In a retail context, Schiffman and Kanuk (2006) further stated that involvement is
consumers’ level of concern toward particular purchase decisions, and to what extent they see
them as important. In a process of purchasing a particular product, consumers will usually
express more effort and interest in high involvement situations. In contrast, a low level of
involvement will make customers receive information in a more passive way (Kim et al.,
2010). Chen and Tsai (2008) elaborated that the level of involvement depends on consumers’
interest towards the object, and this determines the related consumer evaluations and
behaviors. Therefore, it can be seen that different customers will have different levels of
involvement, depending on the products and purchase environment. Moreover, the level of
involvement towards a product will influence the amount of quality of information that
consumers gather about a potential purchase (Warrington et al., 2000).
Laurent and Kapferer (1985) stated that many factors influence the level of IT
involvement, and there are interactions among these. The Consumer Involvement Profile
(CIP), which includes five dimensions (i.e., importance, pleasure, symbols, purchase risk, and
error possibility of the product), was thus developed to assess the level of consumer
involvement from multiple perspectives. Taking another approach, Zaichkowsky (1985),
Zaichkowsky (1994) developed the Personal Involvement Inventory Scale (PII), which
5
includes 20 items consisting of questions constructed by bipolar adjectives. He further
elaborated that as long as each question is slightly adjusted, it is possible to measure
consumers’ degree of involvement towards the focal product, advertisement, or purchase
decision.
2.3 Behavioral Intention
Behavioral intention describes the possibility of a consumer behaving in certain ways,
and can be utilized to predict certain behaviors (Lai and Chen, 2011; Zeithaml, et al., 1996).
After consumers experience a service, they will subjectively decide whether they will
purchase it again in the near future, and a comfortable experience will lead to a greater
purchasing intention (Ladhari et al., 2008; Wu and Liang, 2009). Blackwell et al. (2005)
stated that behavioral intention refers to specific actions or behavioral intentions generated
after a person has used a product or service, and that these can be classified into six
categories, as follows: purchase intentions, repurchase intentions, shopping intentions,
spending intentions, search intentions, and consumption intentions.
Boulding et al. (1993) claimed that repurchase intention and willingness to recommend
are the key factors to assess behavioral invention. Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggests that
favorable behavioral intentions are associated with a service provider’s ability to get its
consumers to say positive things about them, recommend services to others, express cognitive
loyal, spend more with the company, and pay a price premium for the services it offers.
Alexandris et al. (2002) used word-of-mouth, purchase intention, price sensitivity and
complaining behavior to assess behavioral intention. Based on a review of the literature, this
study sees intention as a necessary factor in any realized behaviors. Moreover, if the
behavioral intention can be properly measured, then enterprises can to a large degree predict
the actual behaviors of consumers (Ajzen, 1991; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
Al-Qirim (2007) explored the adoption of e-commerce technologies (e.g., internal email,
6
external email, Intranet, Extranet/VPN, Internet-EDI, and websites) in small businesses, and
found that the CEO has to be involved when a company would like its staff to adopt an
Intranet. Other studies have found that staff involvement is also critical, and will determine
the success of the adoption and implementation of IT (Ahmad, Kyratsis, and Holmes, 2012;
Al-Qirim, 2007; Li et al., 2005; Rao Tummala et al., 2006). Park and Lee (2008) investigated
electronic word-of-mouth overload and its effect on consumer behavioral intention depending
on consumer involvement Lai and Chen (2011) stated that a passenger’s level of involvement
with regard to public transit has a positive effect on his or her behavioral intentions. The
same results were also found in a study that examined the behavioral intention to upload
video content online. The results showed that ego-involvement played an essential role in
accounting for both attitudes toward the uploading behavior and the intention to upload (Park
et al., 2011), and similar results have been found with regard to the IT adoption intention of
staff (Li et al., 2005; Rao Tummala et al., 2006). Therefore, this study assumes that the staff’s
level of IT involvement would affect the degree of IT adoption intention, as proposed in the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H1: The staff’s level of IT involvement has a significantly positive influence
on IT adoption intention.
2.4 Knowledge Sharing
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) claimed that the knowledge sharing process is based on
the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. This kind of sharing is not only limited
to an individual, but actually is about sharing activities among individuals. Wijnhoven (1998)
noted out that knowledge sharing is a process of transferring knowledge through a media, and
that the recipient then interprets the new knowledge or interacts with others to conduct a
further knowledge transfer. Hendriks (1999) posited that knowledge sharing is a kind of
communication process. At the same time, knowledge is unlike products that can be easily
7
delivered to a passive recipient, and when one learns knowledge from others it is first
necessary to have the knowledge and abilities to rebuild, learn and share knowledge.
The higher the degree of knowledge sharing, the easier it is for the staff to acquire the
related knowledge, and the higher the value that this knowledge will create (Davenport and
Prusak, 2000). Zahra et al. (2007) stated that within an organization the knowledge sharing
that occurs among staff can also be done informally, unsystematically and outside the normal
routine. Boer et al. (2011) proposed the relational models theory for studying knowledge
sharing in organizations. This theory classifies the relational models into four types, namely
communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching and market pricing. The results
showed that knowledge sharing intention is embedded within various relational models, and
that knowledge will be shared when the members share corresponding relational models.
Moreover, knowledge sharing will be more effective when appropriate incentive and KM
systems are implemented based on a relational model. These studies show that many areas of
management research have examined the issue of knowledge sharing (Foss et al., 2010). This
is because such sharing is not only a key process in creating new products and services, in
leveraging organizational knowledge assets and in achieving collective outcomes (Boer et al.,
2011), but also one of the greatest challenges when carrying out KM (Quinn et al., 1996).
Previous studies showed that the adoption of IT can help an organization to manage and
share its internal knowledge (Alavi, 2000; Pan and Leidner, 2003). Richards (2009) stated
that social software (e.g., Wikis, blogs, and online Communities of Practice (CoPs)) has
become widely used as a way to acquire softer (or implicit) knowledge. Such software and
the related applications can foster information sharing and collaboration (Hsu and Lin, 2008;
Yu et al., 2010). Lai and Chen (2011) also demonstrated that the intention to use a blog has
become an important factor in knowledge sharing behavior. Ali et al. (2012) found that a
greater use of social media technologies within medical institutions can lead to more effective
8
the internal knowledge sharing. Based on a review of the literature, it can be seen that IT
adoption intention has significant influences on knowledge sharing intention. Therefore, this
research proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis H2: The staff’s IT adoption intention has a significantly positive influence
on knowledge sharing intention.
2.5 Leadership Style
Hemphill and Coons (1957) defined leadership as an individual behavior when

orchestrating a group of people to achieve a common objective. It is considered as an
interpersonal influence that is utilized in a certain circumstance and managed through a
communication process leading to a particular objective (Tannenbaum et al., 1961).
Leadership is the process and art of influencing the activities of an organized group to
maximize its performance and thus better accomplish its tasks, objectives or projects (Cohen,
1990; Rauch and Behling, 1984). The most recent leadership theories mainly focus on
investigating why some leaders can receive support and commitment from their followers.
The new leadership theories include those examining charismatic leadership, transactional
leadership, transformational leadership, and servant leadership. Charismatic leaders
encourage others through optimistic statements about the future and what should be achieved,
and are able to inspire positive feelings about the group’s common objective among their
followers (Bryman, 1992; Conger and Kanungo, 1987). Leader reward and punishment
behaviors are the key aspects of transactional leadership, with leaders giving rewards or
punishments related to employee performance (Bass, 1985). Leader rewards and punishment
are also crucial for creating the foundation from which it is possible to build more active and
constructive forms of leader behavior, such as transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999).
Transactional leaders encourage their followers through a process of dialogue, with, for
instance, rewards or preferences being given when a task is accomplished (Burns, 1978;
9
Ghazali et al., 2015). Transformational leaders use the interactions they have with their
followers to build organizational collectivity, by gaining an understanding of their followers’
needs with regard to achieving their goals. Such leaders are usually more flexible when it
comes to achieving the desired goals, and more open to change when necessary (Bass, 1985;
Burns, 1978). Servant leadership refers to those leaders who have the desire to serve others,
and meet their needs, wishes and interests. The altruistic attitudes that they express can then
make their followers more willing to sacrifice for the organization or others (Greenleaf,
1977).
Previous studies also noted the direct and indirect influences of different leadership
styles on knowledge sharing (Li et al., 2014; Shao et al., 2012; Srivastava et al., 2006). For
example, Bass (1985) stated that transformational leadership can motivate team members to
examine problems from new angles. It is thus evident that transformational leadership could
be the most appropriate leadership style when it comes to the management of R&D teams, as
it helps leverage diversity and produce more innovations. Bai et al. (2016) also stated that the
failure experienced by teams in terms of encouraging their members to share knowledge,
particularly for ideas or information that may spark conflicts or debates among team
members. They thus suggests that team conflict and knowledge sharing served as two
sequential mediators between the cross-level links and the critical role of transformational
leadership as across-level enabler for employee creativity. Yang (2007) stated that there is a
positive correlation between knowledge sharing effectiveness and the leadership roles of
facilitator, mentor and innovator, while there is a negative correlation between monitor
leadership and knowledge sharing. Shin and Jing (2007) reported that the interaction between
transformational leadership and educational specialization heterogeneity influences the level
of innovation within a team, as a high degree of transformational leadership will help teams
with more educational specialization heterogeneity to be more creative. Furthermore,
10
employees are generally influenced by their leaders, and thus the staff’s IT adoption intention
will be affected by that of their leaders (Neufeld et al., 2007). Aside from having more
decision power on IT adoption, a leader is also often being seen as an expert or opinion
former in their field. With regard to knowledge sharing and management, a leader should be
given the rights to answer unanswered questions or unresolved problems (Pan and Leidner,
2003) or should provide technical support and serve as a role model for their colleagues
(Seba et al., 2012). In conclusion, the literature shows that there is a correlation among
leadership styles, IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. Since each leader has a
different leadership style, the staff’s IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention will also
vary. Therefore, this study assumes that leadership styles have an impact on the relationship
between staff’s IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention, as stated in the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis H3: Leadership styles have moderating effects on IT adoption intention and
knowledge sharing intention of the staff within an organization.
2.6 Organizational Culture
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) defined organizational culture as the common beliefs and
knowledge held by all the members of an organization. Ortiz and Arnborg (2005) stated
organizational culture is a behavior that is unclaimed and can influence the relationships
among behaviors and attitudes, as well as organizational styles. Organizational culture is thus
a set of shared values among the members of the organization that sets the standards and rules
of the way of working. It is based on the core values and beliefs that develop, accumulate,
and evolve from long-term interactions within the organization. Moreover, new staff will be
heavily influenced by the organizational culture they have entered, and then change their
behaviors based on this (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003).
Wallach (1983) divided organizational cultures into bureaucratic, innovative, and
11
supportive cultures. Cameron and Freeman (1991) developed an organizational cultures
based on a Jungian framework and the competing values model. This organizational culture
has two dimensions: one reflects the extent to which an organization has a control orientation;
the other reflects the extent to which it is focused on its own internal or external functions.
These two dimensions form four quadrants—clan, adhocracy, market, and
hierarchy—representing distinct organizational cultures. Zheng, et al. (2010) built on the
work of Denison and his colleagues (Denison, 1990; Denison and Mishra, 1995; Fey and
Denison, 2003) and presented an organizational culture that encompassed four functional
dimensions, adaptability, consistency, involvement, and mission, to explore the relationships
among organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness. The results
showed that KM effectiveness fully mediates the impact of organizational culture on
effectiveness. Shao et al. (2012) explored the mediating effects of organizational culture and
knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
systems success, and found that a development culture has a direct impact on ERP success,
while hierarchical culture, group and rational culture are indirectly related with ERP success,
mediated by ERP knowledge sharing. They thus recommended that top executives should
work to develop an appropriate organizational culture, so as to foster ERP knowledge sharing
and achieve benefits from the use of ERP systems.
Organizational culture has a significant influence on IT usage (Gu et al., 2014; Jones et
al., 2006; McDermott and Stock, 1999) and knowledge sharing and management (Jones et al.,
2006; Park et al., 2004; Wiewiora et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2010). Park et al. (2004)
identified and ranked 44 organizational cultural attributes from the organizational culture
profile and KM technology profile instruments, and identified the most important ones that
stimulate knowledge sharing and lead to success when implementing KM technology. The
results revealed that specific cultural attributes have a significant relation with the successful
12
implementation of KM technology and knowledge sharing. Gee-Woo et al. (2005) found that
effective knowledge sharing cannot be forced or mandated. Firms desiring to institutionalize
knowledge-sharing behaviors must foster facilitative work contexts. These include extrinsic
motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. They further stated that
extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate will influence
individuals’ knowledge-sharing intentions. Yang (2007) found that a significantly positive
relationship exists between the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and a collaborative culture.
Valmohammadi and Ahmadi (2015) stated that organizational culture plays a pivotal role in
knowledge creation because it effects how members learn, acquire, and share knowledge. On
the other hand, organizational culture can also be seen as behavioral model of the
organizational members that share a complex set of beliefs and expectations (Hellriegel and
Slocum, 2010; Robbins, 1990). Therefore, differences in organizational culture might
influence the staff’s IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention, as stated in the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis H4: Organizational culture has moderating effects on the staff’s IT adoption
and knowledge sharing intention.
3. Methodology
3.1 Sampling
Samples were restricted to a list of the largest Taiwanese corporations compiled by
China Credit Information Service (2013), from which 500 firms were selected. Managers
were asked to fill out the questionnaire, since they tend to play key roles in organizational
activities. The link to the online questionnaire was sent to the companies at the beginning of
August 2014, with 125 questionnaires returned by September 2014. All the returned
questionnaires were valid and the effective response rate was 25%. Table I shows the
demographic details of the sample, which includes data on the firms’ industries,
13
organizational cultures, annual sales, and number of employees, as well as the respondents’
job positions, leadership styles, and years of experience.
Table I Demographic characteristics of the respondents (n= 125)

Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents
Industry Job position of the interviewee
Manufacturing industry 19.2 CEO, general/vice manager 4.0
High-tech industry 36.8 (Vice) division manager, assistant 25.6
Government sector 11.2 manager
Chairperson, chief, project 20.0
Service industry 15.2 supervisor
Administrator, executive board, 41.6
Others 17.6 engineer
Other 8.8
Organizational culture Leadership Style
Clan culture 28.8 Charismatic leadership 28.0
Hierarchy culture 28.0 Transactional leadership 27.2

Adhocracy culture 20.8 Transformational leadership 23.2
Market culture 22.4 Servant leadership 21.6
Annual sales (NTD) Years of work experience
≦ 50 million 25.6 ≦ 5 years 29.6

> 50 million and ≦ 500 million 25.6 6-10 years 20.0
> 500 million and ≦ 15 billion 23.2 11-15 years 20.0
> 15 billion and ≦ 100 billion 12.8 16-20 years 21.6
> 100 billion 12.8 21-25 years 7.2
≧ 26 years 1.6
Number of employees
≦ 300 46.4
301-5000 31.2
≧ 5001 22.4
3.2 Measurement Instruments
A structured questionnaire survey was adopted, because this is the most appropriate way
to collect the relevant primary data. This study developed the draft questionnaire based on a
review of the literature. With regard to IT involvement, this study defined it as a person’s
feelings about the relevance or importance of IT based on their inherent needs, values, and
interests. This research designed the related questionnaire items based on the revised PII
proposed by Zaichkowsky (1985), Zaichkowsky (1994). With regard to IT adoption intention,
this work defines it as the users’ behavioral intention to use IT to support their job within an
organization or a group, and the questionnaire items were based on the technology acceptance
14
model (TAM) proposed by Davis (1989) and Venkatesh et al. (2003). Furthermore, this
research defines knowledge sharing intention as the willingness of the members of an
organization or group to share knowledge related to work, tactics, or documents with their
colleagues. In order to have thorough consideration of the processes and forms of knowledge
sharing, this research designed its questionnaire items based on those proposed by Chen et al.
(2012) and Pi et al. (2013). As for the leadership style, this study defines it as the
comprehensive leadership behaviors shown by the top management in order to achieve the
firm’s objectives or another task. This study divides leadership styles into the following four
categories: charismatic leadership (Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Conger et al. 1997),
transactional leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1989; Hartog et al., 1997), transformational
leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990; Reed et al., 2011) and servant leadership (Liden et al.,
2008; Reed et al., 2011). As for organizational culture, this study drew on ideas from
Hellriegel and Slocum (2010) and Robbins (1990), and defines this as the philosophy, ideas,
values, attitudes and norms that the members of an organization have that distinguish the
focal group from another. The questionnaire items to assess this were based on the
classification of organizational culture proposed by Petrock (1990), as follows: clan culture,
hierarchy culture, adhocracy culture, and market culture. A seven-point Likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) though 4 (neutral) to 7 (strongly agree), was used for the
items on IT involvement, IT adoption intention, and knowledge sharing intention. The
questionnaire items were written in Chinese and easily understood by the participants. The
draft questionnaire was tested by scholars and experts, and this led to minor modifications in
the wording of some items. After ensuring that all items were clear, the questionnaire was
sent and then collected via e-mail. The final questionnaire items and related references are
presented in Table II. The research constructs were operationalized based on the related
studies and a pilot test.
15
Table II The questionnaire items and related references
Research Items Items References
variables
IT Involvement INV1 Information technology (IT) is very important for me. Zaichkowsky
INV2 Information technology (IT) is very useful for me. (1985);
INV3 Information technology (IT) is very valuable for me. Zaichkowsky
INV4 Information technology (IT) is very interesting for me. (1994)
INV5 Information technology (IT) is very attractive for me.
INV6 Information technology (IT) is very fascinating for me.
INV7 Information technology (IT) can satisfy my personal needs.
INV8 Using information technology (IT) can make me feel excited.
Intention to use ITI1 I intend to use IT facilities that can help me share knowledge Davis (1989);
IT in the near future. Venkatesh et al.
ITI2 I predict I will use IT facilities that can help me share (2003);
knowledge in the near future. Sun and Jeyaraj
ITI3 I plan to use IT facilities that can help me share knowledge in (2013)
the near future.
Knowledge KSI1 I intend to share my knowledge with my colleagues. Chen et al. (2012);
Sharing KSI2 I intend to try my best to share my knowledge with my Park and Lee
Intention colleagues. (2014);
KSI3 I intend to strive to share my knowledge with my colleagues. Pi et al. (2013);
KSI4 I intend to share my knowledge with my colleagues more Hau et al. (2013);
frequently in the future. Seba et al. (2012);
KSI5 I intend to share my knowledge with my colleagues in an Tamjidyamcholo et
effective way. al. (2013);
Leadership LS My management is based on clear insights, sensitivity to the Conger and
Style environment and staff’s needs, and the use of an Kanungo (1987);
adventurous mind that is not constrained by traditions. Conger et al.
My management appropriately provides remuneration, (1997);
rewards, promotion opportunities, and other awards in Bass and Avolio
order to fulfill my needs and wishes; while I will obey (1989);
their commands and directives, as well as accomplish the Bass and Avolio
tasks they assign to me in return. (1990);
My management would introduce innovative ideas, propose Liden et al. (2008);
better suggestions or increase moral standards to motivate Reed et al. (2011)
me to accomplish my assigned goals, as well as to
willingly achieve organizational/team goals.
My management puts the needs of others first, is able to
recognize others through listening to them, helps people
develop and perform as highly as possible, as well as
boosting the confidence of others and gaining trust from
subordinates.
Organizational OC The company provides a good place to share things with Petrock (1990);
Culture others like a family, as well as respects every worker’s Roh et al. (2008);
participation and team spirit. Thus, to a certain extent, the Tseng (2010);
working environment is open and harmonious, as the Wiewiora et al.
workers highly support and believe in each other. In (2013)
contrast, the working attitude is more conservative and
averse to risks and revolutions.
The company is extremely formalized and structured, and
manages its workers’ tasks based on certain procedures.
Hence, the conduct is more cautious, stable, and mature.
Usually it is also unwilling to accept high risks and
revolutions.
The company values each worker’s creativity and challenges,
as well as respects each worker’s uniqueness. Moreover,
the company focuses on costs and controlling the
16
performance and end results. Hence, the division
possesses a high level of support and trust, and tolerates
risks and mistakes. Simultaneously, due to its extremely
open working environment, it dares to take high risks and
accepts revolutions.
The company is a result-oriented organization and focuses on
controlling costs and performance. Therefore, the
relationships between individuals and departments are
very intense. At the same time, the work is done based on
risk and profits. Hence, the company often takes risks and
accepts revolutions.
4. Results
4.1 Reliability and Validity

This research began with item analysis to improve the quality and accuracy of
questionnaire items. Furthermore, this research measured each construct using factor analysis
in order to verify the construct validity of the level of IT involvement, IT adoption intention
and knowledge sharing intention, as well as to understand whether each item attribute within
each construct is consistent with the related theory. The results showed that the factor
loadings of INV1 and INV2 did not reach the standard, and thus these were deleted, while it
was not necessary to eliminate any items related to IT adoption intention and knowledge
sharing intention. The results of the factor and reliability analyses are presented in Table III,
which shows that the factors and theoretical framework are coherent, meaning that an
acceptable level of construct validity has been achieved (Kolar and Zabkar, 2010). Regarding
the reliability, the Cronbach’s α is 0.950, while the item-to-total correlations are higher than
0.639, showing that each item had good consistency and validity (Nunnally, 1978).
Table III Results of the factor analysis and reliability.

Factors Convergent Validity Reliability
1 2 3 (Item-to-total correlations) (Cronbach’s alpha)
INV 3 .724 .694
INV 4 .895 .717
INV 5 .877 .750 .950
INV 6 .881 .731
INV 7 .781 .696
17
INV 8 .791 .639
ITI1 .862 .735
ITI2 .889 .735
ITI3 .869 .696
KSI1 .788 .825
KSI2 .877 .807
KSI3 .892 .738
KSI4 .853 .818
KSI5 .765 .779
Eigen values 8.548 1.119 2.163
% of Variance 61.060 7.995 15.452
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.900
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity 0.000
4.2. Simple regression analysis

Simple linear regression was used to test the relationships among IT involvement, IT
adoption intention, and knowledge sharing intention. The results of the regression analyses
for IT involvement on IT adoption intention and IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing
intention are given in Table IV. According to the Model 1, the Beta values and R2 for IT
involvement on IT adoption intention are 0.481 and 0.232, respectively, and show that IT
involvement has a significant effect on IT adoption intention (p-value is 0.000). Consequently,
the result supports H1, which means that the degree of IT involvement has a positive effect on
the degree of IT adoption intention. According to the Model 2, the Beta values and R2 for IT
adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention are 0.680 and 0.463, respectively, and
show that IT adoption intention has a significant effect on knowledge sharing intention
(p-value is 0.000). The results thus support H2, which means that the degree of IT adoption
intention has a positive effect on the degree of knowledge sharing intention.
Table IV Results of the simple regression

Model 1 Model 2
Y: IT adoption intention Y: Knowledge sharing
intention
IT involvement .481***
IT adoption intention .680***
F 37.118 105.838
18
P value 0.000 0.000
R2 .232 .463
* P < 0.05；** P < 0.01；*** P < 0.001
4.3. Hierarchical regression analysis

Hierarchical regression was used to test the relationships among the constructs. Tables V
and VI present the hierarchical regression coefficients, with leadership styles and
organizational cultures as the moderators between IT adoption and knowledge sharing
intention. The results in Table V indicate that when carried out under transactional leadership
IT adoption intention does not have a significant influence on knowledge sharing intention. In
contrast, if carried out under the other three leadership styles IT adoption intention has a very
significant influence on knowledge sharing intention. This research further calculated the
non-standardized coefficient of IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention under
different leadership styles (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Duncan, 1975). The Z-value is 2.446
under the charismatic and transactional leadership, meaning that there was a significant
difference in the influence of IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention with
regard to these two styles. Under the servant and transactional leadership styles the Z-value is
-2.418, which shows a significant difference in the influence of IT adoption on knowledge
sharing intention with regard to these two styles, In other words, there is a significant
moderating effect caused by different leadership styles on the relationship between IT
adoption and knowledge sharing intention. Therefore, H3 is supported.
The results in Table VI show that under different organizational cultures IT adoption
intention has a very significant influence on knowledge sharing intention. This research
further calculated the non-standardized coefficients of IT adoption intention on knowledge
sharing intention within different organizational cultures (Baron and Kenny, 1986; Duncan,
1975). Under the clan and adhocracy cultures, the unstandardized coefficient of IT adoption
intention on knowledge sharing intention has a Z-value of 4.149, meaning there was a very
19
significant difference in the influence of staff’s IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing
intention between these two cultures. Moreover, the Z-value of the clan and market cultures
is 2.825, showing that there was a very significant difference in the influence of staff’s IT
adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention between the two. Furthermore, the Z-value
of the hierarchical and adhocracy cultures is 2.747, showing that there was a significant
difference in the influence of staff’s IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention
between these two cultures. In other words, different organizational cultures have significant
moderating effects on the relationship between IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention,
and thus H3 is supported.
Table V Results of the hierarchical regression for leadership styles

Knowledge sharing intention (Model 3)
Unstandardized Standardized
Z value
coefficients coefficients
Leadership styles
Std.
Charismatic Transactional Transformational
B Error Beta t Sig.
Charismatic (Constant)
1.704 .559 3.048 .005
IT adoption
intention .736 .100 .789 7.377 .000
Transactional (Constant)
4.212 .806 5.229 .000
IT adoption
intention .297 .149 .333 1.996 .054 2.446*
Transformational (Constant)
2.733 .598 4.567 .000
IT adoption
intention .549 .111 .689 4.946 .000 1.252 -1.356
Servant (Constant) 1.724 .600 2.871 .008
IT adoption
intention .758 .119 .787 6.372 .000 -0.142 -2.418* -1.284
* P < 0.05；** P < 0.01；*** P < 0.001
Table VI Results of the hierarchical regression for organizational cultures

Knowledge sharing intention (Model 4)
Unstandardized Standardized
Z value
coefficients coefficients
Organizational cultures
Std. Clan Hierarchy Adhocracy
B Error Beta t Sig.
Clan (Constant)
1.230 .485 2.533 .016
IT adoption
intention .840 .091 .846 9.259 .000
Hierarchy (Constant)
1.675 .786 2.131 .041
IT adoption
intention .766 .147 .672 5.212 .000 .428
Adhocracy (Constant) 4.529 .586 7.724 .000
IT adoption
.276 .101 .487 2.734 .012 4.149*** 2.747**
20
intention
Market (Constant)
3.354 .671 4.996 .000
IT adoption
intention .387 .132 .497 2.919 .007 2.825** 1.918 -0.668
* P < 0.05；** P < 0.01；*** P < 0.001
5. Discussion
First, this study shows that leadership styles significantly moderate the relationship
between IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. The results in Table V and Figure 2
indicated that the significance of influence, from high to low, is as follows: servant
leadership, charismatic leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional

leadership. Moreover, the effects of IT adoption on knowledge sharing intention has
significant differences under transactional and servant leadership, as well as transactional
and charismatic leadership. Further investigations found that the reason for this is that
under the transactional style leaders usually give rewards and punishments based on
employee performance (Bass, 1985), and thus transactional leadership does not have a
very significant influence on the relationship between IT adoption and knowledge sharing
intention. Therefore, this research suggests that organizations which adopt servant
leadership or charismatic leadership should work to enhance staff’s knowledge sharing
intention by first raising their IT adoption intention. In contrast, a transactional leadership
organization should not only aim to increase the staff’s IT adoption intention, but also
plan a comprehensive reward mechanism, as this can effectively increase their knowledge
sharing intention.
21
7.00 LS
Charismatic
Transactional
Transformational
6.00 Servant
5.00
K
S
I
4.00
3.00
2.00 4.00 6.00
ITA I
Figure 2 Moderating effects of leadership styles on IT adoption intention and knowledge

sharing intention.
Note: LS: Leadership Styles; ITAI: IT Adoption Intention; KSI: Knowledge Sharing
Intention.
Second, the results of this study suggest that organizational culture significantly
moderates the relationship between IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. Table
VI and Figure 3 indicate that the significance of cultures influence, from high to low, is as
follows: clan culture, hierarchy culture, market culture, and adhocracy culture. Moreover,
the effects of IT adoption intention on knowledge sharing intention are significantly
different under clan and adhocracy cultures, clan and market cultures, as well as hierarchy
and adhocracy cultures. Therefore, this research suggests that organizations with clan or
hierarchy cultures should aim to increase the staff’s IT adoption intention if they would
like to raise their knowledge sharing intention. In contrast, organizations with market and
adhocracy cultures usually have extremely open working environments, and are
comfortable taking large risks that may totally change they ways they operate, meaning
that the staff’s IT adoption intention and knowledge sharing intention are generally higher.
Therefore, it is not necessary to encourage employees at such organizations to adopt IT,
because they will naturally try it by themselves.
22
7.00 OC
Clan
Hierarchy
Adhocracy
6.00 Market
5.00
K
S
I
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00 4.00 6.00
ITAI
Figure 3 Moderating effects of organizational cultures on IT adoption intention and

Note: OC: Organizational Cultures; ITAI: IT Adoption Intention; KSI: Knowledge Sharing
Intention.
6. Implications for Research and Practice
This study bears several implications for practice and research. First, the level of IT
involvement for staff will significantly and positively influence IT adoption intention. This
finding thus confirmed those of Al-Qirim (2007), Lai et al. (2011), and Park et al. (2011),
who stated that the level of involvement that a staff has with respect to the object of interest
works as an important determinant of staff behaviors. Therefore, it can be concluded that if a
firm wants to make its staff more willing to use IT in their daily tasks, then it should first aim
to increase staff interest in using IT, as this is then likely to raise their IT adoption intention.
Second, the level of IT adoption intention that staff have will significantly and
positively influence their knowledge sharing intention, confirming the findings of Lai et al.
(2011) and Ali et al. (2012). Therefore, if an enterprise aims to make its staff more willing to
share their knowledge, it should first aim to increase their interest in using IT. IT can not only
be used to acquire, manage, store, and transmit structural knowledge, but also help staff in
their efforts to make the knowledge stored in the human brain or documents available to all
23
employees of an organization (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). Therefore, enterprises should
actively to cultivate and enhance the staff's intention to adopt IT, as well as to further increase
staff’s knowledge sharing intention.
Third, this study shows that leadership styles significantly moderate the relationship
between IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. The results indicated that the
significance of influence, from high to low, is as follows: servant leadership, charismatic
leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership. Fourth, the results of
this study suggest that organizational culture significantly moderates the relationship between
IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention. The results indicated that the significance of
cultures influence, from high to low, is as follows: clan culture, hierarchy culture, market
culture, and adhocracy culture. Based on the results, this study derived a table to illustrate the
the important roles of organizational culture and leadership style in IT adoption and
knowledge sharing intention, as shown in Table VII. It shows that organizations which adopt
servant leadership and clan culture will have very strongly moderating effects on the IT
adoption and knowledge sharing intention. In contrast, organizations which adopt
transactional leadership and adhocracy culture will have very weakly moderating effects on
the IT adoption and knowledge sharing intention.
Table VII The moderating effects of organizational culture and leadership style on IT
adoption and knowledge sharing intention
Organizational cultures
Adhocracy Market Hierarchy Clan
Servant 4 5 6 7
Charismatic 3 4 5 6
Leadership styles
Transformational 2 3 4 5
Transactional 1 2 3 4
Note: ranging from 1 (weakly influence) though 4 (neutral) to 7 (strongly influence)
24
Finally, this study suggests that enterprises aiming to enhance staff’s knowledge sharing
intention should start with working to increase their IT involvement, as this would make
employees more willing to use IT, and then raise their knowledge sharing intention. Vriens
(1998) stated that the obstacles to knowledge sharing are often very simple, such as social
and cultural differences, language barriers and different psychological or conceptual
frameworks. Moreover, knowledge sharing itself within and between organizations is a
complex process that can be aided or impeded by multiple factors (van Wijk et al., 2008) and
a better understanding of these would make it possible for a firm to cultivate the right
attitudes to knowledge sharing among its staff. To achieve this, the current study classified
leadership into charismatic, transactional, transformational, and servant styles, with
organizational culture divided into clan culture, hierarchy culture, market culture, and
adhocracy culture. The results of this study showed that organizational culture and leadership
style both have significant moderating effects on the relationship between IT adoption and
knowledge sharing intention. Therefore, if an enterprise would like to encourage staff to be
more proactive at adopting IT and more willing to share knowledge, then it should first
examine its current leadership style and organizational culture in order to propose concrete
and effective methods to achieve this, and at the same time this can help stimulate
organizational learning and generate new ideas and knowledge (Ipe, 2003). Furthermore, the
approval and support of top management is also needed to nourish a knowledge-friendly
organizational culture. No matter which kind of support the top management gives (i.e.,
verbal, action or resources), it will contribute to organizational learning and increase staff
willingness to share knowledge (Pan and Scarbrough, 1999).
7. Conclusions
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships among IT involvement, IT
25
adoption intention, knowledge sharing intention, leadership styles, and organizational
cultures. The results of these analyses demonstrated support for all the hypotheses. In other
words, the results showed that IT involvement has a significantly positive influence on IT
adoption intention, and then further affect knowledge sharing intention. Moreover,
organizational culture and leadership style have moderating effect on the IT adoption and
Although the findings of this study have a number of meaningful implications for
practitioners, it has some limitations. First, this research applied a purposive sampling
method and obtained an unfairly adequate number of respondents. The results thus may
include some bias, since the effective questionnaire response rate was only 25%. Therefore, it
is suggested that future research should apply a random sampling method to collect more
responses and conduct survey with larger size of samples to validate it empirically, as well as
increase the generalizability of the findings. Second, this research investigated the
relationships among IT involvement, IT adoption intention, knowledge sharing intention,
leadership styles, and organizational cultures in a Taiwanese context that has a specific set of
societal, cultural and linguistic attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the measurement scale
items used in this study were translated from Chinese to English, which may have caused
slight variations in meaning. Third, the results of this study show that IT involvement has a
significantly negative influence on IT adoption intention in an adhocracy culture. This is an
interesting finding and this study suggests that future research can be based on case studies to
further investigate the influence of adhocracy culture on IT involvement, adoption intention,
and knowledge sharing intention.
26
Acknowledgments
Supported by National Science Council Taiwan under Grant NSC 102-2410-H-214-018.
27
References
Ahmad, R., Kyratsis Y., and Holmes. A. (2012), “When the User Is Not the Chooser:
Learning from Stakeholder Involvement in Technology Adoption Decisions in
Infection Control”, Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 163-168.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Al-Qirim, N. (2007), “The Adoption of Ecommerce Communications and Applications
Technologies in Small Businesses in New Zealand”, Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 462-473.
Alavi, M. (2000), “Managing Organizational Knowledge“, In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the
Domains of It Management Research: Glimpsing the Future through the Past,
Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc..

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. (2001), “Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues“, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Alexandris, K., Dimitriadis, N., and Markata, D. (2002), “Can Perceptions of Service
Quality Predict Behavioral Intentions? An Exploratory Study in the Hotel Sector in
Greece”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 224-231.
Ali, N., Whiddett, D., Tretiakov, A., and Hunter, I. (2012), “The Use of Information
Technologies for Knowledge Sharing by Secondary Healthcare Organisations in New
Zealand”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 81, No. 7, pp.
500-506.
Avolio, B. J. (1999), Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in
Organizations, SAGE Publications.
Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986), “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press.
Bass, B. M. and B. J. Avolio. (1989), Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1990), “The Implications of Transactional and
Transformational Leadership for Individual, Team, and Organizational Development”,
Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, pp. 231-272.
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., and Engel, J. F. (2005), Consumer Behavior, 10ed.,
South-Western College Pub.
Boer, N. I., Berends, H. and van Baalen, P. (2011), “Relational Models for Knowledge
Sharing Behavior”, European Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., and Zeithaml, V. A. (1993), “A Dynamic Process Model
28
of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 7-27.
Bryman, A. E. (1992), Charisma & Leadership in Organizations. 1 ed., SAGE Publications.
Burns, J. M. G. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row.
Cameron, K. S. and Freeman, S. J. (1991), “Cultural Congruence, Strength, and Type:
Relationships to Effectiveness”, Research in Organizational Change and
Development, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 23-58.
Chen, S. S., Chuang, Y. W., and Chen, P. Y. (2012), “Behavioral Intention Formation in
Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Kms Quality, Kms Self-Efficacy, and
Organizational Climate”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 31, pp. 106-118.
Chumg, H. F., Seaton, J., Cooke, L., and Ding, W. Y. (2016), “Factors affecting employees'
knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of

well-being and organisational behaviour”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp.
432-448.
Cohen, W. (1990), Art of the Leader, Prentice Hall Press.
Conger, J. A. and Kanungo, R. N. (1987), “Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic
Leadership in Organizational Settings”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12,
No. 4, pp. 637-647.
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., andMathur, P. (1997), “Measuring Charisma:
Dimensionality and Validity of the Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic
Leadership”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des
Sciences de l”Administration, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 290-301.
Cunningham, J., Seaman, C., and McGuire, D. (2016), “Knowledge sharing in small family
firms: A leadership perspective”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 34-46.
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage
What They Know, Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 319-340.
De Long, D. W. and Fahey L. (2000), “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge
management”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 113-127.
Denison, D. R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, Wiley.
Denison, D. R. and Mishra, A. K. (1995), “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and
Effectiveness”, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 204-223.
De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., and De Ridder, J. A. (2006), “Explaining knowledge
sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and performance
beliefs”, Communication Research, Vol. 33, No.2, pp. 115-135.
Duncan, O. D. (1975), Introduction to Structural Equation Models, Academic Press.
29
Fey, C. F. and Denison, D. R. (2003), “Organizational Culture and Effectiveness: Can
American Theory Be Applied in Russia?”, Organization Science, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp.
686-706.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Reaseach, Addison Wesle.
Foss, N. J., Husted, K., and Michailova, S. (2010), “Governing Knowledge Sharing in
Organizations: Levels of Analysis, Governance Mechanisms, and Research
Directions”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 455-482.
Gee-Woo, B., Zmud, R. W., Young-Gul, K., andJae-Nam, L. (2005), “Behavioral Intention
Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Role of Extrinsic Motivators,
Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29,
No. 1, pp. 87-111.

Ghazali, R., Ahmad, M. N., Zakaria, N. H. (2015), “The mediating role of knowledge
integration in effect of leadership styles on enterprise systems success: The
post-implementation stage”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28,
No. 4, pp. 531-555.
Gottschalk, P. (2000), “Strategic Knowledge Networks: The Case of It Support for Eurojuris
Law Firms in Norway”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, Vol.
14, No. 1, pp. 115-129.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press.
Gu, V. C., Hoffman, J. J., Cao, Q., and Schniederjans, M. J. (2014), “The Effects of
Organizational Culture and Environmental Pressures on It Project Performance: A
Moderation Perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32, No.
7, pp. 1170-1181.
Hartog, D. N. D., Van Muijen, J. J., and Koopman, P. L. (1997), “Transactional Versus
Transformational Leadership: An Analysis of the Mlq”, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 19-34.
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., and Kim, Y. G. (2013), “The Effects of Individual Motivations
and Social Capital on Employees” Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Sharing Intentions”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 356-366.
Hellriegel, D. andSlocum, J. W. (2010), Organizational Behavior, 13 ed., Cengage Learning.
Hemphill, J. and Coons, A. (1957), “Development of the Leader Behavior Description
Questionnaire”, In Stogdill, R. M. and Coons, A. E. (Eds.), Leader Behavior: Its
Description and Measurement, Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce
and Administration, Ohio State University.
Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why Share Knowledge? The Influence of Ict on the Motivation for
Knowledge Sharing”, Knowledge & Process Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.
91-100.
30
Hsu, C. L. and Lin, J. C. C. (2008), “Acceptance of Blog Usage: The Roles of Technology
Acceptance, Social Influence and Knowledge Sharing Motivation”, Information &
Management, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Jones, M. C., Cline, M., and Ryan, S. (2006), “Exploring Knowledge Sharing in ERP
Implementation: An Organizational Culture Framework”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 411-434.
Khandelwal, V. K. andGottschalk, P. (2003), “Information Technology Support for
Interorganizational Knowledge Transfer: An Empirical Study of Law Firms in
Norway and Austrialia”, Information resources management journal, Vol. 16, No. 1,
pp. 14-23.
Kim, J. U., Kim, W. J., and Park, S. C. (2010), “Consumer Perceptions on Web
Advertisements and Motivation Factors to Purchase in the Online Shopping”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 1208-1222.
Kolar, T. and Zabkar, V. (2010), “A Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity: An Oxymoron
or the Foundation of Cultural Heritage Marketing?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 31,
No. 5, pp. 652-664.
Kroenke, D. (2013), Using Mis. 6 ed., Prentice Hall.
Ladhari, R., Brun, I., and Morales, M. (2008), “Determinants of Dining Satisfaction and
Post-Dining Behavioral Intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management,
Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 563-573.
Lai, H.M. and Chen, C.P. (2011), “Factors Influencing Secondary School Teachers” Adoption
of Teaching Blogs”, Computers & Education, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 948-960.
Lai, W. and Chen, C. (2011), “Behavioral Intentions of Public Transit Passengers—the Roles
of Service Quality, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Involvement”, Transport Policy,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 318-325.
Laudon, K. and Laudon, J. P. (2013), Management Information Systems: Managing the
Digital Firm (13th Edition). 13 ed., Prentice Hall.
Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J. N. (1985), “Measuring Consumer Involvement Profiles”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Leavitt, H. J. and Whisler, T. L. (1958), “Management in the 1980s”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 41-46.
Lee, D. S., Lee, K. C., Seo, Y. W., and Choi, D. Y. (2015), “An analysis of shared leadership,
diversity, and team creativity in an e-learning environment”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 42, pp. 47-56.
Lee, J. C., Shiue, Y. C., and Chen, C. Y. (2016), “Examining the impacts of organizational
culture and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software
31
process improvement”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 462-474.
Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H., and Xi, Y. (2014), “Differentiated Transformational Leadership
and Knowledge Sharing: A Cross-Level Investigation”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 554-563.
Li, G., Yan, H., Wang, S., and Xia, Y. (2005), “Comparative Analysis on Value of
Information Sharing in Supply Chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 34-46.
Liang, T. P., Ouyang, Y. C., and Hsu, R. C. (2005), “Factors Affecting the Adoption of
Knowledge Management”, Journal of Information Management (in Chinese) Vol. 12,
No. 3, pp. 1-38.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., and Henderson, D. (2008), “Servant Leadership:
Development of a Multidimensional Measure and Multi-Level Assessment”,

Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 161-177.
Malik, N., Dhar, R. L., and Handa, S. C. (2016), “Authentic leadership and its impact on
creativity of nursing staff: A cross sectional questionnaire survey of Indian nurses and
their supervisors”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 63, pp. 28-36.
McDermott, C. M. and Stock, G. N. (1999), “Organizational Culture and Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Implementation”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 521-533.
McDermott, R. and O'dell, C. (2001). “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Neufeld, D. J., Dong, L., and Higgins, C. (2007), “Charismatic Leadership and User
Acceptance of Information Technology”, European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 494-510.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. 2 ed., McGraw-Hill.
Ortiz, J. P. and Arnborg, L. (2005), “Making High Performance Last: Reflections on
Involvement, Culture, and Power in Organizations”, Performance Improvement, Vol.
44, No. 6, pp. 31-37.
Pan, S. L. and Leidner, D. E. (2003), “Bridging Communities of Practice with Information
Technology in Pursuit of Global Knowledge Sharing”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 71-88.
Pan, S. L. and Scarbrough, H. (1999), “Knowledge Management in Practice: An Exploratory
Case Study”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
359-374.
Park, D. and Lee, J. (2008), “Ewom Overload and Its Effect on Consumer Behavioral
Intention Depending on Consumer Involvement”, Electronic Commerce Research and
32
Applications, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 386-398.
Park, H., Ribiere, V., and Schulte, J. W. D. (2004), “Critical Attributes of Organizational
Culture That Promote Knowledge Management Technology Implementation Success”,
Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 106-117.
Park, J. G. and Lee, J. (2014), “Knowledge Sharing in Information Systems Development
Projects: Explicating the Role of Dependence and Trust”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 153-165.
Park, N., Jung, Y., and Lee, K. M. (2011), “Intention to Upload Video Content on the
Internet: The Role of Social Norms and Ego-Involvement”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 1996-2004.
Petrock, F. (1990), “Corporate Culture Enhances Profits”, HR Magazine, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp.
64-66.
Pi, S. M., Chou, C. H., and Liao, H. L. (2013), “A Study of Facebook Groups Members”
Knowledge Sharing”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.
1971-1979.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., and Finkelstein, S. (1996), “Managing Professional Intellect :
Making the Most of the Best.”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 71-80.
Rao Tummala, V. M., Phillips, C. L. M., and Johnson, M. (2006), “Assessing Supply Chain
Management Success Factors: A Case Study”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 179-192.
Rauch, C. F. and Behling, O. (1984), “Functionalism: Basis for an Alternate Approach to the
Study of Leadership”, In Hunt, J. G. (Ed.), Leaders and Managers: International
Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership, Pergamon Press.
Reed, L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., and Colwell, S. (2011), “A New Scale to Measure Executive
Servant Leadership: Development, Analysis, and Implications for Research”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 415-434.
Ribiere, V. M. and Sitar, A. S. (2003), “Critical Role of Leadership in Nurturing a
Knowledge-Supporting Culture”, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol.
1, No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Richards, D. (2009), “A Social Software/Web 2.0 Approach to Collaborative Knowledge
Engineering”, Information Sciences, Vol. 179, No. 15, pp. 2515-2523.
Robbins, S. P. (1990), Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Application. 3 ed.,
Prentice Hall.
Roh, J. J., Paul, H., and Youngsoo, P. (2008), “Organizational culture and supply chain
strategy: a framework for effective information flows”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 361-376.
Schiffman, L. G. and Kanuk, L. L. (2006), Consumer Behavior. 9 ed., Prentice Hall
Seba, I., Rowley, J., and Lambert, S. (2012), “Factors Affecting Attitudes and Intentions
33
Towards Knowledge Sharing in the Dubai Police Force”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 372-380.
Shao, Z., Feng, Y., and Liu, L. (2012), “The Mediating Effect of Organizational Culture and
Knowledge Sharing on Transformational Leadership and Enterprise Resource
Planning Systems Success: An Empirical Study in China”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 2400-2413.
Sherif, M. and Cantril, H. (1947), The Psychology of Ego Involvements, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc..
Shin, S. J. and Jing, Z. (2007), “When Is Educational Specialization Heterogeneity Related to
Creativity in Research and Development Teams? Transformational Leadership as a
Moderator”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, No. 6, pp. 1709-1721.
Spiegler, I. (2003), “Technology and Knowledge: Bridging a “Generating” Gap”, Information

& Management, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 533-539.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M. and Locke, E. A. (2006), “Empowering Leadership in
Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy and Performance”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Sun, Y. and Jeyaraj, A. (2013), “Information Technology Adoption and Continuance: A
Longitudinal Study of Individuals” Behavioral Intentions”, Information &
Tamjidyamcholo, A., Bin Baba, M. S., Tamjid, H., and Gholipour, R. (2013), “Information
Security – Professional Perceptions of Knowledge-Sharing Intention under
Self-Efficacy, Trust, Reciprocity, and Shared-Language”, Computers & Education,
Vol. 68, pp. 223-232.
Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I. R., and Massarik, F. (1961), Leadership and Organization: A
Behavioral Science Approach, McGraw-Hill.
Tseng, S. M. (2010), “The Correlation between Organizational Culture and Knowledge
Conversion on Corporate Performance”, Journal of knowledge management, Vol. 14,
No. 2, pp. 269-284.
Valmohammadi, C., and Ahmadi, M. (2015), “The impact of knowledge management
practices on organizational performance”, Journal of Enterprise Information
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., and Lyles, M. A. (2008), “Inter- and Intra-Organizational
Knowledge Transfer: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and
Consequences”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 830-853.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003), “User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp.
425-478.
Vriens, D. J. (1998), Constructief Beslissem, Eburon.
34
Wallach, E. J. (1983), “Individuals and Organizations: The Cultural Match”, Training &
Development Journal, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. , 45-76.
Warrington, T. B., Abgrab, N. j., and Caldwell, H. M. (2000), “Building Trust to Develop
Competitive Advantage in E-Business Relationships”, Competitiveness Review, Vol.
10, No. 2, pp. 160-168.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., and Coffey, V. (2013), “Organizational Culture
and Willingness to Share Knowledge: A Competing Values Perspective in Australian
Context”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31, No. 8, pp.
1163-1174.
Wijnhoven, F. (1998), “Knowledge Logistic in Business Contexts: Analyzing and Diagnosing
Knowledge Sharing by Logistic Concepts. Knowledge and Process Management”,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 143-157.

Wu, C. H. J. and Liang, R. D. (2009), “Effect of Experiential Value on Customer Satisfaction
with Service Encounters in Luxury-Hotel Restaurants”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 586-593.
Yang, J. T. (2007), “Knowledge Sharing: Investigating Appropriate Leadership Roles and
Collaborative Culture”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 530-543.
Yao, L.J., Kam, T.H.Y., Chan, S. H, (2007). “Knowledge sharing in Asian public
administration sector: the case of Hong Kong”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp, 51-69.
Yu, T. K., Lu, L. C., and Liu, T. F. (2010), “Exploring Factors That Influence Knowledge
Sharing Behavior Via Weblogs”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.
32-41.
Zahra, S. A., Neubaum, D. O., and Larrañeta, B. (2007), “Knowledge Sharing and
Technological Capabilities: The Moderating Role of Family Involvement”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 60, No. 10, pp. 1070-1079.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 341-352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994), “The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision,and
Application to Advertising“, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 59-70.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., andParasuraman, A. (1996), “ The Behavioral Consequences of
Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., and McLean, G. N. (2010), “Linking Organizational Culture, Structure,
Strategy, and Organizational Effectiveness: Mediating Role of Knowledge
Management”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 7, pp. 763-771.
35
Biographical Details:
Shu-Mei Tseng is a professor in the Department of Information Management at I-Shou
University, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in the Department of Industrial and Information
Management at National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Her works have been published in
International Journal of Information Management, International Journal of Production
Economics, Journal of Knowledge Management, Expert Systems with Applications, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, and Management Research News. Her current research interests include
knowledge management, information technology management, customer relationship
management, and service quality.
36

tseng2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

tseng2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

tseng2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Enterprise Information Management

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

knowledge sharing intention, organizational culture and leadership style.

organizational factors into consideration when examining the relationships among IT

involvement, IT adoption intention and knowledge sharing intention.

2015) and empowering leadership fostered knowledge sharing among members in

whereas an extraverted communication style within a team is positively related to both

organizational cultures, leadership styles and knowledge sharing is justified.

In light of the important roles of organizational cultures and leadership styles in IT

Involvement on IT adoption intention, and knowledge sharing intention. Therefore, this

staff's willingness to share knowledge.

for future research in the conclusion section.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

This study aims to investigate the relationships among IT involvement, IT adoption

influence of IT involvement on IT adoption intention, then the influence of IT adoption

hypothesis elaborated below.

2.1 Information Technology

rapidly. IT thus includes technologies such as mathematical programing and methodologies

efficiency, thus achieve and maintain greater competitiveness.

structured knowledge, thus helping people to spread documents or knowledge to every

collection, storage, transmission and reuse, IT can thus support communication,

collaboration and knowledge searches. Khandelwal and Gottschalk (2003) conducted a

effectiveness of teamwork. Spiegler (2003) utilized a conventional hierarchy of data,

marketing, customer relationship management (CRM), e-commerce, and other purposes.

innovation (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Davenport and Prusak, 2000).

them as important. In a process of purchasing a particular product, consumers will usually

consumers gather about a potential purchase (Warrington et al., 2000).

involvement from multiple perspectives. Taking another approach, Zaichkowsky (1985),

elaborated that as long as each question is slightly adjusted, it is possible to measure

consumers’ degree of involvement towards the focal product, advertisement, or purchase

2.3 Behavioral Intention

Behavioral intention describes the possibility of a consumer behaving in certain ways,

categories, as follows: purchase intentions, repurchase intentions, shopping intentions,

spending intentions, search intentions, and consumption intentions.

2.4 Knowledge Sharing

research proposes the following hypothesis:

2.5 Leadership Style

Hemphill and Coons (1957) defined leadership as an individual behavior when

orchestrating a group of people to achieve a common objective. It is considered as an

interpersonal influence that is utilized in a certain circumstance and managed through a

communication process leading to a particular objective (Tannenbaum et al., 1961).

leadership, transformational leadership, and servant leadership. Charismatic leaders

constructive forms of leader behavior, such as transformational leadership (Avolio, 1999).

followers to build organizational collectivity, by gaining an understanding of their followers’

failure experienced by teams in terms of encouraging their members to share knowledge,

transformational leadership and educational specialization heterogeneity influences the level

with more educational specialization heterogeneity to be more creative. Furthermore,

2.6 Organizational Culture

behaviors based on this (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003).

Wallach (1983) divided organizational cultures into bureaucratic, innovative, and

These two dimensions form four quadrants—clan, adhocracy, market, and

hierarchy—representing distinct organizational cultures. Zheng, et al. (2010) built on the

dimensions, adaptability, consistency, involvement, and mission, to explore the relationships

showed that KM effectiveness fully mediates the impact of organizational culture on

knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

work to develop an appropriate organizational culture, so as to foster ERP knowledge sharing

and achieve benefits from the use of ERP systems.

effective knowledge sharing cannot be forced or mandated. Firms desiring to institutionalize

extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate will influence

individuals’ knowledge-sharing intentions. Yang (2007) found that a significantly positive