Quantitative analysis reveals self-efficacy and trust enhance knowledge sharing in non-academic staff, suggesting needed cultural changes.
In today’s knowledge-driven economy, effective knowledge management is essential for organizational success, particularly in higher education institutions (HEIs) where non-academic staff play a critical role in supporting core operations. While previous research has largely focused on academic personnel, limited attention has been given to the knowledge-sharing behavior of non-academic staff. This study investigates the key factors influencing knowledge sharing among non-academic staff at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) Gombak Campus, examining the roles of trust, religiosity, self-efficacy, and enjoyment of helping others. Adopting a quantitative, non-experimental design, data were collected through structured questionnaires distributed to 102 non-academic employees across various departments. Descriptive, reliability, and multiple regression analyses were conducted using SPSS. The findings reveal that self-efficacy is the most significant predictor of knowledge sharing behavior, followed by trust, which also demonstrated a strong positive influence. In contrast, religiosity did not show a statistically significant effect, and enjoyment of helping others revealed a non-significant negative relationship. These results suggest that confidence in one’s abilities and a trustworthy work environment are crucial enablers of knowledge sharing, while intrinsic altruistic motives and religious commitment may not directly drive such behavior in this context. The study provides valuable implications for higher education administrators to foster a knowledge-sharing culture by enhancing employee confidence and trust-building initiatives. It also highlights the need for further research to explore additional factors and contexts that may influence non-academic staff’s knowledge-sharing practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruslan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: