1. Introduction

For any organization to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour, such must recognizes and appreciates the value of knowledge. Such organization tends to be unique and possesses a better opportunity for global competition in the world market (Steward, 1997). The effectiveness and efficiency of any organization may be a function of how the organization is able to promote knowledge sharing behaviour among the employees and the readiness to engage in knowledge sharing by the employees. Acquisition of knowledge by individual may not be sufficient in this age of global competitiveness and in order to be effective in teamwork which promotes better performance, knowledge sharing is very essential and important as buttressed by Hansen and Avital (2005), that it is not adequate for any organization that desire to compete successfully in this global world to depend on staffing and training alone, but there must be opportunity from time to time to pass across knowledge from the experts to employees that are in need of it (Lin, 2007). So, the success of any organization is a function of the strength of knowledge sharing as this enhances faster and better way of passing across information and acquiring knowledge among group of employees in any organization (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). The attention of many researches has been on creation, acquisition and transfer of knowledge (Eric, 1994; Grant, 1997), but some little attention has paid to some factors that could enhance or hinder knowledge sharing behaviour which this study aims at, that is, investigating the role and importance of organizational justice and educational status in knowledge sharing behaviour. Knowledge sharing behaviour may be defined as the readiness and confidence in individual’s ability to transfer the knowledge acquired to others who will be in need of it. Hansen and Avital (2005) conceptualize knowledge sharing behaviour to be a willingness on the part of an individual to share with others either within or outside; the knowledge acquired with his/her peculiar experiences. This suggests that it must be a voluntary effort on the part of individual employee to share knowledge before it can be effective.

Knowledge sharing behaviour could be enhanced or hindered by some factors in an organization as argued by some authors. Ipe (2003) suggests some factors that could affect knowledge sharing behaviour in an organization. These factors include: (a) readiness by employees to share knowledge, (b) conducive environment and opportunity to share and (c) the existing culture of the organization. Also, Tannenbaum (1968) argued that perceived relevance or enhanced self-esteem could spur an individual to share knowledge with others; while Hollander and Offerman (1990) in a contrary view admitted that knowledge power could be lost as a result of knowledge sharing behaviour. This could discourage an employee from sharing his knowledge with others in the organization, especially if there is no compensate for the effort dispensed on the activity. In addition, time, energy and knowledge are resources that individuals cherish and value so much, so the urge to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour may not be there if there is nothing to gain in sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), and perceived personal gain had been found to be one of the variables that affect knowledge sharing behaviour (Blau, 1964). The type of social relationship that exists in an organization among employees and between employees and the organization had also been reported to be an important factor that could enhance or inhibit knowledge sharing behaviour (von Krogh, 2003; Lin, 1999). This implies that if there is cordial and supportive relationship between employees and organization, the eagerness to share knowledge will be enhanced, but if the relationship is otherwise, the readiness will not be there to share. Moreover, Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) stressed that trust is an important determinant of knowledge sharing behaviour, that certain level of trust must operate within an organization before an employee desire to share knowledge. If an employee has no trust in other employees or the organization, the willingness to share may not be there and it had even been reported by Davenport & Prusak (2000) that when there is distrust among employees or between employees and the organization, knowledge sharing would not be achievable in such organization. So, employee’s trust in the organization and good social relationship with the organization may depend to some extent on the perception of fairness or justice in handling issues pertaining to equity in reward and evaluation, fair treatment to all without discrimination, opportunity for development, promotion as at when due. So an employee with high level of perception of organizational justice may be more inclined to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour than those who perceived low organizational justice in their workplace.

Organizational justice tends to be an important factor that determines the disposition of employees to certain behaviour that could benefit the organization but is not contained in the written expectations of the organization. The fairness heuristic (Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de Vera Park, 1993) argues that employees’ perception of justices in one aspect affects the perception he/she has concerning other areas in the organization, which invariably affects the behavioural outcome of employees (Lind et al (1993). Organizational justice may be defined as the perception of fairness by the employees concerning issues that relates with their welfare in an organization. Moorman (1991) and Greenberg & Colquitt (2005) defined organizational justice as the perception and study of fairness within an organization in the treatment of employees in matters relating to them. In line with Greenberg (1990), organizational justice has three dimensions, which includes; distributive justice, procedural justice and interactive justice. Distributive justice has to do with the perception of equity or fairness in the evaluation and reward system of an organization by employees and this is in accordance with Adams equity theory (1963), which proposes that individuals compare their effort and reward given and also compare with other employees in the organization. Procedural justice deals with the perception of employees in with the methods and processes employed in decision making as regards matters that have to do with welfare of the employees (Ang, Van Dyne, Begley, 2003). Interactive justice has to do with the way the employees perceivefairrness in respect accorded to them during the course of executing the procedures in the organization (Bies & Moag, 1986). Researches revealed that employees who perceived all-round organizational justice engage more in behaviour that promotes the growth of the organization (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Procedural justice was reported to affect the extent to which an employee engages in extra role activities on behalf of the organization (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki & Latham, 2006; Farh, et al, 1990; Schappe, 1998). Perception of fairness by the employees in the way they are being treated by the organization motivate them to engage in behaviour that reciprocate for the benefits enjoy from the organization as argued by social exchange theory (Crompanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

The educational status according to this study is another factor that may influence the employees’ disposition to knowledge sharing. This deal with the highest level of education attained by individual employee and this may be an important factor in determining their commitment to knowledge sharing behaviour. In a study conducted by Ojha (2005), it was reported that educational status had no influence on knowledge sharing behaviour. This implies that both low and high status of education engaged in knowledge sharing behaviour alike. In a contrary perspective, Riege (2005) found a positive correlation between knowledge sharing behaviour and educational status, signifying that higher status of education facilitated higher level of knowledge sharing behaviour. Also, a significant influence of educational status on knowledge sharing behaviour was reported by Keyes (2008). This suggests that knowledge sharing behaviour to a greater extent depends on educational status of employees.

2. Hypotheses

1. Organizational justice and educational status will have significant positive relationship with knowledge sharing behaviour

2. Organizational justice and educational status will significantly independently and jointly influence knowledge sharing behaviour

3. A significant difference will exists among the educational status in exhibition of knowledge sharing behaviour

3. Method

Design

The study adopted a cross-sectional survey design. The independent variables were organizational justice and educational status, while the dependent variable was knowledge sharing behaviour.

Research Setting

The setting involved private and public sectors employees in Lagos State.

Population Sample and Sampling Technique

A total of 300 hundred employees comprising of 148 males and 152 females using accidental sampling technique participated in the study. 0ne hundred and fifteen participants were from private sector, while 185 of them were from public sector and the age ranged between 23 and 47 with a mean age of 32.62 and SD of 6.63. Their educational qualification includes SSCE = 24.8 (8.0%), NCE/OND = 130 (43.3%), HND//BSC = 103 (34.3%) and Postgraduate = 43 (14.3%). The marital status of the participants were 102 (34.0%) singles, 172 (57.3%) married, 8 (2.7%) divorced, while 18 (6.0%). As regards job tenure, 152 (50.7%) were below 5 years, 98 (32.7%) were between 5-10 years and 50 (16.7%) had spent 10 years and above.

4. Instrument

Section A. This contained the demographic variables which include: gender, age, educational status, marital status, job tenure and job area of the participants. Educational status was measured by just stating the highest level of education attained by the participants (e.g. Secondary school certificate, OND/NCE, HND/BSc, and Postgraduate).

Section B: Organizational Justice Scale

Organizational justice was measured using organizational justice scale developed by Hoy & Tarter (2004), which comprises 10-item Likert-type measuring fairness. The scoring format ranged from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 6. The higher the score, the higher the perception of fairness. The reliability coefficient reported by Hoy & Tarter (2004) was .90, but the researcher obtained .73 reliability coefficients.

Section C: Knowledge Sharing Behaviour Scale

Knowledge sharing behaviour scale developed by Jialin (2009) was used to measure knowledge sharing behaviour. It’s a revised 28-item scale having four dimensions comprising organizational community (OC), written contributions (WC), personal interaction (PI) and community practice (CP). The reliability values of OC = .91, CP = .93, WC = .51 and PI = .71 respectively. The researcher obtained a reliability coefficient of .89.

5. Procedure

An introduction letter attached with the questionnaire was administered to the participants involved in their respective duty post after proper permission had been obtained from the relevant authorities of the organizations used. The researcher enlightened the participants more about the purpose of the study and they were made to realize that they were free to opt out if they were no longer interested in participating. A total of 320 questionnaires were administered, only three hundred were found usable and data collection took approximately four weeks.

6. Statistical Analysis

Pearson Product Moment Correlation was employed to analyse the relationship among study variables, Analysis of variance was used to test for influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable.

7. Result

The relationship among study variables was tested using Pearson Product Moment Correlation.

The result of the analysis in table 1 shows that organizational justice had a significant positive relationship with knowledge sharing behaviour [r (300) =.590, p <.01]. This implies that the higher the level of perception of organizational justice, the higher the commitment to knowledge sharing behaviour. Also, educational status had a significant positive relationship with knowledge sharing behaviour [r (300) =.154, p <.01]. This confirmed hypothesis one. Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted.

Table 1. Showing the relationship among study variables

To know whether organizational justice and educational status had any significant independent or joint influence, 2*2 Anova was employed. The result is shown in table 2.

Table 2. Showing the influence of Organizational Justice and Educational Statusus on Knowledge Sharing Behaviour

The result of the analysis indicated that organizational justice had a significant independent influence on knowledge sharing behaviour [F (16,276) = 66.97, p <.01]. Also, educational qualification had a significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour [F (3, 276) = 21.47, p <.01]. In addition, both organizational justice and educational status had significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour [F (4,276) = 49.40, p <.01]. This findings confirmed hypothesis two, therefore, the hypothesis was accepted. The findings suggest that each of the independent variables was significant in motivating employees to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour.

To know whether significant difference exists among the educational status in relation to knowledge sharing behaviour, the mean score was determined. The result is shown in table 3.

Table 3. Showing the Mean Scores and SD of various status of education on knowledge sharing behaviour

The result in table 3 revealed that employees with HND/BSC had the highest mean (101.99) and SD (10.55). This was followed by employees with OND/NCE with a mean (100.85) and SD (11.62). Employees with Postgraduate degree was the next having a mean (97.42) and SD(14.34), while employees with the SSCE certificates had the least mean (83.67) and SD (12.43). This confirmed hypothesis three. Therefore the hypothesis was accepted. To further confirm whether the means were statistically significant or not, Analysis of Variance was employed. The result is shown table 4 below.

Table 4. Showing the influence of various status of education on knowledge sharing behaviour

The result of the analysis in table 4 revealed that the mean scores obtained in table 3 above were statistically significant [F (3,296) = 17.85, p <.01]. This still confirmed hypothesis 3. Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted. This implies that educational status was a necessary factor that enhances knowledge sharing behaviour among employees.

8. Discussion

This study examined the role of organizational justice and educational status enhancing knowledge sharing behaviour among employees in organizations. The relationship of organizational justice and educational status with knowledge sharing behaviour was also investigated. It further examined the independent and joint influence of organizational justice and educational status on knowledge sharing behaviour and lastly, it investigated the impact of various levels of education on knowledge sharing behaviour.

Hypothesis one which stated that significant positive relationship would exist among organizational justice, educational status and knowledge sharing behaviour was confirmed by the findings in table 1. This implies that high level of organizational justice would enhance better employees’ commitment to knowledge sharing behaviour. This suggests that when employees perceived high level of all-round fairness in the way they are being treated, they tend to be more interested in knowledge sharing than when their perception is low. This finding supported the work of Nahapiet et al (1998), who reported that employee’s trust in the others or the organization would encourage them to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour and this trust may be rooted in the perception of fairness in the way employees are being treated in the organization and distrust as a result of the perception of low level of fairness could also discourage such behaviour among employees (Davenport et al, 2000). The study further supported Podsakoff et al (2000); Konovisky et al (1994); Moorman (1991); Skarliclki et al (2006); Farh et al (1990) and Schappe (1998), who submitted that employees who perceived all-round fairness engage more in behaviour that promotes the growth of the organization. Also, the educational status attained on the part of employee played an important role in motivating employees to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour. The result suggests that higher level of educational status also led to higher commitment to knowledge sharing behaviour. This finding supported the study by Riege (2005), who reported positive relationship between educational status and knowledge sharing behaviour. This implies that education plays an important role in commitment to knowledge sharing.

The result of the analysis in table 2 confirmed hypothesis two which stated that organizational justice and educational status would independently and jointly influence knowledge sharing behaviour among employees. This implies that the two independent variables had important role to play as far as the issue of knowledge sharing is concerned. This finding still supported the researches by Podsakoff et al (2000); Konovisky et al (1994); Moorman (1991); Skarliclki et al (2006); Farh et al (1990) and Schappe (1998), who reported that perception of organizational justice affects the engagement of employees in behaviour benefitting to the organization. The study on the part of educational status supported the study by Keyes (2008), who reported a significant influence of educational status on knowledge sharing, but negated the work of Ojha (2005), who revealed that educational status had no significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour. The implication of this finding is that the treatment of employees and how the organization handles their welfare served as a great determinant of employees’ engagement in knowledge sharing behaviour. It also revealed that educational status should not be overlooked or handle lightly, as it contributes greatly to disposition to knowledge sharing.

Hypothesis three which stated that significant difference would exist among various levels of educational status and knowledge sharing behaviour was equally confirmed by the analysis in table 3 and 4. According to the result, the higher the educational status, the higher the tendency to engage in knowledge sharing behaviour. This supported the work of Keyes (2008) that educational levels exerted significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour of employees, but negated the work of Ojha (2005), who revealed that educational status, exerted no significant influence on knowledge sharing behaviour. This suggests that educational status is a strong determinant of knowledge sharing behaviour among employee. From table 3, the employees with SSCE certificate had the lowest mean, which means that the level of education attained determined their disposition to knowledge sharing. This could mean that they believe that they do not have knowledge to share based on their qualification. The next to this was the employees with Postgraduate certificate and this could mean that they believe that they already have enough knowledge or were afraid of sharing so that they would not lose their worth (Hollander et al, 1990). Employees with OND/NCE and HND/BSc had close mean scores which implies that they were more enthusiastic in sharing knowledge believing that they could give and likewise learn from others in-depth of knowledge.

9. Conclusions

From the findings above, it could easily be concluded that organizational justice on the part of the organization is an important factor that could promotes knowledge sharing behaviour among employees and educational status also contributed immensely to this behaviour in any organization. Both variables were important on the part of the organization and on the part of the individual employee.

10. Implication and Recommendations

The implication of the findings from this study was that knowledge sharing behaviour can only thrive and prosper where the perception of employees about organizational justice or fairness is relatively high. Fairness in reward and evaluation (distributive justice), treating them with dignity and respect (interactional justice) and avoidance of conduct that could cause distrust among employees would provoke and sustain employees’ positive disposition toward knowledge sharing. The study theoretically justifies the organizational justice theory (Colquitt, et al., 2005), that employee’s perception of fairness in an organization affects variety of things in their relationship with the organization.

From the findings of this study, it could be recommended that organizations should do everything within their power to promote organizational justice if they want to enhance and sustain knowledge sharing behaviour among employees. Educational status of employees should be enhanced by providing opportunity for the employees to develop and individual employees, especially those in the category of SSCE, should be encouraged to go for higher level of education.

11. Limitation

The study was limited to Lagos State which is just a state out of the thirty-six states in Nigeria and the population sample was also meagre. So, it could be a little bit difficult to generalize the findings of the study. Also, the cultural background of people of other states may be different which could even serve as contributing factor, because Lagos is a metropolitan state. Therefore, caution is being exercised in generalising the findings.