Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2021
The Role of Knowledge-Sharing Behaviour in the
Relationship Between the Knowledge Creation Process and
Employee Goal Orientation
Kattareeya Prompreing
Faculty of Business Administration and Liberal Arts,
Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna,
41/1 moo 7 Paholayothin road, Mai Ngam, Muang, Tak, Thailand, 63000
Tel: +66811117677
Email: katt.rmutl@gmail.com, kattareeya14@rmutl.ac.th
Clark Hu*
Department of Hospitality Management,
Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
No.1, Nantai St., Yongkang Dist., Tainan City 71005, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
Tel: +886 6-2533131
E-mail: clarkhu@stust.edu.tw
Abstract
This study examines the structural relationship among four distinctive forms of the knowledge creation
process, namely socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization; two distinctive types of
knowledge-sharing behaviours, namely collecting and donating; and employee goal orientation. Data
were collected through a survey from 390 employees in the hospitality business, and the Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) technique was adopted to test the proposed hypotheses. The findings
suggest that (1) socialization and combination have a positive relationship with knowledge collecting
and knowledge donating; (2) externalization does not support knowledge collecting but has a positive
relationship with knowledge donating; (3) internalization supports neither knowledge collecting nor
knowledge donating; (4) knowledge collecting has a negative relationship with learning orientation but
has a positive relationship with performance orientation; (5) knowledge donating has a positive
relationship with both learning and performance orientation. Thus, knowledge-sharing behaviour was
found to have an impact on employees’ goal orientation. The study concludes with discussions of the
research findings, managerial implications, and limitations. We also suggest expanding research on this
topic.
Keywords: employee goal orientation, hospitality businesses, knowledge management, knowledge
creation process, knowledge-sharing behaviour
Acknowledgment:
This article and the research behind it would not have been possible without the exceptional support of
our affiliated institutions. We would like to express our gratitude to the Southern Taiwan University of
Science and Technology (STUST) in Tainan, Taiwan, and the Rajamangala University of Technology
Lanna (RMUTL) in Thailand.
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
47
1. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge management (KM) is a crucial aspect of any organization; it involves conveying all
details, information, skills, and techniques from person to person, machine to machine, and person to
machine and document. The KM theory developed by Nonaka (1994) is one of the most important
theories in KM study. This theory emphasizes a comprehensive theoretical view to visualize the whole
knowledge creation process (KCP) in terms of Socialization (So), Externalization (Ex), Combination
(Co), and Internalization (In). These four terms are also described as parts of the knowledge creation
process in the SECI model. This relates to KM's mandatory role for all knowledge conversions to
succeed (Nonaka, 1994). A firm's strategic advantage is its vital knowledge asset, which is considered
the firm's knowledge base as it involves the flow of knowledge, and practitioners and researchers focus
on KM (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018; Ode, 2019). The behaviour of knowledge sharing emerged as a
system involving individual knowledge sharing and the willingness to both assist (knowledge donating
[KD]) and learn (knowledge collecting [KC]) from others to improve their abilities (Bock and Kim,
2002; Kim et al., 2013).
Employees are the main drivers of an organization's progress, just as an extraordinary machine is
for a firm. Employees are also often at the frontline of a business, serving customers and displaying
their service style in the work they perform. In such cases, especially those pertaining to frontline
employees in hotels, KM is vital because they are the direct communication point for clients (Ferry,
2005). However, the hospitality sector has a large employee turnover rate, and, thus, when employees
leave, the knowledge goes with them. In the context of employee turnover, if there is a lack of storage
space for such knowledge and its transference to documents, the organization stands to lose its human
capital, thus affecting the quality of the services rendered (Yang and Wan, 2004). Hospitality is a part
of the tourism industry because most customers are visitors. When visitors require products and
services from the hospitality sector, the sector has to be ready to cater to their needs. In the tourism and
hospitality sector, entrepreneurship and employees are key to establishing successful businesses and
contributing to various economies, especially on islands (Booth et al., 2020). The previous decade
witnessed the tourism and hospitality business contributing to the strategic increase in economic
growth (Santana-Gallego et al., 2011). Statistics for the economy from 2008 to 2018 in Thailand show
that 45.78% of employment was generated by service industries, especially in the hospitality sector
(Thailand - Employment by Economic Sector, 2019). This statistical indication reflects the critical role
that the hospitality business played in Thailand, especially regarding employment.
In a competitive, unpredictable, and unstable situation, organizations encourage their employees to
share their practices and knowledge (Allal-Chérif & Makhlouf, 2016). The SECI model supports the
creation of new knowledge and the maintenance of old knowledge, which is usually lacking in firms
(Bandera et al., 2017). Enhancing KM among employees is crucial for understanding the potential
factors affecting employee goal orientation, as these activities can be affected by circumstances (Button
et al., 1996; Kim & Lee, 2013). Among employees, goal orientation consists of two dispositional
components: learning goal orientation, and performance goal orientation (Button et al., 1996).
Employees’ goal orientation is a key driver that leads an organization to achieve its objectives; being
goal-oriented is a valuable personal quality that can produce meaningful results and it is an essential
individual intrinsic motivational construct in organizational research (Kim & Lee, 2013). Prompreing
& Hu (2021) found significant relationships between the SECI dimensions in the knowledge
management context and entrepreneur goal orientation. The SECI model is a good process of
knowledge creation for assisting firms aimed at achieving business growth and sustainability. This
mechanism fosters learning and puts people at the heart of enhancing the institutions’ ability to
maintain and improve their performance (Prompreing & Hu, 2021). Further, Kim et al., 2013
documented the relationships between knowledge sharing enablers, processes, and organizational
performance, which indicated that hotels could support a knowledge sharing culture. This emphasized
the social dynamics and interpersonal relationships within a group that encourage employee
performance by expanding their willingness to donate and collect knowledge among colleagues.
As the resource-based view theory of firms has considered knowledge to be the most strategically
significant resource, it is an important intangible asset and a source of competitive advantage that
enables businesses to develop and grow (Zheng et al., 2016), knowledge-sharing behaviour is applied
to the research to reach an organization’s goals (Barney, 1991; Kim et al., 2013). Also, knowledge-
sharing behaviour, such as ‘social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge,
experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization’ (Lin, 2007, p.315), serves as a
critical enabler to knowledge management. It plays a central role in the knowledge-sharing process,
which involves the social dynamics among individual and organizational members (Kim et al., 2013).
Knowledge-sharing behaviour contributes to the effectiveness of the firm (Harrington & Ottenbacher,
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
48
2011; Yang, 2010). Thus, the current study focuses on the relationship between the knowledge creation
process and goal orientation, which is more complicated than merely considering an employee's
perspective. Once employees established a process for knowledge management, knowledge collecting
and sharing occurred, influencing their learning and performance orientation. As a result, the
organization can learn to develop and foster successful employees, which is desirable for the
organization.
Kim et al. (2013) examined the influence of knowledge-sharing enablers on the knowledge-
sharing process, and a superior knowledge-sharing outcome (organizational performance). They found
a significant effect for both relationships, which is known as the social capital effect (knowledge
sharing enabler). This effect, relating to employees’ KC and KD, also affected organizational
performance. More importantly, cognitive social capital was found to have the most substantial impact
on employees’ KC (Kim et al., 2013). Furthermore, previous studies on this topic have not addressed
the knowledge creation process but have investigated the structural relationships between goal
orientation, knowledge-sharing behaviour, and service innovative behaviour. They have found that
individual employees demonstrate goal orientations when they perform activities that can determine
their behaviour or actions (Kim & Lee, 2013; Kim et al., 2013). However, there are few empirical
studies examining the influences of the knowledge creation process (KCP) on knowledge-sharing
behaviour (KSB) and employee goal orientation (EGO). Therefore, this research stream needs to be
pursued further to advance the domain knowledge in organizational research. Thus, this study
examined the relationship between KCP, KSB, and EGO in the hospitality industry, where KSB plays a
role in the relationship between the KCP and EGO. The results of this study offer a comprehensive
understanding of the role of individuals’ KSB (collecting and donating) between the KCP (SECI
dimensions) and the consequences (employee goal orientation) in the organizational context. Further, it
examines the knowledge creation process as an essential intrinsic motivator of knowledge-sharing
behaviour among hospitality employees, an issue that has so far been neglected. This study fills the
research gap by investigating the dynamics and processes of knowledge-sharing behaviour and the
consequence of employees’ learning and performance orientation in the hospitality business from a
holistic point of view. Thus, the objective of this study was to link these concepts with the following:
1. The knowledge creation process positively influences knowledge-sharing behaviour.
2. The knowledge-sharing behaviour positively influences employee goal orientation.
This paper consists of six sections, as follows. Section 1 presents an introduction to the topic.
Section 2 provides a literature review of the SECI model (SECI activities), knowledge-sharing
behaviour, employee goal orientation, and the study’s conceptual framework and hypotheses. Section 3
describes the materials and methods used and the data analysis process. Section 4 presents the results,
which include details about the respondents, the validity and reliability of the factors, evaluation of
model fit, and hypothesis testing. Section 5 presents a discussion and outlines the contributions of the
study. Finally, the conclusion describes the practical and theoretical implications as well as the
limitations of the study and indicates directions for future research.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The SECI Model (SECI Activities)
Based on the resource-based view theory of the firm, knowledge is a strategic resource in an
organization. Utilizing knowledge enables an organization to create a sustainable competitive
advantage due to the uniqueness, heterogeneity, and immobility of the knowledge it possesses (Hunt &
Arnett, 2006; Zack, 1999). Prior research has demonstrated that the crucial role of the knowledge
creation process has led organizations to reach goals and success (Chia, 2003; Kogut & Zander, 2003;
Nonaka & Takechi, 1995; Li, Huang & Tsai, 2009) and organizations that integrate the knowledge
creation process can utilize knowledge in new and more developed ways to provide value to customers
(Lee & Choi, 2003; Nonaka & Konna, 1998).
The knowledge creation process features interrelated activities that include socialization,
externalization, combination, and internalization, influencing the organization's explicit and tacit
knowledge dynamics. Socialization embraces both learning and sharing information for employees to
gain more experiences and skills from the outside. Through this social interaction, the activity
encourages the participant to gain more extensive knowledge. Externalization reforms the explicit
knowledge derived from tacit knowledge and prepares a representation that is memorized and stored.
The combination is the explication of explicit knowledge with new intricate understanding.
Internalization reforms the tacit knowledge formed from explicit knowledge (Donate & de Pable,
2015).
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
49
The SECI model is a key strategic component that stresses KM in an organization’s environment.
The strategy should focus on existing environmental knowledge within the organization to facilitate the
knowledge management process. (Martinez, Navarro & Perez, 2015). In this way, individuals gain
improved understanding by using concepts, images, or documents. Through the combination process,
explicit knowledge is converted into more complex sets of explicit knowledge. Internalization occurs
when transactions conducted within a firm include teaching, sharing, and explaining the knowledge to
understand the concept (Nonaka et al., 2000). Desouza and Awazu (2006) have also found significance
in the SECI dimension, which is key to transferring knowledge from person to person in an
organization. It can be the primary vehicle for the exchange of knowledge. In this study, the SECI
model has been adopted to examine the relationship between employee goal orientation and
knowledge-sharing behaviour in Thailand's hospitality business.
2.2 Knowledge-sharing behaviour
Knowledge management (KM) has emerged as an area of interest in the last decade, as the
resource-based view of the firm has been gaining traction (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). The
knowledge sharing perspective means exchanging information (Matzler & Mueller, 2011; Eisenhard &
Santos, 2002). Knowledge-sharing behaviour can be defined as those practices or acts through which
information is exchanged among individuals and between groups of people. Knowledge sharing will
happen when individuals are willing to learn KC and offer help to enhance new competence (Bock and
Kim, 2002). As part of KC behaviour, an individual uses his or her instincts to seek motivation for
learning to perform better. When such individuals ask for guidance or suggestions, this shows their
willingness to discover and collect new knowledge (Van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). In KD
behaviour, knowledge is an asset to be shared with employees to achieve better learning and improved
performance. Engaging in donating activities involves individual exchanges and the sharing of
experiences to build new knowledge (Usoro et al., 2007). This behaviour provides an opportunity to
develop the firm and widen its market. For the hotel's competitive advantage and for it to meet the
expectations and increase in customers' demands, knowledge sharing activities are essential. Especially,
KSB in the hospitality sector is crucial because the cost of knowledge loss through employees leaving
the firm (Yang & Wan, 2004; Kim & Lee, 2012) is enormous.
Individuals’ daily activities in organizations can affect their knowledge-sharing behaviours. KSB
is retrieved from individuals and absorbed by the firm (Foss et al., 2010). Employees use the process
for mutual transfer and exchange; their explicit and tacit knowledge is a part of knowledge sharing. Not
everyone agrees to share their knowledge (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Wipawayangkook and Teng
(2016) explored knowledge internalization and sharing intention by expanding a construct of the
knowledge internalization perspective of an employee, defining internalization as the process by which
individuals believe in mechanisms to transfer knowledge into an actionable knowledge process. They
found that the internalization effect on knowledge sharing intention was mediated by expert power and
self-efficacy. Thus, it creates barriers for learners and receivers. Indeed, this knowledge would only
benefit those organizations with the competence to drive their work with KM and making the
knowledge fully available (Strong, Davenport & Prusak, 2008). The knowledge creation process
influences knowledge-sharing behaviour because its SECI dimensions, together with their enabling
context, are responsible for explicit knowledge sharing (internalization) and tacit knowledge sharing
(socialization). In the latter, employees exchange information (externalization) and create new
knowledge through reflection (combination) with their previous knowledge. The SECI model works
predominantly in the context of individuals (employees). The results (such as ideas, creativity, and
innovation) are simply a by-product of the knowledge conversion cycle. When employees practise
creating knowledge sharing behaviour and knowledge transfer also emerge among them.
The role of individuals’ tacit knowledge in managing mission-critical knowledge (Ihrig &
Macmillan, 2015) and maintaining the competitive advantage of the organization (Lubit, 2001;
Wipawayangkool & Teng, 2019) has been emphasised by previous studies. The SECI processes as
organizational knowledge materialise as an interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka,
1994). Tacit knowledge can be converted into explicit knowledge by an exchange through
socialization, which can then be combined in a knowledge store. Explicit knowledge converted into
tacit knowledge by internalization and socialization is shared by individuals who possess tacit
knowledge. Therefore, this concurrence in the suitable systems and practices should be discovered to
promote knowledge sharing (Wang & Hou, 2015; Wipawayangkool & Teng, 2019). Wipawayangkool
and Teng’s (2016) study suggested that knowledge internalization is a crucial process that can define
the value of the processes in the SECI model, and that knowledge internalization is associated with
knowledge sharing in essential ways. Nevertheless, knowledge sharing is a fundamental aspect of
organizational knowledge management, especially in the SECI model, and stimulates academics’
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
50
attention. This study can help stimulate organizations and employees to recognize KM, which refers to
the SECI dimensions and activities, such as influencing employee orientation through KSB. It explores
the KCP (SECI dimensions) within the hospitality industry, as applied Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)’s
SECI model for testing the KSB of employees in hospitality organizations. This study investigated the
different activities in the four dimensions of SECI and how they influence knowledge-sharing
behaviour. The following hypotheses are put forward:
H1. Socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization positively influence
knowledge collecting.
H2. Socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization positively influence
knowledge donating.
2.3 Employee Goal Orientation
Employees are the human capital of an organization with the requisite knowledge and skill for
working in the organization. Suppose employees do not store, document, and transfer knowledge in
their organization. In that case, it can lead to a loss of human capital, impacting the quality of products
and services to customers (Yang, 2004). Shamim et al. (2017) documented the supervisory orientation
effect on employee goal orientation. Dweck (1986) observed that individuals could have two
dispositional goal orientations: performance goals and learning goals. Various studies on effective
performance and learning identify a unique set of cognitive skills that need to be acquired in such
situations. Such individuals are enthusiastic about growth because they frequently raise the bar for
themselves in their working lives. Learning progresses into actions gradually. The knowledge-donating
behaviour group is engrossed in developing their skills and knowledge. They expect to learn something
new from colleagues. However, knowledge-collecting behaviour alone does not indicate employee
learning skills at a significant level (Matzler & Mueller, 2011). To achieve a new mastery, practising
and enforcing these skills is necessary (Nicholls, 1989). Without learning orientation and performance
orientation, employees cannot develop capacity and acquire experience.
Usually, goal-oriented individuals have been described by the researcher in an organization as a
stable entity, despite similarities or differences between individuals (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). The
theory of goal orientation is explained as employees being dispositional (Nicholls, 1989), and the
variety in skills and experiences being a dimension of one’s stable, intelligent self (Robins & Pals,
2002; Dweck, 1986). The theory of goal orientation also plays a vital role in human resource decisions
on recruitment (Rynes and Gerhart, 1990), training (Brown, 2001), selection (Roberson and Alsua,
2002), and performance evaluation (VandeWalle, 1997). The evidence from the literature also presents
an employee’s goal orientation and creates outcomes such as behavioural feedback-seeking
(VandeWalle, 1997), knowledge-sharing behaviour (Swift et al., 2010; Matzler & Mueller, 2011), and
self-regulatory behaviour (VandeWalle et al., 1999). Kim and Lee (2013) explored knowledge-sharing
behaviour as a predictor of goal orientation in hospitality employees.
Moreover, the sales performance level is also affected by goal orientation (Kohli et al., 1998;
VandeWalle et al., 1999), job performance (Steele et al., 2000), and practising performance (Brett
&VandeWalle, 1999). Goal orientation signifies how focused employees are on the result. Learning
orientation refers to the tendency or willingness of employees to increase their knowledge and skills.
Performance orientation means the desire of the individual to surpass and outperform others.
Knowledge-sharing behaviour influences an employee’s goal orientation significantly. Typically,
employees who exhibit knowledge collecting behaviour are performance-oriented because they aspire
to surpass others in performance. To achieve this, such individuals focus on collecting as much
knowledge as they can. Conversely, employees who exhibit knowledge donating usually have a
learning orientation. They like to help others and share their knowledge to enhance their learning curve
and add value. The relationship between knowledge-sharing behaviour and goal orientation impacts
this process; through individuals’ intrinsic drives, knowledge-sharing behaviour strengthens the
motivational direction towards an action, which is connected to personal goals. Knowledge sharing
represents a social activity that occurs within a system where knowledge represents a resource that has
a certain value (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Fulk et al., 2004). VandeWalle’s (2003) study indicated
that goal orientations affect how individuals cognitively perceive the costs and benefits of feedback-
seeking. According to previous research, in various contexts, goal orientations were linked to
individual differences in the case of a specific behaviour, such as knowledge-sharing behaviour
(Matzler & Mueller, 2011; Swift et al., 2010). The value of individuals increases when individual
knowledge is created and shared. Knowledge-sharing behaviour is, thus, important for successful goal
orientation implementation.
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
51
Nonetheless, a few researchers have investigated other factors influencing employees’ goal
orientation, particularly in the hospitality industry (Saragih & Harisno, 2015). Specifically, they
examined the effect of information technology innovation and knowledge-sharing behaviour on
employee performance in the manufacturing industry. Similar to the abovementioned study, the present
study discusses the role of KSB in the relationship between the knowledge creation process and
employees’ goal orientation in the hospitality industry. Based on this literature review, the authors
propose the following hypotheses:
H3. Knowledge collecting and knowledge donating positively influence employee learning
orientation.
H4. Knowledge collecting and knowledge donating behaviour positively influence employee
performance orientation.
2.4. Conceptual framework and hypothesis
The research concept presents three relationships shown in Fig 1. The model examines the
knowledge creation process (SECI), two dominant forms of knowledge-sharing behaviour (KC and
KD), and two dominant kinds of goal orientation (LO and PO) in the hospitality business. This model
presents a new aspect that could be of interest to academicians and business developers.
Fig 1. The proposed conceptual model & hypotheses
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Sample and Procedure
This study collected data from 390 employees working in the hospitality business in Chiang Mai,
Thailand. Knowledge management is essential in the hospitality industry to support innovation in
organizations and enhance organizational performance; it also plays a vital role in an organization’s
success (Kim & Lee, 2013). Data were collected from front-line employees because of their direct
communication with customers (Ferry, 2005). Their role is to deliver high-quality service in catering to
meet customers' needs in lodging and residence (Kuo et al., 2012). For the survey, the business experts
and academics first conducted a pilot study using a Thai questionnaire. The questionnaire's translation
was completed by three academics who were experts in the English language, with an IELTS score
higher than 7.0. Five hundred questionnaires were handed out to employees working in the hospitality
business. Questionnaires were distributed through multiple personal visits to each hospitality business.
Of 419 questionnaires filled in and finally received, 390 responses were validated as acceptable for the
data analysis (i.e., valid response rate = 93%).
3.2 Measure
The questionnaire includes 30 items: the first part is dedicated to the SECI activities with 12 items,
three each about socialization, internalization, combination, and internalization, respectively. The
second part of the questionnaire measured 12 items about knowledge-sharing behaviour, including five
items on knowledge collecting, and seven items on knowledge donating. The third part consisted of 6
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
52
items measuring employee orientations, three items for each of learning and performance orientations.
The last part of the questionnaire presents the respondents' demographic information, including gender,
age, work experience, education, and hospitality business category. Based on the work of Ferry (2005),
front-line employees are essential for the organization because they communicate with the customer
directly. They also deliver high-quality service to meet the customers' needs (Kuo et al., 2012).
Accordingly, we followed this line of thought. We emphasized the source of getting demographic
information from employees is also crucial and needs to be analysed further. Demographic information
provides data regarding the research respondents; this is necessary for the determination of the
individuals of employees in a particular, in this study are employees working in the hospitality
business, representative sample of the target population for greater generalization.
Items about SECI activities were adopted from the study by Martínez et al. (2015). Eight
knowledge-sharing behaviour items were adopted from the study by Kim and Lee (2013), and the
authors modified four items after the pilot test. Employee goal orientations (6 items) were adopted and
measured according to Shamim et al. (2017), with three items measuring learning orientation and
another three-performance orientation. A five-point Likert scale, ranging from 5 = a lot, 4= often,
3=sometimes/on request, 2= rarely, to 1= never, was applied for measuring all the items mentioned.
3.3 Common method bias
This study utilizes steps to address the potential issue of common method bias. First, the authors
had clarified the survey's objective before the questionnaires were collected from the respondents.
Second, based on the questionnaire items, the respondents were asked to share their specific feelings
and told that there were no wrong or right feelings (Lindell &Whitney, 2001). Third, the authors used
SPSS v20 to examine common method variance (CMV) by Harman's single-factor test, as stated in
Podsadoff et al. (2003). All measurement items in this study were tested employing the principal
component analysis of exploratory factor analysis (Tsaur & Yen, 2018; Liu & Huang, 2020). The
results indicated that the first factor accounted for 38.45 %, less than 50% of the total variance.
Consequently, common method variance was not a significant concern in this study.
3.4 Data Analysis
The study's reliability was first tested and found satisfactory (Cronbach’s alphas > 0.8). The
hypothesis tests for the proposed model were processed by path analysis. Factor analysis was used to
show the discriminant and convergent validity of the constructs. Diagnostic indices of the path analysis
were used to evaluate the model fit, based on factor loading, Normed Fit Index (NFI), Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the acceptable value is 0.80 (Chau & Hu, 2001; Hair et al., 2014; Hair et
al., 2017). For CFI and NFI, the values should be greater than 0.9 to designate a good model fit, and the
RMSEA of the model is evaluated as a good fit value if its value is less than 0.09 (Hair et al., 2014;
Hair et al., 2017).
4. RESULTS
4.1 Demographic information about respondents
Focusing on employees in the hospitality business, the authors found more females (57.95%) than
males. Most respondents were less than 30 years old (48.21%) and held a bachelor's degree (76.41%).
The majority of the respondents had work experience of 1 to 5 years (68.46%). In terms of the
hospitality business categories, most respondents worked in the hotel industry (36.41%).
4.2 Validity and Reliability
The factor loadings were greater than 0.7, the average variance extracted (AVE) was more than
0.5, the composite reliability (CR) exceeded 0.7, and the convergent validity met the criteria (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). Table 1 shows the values of the factor loadings, AVE, and CR. All values of the
constructs met the criteria for convergent validity. The CR of every construct was greater than 0.8; the
AVE of every construct was greater than 0.6. The factor loadings also met the requirement: that is, the
SECI activities' loading values ranged from 0.83 to 0.91. Those loadings for KC ranged from 0.73 to
0.90, for KD ranged from 0.72 to 0.95, and for EGO ranged from 0.80 to 0.94. Moreover, the CR value
of the construct was more than the AVE value of the construct. Table 1 shows statistics for all the
factors. The Cronbach’s alphas were greater than 0.80, indicating good reliability. A Cronbach’s alpha
valued at more than 0.7 is considered acceptable (George, 2003). Table 2 presents the AVE in bold font
in a diagonal pattern along with the squared correlation coefficients. The value of the AVE exceeds the
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
53
squared correlation among the constructs. These results show that the discriminant validity met the
criteria. If the AVE of the construct is greater than the squared correlation among constructs, it means
that there is discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 2 also indicates the standard
deviations and the mean values of the entire construct.
4.3 Evaluation of model fit
The model fitness was evaluated with the data, the factor loading was measured by confirmatory
factor analysis, and the indices CFI, NFI, AGFI, GFI, and RMSEA as well. The results showed a good
model fit: all the factor loadings met the criteria for model fitness, as indicated in Table 3. All the
factor loading values met the necessary criteria (refer to Fornell & Larcker, 1981), and Hair et al.
(2014); Hair et al. (2017) considered factor loading values to be good if they exceeded 0.65 and
acceptable if they exceeded 0.60. Others also showed a good model fit: NFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.938,
AGFI = 0.828, GFI = 0.907, and RMSEA = 0.065; thus, all the values met the criteria for a good model
fit. For Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the acceptable value is
0.80 (Chau & Hu, 2001); for CFI and NFI, the values should exceed 0.9 to designate a good model fit;
and for RMSEA, the model is evaluated as having a good fit value if it is less than 0.09 (Hair et al.,
2014; Hair et al., 2017).
4.4 Hypothesis testing and path analysis
Path analysis is often used in structural equation modelling for testing hypotheses. Figure 2 and
Table 3 present a summary of the path analysis through structural equation modelling. The influence of
SECI activities (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization) on knowledge-
sharing behaviour was first examined, then the role of knowledge-sharing behaviour in employee goal
orientation was investigated. These results are presented in Table 4.
4.4A. According to our hypothesis H1, socialization, externalization, combination, and
internalization positively influence knowledge collecting. The results show that socialization activities
have a positive influence on knowledge collecting (beta = 0.62, p<0.05) (H1a), externalization
activities do not influence knowledge collecting (beta = 0.09, p>0.05) (H1b), combination activities
have a positive influence on knowledge collecting (beta = 0.14, p<0.05) (H1c), and internalization
activities do not influence knowledge collecting (beta = -0.02, p>0.05) (H1d). These results confirm
that socialization and combination have a positive influence on knowledge collecting, but
externalization and internalization do not. Thus, the data for externalization and internalization do not
support the hypothesis. However, the hypothesis is confirmed for socialization and combination.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
54
Table 1. The reliability and convergent validity testing results
Constructs and Indicators
Factor Loading
Eigenvalue
CR
AVE
Cronbach’s Alpha
Socialization
SO1
.88
2.42
0.93
0.81
0.88
SO2
.91
SO3
.90
Externalization
EX1
.80
2.03
0.86
0.68
0.80
EX2
.86
EX3
.83
Combination
CO1
.89
2.34
0.92
0.80
0.86
CO2
.88
CO3
.89
Internalization
IN1
.89
2.33
0.91
0.78
0.86
IN2
.91
IN3
.85
Knowledge collecting
KC1
.90
3.25
0.90
0.65
0.86
KC2
.74
KC3
.73
KC4
.86
KC5
.78
Knowledge sharing
KD1
.93
5.40
0.96
0.77
0.95
KD2
.90
KD3
.75
KD4
.95
KD5
.91
KD6
.94
KD7
.72
Learning Orientation
LO1
.88
2.46
0.93
0.82
0.90
LO2
.94
LO3
.90
Performance Orientation
PO1
.80
2.19
0.89
0.73
0.81
PO2
.89
PO3
.87
Table 2. The descriptive statistics, correlation, and discriminant testing results
Note: The calculated values of the squared correlations among all the constructs are presented in the upper off-
diagonal, and the average variances extracted are presented in boldface font along the diagonal. The correlation
is significant at the 0.01 level. **p<0.01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.806
0.189
**
0.676
0.192
**
0.202
**
0.781
0.180
**
0.293
**
0.561
**
0.776
0.342
**
0.441
**
0.426
**
0.324
**
0.650
0.642
**
0.327
**
0.319
**
0.291
**
0.714
**
0.770
0.178
**
0.236
**
0.647
**
0.630
**
0.443
**
0.373
**
0.821
0.710
**
0.263
**
0.226
**
0.235
**
0.490
**
0.718
**
0.204
**
0.730
3.261
3.273
3.200
3.292
3.359
3.378
3.318
3.469
0.947
0.812
0.922
0.911
0.842
0.770
0.945
0.837
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
55
Figure 2. Path analysis
Chi-square = 668.279; DF = 252; CMIN/DF = 2.652; GFI = 0.907 AGFI = 0.828; NFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.938;
RMSEA = 0.065
Note: ***p< 0.000, ** p< 0.001, * p< 0.05; the significant hypothesized relationships are shown.
Table 3. Model fit statistic
Model
fit indices
Chi-square
DF
CMIN/DF
GFI
AGFI
NFI
TLI
RMSEA
668.279
252
2.652
0.907
0.828
0.944
0.938
0.065
Degrees of Freedom (DF), CMIN/DF is the minimum discrepancy, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA).
Table 4. Path analysis
Path
Standardized
Estimation (β)
t-value
P
Hypothesis
Supported
KC
<---
SO
0.62
12.274
0.000*
H1a
Yes
KD
<---
SO
0.23
4.849
0.000*
H2a
Yes
KC
<---
EX
0.09
1.886
0.059
H1b
No
KD
<---
EX
0.24
4.623
0.000*
H2b
Yes
KC
<---
CO
0.14
2.237
0.025*
H1c
Yes
KD
<---
CO
0.43
6.254
0.000*
H2c
Yes
KC
<---
IN
-0.02
-0.252
0.801
H1d
No
KD
<---
IN
-0.09
-1.307
0.191
H2d
No
ELO
<---
KC
-0.43
-3.193
0.001*
H3a
Yes
ELO
<---
KD
0.29
3.351
0.000*
H3b
Yes
EPO
<---
KC
1.33
7.834
0.000*
H4a
Yes
EPO
<---
KD
0.24
4.154
0.000*
H4b
Yes
SO = Socialization, Externalization = EX, Combination = CO, Internalization = IN, KC = Knowledge Collecting, KD =
Knowledge Donating, ELO = Employee learning orientation, EPO = Employee performance orientation, *p < 0.05.
4.4B. According to our hypothesis H2, socialization, externalization, combination, and
internalization positively influence knowledge donating. The results show that socialization activities
have a positive influence on knowledge donating (beta = 0.23, p<0.05) (H2a), externalization activities
have a positive influence on knowledge donating (beta = 0.24, p<0.05) (H2b), combination activities
have a positive influence on knowledge donating (beta = 0.43, p<0.05) (H2c), and internalization
activities do not influence knowledge donating (beta = -0.09, p>0.05) (H2d). These results confirm that
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
56
socialization, externalization, and combination have an impact on knowledge donating but
internalization does not. Therefore, the data for socialization, externalization, and combination support
the hypothesis, but the data for internalization do not.
4.4C. According to our hypothesis H3, knowledge collecting and knowledge donating influence
employee learning orientation in different directions. The findings show that knowledge collecting has
a negative influence on employee learning orientation (beta = -0.43, p<0.05) (H3a), and knowledge
donating has a positive influence on employee learning orientation (beta = 1.33, P<0.05) (H3b)
4.4D. According to our hypothesis H4, knowledge collecting and knowledge donating behaviour
positively influence employee performance orientation. The findings show that knowledge collecting
has a positive impact on employee performance orientation (beta = 0.29, P<0.05) (H4a), and
knowledge donating has a positive influence on performance orientation (beta = 0.24, p<0.05) (H4b).
5. DISCUSSION
The SECI model plays an important role as an enabler of the process of adopting, updating, and
reusing the knowledge of an organization. (Martinez, Navarro & Perez, 2015). The importance of the
connection between knowledge sharing enablers, processes, and firm performance enhances knowledge
management dynamics in group relationships and interpersonal relationships by feeling the pulse of
employees' willingness to collect and donate knowledge to colleagues (Kim et al., 2013). To attain
organizational success in the hospitality field, hotel managers should provide a framework to encourage
their employees to process KM creation. They should value employee goal orientation consequences to
increase organizational advantage (Shamim, Cang & Yu, 2017).
The first objective is to analyse the positive influence of SECI activities on knowledge-sharing
behaviour. In examining the association of SECI activities as knowledge management enablers on
knowledge-sharing behaviour, this study is partially consistent with Kim et al. (2013). Therefore, this
study’s findings on socialization and combination have a positive influence on knowledge collecting.
For externalization and internalization insignificant effect on knowledge collecting. Also, this study’s
findings on socialization, externalization, and combination were found to have a positive influence on
knowledge donating; however, externalization was not found to impact significantly on knowledge
donating. Interestingly, SECI activities in knowledge management may be an organizational resource
that enables the necessary employee knowledge-sharing behaviour as a capability of an organization
from the resource-based view (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). As one of the essential theories in the
KM field, this SECI theory emphasized a comprehensive perspective to visualize the whole knowledge
creation process for all knowledge conversions to succeed (Nonaka, 1994). This study focused on the
hospitality industry in terms of employees, similar to the Prompreing & Hu (2021) study, which studied
the impact of the SECI model on goal orientation in the hospitality industry in the case of
entrepreneurs. Therefore, the results of this study lend partial support to Prompreing & Hu's (2021)
claim that the activities of some dimensions of the SECI model have a correlation with individual goal
orientation in the case of entrepreneurs. The present study differed from Prompreing & Hu (2021) in
that this study added the dimension of knowledge-sharing behaviour to investigate the relationships
between the SECI activities and employee goal orientation. The SECI activities indicate knowledge
that is created and shared from one individual to another and to the organization; thus, knowledge
sharing is based on the individual features which represent knowledge and how to manage its
circulation (Akiyoshi, 2008). Such findings lend partial support to Kim et al.’s (2013) claim that the
knowledge creation process (KS enablers) promotes individual KSB that combines KC and KD.
Second, this study also aimed to investigate the influence of knowledge-sharing behaviour on
employee goal orientation. The previous study by Kim & Lee (2013) examined the relationship
between goal orientation and knowledge-sharing behaviour. They studied goal orientation effects on
knowledge-sharing behaviour and employee service innovative behaviour for goal orientation,
including two distinct forms, learning orientation and performance orientation, and two different types
of knowledge-sharing behaviour, knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. The study results
showed that knowledge collecting supported negative effects on employees’ learning orientation and
supported positive effects on employees’ performance orientation. Furthermore, knowledge donating
supported employee learning and performance orientation in the hospitality business. Consequently, the
results of this study have confirmed Kim and Lee’s (2013) finding that knowledge-sharing behaviour is
correlated with individual goal orientation. Nevertheless, this study tested this in a different way by
employing the SECI model in a KS enablers-sharing-outcomes framework, assuming that some KS
enablers (SECI) lead to KSB (KC and KD), which, in turn, promotes employee goal orientation
outcomes (learning and performance). Furthermore, the results of this study partially confirm those
found by Kim et al. (2013), who showed that knowledge-sharing behaviour had a significant impact on
organizational performance; here, the knowledge collecting effect had a greater impact on
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
57
organizational performance than knowledge donating. This study’s results are also linked to the study
by Prompreing & Hu (2021), which found that there is more than one complex dimension (SECI
model), which is the knowledge-sharing behaviour dimension, which can promote individual goal
orientation in an organization. In addition, these findings imply that the hospitality industry should
enhance KM practices among employees by promoting knowledge management enablers and
knowledge-sharing behaviour (Shamim, Cang & Yu, 2017).
Furthermore, the organization can encourage employees to use KM methods, such as applying,
acquiring, storing, and transferring knowledge for the organization’s gains (Shamim, Cang & Yu,
2017). Accordingly, knowledge management needs individual willingness and contribution (Shariq et
al., 2019). The link between knowledge-sharing behaviour and goal orientation can be found at both the
individual and organizational level, and for both knowledge collecting and donating. Therefore, there is
a need for employee goal orientation in the organization in order to foster the learning and performance
orientation of employees. This implies a need for an appropriate knowledge creation process for
employees, thereby promoting the outcomes of employees’ knowledge-sharing behaviour and
enhancing goal orientation. Specifically, in the hospitality industry, inimitable and valuable products
and services from employees and knowledge management-achieving competitors have placed a great
deal of pressure on the hospitality businesses. Organizations need to enhance employee collaboration in
KCP activities to increase knowledge-sharing behaviour and goal orientation, which is a fundamental
need for the intellectual advantage of an organization.
5.1 This study’s contribution to knowledge management
This study also contributes to the empirical and theoretical research into knowledge management
and employee goal orientation in the hospitality industry by establishing linkages between three
separate streams of the knowledge management literature, specifically the examination of the influence
of SECI activities on employee goal orientation through the role of knowledge-sharing behaviour.
Regarding the relationships among these three research topics in the hospitality business, the authors
documented how these connections linked knowledge management, particularly regarding SECI
activities, which are not widely discussed in the hospitality business. In short, this research
demonstrates that the hospitality business may practise knowledge management among employees by
influencing employee goal orientation. The apparent evidence provided by this research has crucial
implications for both entrepreneurs and researchers in this field.
Furthermore, this study focused on the role of knowledge-sharing behaviour (KC and KD) as the
motivational force of employee goal orientation (LO and PO). The findings confirm why the difference
between the process of sharing their intellectual capital with colleagues (KC) and the process of
individuals communicating their intellectual capital to others (KD) has been a crucial issue (Kim et al.,
2013; Van den Hooff and De Ridder, 2004). This study also contributes to the knowledge-sharing
behaviour research by indicating which knowledge-sharing behaviour has the most impact on
encouraging employee goal orientation (learning and performance) as the hospitality business's output.
Lastly, this study provides a better description of how knowledge-sharing behaviour may enhance
human resource management in the hospitality business by investigating and supporting the entire
cycle of the knowledge creation process and knowledge-sharing behaviour among hospitality
employees. The knowledge creation process of employees—the transfer of knowledge, skills,
information, and individual employees' experiences—has evolved into a valuable asset of the
organization (Engstrom et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2013). Simultaneously sharing behaviour, such as
collecting and donating knowledge, is emerging among employees and positively is influencing their
learning and performance. This approach can guide managers and organizations in supporting
employees to become valuable and desirable members of the organization.
6. CONCLUSION
This study has filled the research gaps by investigating the influence of four dimensions (SECI) of
the knowledge creation process on both knowledge-sharing behaviour (collecting and donating) and
also the knowledge-sharing behaviour influence on employee goal orientation (learning and
performance). Based on the applied theory and the literature review, the authors formulated the
conceptual framework and four main hypotheses. They adopted a survey method to collect data and an
applied analysis utilizing a structural equation model to test the proposed hypotheses. The findings
suggest that both socialization and combination have a positive influence on knowledge collecting and
knowledge donating, and that externalization does not support knowledge collecting but supports
knowledge donating, and that internalization supports neither knowledge collecting nor knowledge
donating. Also, knowledge-sharing behaviour was found to have a significantly positive effect on
employee goal orientation. In line with the study’s findings, the research implications are twofold:
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
58
6.1 Practical implications
The relationships between the knowledge creation process, knowledge-sharing behaviours, and
employee goal orientation offer a glimpse of how the hospitality industry could enhance knowledge-
sharing behaviours among its employees. This can be accomplished by emphasizing the knowledge
creation process and interpersonal relationships among groups to support employee learning and
performance orientation. Such management techniques will foster the best practices and reinforce a
sharing culture and engagement within the organization by ensuring employees’ willingness to collect
and share knowledge with colleagues. The research findings can provide a framework for managers
and owners in the hospitality business to encourage the employees’ goal orientation, by affecting their
knowledge-sharing behaviour through the knowledge creation process. Managers or owners should
formulate policies to encourage employees to create and share knowledge with the organization's team,
individuals, and systems. The organization should incorporate comments or suggestions acquired from
colleagues and customers into its services, product sales, and business processes in the hospitality
industry. Finally, the owners or managers need to conduct regular assessments of employees' KM
activities and establish a reward system to encourage positive feedback.
6.2 Theoretical implications
This study involves several theoretical implications. First, this study examined the role of
knowledge-sharing behaviours with two distinctive types, namely knowledge collecting and knowledge
donating (Kim & Lee, 2013; Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010; Lin, 2007), and answered the critical
concerns expressed by Matzler and Mueller (2011) and Kim and Lee (2013). This study also
acknowledged the individual knowledge-sharing behaviours between the knowledge creation process
and the consequences of employee goal orientation in the organization. This study is the first to
examine the two distinctive forms of knowledge-sharing behaviours as the determinants of employee
goal orientation.
Second, we explored the role of knowledge creation processes in influencing knowledge-sharing
behaviours of hospitality employees, an issue that has been left largely undiscussed. Moreover, this
paper shifted to a consideration of personal determinants as influencing factors for the individual's
engagement in knowledge-sharing behaviour. The Knowledge-Based View - KBV has therefore
evolved into Resource-Based View Theory as strategic knowledge management within the organization
and its main goal is to use the knowledge and skills available within the organization to produce
products and services that give the organization a competitive advantage through its ability to invent
new products and processes or improve the existing ones (Grant, 2001; Theriou et al., 2009). These
findings contribute to a theoretical framework that can have explanatory power in studying
organizational knowledge-sharing behaviour. Further, this research contributes to the conceptual
understanding of the knowledge creation process, which influences employees’ knowledge-sharing
behaviours in the hospitality business and contributes to the knowledge creation process and
knowledge-sharing behaviours by clarifying which processes in knowledge creation activities are
essential for knowledge-sharing behaviours.
Finally, our model investigates hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviours in the
relationship between knowledge creation and goal orientation. This fills the research gap by exploring
the activities and determinants of knowledge-sharing behaviour and the consequences of employee goal
orientation. The framework of this study may serve further research on knowledge sharing and
contribute to the literature on the knowledge creation process, knowledge-sharing behaviours, and
employee goal orientation in other industries.
6.3 Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations, which suggest some directions for future research. First, this
study emphasized hospitality employees in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Therefore, further studies could
focus on a different industry, in other areas, or in other countries in Southeast Asia to validate the
findings and propose further generalizations. Second, this study has collected data from the hospitality
business through a structured questionnaire, and is a cross-sectional study employing quantitative
techniques for data analysis. Future research could be conducted with a longitudinal design to further
validate the findings and apply the proposed model of this study. Third, the role of employee
demographics as moderators should also be examined as they potentially influence employee goal
orientation and knowledge management. Fourth, the common method bias of this study was not a
critical problem. However, future research may adopt and develop techniques to examine the
possibility that common method bias may emerge. As suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), acquiring
more data from different sources would tremendously mitigate this potential bias. Finally, this research
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
59
can be investigated in more detail by discussing each element of employee goal orientation separately
in terms of the outcomes of the knowledge creation process and knowledge-sharing behaviour.
REFERENCES
Allal-Chérif, O., & Makhlouf, M. (2016). Using serious games to manage knowledge: The SECI model
perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1539-1543.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.013
Akiyoshi, M. (2008). Knowledge sharing over the network. Thin Solid Films, 517(4), 1512-1514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2008.09.042
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1),
99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bandera, C., Keshtkar, F., Bartolacci, M.R., Neerudu, S. and Passerini, K., (2017). Knowledge
management and the entrepreneur: Insights from Ikujiro Nonaka's Dynamic Knowledge Creation
model (SECI). International Journal of Innovation Studies, 1(3), 163-174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2017.10.005
Bartol, K.M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900105
Bock, G.W., &Kim, Y.G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes
about knowledge sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.
Booth, P., Chaperon, S. A., Kennell, J. S., & Morrison, A. M. (2020). Entrepreneurship in island
contexts: A systematic review of the tourism and hospitality literature. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 85, 102438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102438
Brown, K.G. (2001). Using computers to deliver training: Which employees learn and why?. Personnel
Psychology, 54(2), 271-296.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00093.x
Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A
conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
67(1), 26-48. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063
Brett, J.F. & Vande Walle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in
a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 863.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.863
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn
during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.654
Chau, P.Y., & Hu, P.J.H. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A
model comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699-719.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
Choi, D., Cheong, M., & Lee, J. (2018). To Share or Not To Share: Interplay of Employee Goal
Orientation and Coworker Exchange Ideology on Knowledge Sharing Behavior. Seoul Journal of
Industrial Relations, 29.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Desouza, K.C., & Awazu, Y. (2006). Knowledge management at SMEs: five peculiarities”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, 10(1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270610650085
Donate, M. J., & de Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge
managementpractices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360-370.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
Eisenhardt, K.M., & Santos, F.M. (2002).Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy, Handbook
of strategy and management, 1(1), 139-164.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
60
Engström, T.E.J., Westnes, P., & FurdalWestnes, S. (2003), Evaluating intellectual capital in the hotel
industry.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(3), 287-303.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310487761
Ferry, S.M. (2005). Butlers & Household Managers: 21st Century Professionals. Book Surge
Publishers.
Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Foss, N.J., Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels
of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions, Journal of Management Studies,
47(3), 455-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00870.x
Fulk, J., Heino, R., Flanagin, A.J., Monge, P.R. and Bar, F.O. (2004). A test of the individual action
model for organizational information commons. Organization Science. 15. (5). 569-85.
Grant, R. M. (2001). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M.,& Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019). Knowledge management: A global
examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140,
194-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.006
George, D. (2011), SPSS for windows step by step: A simple study guide and reference, Vol. 17.0
update, 10/e. Pearson Education India.
Garg, S., & Dhar, R.L. (2014). Effects of stress, LMX and perceived organizational support on service
quality: Mediating effects of organizational commitment. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 21, 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2014.07.002
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., &Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-
2013-0128
Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-
123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
Harrington, R.J.,& , M.C. (2011). Strategic management: An analysis of its representation and focus in
recent hospitality research, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23(4),
439-462. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111111129977
Hashim, K. F., & Tan, F. B. (2015). The mediating role of trust and commitment on members’
continuous knowledge sharing intention: A commitment-trust theory perspective. International
Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 145-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.11.001
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2006). Does marketing success lead to market success?. Journal of
Business Research, 59(7), 820-828.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.019
Ihrig, M., & MacMillan, I. (2015). Managing your mission-critical knowledge. Harvard business
review, 93(1), 17.
Kim, T., & Lee, G. (2012). A modified and extended Triandis model for the enablers–process–
outcomes relationship in hotel employees' knowledge sharing. The Service Industries Journal,
32(13), 2059-2090. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.574276
Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2013). Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship
between goal orientations and service innovative behaviour. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 324-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.04.009
Kim, T. T., Lee, G., Paek, S., & Lee, S. (2013). Social capital, knowledge sharing and organizational
performance: What structural relationship do they have in hotels?. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 683-704. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-Jan-
2012-0010
Kohli, A. K., Shervani, T. A., & Challagalla, G. N. (1998). Learning and performance orientation of
salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 263-274.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379803500211
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (2003). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the
multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 516-529.
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
61
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 39(3), 607-610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kuo, N. T., Chang, K. C., Chen, M. C., & Hsu, C. L. (2012). Investigating the effect of service quality
on customer post-purchasing behaviors in the hotel sector: The moderating role of service
convenience. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(3), 212-
234.https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2012.645200
Ladkin, A., & Weber, K. (2011). Leadership issues and challenges in the tourism industry: A Hong
Kong perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(3), 273-288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.572662
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 20(1), 179-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study, International
Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315- 332.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272
Li, Y. H., Huang, J. W., & Tsai, M. T. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The
role of knowledge creation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 440-
449.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.004
Liu, C. H. S., & Huang, C. E. (2020). Discovering differences in the relationship among social
entrepreneurial orientation, extensions to market orientation and value co-creation–The
moderating role of social entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 42, 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.12.002
Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive
advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616
(01)00026-2
Matzler, K., & Mueller, J. (2011). Antecedents of knowledge sharing–Examining the influence of
learning and performance orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(3), 317-329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.12.006
Martínez-Martínez, A., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & García-Pérez, A. (2015). Environmental knowledge
management: A long-term enabler of tourism development. Tourism Management, 50, 281-291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.03.006
Masa'deh, R. E., Gharaibeh, E., Tarhini, A., Obeidat, D., & Yousef, B. (2015). Knowledge sharing
capability: A literature review. In Conference Proceedings (COES&RJ-CP2-5), ISBN (E), 978-
969. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2696924
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education, Harvard University Press.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation.
California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165942
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5,
14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation, Oxford university press.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation. Long range planning, 33(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-
6301(99)00115-6
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
Prompreing, K., & Hu, C. (2021). Knowledge Management in Hospitality Business in terms of
Entrepreneur Goal Orientation. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 10(3),
18-38.
Rynes, S., & Gerhart, B. (1990). Interviewer assessments of applicant “fit”: An exploratory
investigation. Personnel Psychology, 43(1), 13-35.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1990.tb02004.x
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management/ Business-and-Management.org
62
Roberson, L., &Alsua, C. J. (2002). Moderating effects of goal orientation on the negative
consequences of gender-based preferential selection. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 87(1), 103-135. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2960
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications for
goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, 1(1), 313-336.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860290106805.
Santana-Gallego, M., Ledesma-Rodríguez, F., & Pérez-Rodríguez, J. V. (2011). Tourism and trade in
small island regions: The case of the Canary Islands. Tourism Economics, 17(1), 107-
125.https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2011.0029
Saragih, S. P. T. I., & Harisno, H. (2015). Influence of knowledge sharing and information technology
innovationon employees performance at Batamindo Industrial Park. Comm IT (Communication
and Information Technology) Journal, 9(2), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.21512/commit.v9i2.1657
Shariq, S. M., Mukhtar, U., & Anwar, S. (2019). Mediating and moderating impact of goal orientation
and emotional intelligence on the relationship of knowledge oriented leadership and knowledge
sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management.
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientation and
task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(5), 724-738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.724
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997), Effects of self‐efficacy and goal‐orientation training on
negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms?. Personnel psychology, 50(4), 955-
978.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01490.x
Shamim, S., Cang, S., & Yu, H. (2017). Supervisory orientation, employee goal orientation, and
knowledge management among front line hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 62, 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.11.013
Strong, B., Davenport, T. H., &Prusak, L. (2008). Organizational governance of knowledge and
learning. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(2), 150-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.306
Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., &Matusik, S. F. (2010). Goal orientations and the motivation to share
knowledge. Journal of knowledge management,14(3), 378-393
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011050111
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets for know-
how, and intangible assets. California management review, 40(3), 55-79.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41165943
Theriou, N. G., Aggelidis, V., & Theriou, G. N. (2009). A Theoretical Framework Contrasting the
Resource-Based Perspective and the Knowledge-Based View. European Research Studies, 12(3),
177-190
Tohidinia, Z., Mosakhani, M., 2010. Knowledge sharing behaviour and its predictors.
Industrial Management &DataSystems, 110(4), 611–631.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011039052
Tsaur, S. H., & Yen, C. H. (2018). Work–leisure conflict and its consequences: Do generational
differences matter?.Tourism Management, 69, 121-131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.05.011
Thailand - Employment by economic sector, viewed 24 June 2019,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/332341/employment-by-economic-sector-in- thailand/.
Usoro, A., Sharratt, M. W., Tsui, E., & Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an antecedent to knowledge
sharing in virtual communities of practice, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 5(3),
199-212. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument.
Educational and psychological measurement, 57(6), 995-1015.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006009
VandeWalle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr, J. W. (1999). The influence of goal
orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.249
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource
Management Review, 13(4), 581-604.
Kattareeya Prompreing and Clark Hu
63
Van den Hooff, B. and de Ridder, J.A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal
of Knowledge Management,8(6), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410567675
Wang, W.-T., & Hou, Y.-P. (2015). Motivations of employees knowledge sharing behaviors: A self-
determination perspective. Information and Organization, 25(1), 1-26.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal, 5(2), 171-
180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Wipawayangkool, K., & Teng, J. T. (2016). Assessing tacit knowledge and sharing intention: A
knowledge internalization perspective. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(3), 194-206.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1505
Wipawayangkool, K., & Teng, J. T. (2019). Profiling knowledge workers’ knowledge sharing behavior
via knowledge internalization. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(1), 70-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1557798
Yang, J. T., & Wan, C. S. (2004). Advancing organizational effectiveness and knowledge management
implementation. Tourism Management, 25(5), 593-601.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2003.08.002
Yang, J. (2004). Job‐related knowledge sharing: comparative case studies. Journal of Knowledge
Management,8(3), 118-126. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270410541088
Yang, J. T. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist hotels.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 42-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.004
Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy, California Management Review. vol, 41, 125-145.
Zheng, N., Wei, Y., Zhang, Y., & Yang, J. (2016). In search of strategic assets through cross-border
merger and acquisitions: Evidence from Chinese multinational enterprises in developed
economies. International Business Review, 25(1), 177-186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.11.009