Next Article in Journal
Are Housing Prices Sustainable in 35 Large and Medium-Sized Chinese Cities? A Study Based on the Cheap Talk Game and Dynamic GMM
Previous Article in Journal
AR Learning Environment Integrated with EIA Inquiry Model: Enhancing Scientific Literacy and Reducing Cognitive Load of Students
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Technological Innovation on Industry 4.0 Implementation and Sustainability: An Empirical Study on Malaysian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 22
10.3390/su132212788
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

Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity

by
Alamzeb Aamir
1,
Sharif Ullah Jan
1,*,
Abdul Qadus
2,
Abdelmohsen A. Nassani
3 and
Mohamed Haffar
4
1
Department of Management Sciences, FATA University, TSD Dara, NMD, Kohat 26000, Pakistan
2
Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan
3
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh 11587, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Management, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12788; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788
Submission received: 14 October 2021 / Revised: 12 November 2021 / Accepted: 14 November 2021 / Published: 19 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Eco-Innovation and Sustainable Product Development on Shaping Circular Economy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The prime objective of the current study is to examine the impact of knowledge sharing and employee ambidexterity on the sustainable performance of manufacturing firms operating in the KPK province of Pakistan. In addition to this, the study has examined the mediating role of employees’ ambidexterity in the relationship between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. The final sample included 240 respondents, which represented a response rate of 68%. The study employed SEM-PLS for data analysis. The results indicate that the employee’s ambidexterity fully mediates between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance. Knowledge sharing appears as a significant determinant of employees’ ambidexterity and sustainable performance. Meanwhile, the employee’s ambidexterity also has a positive and significant relationship with sustainable performance. In the field of Management Sciences and other disciplines, knowledge sharing is considered a significant field of study. Globally, very little research has targeted these variables. This research offers conceptual highlights for developing the influence of knowledge sharing on the sustainable performance of employees particularly in the manufacturing sector.

1. Introduction

Profit maximization acts as a core factor in explaining the reasoning of an organization for long-term survival, and has encountered numerous challenges and arguments at the international, national, and organizational levels [1,2]. Consequently, at the academic level, the areas of Environmental and Management Science are a significant aim for firms hoping to attain an outcome that is helpful for a firm’s survival in the long term. However, available research regarding performance and ambidexterity which is attainable has attained vigorous developments in the past few years [3] and the data transferred and shared has evolved into a combination targets. Therefore, scholars are rapidly discovering different methods that tend to move towards knowledge integration and knowledge development to attain sustainable performance [4]. In particular, a worker’s ambidexterity that stems from knowledge sharing has gained importance in the manufacturing sector. Recent studies, along with focusing on service sectors, have attracted significant interest and highlighted the benefits that stem from knowledge sharing among manufacturing workers that enhance these organizational performances [5].
Therefore, the researcher presented sustainable performance as the harmonizing factor linking financial, social, and organizational environmental performance that leads towards the growth of sustainability [6,7]. Knowledge sharing originates from a vision of knowledge management; one definition explains that it is the usage and reorganization of collective knowledge inside the firm to control business competition [8]. According to this definition, a vital part of knowledge management is the accessibility and distribution of knowledge inside or among particular firms.
According to the study of knowledge management, the definition of knowledge sharing is expertise in solving problems, the exchange of information, execution of measures or regulations, and the growth of recent insights. On the other hand, researchers also stated that knowledge sharing is a multi-stage method including origination, execution, promotion, integration, sharing and assimilation, searching or transfer [9,10]. In previous decades, experts from human resource departments ignored knowledge sharing. In the past, particularly at the start of 2000, scholars began to consider knowledge management. Consequently, the human resource sector has been focused on knowledge management and its methods. Specifically, researchers identified that implicit data are a very significant form of information that consists of an understanding of people, skills, and experience. Ultimately, workers are motivated towards the execution of implicit and explicit knowledge for the resolution of problems through the development of a knowledge sharing environment [11]. Hence, in the workplace, for affecting the worker’s ambidexterity, knowledge sharing plays the most significant role. Therefore, in terms of studies regarding knowledge-based research, extensive research has targeted knowledge hiding along with knowledge sharing, which tends to disturb the transfer of knowledge. The definition of knowledge hiding is an attempt to conceal information and maintain the secrecy of data requested by other people [12]. It is a reaction of avoidance, which could be denial or silence, that is adopted to refuse to give appropriate information, ideas, or even feedback. It is a kind of self-defense that depends upon the risk and fear of losing authority over data and knowledge ownership. Sharing of integrated knowledge is human instinct, naturally determined and usually, people are keen to transfer knowledge which they have [13]. Therefore, the obstacle of ‘losing face’ or self-control leads to personal resource disposition because of knowledge sharing, the behavior of knowledge sharing within the workers is delayed, and the undulation influence is contained by the deterrents.
However, researchers [14,15] have claimed that knowledge hiding and knowledge sharing are not opposites, although theoretically these are reverse visions with individual frameworks. In addition to this, ambidexterity affects the capabilities of people to position their dexterity, e.g., exploitative and exploration targets, at the job location. Employee ambidexterity is defined as the engagement of workers in activities of exploration and exploitation [4]. Hence, exploration and exploitation activities are interdependent methods that are required for the transfer and accomplishment of overall integrated targets.
Although the vision of ambidexterity has been explained over many previous years, this concept is still very unclear with regard to how firms can efficiently enhance the employee’s ambidexterity. On the other hand, the noticeable significance of ambidexterity has been analyzed and theorized as a framework globally. Research regarding employee ambidexterity is at its initial stage in emerging and South Asian countries [16]. From the empirical and conceptual perspective, employee ambidexterity has received unusually minimal consideration [17]. Empirical research work discussed that how knowledge sharing plays a significant role in employees’ ambidexterity. In the above-discussed literature, the researchers have targeted a study of work over recent decades on sustainable performance which has been developed as a significant perception of research [12,16]. To report this problem openly, the research questions that require to be answered, are discussed below.
Although there is some current research work that implements methodology regarding knowledge sharing and strategies to describe the influence of these imposing variables at the level of a firm’s learning, performance, and innovation, the wider scenario is that there is an absence of studies which examine the association among employee’s ambidexterity and knowledge sharing related to performance sustainability. These factors are referred to in an integrated framework, which offers a complete perception of performance sustainability in the manufacturing sector [5,18,19]. However, the current research develops a number of significant influences which evolved via earlier empirical analysis and detained knowledge.
Firstly, it offers a new theoretical model that associates sustainable performance and knowledge sharing with employees’ ambidexterity. This research has addressed the limitations of the previous work and supported responses to the queries by presenting data facts regarding sustainable performance (the outcome of employee’s ambidexterity) and knowledge sharing (the predictor). Secondly, this research develops a research guide for knowledge sharing and discovers the influence of performance sustainability and employees’ ambidexterity in the manufacturing industry [20]. Recent research originates empirical research to investigate the associated variables of employees’ ambidexterity, especially according to the perception of the manufacturing sector. Thirdly, the researchers analyzed that earlier research work has targeted generally innovative ability or sustainable benefit, along with minor efforts on performance sustainability. The scholars noted the lack of research that associates sustainable performance with employee ambidexterity [21]. However, recent research discussed factors with potential indirect influences and direct influences which would develop the earlier perception of sustainability performance and employee ambidexterity. Finally, extended research regarding sustainable performance, employee ambidexterity, and knowledge sharing has enlightened the study of research regarding developed countries. However, usually the earlier research work gave the impression of Western bias.
As a result, the current research claims that future scholars must functionalize their research regarding perceptions of various countries, and especially the perception of non-Western countries [3]. This research work is done in developing countries i.e., Bangladesh, which will support earlier conclusions. Consequently, the researchers analyzed the research of sustainable performance in the framework of emerging countries, especially countries such as China, which has no research work evidence relating to employee’s ambidexterity, knowledge sharing [22], and knowledge hiding from the context of multi-theoretical lenses. and sustainable performance. This will seal the gap of analysis regarding specific objectives from numerous perspectives.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

“Knowledge sharing” is a very complex field. Knowledge may develop additional resources for a firm and play its role as a significant asset in the firm’s progress [23]. Additionally, knowledge sharing is associated with knowledge integration and absorption. The author claimed that the distribution of resource intensity enhances with a large amount of knowledge sharing. Numerous firms acknowledged that knowledge is an important asset and plays a significant role in attaining the sustainable performance of any business sector [24]. For numerous companies, the achievement of sustainable benefits is based on the organizational capability and execution of intellectual knowledge. [25] Claimed that the execution and growth of significant knowledge management values will provide the attainment of reliability levels of high-level performance. Therefore, [26] claimed that the unique knowledge sharing model consequently consists of an integrated context that would develop the potential base of competitive benefits and consequently, enhancement of sustainable performance. In the same way, the human capital model assumed the impact of an employee’s ability, skill, knowledge, and other attributes leading to sustainability of the firm. According to human capital theory, scholars demonstrated that knowledge sharing attitudes and behavior between workers would facilitate and support the abilities of the firm’s dynamic to lead to sustainable activities [27,28,29]. Hence, this research work reported that the mechanisms regarding knowledge sharing act as “enablers” that could take the data spread which tends towards further sustainable performance. Hence, this declaration highlighted the suggestions of the hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Sustainable performance is significantly influenced by knowledge sharing.
Ref. [17] reported on employees’ ambidexterity and knowledge sharing; the research work at the firm level indicates that knowledge sharing culture and employee empowerment play a significant role in the sustainability of an organization [30]. Usually, the hypothetical highlights of these links are reported in social exchange theory. This theory describes the link between the worker and the firm, which includes two sides: interdependent and reciprocal [2,30,31]. According to this theory, once a firm facilitates, encourages, and authorizes workers, consequently a culture develops that targets enhancement and stimulation of current structure, procedure, strategies, and systems that support advancement. However, a culture based on knowledge sharing tends to move towards employee ambidexterity. At this time, how a knowledge-sharing culture facilitates employee ambidexterity is not properly acknowledged [17].
Knowledge sharing among workers permits a rapid and informal approach towards appropriate data. However, a knowledge-sharing culture encourages the workers to support one another in vision consideration. Ref. [32] claimed in their theoretical research work that a huge association of workers supported accomplishment with the company’s regulations and laws. However, it is anticipated that workers are consciously passionate regarding the firm’s agreement about knowledge sharing; the workers will be capable of innovating and increasing corruption in their deeds. Depending upon the earlier empirical observations and hypothetical assumptions, this research work presented the hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Employee ambidexterity is significantly influenced by knowledge sharing.
Employee ambidexterity offers an encouraging condition for firm workers who modify dynamically by the method of exploitation and exploration, endorse the significant structure, and are capable of innovating and learning new procedures [33,34]. On the contrary, sustainability performance is recognized as compelling short-term engagements to ensure the long-term actions that may be assembled into “triple bottom line” approaches such as environmental, financial, and social approaches [35]. Employee ambidexterity plays a significant role in attaining and executing the firm’s sustainability targets. The firm’s structure might be improved with time to establish the explorative desire and employee’s exploitation to encourage sustainable behavior. The employee’s ambidexterity effect can be improved by the development of the highlighted method of social exchange theory [30,36]. Via the mutual exchange process, ambidexterity compensates and offers revenue in the upcoming period consisting of undefined upcoming compulsions with efficient involvement [2]. The social exchange theory indicates that knowledge sharing between people supports the significance of their ambidexterity performance; as a result, it supports the firm’s sustainable performance. However, according to the conceptual evidence and earlier research literature analyses, this research work presented the hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Sustainable performance is significantly affected by the employee’s ambidexterity.
According to the domain of social exchange theory, reciprocal association is reported among employees’ ambidexterity and knowledge sharing. This theory supports the association among the workers and the firm’s processes such as reciprocal, two-sided, interdependent, and mutually rewarding [2]. Thus, the behavior of knowledge sharing increases the capabilities of employees’ ambidexterity which develops acknowledgment of changeable employee behavior for attaining the firm’s sustainable performance. Ref. [17] claimed that in the culture of knowledge sharing, the workers argued about their common concerns identified ways to acknowledge them, and finally, and recognized innovative solutions which supported them to achieve ambidexterity. Employee ambidexterity which consists of exploitive and exploratory activities of workers could be encouraged by the organization in a multi-faceted way, which generates further sustainable performance [10,37,38,39]. According to the literature which claims that knowledge sharing and employee ambidexterity and the sustainable performance has an impact on employee’s ambidexterity, it is acknowledged by the research that employee’s ambidexterity facilitates an association between sustainable performance and knowledge sharing. In the same way, the researchers presented the hypotheses as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Employee ambidexterity facilitates the impact of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance.

3. Method

To achieve the objective of the study, we used a quantitative method, and data were collected with the aid of a questionnaire (see Appendix A and Appendix B). In total, 350 questionnaires were sent to the respondents. The final sample received was 295. After the deletion of outliers and correcting for respondent bias, the final sample comprised 240. The response rate was 81%, which is significantly higher than the threshold level of 30% [40,41]. No particular range is mentioned in the literature regarding missing values. However, in [42], researchers proposed that if the missing rate was less or equal to 5%, it would not make any significant difference on the outcome or affect the validity or reliability of the statistical inference. The study has employed SEM-PLS for data analysis purposes.

4. Results

Model Assessment

The SEM-PLS is employed for data analysis purposes. The SEM-PLS follows a two-step procedure: (1) assessment of measurement model, (2) assessment of the structural model. For this purpose, the current study performed model fitness tests such as CMIN/DF, RMSEA, RMR, GFI, TLI, and CFI (Table 1). Moreover, the reliability and validity of the model are also determined in the measurement model, whereas relationships between and among the variables are determined by the structural model. The measurement model of the study is shown in Figure 1 below:
Furthermore, Table 1 shows a 3-factor model (where CMIN/DF = 1.135, RMSEA = 0.31, RMR = 0.023, GFI = 0.921, TLI = 0.981, and CFI = 0.991), which happens to be the minimum “cut-off” values reported by many studies in literature [43].
The internal reliability of our proposed model is accessed through outer loadings (refer to Table 2 below) and cross-loadings [44,45]. According to [46], the threshold value of the outer loading is 0.70. In our case, we have deleted all the items with outer loadings less than 0.70.
The findings of the reliability analysis are shown in Table 3. The results indicate that there is no issue of reliability in our case as all the values are of composite reliability; Cronbach’s Alpha and average variance extracted are above the threshold value.
The next step of the measurement model is the determination of the validity. The Fornell–Larcker Criterion has been employed for the assessment of the validity of our model. The results from Table 4 indicate that all the diagonal values are greater than the lower values.
The coefficient of determination i.e. R2 (as indicated in Table 5 below) in our case is above 0.15, which is above the threshold level.
Once the measurement model is accessed, the next step is to access the structural model. The structural model of the current study is shown in Figure 2 below:
The bootstrapping procedure is employed to examine the structural relationship between and among the variables [43,45,46,47,48,49]. The results of the bootstrapping are mapped in Figure 2. The results of the structural model are shown in Table 6 and Table 7 below. The results of the direct relations are explained in Table 6 below. The results indicate that all the direct paths are positive and significant at p-values less than 0.05. Knowledge sharing appears as a significant determinant of employees’ ambidexterity and sustainable performance. Meanwhile, the employee’s ambidexterity is also in a positive and significant relationship with sustainable performance.
The outcome of mediation analysis is shown in Table 7 below [50,51]. The results indicate that the employee’s ambidexterity fully mediates between knowledge sharing and sustainable performance.

5. Discussion

Recent research claimed to examine the impact on sustainable performance along with the impact of knowledge, which is hidden as a moderator, and employee ambidexterity as a mediator. In the same way, the scholars investigate the significant association between four factors from the conceptualized highlighted theories, for example, social exchange theory and human capital theory.
In addition to this, to investigate this model, four hypotheses were established from the concept of theoretical and empirical findings which are demonstrated in Table 5 and Table 6. The first hypothesis is H1: sustainable performance is significantly influenced by knowledge sharing; therefore, the findings of the test were in favor of this research. The findings vary from the earlier research work which states that sustainable performance is not significantly impacted [3]. Therefore, it is not surprising that due to the mediating impact of employee’s ambidexterity, knowledge sharing had a significant impact. The main direct impact through the mediating factor develops a significant influence on the variable, which has been re-instated by previous studies that showed a significant direct impact [2,52].
Accordingly, the employee’s ambidexterity would be further targeted by knowledge sharing to further increase the firm’s sustainable performance. Concern regarding H2 is that this hypothesis is also dependable on the findings of earlier research studies [4]. Ref. [32] claimed that the further refined were the forms of networking and employee alignment estimation, the more developed was the form of exploitation. When workers know about their company agreement to knowledge sharing, employees start to enhance their corruption activities through exploitive capabilities and exploitative activities. Thus, researchers [17] reported that employees’ ambidexterity was impacted by knowledge sharing. According to the social exchange theory, the researchers deal with the workers who share knowledge among people as to how they act during task generation, their outputs, their collaboration and, as a result, it motivates more explorative and exploitative activities between workers.
The third hypothesis, H3, investigated the impact of sustainable performance as a result of the employee’s ambidexterity, which had already been encouraged in a prior research study by [39]. This hypothesis depends on the research results of [40]. The findings highlighted that the behavior of ambidexterity would accomplish sustainability as a result of exploitation and exploration employing three differing styles: contextual, sequential, and structural. Additionally, the impact of employee’s ambidexterity resulted in associated various forms of performance, for example, environmental performance, innovation performance, and general performance [10,53]. According to this perception, the purpose of H3 acceptance might be fixed in an implication such as the employee’s ambidexterity being further relatable to sustainable performance [39,54,55]. Hypothesis H4 tested the mediating impact among factors and the findings presented that employees’ ambidexterity facilitated the link between sustainable performance and knowledge sharing.
The findings highlighted that employees’ ambidexterity completely facilitates the association between sustainable performance and knowledge sharing. Each firm would attempt to mediate the individual ambidexterity by the stimulation of development in knowledge sharing, enduring one another, and would be feasible [56,57]. This is considered evidence of sustainable performance being enhanced by knowledge sharing [58,59]. The research work of [27] claimed that knowledge sharing motivated the firm’s sustainable performance by encouraging the engagement of investors. The researchers portray their perception as having evolved from social exchange theory and human capital theory, and reported that the target of sharing knowledge can enhance the employee’s ambidexterity. As a result, this led to an increase in sustainable performance (social exchange theory and human capital theory) [30,31,59].

6. Conclusions

The research plots the association between knowledge sharing, employee ambidexterity, and sustainable performance according to the Asian perception. Generally, the research encourages supporting the perception that knowledge sharing rewards consideration indirectly or directly in relation to sustainable performance. From now, the research approves significant knowledge sharing to encourage managers to support workers’ abilities, and thus this research considerably describes sustainable performance attained through it. Especially, it confirms further the opinion regarding the firm’s acknowledgment about knowledge sharing requirements and employee’s ambidexterity, which the more sustainable firms can attain. Particularly, the firms collaborate to develop improvements in the literature and empirical results in three various processes. Firstly, the researchers condemn the usage of empirical structural equation modeling by the conceptualization of employees’ ambidexterity and knowledge sharing based on methodology. Secondly, the researchers competed in relation to earlier research which was applied according to personal settings. Thus, the researchers enhanced the earlier results by current research on a multi-level source with a multi-theoretical lens. Thirdly, the researcher recommends linking with knowledge sharing and individual ambidexterity to offer a general perception of hypothesizing a firm’s sustainable performance.

6.1. Practical Implications

The findings of this research indicate that “knowledge sharing” facilitates employees involvement in “ambidextrous” activities. Moreover, the current study is conducted in the context of manufacturing firms, which desire to be “ambidextrous” via their employees instead of investing heavily in their training. The findings would further facilitate these employees to anticipate technological changes with creative insights that will in turn enhance the sustainability of their performance. However, to boost employees’ ambidexterity, the firms also need to provide a supportive environment and must empower these employees.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Besides all the contributions that are made by the current study, at few limitations are important to be considered while making inferences from the findings. Firstly, this is a cross-sectional study to analyze the effects of knowledge sharing in relation to employee ambidexterity and performance sustainability. However, future studies could address this phenomenon with “longitudinal data” or an “experimental research design”. Secondly, the construct of the current study is based on a developed context and future studies could develop a construct that might be more localized in context. Finally, future studies may also compare this relationship in two different industries, such as services and merchandising, etc.

Author Contributions

The research was designed, performed, and analyzed by A.A. and S.U.J. The literature survey and data collection were performed by A.Q. and M.H. A.A.N. helped in developing write-up, proofreading, and revising the draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is funded by the “Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2021/87), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia”: RSP-2021/87.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethical Committee (REC) of FATA University (019/REC/FATA-U as on 15 September 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Demographic Questions

A.1. What is the current position you hold in your organization? Please choose the option most relevant to your organization.
Executive1
Senior Manager2
Middle Manager3
Junior Manager4
Specialist5
Technical/Administrative6
A.2. How many years of work experience do you currently have?__________ years.
A.3. Please indicate your highest qualification that you have obtained.
Grade twelve or Matric1
Certificate2
Diploma3
Bachelor’s Degree4
Honors Degree5
Master’s Degree6
PhD/Doctorate7

Appendix B. Main Survey Questions

B.1. Knowledge Sharing (KNSH).
  • People in my organization frequently share existing reports and official documents with members of my organization.
  • People in my organization frequently share reports and official documents that they prepare by themselves with members of my organization.
  • People in my organization frequently collect reports and official documents from others in their work.
  • People in my organization are frequently encouraged by knowledge sharing mechanisms.
  • People in my organization are frequently offered a variety of training and development programs.
  • People in my organization are facilitated by IT systems invested for knowledge sharing.
  • People in my organization frequently share knowledge based on their experience.
  • People in my organization frequently collect knowledge from others based on their experience.
  • People in my organization frequently share knowledge of know-where or know-whom with others.
  • People in my organization frequently collect knowledge of know-where or know-whom with others.
  • People in my organization frequently share knowledge based on their expertise.
  • People in my organization frequently collect knowledge from others based on their expertise.
  • People in my organization will share lessons from past failures when they feel necessary.
B.2. Employee Ambidexterity (EMA).
  • Our organization is quick in coming up with novel ideas as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization is quick in new product launching as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization is quick in new product development as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization is quick in new processes as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization is quick in problem solving as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization does better in coming up with novel ideas as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization does better in new product launching as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization does better in new product development as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization does better in processes improving as compared to key competitors.
  • Our organization does better in management improving as compared to key competitors.
B.3. Sustainable Performance.
  • Customer satisfaction of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Quality development of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Cost management of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Responsiveness of our organization is better as compared to key competitors
  • Productivity of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Asset management of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Average return on investment of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Average profit of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Profit growth of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.
  • Average return on sales of our organization is better as compared to key competitors.

References

  1. Biermann, R.; Koops, J.A. Studying relations among international organizations in world politics: Core concepts and challenges. In Palgrave Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations in World Politics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ding, C.; Wang, D.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, J. Exploring the influence of built environment on travel mode choice considering the mediating effects of car ownership and travel distance. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lopes, C.M.; Scavarda, A.; Hofmeister, L.F.; Thomé, A.M.T.; Vaccaro, G.L.R. An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 476–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Katic, M.; Cetindamar, D.; Agarwal, R. Deploying ambidexterity through better management practices: An investigation based on high-variety, low-volume manufacturing. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 952–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, J.; Guo, S.; Huang, H.; Liu, W.; Xiang, Y. Information and Communications Technologies for Sustainable Development Goals: State-of-the-Art, Needs and Perspectives. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 2389–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Chaudhry, N.I.; Asad, H.; Hussain, R.I. Environmental innovation and financial performance: Mediating role of environmental management accounting and firm’s environmental strategy. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. PJCSS 2020, 14, 715–737. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shahab, Y.; Ntim, C.; Chen, Y.; Ullah, F.; Li, H.; Ye, Z. Chief executive officer attributes, sustainable performance, environmental performance, and environmental reporting: New insights from upper echelons perspective. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barley, W.C.; Treem, J.W.; Kuhn, T. Valuing Multiple Trajectories of Knowledge: A Critical Review and Agenda for Knowledge Management Research. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2018, 12, 278–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dörnberg, A.D. Knowledge Management towards Innovation: How Can Organizations Utilize Knowledge Management to Foster Innovation? Master’s Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Stockholm, Sweden, 2019. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1328928/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  10. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, W.-T.; Wang, Y.-S.; Chang, W.-T. Investigating the effects of psychological empowerment and interpersonal conflicts on employees’ knowledge sharing intentions. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1039–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Arain, G.A.; Bhatti, Z.A.; Hameed, I.; Fang, Y.-H. Top-down knowledge hiding and innovative work behavior (IWB): A three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and local/foreign status. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 24, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Chumg, H.-F.; Seaton, J.; Cooke, L.; Ding, W.-Y. Factors affecting employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 64, 432–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ghasemaghaei, M.; Turel, O. Possible negative effects of big data on decision quality in firms: The role of knowledge hiding behaviours. Inf. Syst. J. 2021, 31, 268–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Léveillé, D.J. Knowledge Creation within the Boundaries of Physical Spaces: A Case Study of Individual Knowledge Creators within an Innovative Firm. Ph.D. Thesis, Northcentral University, San Diego, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rao-Nicholson, R.; Khan, Z.; Akhtar, P.; Merchant, H. The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 2461–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Guisado-González, M.; González-Blanco, J.; Coca-Pérez, J.L. Analyzing the relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 21, 1142–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hsu, C.-H.; Chang, A.-Y.; Luo, W. Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEs–integrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 629–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shad, M.K.; Lai, F.-W.; Fatt, C.L.; Klemeš, J.J.; Bokhari, A. Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk management and its relationship with business performance: A conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kianto, A.; Shujahat, M.; Hussain, S.; Nawaz, F.; Ali, M. The impact of knowledge management on knowledge worker productivity. Balt. J. Manag. 2019, 14, 178–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shamim, S.; Zeng, J.; Choksy, U.S.; Shariq, S.M. Connecting big data management capabilities with employee ambidexterity in Chinese multinational enterprises through the mediation of big data value creation at the employee level. Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sardi, A.; Sorano, E.; Garengo, P.; Ferraris, A. The role of HRM in the innovation of performance measurement and management systems: A multiple case study in SMEs. Empl. Relat. 2020, 43, 589–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yoo, D.; Reimann, F. Internationalization of Developing Country Firms into Developed Countries: The Role of Host Country Knowledge-Based Assets and IPR Protection in FDI Location Choice. J. Int. Manag. 2017, 23, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pantouvakis, A.; Vlachos, I.; Zervopoulos, P. Market orientation for sustainable performance and the inverted-U moderation of firm size: Evidence from the Greek shipping industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 705–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Shabane, T.S. The Integration of Talent Management and knowledge Management in the South African Public Service. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kim, S.S. Exploitation of shared knowledge and creative behavior: The role of social context. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 24, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ahmed, F.; Hassan, A.; Ayub, M.U. High commitment work system and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2018, 12, 29–51. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lei, H.; Nguyen, T.T.; Le, P.B. How knowledge sharing connects interpersonal trust and innovation capability. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2019, 13, 276–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Takhsha, M.; Barahimi, N.; Adelpanah, A.; Salehzadeh, R. The effect of workplace ostracism on knowledge sharing: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem and organizational silence. J. Work. Learn. 2020, 32, 417–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deci, E.L.; Olafsen, A.H.; Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017, 4, 19–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mohanty, S.K.; Arunprasad, P. Identification of drivers of employee engagement in Indian power companies. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2021, 70, 1263–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barnes, M. Understanding the Sustainability of a Planned Change: A Case Study Using an Organizational Learning Lens. Ph.D. Dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  33. Buccieri, D.; Javalgi, R.G.; Cavusgil, E. International new venture performance: Role of international entrepreneurial culture, ambidextrous innovation, and dynamic marketing capabilities. Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Waheed, A.; Miao, X.; Waheed, S.; Ahmad, N.; Majeed, A. How New HRM Practices, Organizational Innovation, and Innovative Climate Affect the Innovation Performance in the IT Industry: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Muñoz-Pascual, L.; Curado, C.; Galende, J. The Triple Bottom Line on Sustainable Product Innovation Performance in SMEs: A Mixed Methods Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Rigby, C.S.; Ryan, R.M. Self-Determination Theory in Human Resource Development: New Directions and Practical Considerations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2018, 20, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Jia, J.; Liu, H.; Chin, T.; Hu, D. The Continuous Mediating Effects of GHRM on Employees’ Green Passion via Transformational Leadership and Green Creativity. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Hameed, W.U.; Waseem, M.; Sabir, S.A.; Dahri, P.A.S. Effect of enterprise risk management system and implementation problem on financial performance: An empirical evidence from Malaysian listed firms. Abasyn J. Soc. Sci. 2020, 13, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jilani, M.M.A.K.; Fan, L.; Islam, M.T.; Uddin, A. The Influence of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: A Moderated Mediation Study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Basheer Siam, M.; Awn, A.; Hassan, S. Exploring the role of TQM and supply chain practices for firm supply performance in the presence of information technology capabilities and supply chain technology adoption: A case of textile firms in Pakistan. Uncertain Supply Chain. Manag. 2019, 7, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Indarti, S.; Solimun; Fernandes, A.A.R.; Hakim, W. The effect of OCB in relationship between personality, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on performance. J. Manag. Dev. 2017, 36, 1283–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soriano, G.P. Psychometric Properties of ‘Attitude towards e-Learning Scale’ among Nursing Students. Int. J. Educ. Sci. 2020, 30, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hair Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Basheer, M.F.; Hafeez, M.H.; Hassan, S.G.; Haroon, U. Exploring the Role of TQM and Supply Chain Practices for Firm Supply Performance in the Presence of Organizational Learning Capabilities: A Case of Textile Firms in Pakistan. Paradigms 2018, 12, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hameed, W.U.; Basheer, M.F.; Iqbal, J.; Anwar, A.; Ahmad, H.K. Determinants of Firm’s open innovation performance and the role of R & D department: An empirical evidence from Malaysian SME’s. J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 2018, 8, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hair Hult GT, M.; Ringle, C. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage publications. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2016, 6, 2011–2013. [Google Scholar]
  47. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nuseir, M.T.; Basheer, M.F.; Aljumah, A. Antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions in smart city of Neom Saudi Arabia: Does the entrepreneurial education on artificial intelligence matter? Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1825041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Richter, N.F.; Cepeda, G.; Roldan, J.L.; Ringle, C.M. European management research using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. Manag. J. 2015, 33, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Asada, A.; Basheerb, M.F.; Irfanc, M. Open-Innovation and Knowledge Management in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): The role of External Knowledge and Internal Innovation. Rev. Argent. Clínica Psicológica 2020, 29, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naala, M.; Nordin, N.; Omar, W. Innovation capability and firm performance relationship: A study of pls-structural equation modeling (Pls-Sem). Int. J. Organ. Bus. Excell. 2017, 2, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  52. Suifan, T.S.; Diab, H.; Abdallah, A.B. Does organizational justice affect turnover-intention in a developing country? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. J. Manag. Dev. 2017, 36, 1137–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Wang, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Coca-Stefaniak, J.A. Responding to a major global crisis: The effects of hotel safety leadership on employee safety behavior during COVID-19. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 3365–3389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Almulhim, A.F. Linking Knowledge Sharing to Innovative Work Behaviour: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zou, X.; Chen, X.; Chen, F.; Luo, C.; Liu, H. The Influence of Negative Workplace Gossip on Knowledge Sharing: Insight from the Cognitive Dissonance Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Cai, Z.; Liu, H.; Huang, Q.; Kang, Y.; Liang, L.; Huang, V. Encouraging client’s knowledge sharing in enterprise system post-implementation through psychological contract and entrepreneurial orientation. Inf. Technol. People 2019, 33, 689–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ramadian, A.; Eliyana, A.; Hamidah AD, B.; Rakawuri, R. The Effect of Compensation Strategy Implementation on Knowledge Sharing through Affective Commitment and Psychological Contracts. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 699–712. [Google Scholar]
  58. Masa’Deh, R.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Tarhini, A. A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 35, 681–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Le, P.B.; Lei, H. Determinants of innovation capability: The roles of transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and perceived organizational support. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 527–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 12788 g001 550
Figure 1. Measurement model.
Figure 1. Measurement model.
Sustainability 13 12788 g001
Sustainability 13 12788 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Sustainability 13 12788 g002
Table
Table 1. Assessing the alternative models.
Table 1. Assessing the alternative models.
ModelCMIN/DFRMSEARMRGFITLICFIAlternate Model
3-Factors Model1.1350.310.0230.9210.9810.991EMA, KNSH, SP
2-Factors Model2.3990.0720.0350.8030.8890.899EMA + KNSH, SP
1-Factors Model4.5730.1230.0810.6820.6820.719EMA, KNSH + SP
Threshold Limit<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.90<0.90<0.90
Note: In table, EMA = Employee Ambidexterity, KNSH = Knowledge Sharing, SP = Sustainable Performance.
Table
Table 2. Outer loadings.
Table 2. Outer loadings.
EMAKNSHSP
EMA10.9060.8310.648
EMA20.8470.7810.561
EMA30.9050.8220.658
EMA40.8900.8150.624
EMA50.9070.8130.666
EMA60.8630.7770.645
EMA70.8210.7860.605
EMA80.8680.8080.668
EMA90.8850.8310.687
KNSH10.8360.8880.619
KNSH20.7940.8940.629
KNSH30.8240.9000.602
KNSH40.7910.8830.609
KNSH50.8630.9150.691
KNSH60.8230.8840.616
SP10.6060.6360.891
SP100.6870.6230.898
SP110.6980.6530.915
SP130.6340.5880.853
SP140.6430.5910.829
SP20.6260.6240.885
SP30.6130.5980.867
SP40.6380.6330.869
SP50.5620.5720.807
SP60.6200.5870.861
SP70.5730.5530.838
SP90.6970.6610.904
Table
Table 3. Reliability.
Table 3. Reliability.
Cronbach’s Alpharho_ACR(AVE)
EMA0.9620.9630.9680.770
KNSH0.9500.9500.9600.799
SP0.9700.9720.9740.755
Table
Table 4. Validity.
Table 4. Validity.
EMAKNSHSP
EMA0.877
KNSH0.8200.894
SP0.7310.7030.869
Table
Table 5. R-Square (R2).
Table 5. R-Square (R2).
R2
EMA0.847
SP0.540
Table
Table 6. Direct relationships.
Table 6. Direct relationships.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
EMA -> SP0.5470.5530.0935.9070.000
KNSH -> EMA0.9200.9200.01463.5240.000
KNSH -> SP0.7030.7050.06710.5550.000
Table
Table 7. Mediation.
Table 7. Mediation.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
KNSH -> EMA -> SP0.5030.5090.0875.7640.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aamir, A.; Jan, S.U.; Qadus, A.; Nassani, A.A.; Haffar, M. Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788

AMA Style

Aamir A, Jan SU, Qadus A, Nassani AA, Haffar M. Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity. Sustainability. 2021; 13(22):12788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aamir, Alamzeb, Sharif Ullah Jan, Abdul Qadus, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani, and Mohamed Haffar. 2021. "Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity" Sustainability 13, no. 22: 12788. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788

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