Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Halimah Abdul Manaf, Steven Armstrong and Alan Lawton
Sample items for <strong>the</strong> instrument and <strong>the</strong> scoring regime can be found in Armstrong & Mahmud (2008).
Theoretically, expert managers are expected to respond differently to lower level managers on each
test item due to <strong>the</strong> content and organization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir tacit knowledge (Wagner 1987). A group <strong>of</strong>
expert managers were needed to create a pr<strong>of</strong>ile against which o<strong>the</strong>r subjects could be compared.
This is a fundamental requirement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Tacit Knowledge Inventory for Managers (TKIM) used in <strong>the</strong>
study. The scoring system <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> TKIM requires scores from <strong>the</strong> subjects to be compared against <strong>the</strong>
scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expert managers’ pr<strong>of</strong>ile. Subjects with TKIM scores close to <strong>the</strong> scores <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> expert
pr<strong>of</strong>ile are deemed to have a higher level <strong>of</strong> managerial tacit knowledge.
The selection criteria adopted in <strong>the</strong> present study for <strong>the</strong> expert management group builds on those
adopted in previous studies. It does this by considering only those who stand out as being successful
within <strong>the</strong> same work context as <strong>the</strong> subjects being studied (i.e. within <strong>the</strong> Malaysian Local
Government).
Mentoring - Mentoring effectiveness was assessed using an instrument used in previous studies <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> peer mentoring on knowledge sharing/creation (Bryant 2005). The peer mentoring
knowledge and skills instruments consist <strong>of</strong> a 14-item scale designed on <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> previous
research on mentoring conducted by Scandura (1992). A 5-point likert scale was used for reporting
agreement/disagreement for each item. This instrument measures <strong>the</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> peer
mentoring skill as well as <strong>the</strong>ir actual behaviour in terms <strong>of</strong> using skills.
Knowledge sharing mechanisms – Defined as <strong>the</strong> method, procedure, or process <strong>of</strong> sharing,
integrating and interpreting and applying know-what, know-how, and know-why in groups that directly
influence task performance. Items are divided into four groups: individual codification; individual
personalisation; organisational codification; organisational personalisation. A 5-point likert scale was
used for reporting agreement/disagreement for each item. The instrument was originally developed by
Boh (2007).
Personality – The big five (BFI) was used to measure <strong>the</strong> five broad dimensions <strong>of</strong> personality (John,
et al. 2008). In our study we focus on three specific personality measurements ra<strong>the</strong>r than five: <strong>the</strong>y
are agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness. The reason for choosing <strong>the</strong>se personality
traits because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se three personality traits are thought to be determinants <strong>of</strong> knowledge sharing
behaviour amongst employees (Martzler et al. 2008).
Performance – Individual performance was measured using previous performance appraisals that
have been evaluated. To measure individual performance, <strong>the</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> Brewer and Selden (2000),
were followed. Respondents were asked to rate <strong>the</strong>ir last year performance using five point rating
scale as follows: (1) Poor, (2) Less Satisfactory, (3) Satisfactory, (4) Good, (5) Excellent.
5. Analyses and results
Tacit knowledge scores for novice and typical groups <strong>of</strong> managers were calculated using <strong>the</strong> method
<strong>of</strong> differences scoring between novice and expert. This procedure gives rise to a score for <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong>
managerial tacit knowledge for every respondent compared with <strong>the</strong> expert managers’ pr<strong>of</strong>ile. It
should be noted that scores are expected to decrease ra<strong>the</strong>r than increase with advancing levels <strong>of</strong>
tacit knowledge because <strong>the</strong>se scores represent deviations from <strong>the</strong> expert. The closer <strong>the</strong> pattern <strong>of</strong>
responses to <strong>the</strong> successful group, <strong>the</strong> lower <strong>the</strong> score (Wagner 1987).
Internal consistency reliability estimates for <strong>the</strong> inventories used in <strong>the</strong> research are shown in Table 1.
Internal consistency reliabilities for <strong>the</strong> Knowledge Sharing Practices (KSP) Inventory, <strong>the</strong> Tacit
Knowledge Inventory for Managers (TKIM), and <strong>the</strong> Big Five Inventory <strong>of</strong> Personality (BFI) were all
acceptable for <strong>the</strong> total overall scores with reliabilities <strong>of</strong> .89, .78 and .86 respectively. The reliability <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> individual sub-scales ranged from .65-.89 for <strong>the</strong> KSP, .66-.85 for <strong>the</strong> TKIM and .67-.89 for <strong>the</strong>
BFI.
555