CC BY
75
сч сч о сч
DOI: 10.29141 /2218-5003-2022-13-3-3 EDN: PUMMLP
JEL Classification: D83, D91, M10
The impact of organizational justice and trust on knowledge sharing behaviour
Sabahattin Cetin1, Merve Davarci1, Ayhan Karakas1
1 Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey
Abstract. The spread of knowledge sharing provides advantages to organizations in developing new solutions to problems along with a broader informational infrastructure. For this reason, it is important to know the factors affecting the knowledge sharing behaviour of individuals. The study examined the impact of employees' perceptions of organizational justice and trust on knowledge sharing behaviour. The theories of organizational justice, organizational trust and knowledge sharing behavior constitute the methodological framework of the research. Within the scope of the study, data were collected from 421 participants (68 managers and 353 employees) working in public and private sectors in Bartin province (Turkey), using survey method. Within the scope of the study, organizational justice is divided into four sub-dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational), and the construct of trust includes two sub-dimensions - trust in the manager and in the organization as a whole. As a result of the study, while no significant relationship was found between procedural justice, distributive justice and knowledge sharing, it was found between interpersonal justice, informational justice and knowledge sharing. In addition, a positive and significant relationship was found between trust in the manager, trust in the organization and knowledge sharing behaviour. According to the findings, it is seen that organizational trust has an important role in the exhibition of knowledge sharing behaviour; as the level of trust in organizations increases, knowledge sharing behaviour is positively affected. At the same time, informational and interpersonal justice dimensions affect knowledge sharing behaviour more than distributive and procedural justice. It is emerging that organizations should give more importance to justice's informational and interpersonal dimensions. Keywords: organizational justice; organizational trust; knowledge sharing behaviour; employees; organizational behaviour; Turkey.
Article info: received March 3, 2022; received in revised form April 8, 2022; accepted April 18, 2022
For citation: Cetin S., Davarci M., Karakas A. (2022). The impact of organizational justice and trust on knowledge sharing behaviour. Upravlenets/The Manager, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 30-45. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2022-13-3-3. EDN: PUMMLP.
Влияние организационной справедливости и уровня доверия сотрудников на обмен знаниями
С. Четин1, М. Даварчи1, А. Каракас1
1 Бартынский университет, г. Бартын, Турция
Аннотация. Практики обмена знаниями внутри компаний способствуют принятию эффективных бизнес-решений, а также расширяют границы информационной инфраструктуры организации. В связи с этим особую актуальность приобретает анализ факторов, обусловливающих поведение сотрудников при информационном взаимодействии. В статье исследуется, как восприятие организационной справедливости и доверия влияет на процесс обмена знаниями между коллегами. Методологический каркас работы составили концепции справедливости организационного взаимодействия, доверия и управления знаниями. Использовались методы моделирования структурными уравнениями и факторного анализа. Информационной основой послужили результаты опроса 421 респондента (68 менеджеров и 353 сотрудников), занятых в государственном и частном секторах экономики провинции Бартын (Турция). Применяемый в рамках исследования конструкт «организационная справедливость» образовали четыре подкатегории: процедурная, дистрибутивная, межличностная и информационная справедливость, а конструкт «доверие» - две: доверие менеджеру и организации в целом. Полученные результаты свидетельствуют об отсутствии значимой корреляции между процедурной и дистрибутивной справедливостью и обменом знаниями внутри компаний. В то же время обнаружена значимая взаимосвязь межличностной и информационной справедливости с обменом знаниями, а также положительная связь между показателями «доверие организации», «доверие менеджеру» и «обмен знаниями». Установлено, что усиление организационного доверия оказывает позитивное воздействие на поведение сотрудников при передаче опыта. Влияние межличностной и информационной справедливости на обмен знаниями более существенно в сравнении с процедурным и дистрибутивным измерениями. Авторами сделан вывод о том, что компании должны уделять больше внимания информационному и межличностному аспектам справедливости организационного взаимодействия.
Ключевые слова: организационная справедливость; организационное доверие; обмен знаниями; сотрудники; организационное поведение; Турция.
Информация о статье: поступила 3 марта 2022 г.; доработана 8 апреля 2022 г.; одобрена 18 апреля 2022 г.
Ссылка для цитирования: Cetin S., Davarci M., Karakas A. (2022). The impact of organizational justice and trust on knowledge
sharing behaviour // Управленец. Т. 13, № 3. С. 30-45. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2022-13-3-3. EDN: PUMMLP.
INTRODUCTION
Organizational behaviour is the study of human attitudes and behaviours within organizations, such as organizational commitment, culture, justice, work ethics, change, aberrant behaviours, communication, employee silence and knowledge sharing. Organizational behaviour provides useful tools to help managers in dealing with individual and group behaviours by being applied to improve the effectiveness and productivity of an organization itself. Organizational behaviour practices aim to facilitate the achievement of the goals and objectives of an organization [Demir, 2011; George, Jones, 2002].
Many studies have been conducted to date on organizational behaviour issues. At the same time, studies on knowledge sharing behaviour within the field of organizational behaviour have been relatively less investigated than other subjects in that field [Hameed et al., 2019]. Organizational justice, personality and trust have generally been considered the antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour, and studies have been conducted in this direction [Lin, 2007b; Usoro et al., 2007]. The aim of this research is to reveal the relationships between organizational justice, organizational trust and knowledge sharing behaviour. The question "How do organizational justice and organizational trust affect knowledge sharing behaviour?" was the source of inspiration for the study.
We aim to determine the effects of organizational justice and trust on knowledge sharing behaviour. Within the scope of the study, the concepts of organizational justice, trust and knowledge sharing behaviour are explained. The methodology section gives analysis and results related to the research. The research will contribute to the literature in several ways. It presents proving information on the level and antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour of Turkish employees. In this way, we will get the opportunity to have information on which practices to use to increase the knowledge sharing behaviour. Secondly, we will be able to observe the relations between organizational justice and trust and the impact of organizational justice on trust.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Organizational justice. Organizational justice is considered a basic requirement for the functioning of organizations and the satisfaction of people working within organizations [Greenberg, 1990]. Organizational justice is the perception of employees in relation to the fair distribution of rewards and resources in the workplace [Cropanzano et al., 2001; Notz, Starke, 1987]. It is based on the Equity Theory by John Adams. According to Adams, individuals constantly compare their positions to the other employees working in the same position as them. As a result of this comparison, they assume an attitude towards the organization [Greenberg, 1990]. Organizational justice is generally examined under three dimensions: distributive, procedural and interactional justice [Colquitt, 2001]. In or-
ganizations, distributive justice is secured when rewards 3 and resources are distributed fairly; procedural justice is I secured when decision-making processes are fair; and g interactional justice is secured when managers treat em- 2 ployees with respect and dignity [Ibragimova et al., 2012]. <
Distributive justice is regarded as all kinds of gains such g as duties, wages, bonuses, goods, awards, penalties, pro- x motions, and other social rights being distributed equally £ among the employees. Procedural justice examines the 5 reaction of individuals to the processes in decision-mak- « ing within organizations and can be a tool to control the £ functioning system of organizations. The managers were acting honestly, courteously, and respectfully towards those affected by the decisions while making decisions, giving them feedback as well as stating the reasons for the decisions they take, indicating interactional justice [Pa§amehmetoglu, Yeloglu, 2015].
In his study, Greenberg [1993] added new dimensions to the perception of justice and divided interactional justice into two dimensions: interpersonal (related to the interpersonal attitudes and distributive justice in relation to the extent to which those, who set the achievements, show kindness, dignity and respect to employees), and informational (related to the distribution of achievements, to procedural justice and to how much information and explanations are given to employees regarding the processes) [Greenberg, 1993; Robinson, 2004]. According to Greenberg [1993], the impacts of these two perceptions of justice differ from each other. Perception of interpersonal justice is primarily related to reactions given to outcomes. Emotionality may cause individuals to feel more positive about undesired outcomes. Since the explanations about the decision process contain information to evaluate the structural aspect of the process, informational justice affects the reactions to the process itself [Colquitt, 2001]. In this study, informational justice was regarded as the fourth dimension.
Trust. Trust is the emotional state where one party considers the other party helpful, reliable, competent, honest, and open and does not feel the need to defend against the other party [Hoy, Tarter, 2004]. Trust emerges as a result of organizational justice, and it is one of the prerequisites for organizations to become both effective and competitive [Bidarian, Jafari, 2012]. Also, trust emerges as a result of experiences and interactions, and it is a substantial part of interpersonal relations, which is a mutual process between mid-level and top managers and employees within organizations. Organizational trust affects organizational justice. Employees, who trust the organization, have higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational performance, with less intention to quit [Hoy, Tarter, 2004]. In order to refer to trust within an organization, it is necessary to have the concepts of vulnerability in mutual relationships, helpfulness, reliability, competence as well as openness and
± honesty in knowledge sharing. Trust is regarded as both 3 behaviour and a belief [Cummings, Bromiley, 1996]. £ Trust is classified as trust in the organization and trust g in the manager (supervisor) [Nyhan, Marlowe, 1997]. The £ ability of an organization to gain long-term success is ex-£ pressed with the element of trust to be formed between < the employees and teams in the organization [Ozyilmaz, S 2010, p. 12]. At this point, the concept of trust in the organization is defined as the perceived reliability of the employees towards the organization [Eren, 2014]. Trust in the organization is a very important issue for workers and managers as it positively affects the organizational climate and performance. If the organization does not reward its employees with fair wages or does not see their employees' contributions to the organization, the trust of the employees in the organization may change [Gormezoglu Gok^en, 2019]. In case the desired environment of trust does not occur in an organization, it will be difficult for it to reach its objectives [Parlak, 2018, p. 27].
Trust in the manager is a significant point in ensuring the environment of trust within the organization. In particular, the behaviours that have priority in determining trust are the manager's openness to communication and supportive behaviours. The degree of perceived fit between behavioural integrity and accepted values is critical to the development of employee trust in their managers [Gormezoglu Gok^en, 2019]. To trust the managers, employees should feel that their managers are taking them seriously and considering them valuable [islamoglu, Birsel, Boru, 2007, pp. 31-32]. In sum, what is expected from managers is being fair, obeying the rules, showing goodwill and exhibiting behaviours in compliance with ethical principles [Erdem, 2003, p. 168]. Employees observing such behaviours in their managers are to work more efficiently, more committed to their organizations and more in harmony with their colleagues.
Knowledge sharing behaviour. There are two types of knowledge in organizations, explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is the knowledge that is formally and systematically collected, clearly expressed, and made available to the environment through information processing. At the same time, tacit knowledge is knowledge embedded in the action experience, idea, or a particular situation. Implicit knowledge can be classified as cognitive and technical; also, it can be acquired with the team [Goksel, Aydintan, Bingol, 2010].
In the process of producing goods and services, organizations act by integrating the knowledge of individuals and groups within that organization. The key to knowledge management is the sharing and reproduction of knowledge as well as its cumulative increase. In order to develop the basic skills of the businesses, it is necessary for the experts in their fields to share their knowledge with other employees so that they can become competitive [Gupta, Govindarajan, 2000]. Knowledge sharing is a process that involves exchanging knowledge with col-
leagues in order to enable them to acquire and use that knowledge [Ipe, 2003].
There are five factors affecting the success of knowledge sharing. These are the relationship between the source and the receiver, the process and place of knowledge, the learning tendency of the receiver, the knowledge sharing ability of individuals, and the environment where knowledge sharing takes place [Cummings, 2003].
Changing the knowledge sharing behaviour of individuals is seen as an important issue for businesses [Lin, 2007b; Ruggles, 1998]. Knowledge sharing is on a voluntary basis [Yang, 2007] and includes the mutual exchange of knowledge and support between employees. Knowledge sharing differs from information since it is mutual. Information refers to a one-way flow of data. Knowledge management should be viewed as a strategic element by the managers in businesses, and it is necessary to create a technological infrastructure for knowledge generation, storage, information access, knowledge sharing and use within the institution and to provide an organizational trust environment [Oneren, £iftg, Harman, 2016]. Through knowledge sharing, tacit knowledge has economic and competitive value, enables the development of informal learning, prevents waste of resources by showing the best practices in the organization and provides motivation, job satisfaction, as well as positive interaction [Peltokorpi, 2006].
Organizational justice, trust and knowledge sharing behaviour. There is a positive and high-level correlation between organizational justice and organizational trust. Organizational justice also positively affects employees' trust in organizations [Bidarian, Jafari, 2012; Demir, 2011; ¡§can, Sayin, 2010]. Among different types of organizational justice and trust in the organization, procedural justice and distributive justice are viewed as the precursors of trust [Hubbell, Chory-Assad, 2005]. In studies where the relationships between organizational justice, organizational trust and organizational citizenship behaviours are analysed, a positive relationship is observed between these three variables [Polat, Ceep, 2008].
H1: Procedural justice affects the trust in the manager positively and significantly.
H2: Distributive justice affects the trust in the manager positively and significantly.
H3: Interpersonal justice affects the trust in the manager positively and significantly.
H4: Informational justice affects the trust in the manager positively and significantly.
H5: Procedural justice affects the trust in the institution positively and significantly.
H6: Distributive justice affects the trust in the institution positively and significantly.
H7: Interpersonal justice affects the trust in the institution positively and significantly.
H8: Informational justice affects the trust in the institution positively and significantly.
There are various studies conducted showing that organizational justice is a precursor of knowledge sharing behaviour [Cabrera, Cabrera, 2005; Fang, Chiu, 2010; Ye§il, Dereli, 2013]. Cabrera and Cabrera [2005] state that several factors support and encourage knowledge sharing behaviour among employees. These factors comprise perceived support, culture, and procedural justice transcending the traditional human resource practices. Based on this idea, Cabrera and Cabrera [2005] use the term "human management practices" in order to talk about modernity and the importance of these factors. Flood et al. [2001] examine the relationship between justice and knowledge sharing among the information workers in the high technology and financial services industries. The results reveal that perceived equality leads employees to feel obliged to share knowledge and contribute to the organization. Fang and Chiu [2010] state that the inclusion of four different dimensions of justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice) results in a more descriptive model that can better illustrate the intention to maintain knowledge sharing among individuals in virtual communities. According to Bartol and Srivastava [2002], justice is perceived during processes and procedures related to the allocation and distribution of resources; that is, procedural justice makes employees feel that the organization values employees, and thus, it gets easier for employees to share knowledge with their colleagues. In a study conducted by Lin [2007a], it is revealed that there is an indirect impact between the dimensions of justice and knowledge sharing behaviour among colleagues. The results indicate that distributive justice, procedural justice, and collaboration affect implicit knowledge sharing indirectly through organizational commitment. In addition, distributive justice indirectly affects implicit knowledge sharing behaviour through trust put in colleagues. In their study, Schepers and Van Den Berg [2007] state that there are positive relations between procedural justice and knowledge sharing among employees. Yesil and Dereli [2013] also analysed the relations between the three dimensions of organizational justice and knowledge sharing behaviour. The results show that procedural justice and interactional justice are positively correlated with knowledge sharing behaviour. However, the hypothesis between distributive justice and knowledge sharing behaviour is not supported in their study. Based on the above literature research, the following were hypothesized within the scope of the study:
H9: Procedural justice affects knowledge sharing behaviour positively and significantly.
H10: Distributive justice affects knowledge sharing behaviour positively and significantly.
H11: Interpersonal justice affects knowledge sharing behaviour positively and significantly.
H12: Informational justice affects knowledge sharing behaviour positively and significantly.
Trust comes to the fore in organizations with mutual ° dependence. In the modern business approach, it is not 3 possible for the employees to do the work they do alone. I In this context, the element of trust becomes prominent. g When employees feel they are in a safe organization, it 2 becomes easier for them to share knowledge and make < use of each other's experiences. Once the environment g of trust becomes negative, knowledge sharing behaviour x decreases [Sezgin, U^ar, Duygulu, 2015]. £
Dyer and Chu [2003] examined trust and knowledge 5 sharing behaviour between suppliers and buyers, and the result was that suppliers tended to share more informa- S tion if they trusted buyers. Abrams et al. [2003] obtained findings supporting the idea that trust enabled effective knowledge sharing in social networks. McEvily, Perrone and Zaheer [2003] studied trust within the organizational framework and found that there was a positive relationship between organizational trust and knowledge sharing behaviour. In a study conducted by Chowdhury [2005], it is stated that affection-based trust has a positive impact on complex knowledge sharing. Due to the similarities between affection-based trust and identification-based trust, Hsu et al. [2007] examined the relationships between identification-based trust and knowledge sharing behaviour in professional virtual communities and stated that there was a positive relationship between trust and knowledge sharing behaviour. Bartol and Srivastava [2002] clearly express that trust is considered a key activator in relation to knowledge sharing through informal interactions. This study indicates that organizational trust helps individuals to engage in positive social behaviours such as knowledge sharing behaviour.
Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi and Mohammed [2007] presented that information systems, rewards, communication, and trust were the antecedents of knowledge sharing behaviour. The findings of the study show that trust in colleagues positively affects knowledge sharing in organizations. Chiu, Hsu and Wang [2006] argue that trust is positively related to the quantity and quality of knowledge sharing. The results indicated that only the quality of knowledge sharing is positively correlated with trust. When employees trust each other, they may be more willing to share knowledge within themselves. Trust leads to cooperative behaviour among employees [Nahapiet, Ghoshal, 1998], which is a must for knowledge sharing [Szulanski, Cappetta, Jensen, 2004]. In a study conducted by Fang and Chiu [2010], it is stated that both trust in members and trust in management positively impact knowledge sharing behaviour. On the other hand, Casimir, Lee and Loon [2012] state that trust has a more significant function in social transactions than in economic ones. Since trust is a social transaction based on this idea, it encourages knowledge sharing behaviour between individuals [Montoro-Sánchez, Ribeiro Soriano, 2011]. Rutten, Blass-Franken and Martin [2016] examined the relations between trust and knowledge sharing by comparing the
2 high and low levels of trust among employees. As ex-
3 pected, a low level of trust in a colleague led to signifi-£ cantly lower levels of knowledge sharing compared to a g high level of trust. In a similar way, Razmerita, Kirchner £ and Nielsen [2016] state that the limitation of knowledge £ sharing is based on a lack of trust, time, and behaviour | change. Taking the above-mentioned relations between Ü trust and knowledge sharing behaviour into consideration, the hypotheses of the study are as follows.
H13: Trust in the manager has a positive and significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour.
H14: Informational justice has a positive and significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour.
According to the above-mentioned hypotheses, the model of the study looks as in Figure.
The model of the study Модель исследования
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Sampling, data collection and evaluation technique.
The research is a quantitative study conducted in the survey model. 421 people working in public and private sectors in Bartin province (Turkey) were reached by collecting data electronically by using the convenience sampling method. In the study, scales, of which validity and reliability had been tested beforehand, were used to collect data. An electronic questionnaire was created by adding demographic information as well.
The organizational justice scale consisting of 20 four-dimensional statements developed by Colquitt [2001] and translated into Turkish by Ozmen, Arbak and Sural Ozder [2007] was used. Whereas, for organizational trust, a two-dimensional scale consisting of twelve statements developed by Nyhan and Marlowe [1997] and translated into Turkish by Gormezoglu Gok^en [2019] was used. A one-dimensional scale consisting of 7 statements developed by van den Hooff, Schouten and Simonovski [2012] and translated into Turkish by some authors was used to measure knowledge sharing behaviour. However, one statement was excluded from the analysis due to the low
factor load (0.21). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the scales are given below.
In this section of the study, information regarding the demographic characteristics of the respondents participating in the study, the confirmatory factor analysis of the variables examined within the context of the study, as well as the validity and reliability analyses of the scales used in the study are included. Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypotheses of the study after the analysis. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants of the study.
Table 1 - Descriptive statistics Таблица 1 - Дескриптивная статистика
Indicators n %
Gender Male 237 56.3
Female 184 43.7
Marital status Married 145 34.4
Single 276 65.5
Age 18-25 114 27.1
26-35 215 51.1
36-44 73 17.3
45-54 15 3.6
55 and above 4 1.0
Education level Elementary education 2 0.5
High school 13 3.1
Associate degree 17 4.0
Bachelor's degree 220 52.3
Postgraduate 169 40.1
Sector of the institution Public 180 42.8
Private 241 57.2
Position Employee 353 83.8
Manager 68 16.2
Experience 1-5 years 209 49.6
6-10 years 102 13.5
11-15 years 57 7.8
16-20 years 33 4.8
21 years and above 20 24.2
When the demographic characteristics of the participants included in the study are examined within the scope of the data given in Table 1, it is seen that 56.3 % of the participants are male, and 43.7 % are female. Also, 34.4 % of the participants are married, and 65.5 % are single. It is also observed that the majority of the participants are the ages between 26 and 35 (51.1 %), 18 and 25 (27.1 %), 36 and 44 (17.3 %), 45 and 54 (3.6 %), and 55 years and above (1.0 %). 52.3 % of the respondents have an undergradu-
ate education level. Their education levels are graduates (40.1 %), associate degree (4.0 %), secondary education (3.1 %), and primary education (0.5 %). While 42.8 % of the participants work in public institutions, 57.2 % work in private institutions. According to the distribution of the respondents in terms of their positions, it is seen that 83.8 % are employees and 16.2 % are managers. In addition, it is noteworthy that 73.4 % of the participants have working periods between 1 to 5 years. The current working period of the participants is 6 to 10 years (16.9 %), 11 to 15 years (5.2 %), 16 to 20 years (1.9 %), and 21 years and above (2.6 %). According to Table 1, 49.6 % of the participants have 1 to 5 years of professional experience. This is followed by 21 years and above (24.2 %), 6 to 10 years (13.5 %), 11 to 15 years (7.8 %), and 16 to 20 years (4.8 %).
RESEARCH RESULTS
Confirmatory factor analysis. According to the confirmatory factor analysis results (Table 2), the fact that the x2 value of the organizational justice dimension is less than 3 shows that the model is coherent. GFI is observed to be above 0.85, which is acceptable. It is also observed that AGFI takes a value between 0 and 1 and that it is acceptable. Similarly, NFI is above 0.90, which is acceptable. It is seen that the TLI is over 0.90 and is coherent. The fact that RMSEA is close to 0.08 indicates that the value is in an acceptable coherence [Çelik, Karaka§, 2021].
The fact that the x^ value of the organizational trust ° dimension is greater than 3 indicates that the model is 3 acceptable. GFI is observed to be above 0.90, which is ac- I ceptable. Also, AGFI is observed to be taking the values of g 0.906, and it is coherent. The fact that NFI is above 0.95 in- 2
u
dicates a perfect coherence. It is also seen that the TLI has <
a value above 0.95 and indicates perfect coherence. The g
fact that RMSEA is close to 0.08 indicates that the value is x
hin an acceptable coherence [£elik, Ta§, 2021]. £
1 u
The fact that the x value of the knowledge sharing 5 dimension is less than 3 indicates that the model is coher- «
OS
ent. GFI is observed to be above 0.90, which is acceptable. £ Also, AGFI is observed to be taking values above 0.90, and it is coherent. It is also seen that the NFI has a value above 0.95 and has a perfect coherence. It is seen that the TLI has a value above 0.95 and has perfect coherence. The fact that RMSEA is close to 0.08 indicates that the value is in an acceptable coherence [£etin, Fidan, 2017].
Validity and reliability analysis. The scales used in the study and the factor loads, composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) and Cronbach's Alpha (a) values of these scales' sub-dimensions are given in Table 3. When the factor loads of the variables are examined, the factor loads of all the variables used are seen to be at a sufficient level [§encan, Fidan, 2020]. Thus, it can be said that all items show good construct validity [Fornell, Larcker, 1981]. According to the CR test results, the values
Table 2 - Results of factor analysis Таблица 2 - Результаты факторного анализа
Dimensions X2/df GFI AGFI NFI TLI CFI RMSEA
Organizational justice 2.962 0.899 0.867 0.930 0.943 0.952 0.068
Organizational trust 3.141 0.940 0.906 0.969 0.972 0.979 0.071
Knowledge sharing behaviour 2.912 0.989 0.953 0.990 0.981 0.994 0.067
Dimensions Items Factor loads Cronbach Alfa (а) CR AVE
Procedural justice (PJ) PJ7 0.805 0.879 0.878 0.510
PJ6 0.556
PJ5 0.771
PJ4 0.713
PJ3 0.802
PJ2 0.664
PJ1 0.652
Distributive justice (DJ) DJ4 0.747 0.886 0.889 0.667
DJ3 0.827
DJ2 0.853
DJ1 0.835
Interpersonal justice (IPJ) IPJ3 0.932 0.920 0.924 0.803
IPJ2 0.858
IPJ1 0.896
Table 3 - Factor loads, CR, AVE and (a) values Таблица 3 - Факторные нагрузки, композитная надежность (CR), средняя объясненная дисперсия (AVE)
и значения коэффициента альфа Кронбаха (a)
Окончание табл. З Table З (concluded)
Dimensions Items Factor loads Cronbach Alfa (а) CR AVE
IJ5 0.821
IJ4 0.853
Informational justice (IJ) IJ3 0.868 0.923 0.926 0.715
IJ2 0.856
IJ1 0.829
TM8 0.896
TM7 0.891
TM6 0.865
Trust in manager (TM) TM5 0.888 0.954 0.954 0.723
TM4 0.851
TM3 0.619
TM2 0.892
TM1 0.865
TO4 0.833
Trust in organization (TO) TO3 0.797 0.913 0.904 0.704
TO2 0.922
TO1 0.797
KSB6 0.616
KSB5 0.559
Knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB) KSB4 0.512 0.867 0.845 0.493
KSB3 0.536
KSB2 0.931
KSB1 0.923
of the variables vary between 0.845 and 0.954. However, this value must be greater than 0.70. When the AVE values of the variables are examined, it is seen that these values vary between 0.493 and 0.803, whereas this value should also be greater than 0.50 [Hair et al., 1998, p. 612]. The AVE value of knowledge sharing behaviour seems to be low. However, due to the fact that the CR value is greater than the AVE value and the Cronbach's Alpha value, it can be said that the variable provides internal consistency. It is seen that the alpha values vary between 0.867 and 0.954. However, these values are desired to be greater than 0.70 [Altuniçik et al., 2012, p. 126]. According to the results,
it can be stated that the internal structure consistency of the variables is ensured.
Correlation analysis. According to the results of the correlation analysis (Table 4), significant and positive correlations are found between all variables (p<0.05 and p<0.01). In terms of relationship strength, it is seen that the strongest relationship is between trust in the manager and informational justice (r=0.836; p<0.01). Once again, in terms of relationship strength, it is striking that the weakest relationship is between knowledge sharing and distributive justice (r=0.337; p<0.01).
Table 4 - Results of correlation analysis Таблица 4 - Результаты корреляционного анализа
Dimensions Mean Std. deviation Procedural justice Distributive justice Interpersonal justice Informational justice Trust in manager Trust in organization
Procedural justice 3.71 0.86 1
Distributive justice 3.63 1.09 0.725**
Interpersonal justice 4.05 1.02 0.540** 0.453**
Informational justice 3.74 1.07 0.612** 0.548** 0.775**
Trust in manager 3.75 1.05 0.627** 0.536** 0.697** 0.836**
Trust in organization 3.54 1.14 0.672** 0.559** 0.674** 0.713** 0.769**
Knowledge sharing behaviour 4.23 0.72 0.411** 0.337** 0.525** 0.515** 0.448** 0.491**
Note: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.
Results of structural equation model (SEM). The fit
indices of the study and the testing of the hypotheses created within the context of the study model are given in Table 5.
Table 5 - Research model fit indices Таблица 5 - Индексы соответствия в модели исследования
Table 6 shows the relationships as well as the explanatory and significance levels of all variables within the research model.
In accordance with the results obtained from the analysis, it was found that procedural justice significantly affected trust in the manager (0.296; p<0.001) and the first hypothesis of the study (H1) was accepted. It was found that distributive justice did not have a significant impact on the variable of trust in the manager (-0.109; p>0.05), and thus the second hypothesis of the study (H2) was rejected. Also, the third hypothesis of the study (H3) was rejected because it was found that interpersonal justice did not have a significant impact on the variable of trust in the manager (-0.053; p>0.05). It was seen that informational justice had a significant and high impact on the trust in the manager variable (0.846; p<0.001), and the fourth hypothesis of the study (H4) was accepted.
In addition, it was observed that procedural justice °
had a significant impact on the variable of trust in the in- 3
stitution (0.435; p<0.001) and the fifth hypothesis of the 1
study (H5) was accepted. Whereas distributive justice was g
found not to have a significant impact on the variable of 2
trust in the institution (-0.066; p>0.05), and thus the sixth <
hypothesis of the study (H6) was rejected. It was found g
that interpersonal justice had a significant impact on the x
variable of trust in the institution (0.189; p<0.001), and £
u
the seventh hypothesis of the study (H7) was accepted. It 5 was also seen that informational justice had a significant H impact on the variable of trust in the institution (0.448; S p<0.001), and the eighth hypothesis of the study (H8) was accepted.
It was found that procedural justice did not have a significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour (0.074; p>0.05), and thus the ninth hypothesis of the study (H9) was rejected. Similarly, distributive justice was found not to have a significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour (-0.029; p>0.05), and the tenth hypothesis of the study (H10) was rejected. At the same time, interpersonal justice was found to have a significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour (0.126; p<0.05), so the eleventh hypothesis of the study was accepted (H11). Similarly, informational justice was also found to have a significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour (0.312; p<0.05), and the twelfth hypothesis of the study was accepted (H12).
Trust in the manager was observed to have a significant impact on the knowledge sharing behaviour (0.218; p<0.05), and thus the thirteenth hypothesis of the study (H13) was accepted. Similarly, it was found that trust in the institution had a significant impact on knowledge sharing behaviour (0.176; p<0.05), and the fourteenth hypothesis of the study (H14) was accepted.
Table 6 - SEM results
Таблица 6 - Результаты моделирования структурными уравнениями (SEM)
Interaction Std. reg. coefficient Std. error P Result
Trust in manager — Procedural justice 0.296 0.075 0.000 Accepted
Distributive justice -0.109 0.062 0.080 Rejected
Interpersonal justice -0.053 0.058 0.360 Rejected
Informational justice 0.846 0.055 0.000 Accepted
Trust in organization — Procedural justice 0.435 0.059 0.000 Accepted
Distributive justice -0.066 0.077 0.393 Rejected
Interpersonal justice 0.189 0.069 0.007 Accepted
Informational justice 0.448 0.081 0.000 Accepted
Knowledge sharing behaviour — Procedural justice 0.074 0.097 0.447 Rejected
Distributive justice -0.029 0.070 0.676 Rejected
Interpersonal justice 0.126 0.062 0.041 Accepted
Informational justice 0.312 0.111 0.005 Accepted
Trust in manager 0.218 0.079 0.006 Accepted
Trust in organization 0.176 0.056 0.002 Accepted
Model fit indices Results Acceptable value
x2/df 2.335 < 5,0
GFI 0.847 S 0.8
AGFI 0.822 S 0.8
NFI 0.901 S 0.9
TLI 0.935 S 0.9
CFI 0.941 S 0.9
RMSEA 0.056 < 0.8
â DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
3 In this study, we examined how the employees' percep-£ tions of organizational justice and trust affected knowl-g edge sharing behaviour. According to the research results, £ while a positive and significant relationship was found be-£ tween procedural justice, informational justice and trust I in the manager, no significant relationship was found Ü between distributive justice, interpersonal justice, and trust in the manager. A positive and significant relationship was found between procedural justice, interpersonal justice, informational justice, and trust in the institution. No significant relationship was found between distributive justice and trust in the institution, as well as procedural justice, distributive justice, and knowledge sharing. On the other hand, a positive and significant relationship was found between interpersonal justice, informational justice and knowledge sharing, as well as between trust in the manager, trust in the institution and knowledge sharing.
Regarding other studies in the literature on examining the relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust, Hubbell and Chory-Assad [2005] concluded that distributive justice only predicted trust in the manager, while procedural justice affected trust in the manager and the institution to a large extent. In the study, no positive and significant relationship was found between distributive justice and trust in the manager. However, procedural (process) justice was found to be affecting both trust in the manager and trust in the institution. A similar result was obtained in this study. According to i§can and Sayin [2010], Polat and Celep [2008], Bidarian and Jafari [2012], and Kûlekçi Akyavuz [2017], it affects both organizational justice and organizational trust. Demirkaya and Kandemir [2014] concluded that organizational justice was effective on trust. However, once they examined the relationship between the sub-dimensions of organizational justice and trust, they could not obtain significant results. According to the study results, it was found that procedural justice and informational justice had a positive relationship with both trusts in the manager and trust in the institution, whereas interpersonal justice had a positive relationship only with trust in the institution, and the study was underpinned at one point. No positive and significant relationship was found between distributive justice, trust in the manager and trust in the institution. In addition, no positive and significant relationship was found between interpersonal justice and trust in the manager. DeConinck [2010] concluded that there was a positive and significant relationship between procedural justice, distributive justice, and organizational trust. The study concluded that there was a significant and positive relationship between the organizational trust dimensions of procedural justice, and thus the study was underpinned. No significant and positive relationship was found between distributive justice and the dimensions of or-
ganizational trust. Practices such as rewards, penalties, bonuses and promotions, which will be implemented by the managers equitably, will have a positive impact on distributive justice while keeping employee interests at the forefront; using the right procedures during the decisions to be taken will positively affect procedural justice, and being respectful, sensitive and polite to the employees within the organization as well as making necessary explanations in a timely manner will positively affect interactive (interpersonal - informational) justice. When employees feel a sense of justice towards their organization, the level of their trust in the organization will increase. In case employees describe their organization as unjust, their level of trust in the organization will decrease.
In studies conducted to examine the relationship between organizational justice and knowledge sharing, different results have been obtained. imamoglu et al. [2019], Amirhasani, Ghorbani and Zahdi [2020], and Jnaneswar and Ranjit [2020] stated that organizational justice affected knowledge sharing. On the other hand, Carman [2016] concluded that procedural justice had a positive impact on knowledge sharing, while distributive justice and interactional (interpersonal-informational) justice did not have so. Lin and Shin [2021] concluded that distributive justice and interactional (interpersonal-informational) justice had an impact on knowledge sharing, whereas procedural (process) justice did not have so. It can be said that the results obtained support the results in the literature to a certain extent. However, different results were obtained in this study as well. It is important to transfer objective information on the fair distribution of rewards and penalties in order to reinforce the employees' belief in the objectivity of these practices to be received by the employees depending on their performance. The fact that the information given to them regarding the gains and penalties is overlapping will strengthen the organizational justice perceptions of the employees. Furthermore, the inclusion of employees in the resource distribution processes as well as transferring the necessary information about the subject will positively affect the employees' perception of justice. In organizations where organizational justice is dominant, communication between employees will be strengthened, and thus knowledge sharing will increase among employees.
In other studies on the relationship between organizational trust and knowledge sharing [Samadi et al., 2015; Ouakouak, Ouedraogo, 2018; Shateri, Hayat, 2020; Rach-mania, Mauludin, 2021], organizational trust is stated to be affecting knowledge sharing behaviour. Similar results were obtained in this study. Creating and maintaining the perception of trust within the organization is of importance for the organization itself. In order to ensure knowledge sharing between employees, managers and institutions, a sense of trust and transparency should be
adopted in management. Knowledge sharing includes the voluntary participation of employees. Therefore, the level of trust between individuals is a prominent factor in knowledge sharing behaviour. A higher level of trust in organizations will increase the knowledge sharing behav-
iour among employees. When employees feel an environment of trust in the organization, they will be able to freely share their feelings and thoughts to express themselves in a better way. Along with this, employees will have the chance to learn together.
References
Abrams L.C., Cross R., Lesser E., Levin D.Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of
Management Perspectives, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 64-77. Al-Alawi A.I., Al-Marzooqi N.Y., Mohammed Y.F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors.
Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898 Altunijik R., Cojkun R., Bayraktaroglu S., Yildirim E. (2012). Research methods in the social sciences, SPSS applied. 7th ed. Basim,
Sakarya: Sakarya Yayincilik. (in Turkish) Amirhasani M., Ghorbani S., Zahdi M.Z. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on knowledge sharing in an academic-
educational environment. Scientific Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 153-180. Bartol K.M., Srivastava A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900105 Bidarian S., Jafari P. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust. Procedía - Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 47, pp. 1622-1626. Cabrera E.F., Cabrera A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500083020 Carman Y. (2016). The effect of organizational culture and organizational justice on information sharing: The case of Düzce university. Master thesis (unpublished), Düzce University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Düzce. (in Turkish)
Casimir G., Lee K., Loon M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 740-753. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781 Çelik K., Karakaj A. (2021). The effect of electronic customer relationship management on perceived customer relationship
quality and customer loyalty. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 382-393. (in Turkish) Çelik K., Taj A. (2021). Investigation of factors affecting consumer behaviours before purchase: A research on Instagram shoppers. Journal of Business Research-Turk, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 3821-3834. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2021.1358 Çetin S., Fidan Y. (2017). The relationship among human capital absorptive capacity and innovation performance. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v5i4.139. (in Turkish)
Chiu C.M., Hsu M.H., Wang E.T.G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1872-1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dss.2006.04.001
Chowdhury S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 310-326.
Colquitt J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 86, issue 3, pp. 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3386 Cropanzano R., Rupp D.E., Mohler C.J., Schminke M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, vol. 20, pp. 1-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-730K0D20001-2 Cummings J. (2003). Knowledge sharing: A review of the literature. The World Bank. www.worldbank.org/oed. Cummings L.L., Bromiley P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In: R.M. Kramer,
T.R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302-330). SAGE Publications. DeConinck J.B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust. Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 1349-1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2010.01.003
Demir M. (2011). Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees' deviant behavior. Anatolia, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 204-221. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2011.597934 Demirkaya H., Kandemir A.§. (2014). A business study on the analysis of the relationship between dimensions of organizational justice and organizational trust. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 263-279. (in Turkish) Dyer J.H., Chu W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 57-68. Erdem F. (2003). Confidence in organizational life. In: Sosyal Bilimlerde Güven /Social Sciences Trust (pp. 165-172). Vadi Publications. (in Turkish)
CO
a Eren M.§. (2014). The mediating effects of trust in organization and affective commitment on the relationship between em™ powerment and quantitative business performance. Îçietme Araçtirmalari Dergisi / Journal of Business Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, | pp. 303-327. (in Turkish)
Fang Y.H., Chiu C.M. (2010). In justice, we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of 8 practice. Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 235-246.
£ Flood P.C., Turner T., Ramamoorthy N., Pearson J. (2001). Causes and consequences of psychological contracts among knowl-< edge workers in the high technology and financial services industries. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-| ment, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1152-1165.
s Fornell C., Larcker D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 George J.M., Jones G.R. (2002). Understanding and managing organizational behaviour (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Goksel A., Aydintan B., Bingol D. (2010). Information sharing behavior in organizations: A look from the social capital dimension. Ankara Universitesi SBF Dergisi /Ankara University SBF Journal, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1501/SB-Fder_0000002185. (in Turkish)
Gormezoglu Gokçen Z. (2019). Servant leadership, social sustainability, organizational trust, and organizational identification: Examining the Relationships. Doctoral Thesis, istanbul University. (in Turkish) Greenberg J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 399-432.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208 Greenberg J. (1993). The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way, maybe. Social Justice Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048736 Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 473-496.
Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., William C.B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hameed Z., Khan I.U., Sheikh Z., Islam T., Rasheed M.I., Naeem R.M. (2019). Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behaviour: The role of psychological ownership and perceived organizational support. Personnel Review, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 748-773. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2017-0217 Hoy W.K., Tarter C.J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 250-259. DOI: 10.1108/09513540410538831 Hsu M.H., Ju T.L., Yen C.H., Chang C.M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behaviour in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJjhcs.2006.09.003 Hubbell A.P., Chory-Assad R.M. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and
organizational trust. Communication Studies, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0008957042000332241 Ibragimova B., Ryan S.D., Windsor J.C., Prybutok V.R. (2012). Understanding the antecedents of knowledge sharing: An organizational justice perspective. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 15 (May), pp. 183-205. https://doi.org/10.28945/1694 imamoglu S.Z., Ince H., Turkcan H., Atakay B. (2019). The effect of organizational justice and organizational commitment on knowledge sharing and firm performance. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 158, pp. 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procs.2019.09.129
Ipe M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985 ijcan O.F., Sayin U. (2010). The relationship between organizational justice, job satisfaction and organizational trust. Ataturk Universitesi iktisadi ve idari Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 24, issue 4, pp. 195-216. (in Turkish)
islamoglu G., Birsel M., Boru D. (2007). Confidence in the organization trust measuring the manager, colleagues, and the organization. Revolution Bookstore. (in Turkish) Jnaneswar K., Gayathri R. (2020). Organisational justice and innovative behaviour: Is knowledge sharing a mediator. Industrial
and Commercial Training, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-04-2020-0044 Kulekçi Akyavuz E. (2017). Analyzing of the relationships between organizational justice and organizational trust of teachers. Uludag Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi / Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 805-831. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.369242. (in Turkish) Lin C. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel Review, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731374 Lin H.F. (2007b). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information
Science, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 135-149. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506068174 Lin Z., Shin H. (2021). Structural relationship between organizational justice, organizational trust, and knowledge sharing and innovative behavior: Focus on professors from Chinese sport universities. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 882-893. DOI: 10.7752/jpes.2021.02110 McEvily B., Perrone V., Zaheer A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 91-103. https:// doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814
Montoro-Sánchez Á., Ribeiro Soriano D. (2011). Human resource management and corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Manpower, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 6-13. DOI: 10.1108/01437721111121198 g
Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational advantage. Knowledge and Social Capital, § vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242-266. DOI: 10.2307/259373 S
Notz W.W., Starke F.A. (1987). Arbitration and distributive justice: Equity or equality? Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 72, no. 3, 8 pp. 359-365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.723.359 §
Nyhan R.C., Marlowe H.A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation | Review, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 614-635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100505 ¡¡j
Öneren M., Çiftçi G.E., Harman A. (2016). Impact of information sharing in a research on organizational trust and innovative be- S haviour. Akademik Baki§ Uluslararasi Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/International Refereed Academic Social Sciences Journal, ¡U vol. 58, pp. 127-157. (in Turkish) 5
Ouakouak M.L., Ouedraogo N. (2018). Fostering knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization: The impact of organizational | commitment and trust. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 757-779. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05- S 2017-0107
Özmen Ö.N.T., Arbak Y., Süral Özder P. (2007). An inquiry about the effect of justice value on justice perception. Ege Akademik
Baki§ - Ege Academic Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17-33. (in Turkish) Özyilmaz A. (2010). Vertical trust in organizations: A review of empirical studies over the last decade. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 1-28. (in Turkish)
Parlak F. (2018). The relationship between school administrators' communication skills and organizational trust. Kahramanmaras
Sutcu Imam University. (in Turkish) Pajamehmetoglu A., Yeloglu H.O. (2015). Motivation. In: Ü. Sigri & S. Gürbüz (Eds.). Organizational behavior (pp. 137-174).
3rd ed. Beta Releases. (in Turkish) Peltokorpi V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management
Research and Practice, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095 Polat S., Ceep P.C. (2008). Perceptions of secondary school teachers on organizational justice, organizational trust, organizational citizenship behaviors. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi/Educational Management in Theory and Practice, vol. 54, no. 54, pp. 307-331. (in Turkish)
Rachmania B., Mauludin H. (2021). Trust and job involvement as a determinant of knowledge sharing behavior. Business Excellence & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 94-105. DOI: 10.24818/beman/2021.11.1-07 Razmerita L., Kirchner K., Nielsen P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1225-1246. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0112 Robinson K.L. (2004). The impact of individual differences on the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational
justice and organizational outcome variables. Alliant International University. Ruggles R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, vol. 40, no. 3,
pp. 80-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165944 Rutten W., Blaas-Franken J., Martin H. (2016). The impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0391 Samadi B., Wei C.C., Seyfee S., Yusoff W.F.W. (2015). Conceptual model of organizational trust and knowledge sharing behavior
among multigenerational employees. Asian Social Science, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 33-42. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v11n9p32 Schepers P., Van Den Berg P.T. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 21,
no. 3, pp. 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9035-4 pencan H., Fidan Y. (2020). Normality assumption in the exploratory factor analysis with Likert scale data and testing its effect on factor extraction. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 640-687. https://doi. org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1395. (in Turkish) Sezgin O.B., Uçar Z., Duygulu E. (2015). The mediating role of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and innovative work behaviour. í^letme Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of the Faculty of Business, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1-20. https://doi. org/10.24889/ifede.268156. (in Turkish) Shateri K., Hayat A.A. (2020). Investigating the mediating role of organizational trust in the relationship between perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 298-314. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.016 Szulanski G., Cappetta R., Jensen R.J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating
effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0096 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 and Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143 van den Hooff B., Schouten A.P., Simonovski S. (2012). What one feels and what one knows: The influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 148-158. https:// doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198990 Yang J. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738933
со
a Yejil S., Dereli S.F. (2013). An empirical investigation of the organisational justice, knowledge sharing and innovation capability.
Й Procedía - Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 75, pp. 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.023
s
£
СЧ
S3 Источники
я Abrams L.C., Cross R., Lesser E., Levin D.Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of
¡5 Management Perspectives, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 64-77.
« Al-Alawi A.I., Al-Marzooqi N.Y., Mohammed Y.F. (2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors.
I Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898
Altunijik R., Cojkun R., Bayraktaroglu S., Yildirim E. (2012). Research methods in the social sciences, SPSS applied. 7th ed. Basim,
Sakarya: Sakarya Yayincilik. (in Turkish) Amirhasani M., Ghorbani S., Zahdi M.Z. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on knowledge sharing in an academic-
educational environment. Scientific Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 153-180. Bartol K.M., Srivastava A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 64-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900105 Bidarian S., Jafari P. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational trust. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 47, pp. 1б22-1б2б. Cabrera E.F., Cabrera A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, vol. 1б, no. 5, pp. 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500083020 Carman Y. (2016). The effect of organizational culture and organizational justice on information sharing: The case of Düzce university. Master thesis (unpublished), Düzce University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Düzce. (in Turkish)
Casimir G., Lee K., Loon M. (2012). Knowledge sharing: Influences of trust, commitment and cost. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 740-753. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211262781 Çelik K., Karakaj A. (2021). The effect of electronic customer relationship management on perceived customer relationship
quality and customer loyalty. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 382-393. (in Turkish) Çelik K., Taj A. (2021). Investigation of factors affecting consumer behaviours before purchase: A research on Instagram shoppers. Journal of Business Research-Turk, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 3821-3834. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2021.1358 Çetin S., Fidan Y. (2017). The relationship among human capital absorptive capacity and innovation performance. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v5i4.139. (in Turkish)
Chiu C.M., Hsu M.H., Wang E.T.G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 1872-1888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dss.2006.04.001
Chowdhury S. (2005). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 310-326.
Colquitt J.A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 86, issue 3, pp. 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386 Cropanzano R., Rupp D.E., Mohler C.J., Schminke M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, vol. 20, pp. 1-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20001-2 Cummings J. (2003). Knowledge sharing: A review of the literature. The World Bank. www.worldbank.org/oed. Cummings L.L., Bromiley P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In: R.M. Kramer,
T.R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302-330). SAGE Publications. DeConinck J.B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees' level of trust. Journal of Business Research, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 1349-1355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2010.01.003
Demir M. (2011). Effects of organizational justice, trust and commitment on employees' deviant behavior. Anatolia, vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 204-221. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2011.597934 Demirkaya H., Kandemir A.§. (2014). A business study on the analysis of the relationship between dimensions of organizational justice and organizational trust. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Z Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 263-279. (in Turkish) Dyer J.H., Chu W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 57-68. Erdem F. (2003). Confidence in organizational life. In: Sosyal Bilimlerde Güven ZSocial Sciences Trust (pp. 165-172). Vadi Publications. (in Turkish)
Eren M.§. (2014). The mediating effects of trust in organization and affective commitment on the relationship between empowerment and quantitative business performance. Îçletme Araçtirmalari Dergisi Z Journal of Business Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 303-327. (in Turkish)
Fang Y.H., Chiu C.M. (2010). In justice, we trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice. Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 235-246.
Flood P.C., Turner T., Ramamoorthy N., Pearson J. (2001). Causes and consequences of psychological contracts among knowl- ° edge workers in the high technology and financial services industries. International Journal of Human Resource Manage- « ment, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1152-1165. §
Fornell C., Larcker D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Jour- gj nal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 8
George J.M., Jones G.R. (2002). Understanding and managing organizational behaviour (6th ed.). Prentice-Hall. g
Göksel A., Aydintan B., Bingöl D. (2010). Information sharing behavior in organizations: A look from the social capital dimen- | sion. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi /Ankara University SBF Journal, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 87-109. https://doi.org/10.1501/SB- ® Fder_0000002185. (in Turkish) |
Görmezoglu Gôkçen Z. (2019). Servant leadership, social sustainability, organizational trust, and organizational identification: £ Examining the Relationships. Doctoral Thesis, istanbul University. (in Turkish) u
Greenberg J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 399-432. % https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208 |
Greenberg J. (1993). The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: You've come a long way, maybe. Social Justice
Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048736 Gupta A.K., Govindarajan V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 473-496.
Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., William C.B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hameed Z., Khan I.U., Sheikh Z., Islam T., Rasheed M.I., Naeem R.M. (2019). Organizational justice and knowledge sharing behaviour: The role of psychological ownership and perceived organizational support. Personnel Review, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 748-773. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2017-0217 Hoy W.K., Tarter C.J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 250-259. DOI: 10.1108/09513540410538831 Hsu M.H., Ju T.L., Yen C.H., Chang C.M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behaviour in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/jJjhcs.2006.09.003 Hubbell A.P., Chory-Assad R.M. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and
organizational trust. Communication Studies, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0008957042000332241 Ibragimova B., Ryan S.D., Windsor J.C., Prybutok V.R. (2012). Understanding the antecedents of knowledge sharing: An organizational justice perspective. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, vol. 15 (May), pp. 183-205. https://doi.org/10.28945/1694 imamoglu S.Z., Ince H., Turkcan H., Atakay B. (2019). The effect of organizational justice and organizational commitment on knowledge sharing and firm performance. Procedia Computer Science, vol. 158, pp. 899-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. procs.2019.09.129
Ipe M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 337-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484303257985 ijcan Ö.F., Sayin U. (2010). The relationship between organizational justice, job satisfaction and organizational trust. Atatürk Üniversitesi iktisadi ve idari Bilimler Dergisi/Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 24, issue 4, pp. 195-216. (in Turkish)
islamoglu G., Birsel M., Börü D. (2007). Confidence in the organization trust measuring the manager, colleagues, and the organization. Revolution Bookstore. (in Turkish) Jnaneswar K., Gayathri R. (2020). Organisational justice and innovative behaviour: Is knowledge sharing a mediator. Industrial
and Commercial Training, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-04-2020-0044 Kûlekçi Akyavuz E. (2017). Analyzing of the relationships between organizational justice and organizational trust of teachers. Uludag Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 805-831. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.369242. (in Turkish) Lin C. (2007a). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel
Review, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710731374 Lin H.F. (2007b). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information
Science, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 135-149. DOI: 10.1177/0165551506068174 Lin Z., Shin H. (2021). Structural relationship between organizational justice, organizational trust, and knowledge sharing and innovative behavior: Focus on professors from Chinese sport universities. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 882-893. DOI: 10.7752/jpes.2021.02110 McEvily B., Perrone V., Zaheer A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 91-103. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814 Montoro-Sanchez Ä., Ribeiro Soriano D. (2011). Human resource management and corporate entrepreneurship. International
Journal of Manpower, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 6-13. DOI: 10.1108/01437721111121198 Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational advantage. Knowledge and Social Capital, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242-266. DOI: 10.2307/259373
g Notz W.W., Starke F.A. (1987). Arbitration and distributive justice: Equity or equality? Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 72, no. 3, 3 pp. 359-365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.723.359
J Nyhan R.C., Marlowe H.A. (1997). Development and psychometric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation « Review, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 614-635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9702100505
§ Öneren M., Çiftçi G.E., Harman A. (2016). Impact of information sharing in a research on organizational trust and innovative be" haviour. Akademik Baki§ Uluslararasi Hakemli Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi/International Refereed Academic Social Sciences Journal, < vol. 58, pp. 127-157. (in Turkish)
cl Ouakouak M.L., Ouedraogo N. (2018). Fostering knowledge sharing and knowledge utilization: The impact of organizational ^ commitment and trust. Business Process Management Journal, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 757-779. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-05-2017-0107
Özmen Ö.N.T., Arbak Y., Süral Özder P. (2007). An inquiry about the effect of justice value on justice perception. Ege Akademik
Baki§ - Ege Academic Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17-33. (in Turkish) Özyilmaz A. (2010). Vertical trust in organizations: A review of empirical studies over the last decade. Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / Hatay Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, vol. 7, no. 13, pp. 1-28. (in Turkish)
Parlak F. (2018). The relationship between school administrators' communication skills and organizational trust. Kahramanmaras
Sutcu Imam University. (in Turkish) Pajamehmetoglu A., Yeloglu H.O. (2015). Motivation. In: Ü. Sigri & S. Gürbüz (Eds.). Organizational behavior (pp. 137-174). 3rd ed. Beta Releases. (in Turkish)
Peltokorpi V. (2006). Knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context: Nordic expatriates in Japan. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500095 Polat S., Ceep P.C. (2008). Perceptions of secondary school teachers on organizational justice, organizational trust, organizational citizenship behaviors. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi / Educational Management in Theory and Practice, vol. 54, no. 54, pp. 307-331. (in Turkish) Rachmania B., Mauludin H. (2021). Trust and job involvement as a determinant of knowledge sharing behavior. Business Excellence & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 94-105. DOI: 10.24818/beman/2021.11.1-07 Razmerita L., Kirchner K., Nielsen P. (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1225-1246. https://doi. org/10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0112 Robinson K.L. (2004). The impact of individual differences on the relationship between employee perceptions of organizational
justice and organizational outcome variables. Alliant International University. Ruggles R. (1998). The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, vol. 40, no. 3,
pp. 80-89. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165944 Rutten W., Blaas-Franken J., Martin H. (2016). The impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 199-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2015-0391 Samadi B., Wei C.C., Seyfee S., Yusoff W.F.W. (2015). Conceptual model of organizational trust and knowledge sharing behavior
among multigenerational employees. Asian Social Science, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 33-42. DOI: 10.5539/ass.v11n9p32 Schepers P., Van Den Berg P.T. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 21,
no. 3, pp. 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9035-4 pencan H., Fidan Y. (2020). Normality assumption in the exploratory factor analysis with Likert scale data and testing its effect on factor extraction. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal (BMIJ), vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 640-687. https://doi. org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1395. (in Turkish) Sezgin O.B., Uçar Z., Duygulu E. (2015). The mediating role of knowledge sharing on the relationship between trust and innovative work behaviour. í^letme Fakültesi Dergisi / Journal of the Faculty of Business, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1-20. https://doi. org/10.24889/ifede.268156. (in Turkish) Shateri K., Hayat A.A. (2020). Investigating the mediating role of organizational trust in the relationship between perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 298-314. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.016 Szulanski G., Cappetta R., Jensen R.J. (2004). When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating
effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 600-613. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0096 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 and Practice, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500143 van den Hooff B., Schouten A.P., Simonovski S. (2012). What one feels and what one knows: The influence of emotions on attitudes and intentions towards knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 148-158. https:// doi.org/10.1108/13673271211198990 Yang J. (2007). The impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning and effectiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738933 Yejil S., Dereli S.F. (2013). An empirical investigation of the organisational justice, knowledge sharing and innovation capability. Procedía - Social and Behavioural Sciences, vol. 75, pp. 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.sbspro.2013.04.023
Information about the authors Информация об авторах
Sabahattin Cetin
PhD in Business Administration and Management, Assistant Professor of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. Bartin University (Kutlubeyyazicilar Village Road, Bartin, 74110, Turkey). E-mail: scetin@bartin.edu.tr.
Merve Davarci
Postgraduate Student of Business Administration, Graduate School. Bartin University (Kutlubeyyazicilar Village Road, Bartin, 74110, Turkey). E-mail: merve.davarc@gmail.com.
Ayhan Karakas
PhD in Business Administration and Management, Associate Professor of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences. Bartin University (Kutlubeyyazicilar Village Road, Bartin, 74110, Turkey). E-mail: akarakas@bartin.edu.tr.
CO о z
CO
Четин Сабахаттин ^
о
PhD (бизнес-администрирование и менеджмент), доцент факуль- ^
тета экономики и администрирования. Бартынский университет о
(74110, Турция, г. Бартым, Кутлубеазицилар Виллидж Роуд). E-mail: се
scetin@bartin.edu.tr. §
z
Даварчи Мерве |
Аспирант факультета бизнес-администрирования. Бартынский х университет (74110, Турция, г. Бартым, Кутлубеазицилар Виллидж <jf Роуд). E-mail: merve.davarc@gmail.com. z
ш
Каракас Айхан g
се
PhD (бизнес-администрирование и менеджмент), доцент факуль- S^ тета экономики и администрирования. Бартынский университет (74110, Турция, г. Бартым, Кутлубеазицилар Виллидж Роуд). E-mail: akarakas@bartin.edu.tr.
