Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose This study aims to explore the challenges to knowledge sharing (KS) in the context of public sector universities in developing countries. Furthermore, it explores why knowledge hoarding behaviour is flourishing even when employees are encouraged to share their knowledge in organisations and are rewarded for doing so. Design/methodology/approach Research data were collected from vice chancellor, registrar, professors, assistant professors and lecturers using an interview technique. They shared their knowledge, expertise, experiences and understanding about issues relating to KS practices in public universities. These interviews were thematically analysed using the NVivo 11-Plus software and different themes emerged. Findings The results reveal that hoard knowledge to gain power, authority, influence, promotion opportunities and employee favouritism negatively influence KS practices. Furthermore, an unsupportive culture and a poor linkage between KS and rewards negatively influence KS practices in public sector universities. Research limitations/implications The present study aids academic leadership in designing policies and strategies to enhance KS among faculty staff and to create a supportive KS culture. These results are useful for top management officials of public sector universities, especially in developing countries, and for policy makers, who can plan and execute effective policies to foster KS behaviour. Originality/value The originality can be viewed as a new window open towards the motivation of the university staff to hoard their knowledge instead of sharing it. This study gives the novel conceptual model based on why people do not share their knowledge and how KS practices can be fostered among the employees in public sector universities. Few studies have been conducted to explore KS issues in the real context of developing countries, and specifically in the Asian culture.
Muqadas et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: