Williams (2007) maintains that the main objective of hypothesis testing is to choose between two contesting hypotheses in terms of the value of a population criterion. The hypothesis to be investigated is called the null hypothesis and is usually assigned the symbol H0. The alternative hypothesis is commonly represented by the symbol HA or H1; however, both types of hypothesis should be stated before starting the analysis of the data.
Levine et al. (2008) explain that null hypothesis significance testing is by far the most widely applied and accepted method in quantitative research.
However, it has been met with some criticism, such as susceptibility of sample size, inadmissible rates of Type II error, and potential abuse. Greenland et al.
(2016), however, argue that statistical tests have been criticized in the literature for numerous years because of their potential exploitation; even some scientific journals do not encourage using statistical significance.
The outcome of a correlation analysis is a correlation coefficient with values ranging from -1 to +1, where the former indicates that the two variables have a perfect positive linear relationship, while the latter indicates a perfect negative linear relationship. A correlation coefficient of zero signifies the absence of a linear relationship between the variables (Gogtay, 2017).
Organizational Culture
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which organizational culture influences knowledge sharing. The dependent variable was knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable was organizational culture.
Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship.
A statistically significant positive correlation was found between organizational culture and knowledge sharing, where the correlation coefficient is
“r” (r = 0.568; p = 0.000). This means that a supporting organizational culture is likely to increase KS, as shown in Table 21. This finding agrees with Lindner and Wald’s (2010) finding that informal organizational aspects, including organizational culture, affect KS.
H1: There is a significant relationship between organizational culture and KS in banking sector.
Hypothesis (Organizational Culture) Supported H1
a
There is a significant relationship between an organization’s culture and knowledge sharing among employees in the banking sector.
Yes
Table 21: Organizational Culture and Knowledge Sharing Org_KS Org_Cul
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.568**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
Org_Cul Pearson Correlation 0.568** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Organizational Structure
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which organizational structure influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is organizational structure. Pearson’s correlations were performed to test this relationship. A statistically significant, positive correlation was found between organizational structure and KS (r = 0.521; p = 0.000), as illustrated in Table 22. This means that supporting organizational structure is likely to enhance KS.
Organizational structures have been found to have a significant impact on KS by Wahba, Laila, and El Sagheer (2013), Hatala and Lutta (2009), Al-Busaidi (2013), and Nooshinfard and Nemati-Anarak (2014).
H 2: There is a significant relationship between organizational structure and KS in the banking sector
Hypothesis (Organizational Structure) Supported H2
a
There is a significant relationship between organizational structure and knowledge sharing among employees in the banking sector.
Yes
Table 22: Organizational Structure and Knowledge Sharing
Org_KS Org_STR
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.521**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
Org_STR Pearson Correlation 0.521** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Organizational Trust
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which organizational trust influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is organizational trust. Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant, positive correlation was found to exist between organizational trust and KS (r = 0.450; p = 0.000) as shown in Table 23. This means that positive organizational trust is likely to increase KS.
The relationship between KS and trust appears quite frequently in the literature, with trust being the most-cited effective motivator of KS. Tan and Ramayah (2014), Norizzati, Ismail, and Taherali (2009) agree that trust plays a significant role in KS. In addition to the positive and meaningful statistical correlation, many cited authors have agreed that organizational trust enhances socialization and collaboration and encourages honest behavior among co- workers. Trust exists when the parties in the knowledge transaction care about each other’s welfare. It is also based on reciprocal expectations and constitutes a prerequisite for KS, i.e., the greater the trust between individuals, the more productive the KS behavior is.
H3: There is a significant relationship between trust and KS in the banking sector.
Hypothesis (Organizational Trust) Supported H3
a
There is a significant relationship between trust and knowledge sharing in the banking sector.
Yes
Table 23: Organizational Trust and Knowledge Sharing Org_KS Org_TRUST
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.450**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
Org_TRUST Pearson Correlation 0.450** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Leadership
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which leadership influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is leadership. Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between leadership and KS (r = 0.594; p = 0.000), as shown in Table 24. This means that positive leadership is likely to improve KS.
This finding confirms that of Mushtaq and Bokhari (2011), who stated that leadership has a great impact on KS; and Holsapple and Joshi (2000) demonstrate in their framework that leadership is the top factor that influences KM and KS.
While correlation statistics support the concept that leadership influences KS, numerous studies emphasize the role of leadership in the promotion of KS practices in organizations and highlight the role of the leadership style in such practices. Leadership as a factor in supporting KS is confirmed by many scholars
who find that leadership and organizational culture are among organizational factor that influences KS (e.g., Al-Adaileh & Al-Atawi, 2011).
The literature also suggests that good leadership results in more support for KS initiatives and activities, and thus provides employees with better opportunities to share knowledge. Additionally, leadership plays a moderating role between KS and learning.
H4: There is a significant relationship between leadership and KS in the banking sector.
Hypothesis (Leadership) Supported
H4a There is a significant relationship between leadership and knowledge sharing among employees in the banking sector.
Yes
Table 24: Leadership and Knowledge Sharing
Org_KS Leader
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.594**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
Leader Pearson Correlation 0.594** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Management Support
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which management
support influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is management support. Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant positive, correlation was found between management support and KS (r = 0.631; p = 0.000), as shown in Table 25. This means that positive management support is likely to enhance KS. Zboralski (2009), Boumarafi and Jabnoun (2008), and others have pointed out the importance of management support for KS.
With a significant positive correlation, the relationship between management support and KS is statistically proven. Additionally, research suggests that management support is a major knowledge success factor and operates with other factors to achieve organizational economic performance and company value. Research also suggests that management support is one of the dimensions that leads to KS and increased employee performance and is among the numerous variables that enable KS and produce a significant impact on KS capability, in addition to facilitating trust and opening avenues for training and development.
H5: There is a significant relationship between management support and KS in the banking sector.
Hypothesis (Management Support) Supporte
d
H5a There is a significant relationship between an organization’s management support and knowledge sharing among employees in the banking sector.
Yes
Table 25: Management Support and Knowledge Sharing
Org_KS MGT_SUP
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.631**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
MGT_SUP Pearson Correlation 0.631** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Organizational Commitment
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which organizational commitment influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is organizational commitment.
Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant, positive correlation was found between organizational commitment and knowledge sharing (r = 0.624; p = 0.000), as shown in Table 26. This means that positive organizational commitment is likely to improve KS.
The literature confirms that organizational commitment is a significant factor that shapes attitudes toward the job and the organization, which in turn positively influences KS. This view is shared by Angle and Perry (1981).
Research has confirmed organizational commitment as a factor of the individual personality dimension. It is also identified as a significant factor that shapes the attitudes toward the job and the organization. When employees are satisfied with the level and quality of organizational communication, they become more committed. Therefore, communication has a positive influence on organizational commitment, which in turn positively influences KS and impacts commitment to the group and trust in co-workers. Commitment promotes the work of the group and the perceived quality and amount of KS. High organizational commitment is, therefore, important for ensuring the continuance of KS and greater employee effort to perform tasks and enhance their willingness to share knowledge. The statistically significant positive correlation found between organizational commitment and KS in the data analysis supports these views. It is noted that this variable was one of two that had a tendency to be accepted by all respondents (no outlier responses).
H6: There is a significant relationship between organizational commitment and KS in the banking sector.
Hypothesis (Organizational Commitment) Supported H6
a
There is a significant relationship between organizational commitment and KS in the banking sector. Yes
Table 26: Organizational Commitment and Knowledge Sharing
Org_KS Org_COM
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.624**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
Org_COM Pearson Correlation 0.624** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Job Satisfaction and Commitment
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which job satisfaction and commitment influence KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is job satisfaction and commitment.
Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant, positive correlation was found between job satisfaction and commitment and KS (r = 0.641; p = 0.000), as shown in Table 27. This means that positive job satisfaction and commitment is likely to enhance KS.
Almahamid, McAdams, and Kalaldeh, (2010) argue that there is a significant relationship between organizational KS practices and employees’ job satisfaction. However, while the literature suggests that job satisfaction improves KS attitudes, Almahamid, McAdams, and Kalaldeh (2010) state that KS practices and an ongoing learning process aimed to prepare employees to think and act proactively will lead to increased job satisfaction, i.e., the relationship is
reciprocal. This variable has one of the highest statistically significant positive correlations and has no outlier responses, which signifies general satisfaction with the concept among respondents.
Juana, et al (2018) find that KS significantly influences employee satisfaction and commitment. Jiang and Hu (2016) report that KS has significant effects on employees’ instinctive feelings of well-being while enhancing work performance and improving results. According to Foss, et al (2009), job design motivates KS in many ways and consequently is an antecedent of employee knowledge-sharing behaviors that result in employee satisfaction.
H7: There is a significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee commitment and KS in the banking sector.
Hypothesis (Job Satisfaction and Employee Commitment)
Supported H7
a
There is a significant relationship between job satisfaction and commitment and KS.
Yes
Table 27: Job Satisfaction and Commitment and Knowledge Sharing
Org_KS JS_COM
Org_KS Pearson Correlation 1 0.641**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
JS_COM Pearson Correlation 0.641** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 199 199
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Self-efficacy
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which self-efficacy influences KS. The dependent variable is knowledge sharing, whereas the independent variable is self-efficacy. Pearson’s correlations were performed to test the relationship. A statistically significant, positive correlation was found between self-efficacy and KS (r = 0.638; p = 0.000), as shown in Table 28. This means that positive self-efficacy is likely to improve KS. Chang et al (2014) argue that research has emphasized the existence of an effective relationship between self- efficacy and a person’s intentions to share knowledge. Endres, et al (2007) argue that self-efficacy models help to better understand the influence of context on tacit KS by explicating the motivating forces that drives individuals to share complex, tacit knowledge.
This variable received appositive correlation between self-efficacy and KS at r = 0.638; p = 0.000, which is significant. The literature confirms that self- efficacy significantly impacts the manner in which knowledge contributors use the system and is a major factor among the individual personality factors discussed in the research. It is defined as people’s perception of their own capabilities to attain the desired outcomes; such beliefs in self-efficacy strongly influence how knowledge and skill are acquired and shared. Self-efficacy beliefs also influence a person’s thought patterns and emotional reactions.
H8: There is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and KS in the banking sector.