162
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.68.08.15
How to Cite:
Alotaibi, A.N. (2023). Antecedents of individuals’ participation in the community of practice. Amazonia Investiga, 12(68), 162-171.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.68.08.15
Antecedents of individuals’ participation in the community of practice
Received: June 16, 2023 Accepted: August 25, 2023
Written by:
Arif Nasser Alotaibi1
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3107-7302
Abstract
The aim of this study is to explore the impact of
outcome expectations on individuals’
participation in the community of practice. It
examines the impact of expected association,
expected contribution and expected support on
individuals’ participation in community of
practice. Data collected through questionnaire
from 216 participants working in healthcare
sector in Saudi Arabia to test the research
hypotheses. The results of this study indicate that
expected association and expected support have
significant positive impact on individuals’
participation in community of practice. Whereas,
expect contribution found to have a negative
impact on individuals’ participation in
community of practice. This research offer
empirical evidence on the impact of individual
factors such as outcome expectations on the
involvement of individuals in the community of
practice in their organizations. Moreover, the
results shed new light on the impact of the
contextual factors that may diminish the impact
of outcome expectations factors such as job
localization.
Keywords: Community of practice, knowledge
sharing, self-interest, intangible return, expected
association, expected contribution and expected
support.
Introduction
The evolution of knowledge economy has urged
organizations to strive to sustain their
competitive advantage to remain competitive in
the market. As consequence of that,
organizations seeks different approaches to
accumulate knowledge through capturing
individuals’ knowledge and creating new
1
Assistant Professor, MIS Department, College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Saudi Arabia. WoS Researcher
ID: HNP-1115-2023
knowledge. Thus, community of practice has
emerged as strategic approach to foster
individuals’ learning and knowledge sharing in
the organization through informal networks. The
concept of community of practice has gained
popularity and its implementation increased
across different sectors such as education and
Alotaibi, A.N. / Volume 12 - Issue 68: 162-171 / August, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
163
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
healthcare. However, managing individuals’
participation in the community of practice is
difficult process because community of practice
evolved informally based on individuals’ needs.
Meanwhile, the disparity of participation among
members may have a great effect on
organizational knowledge. Despite the extensive
research that have been conducted in the
community of practice, still we have not come to
complete understanding of the factors that have
impact on individuals’ participation in the
community of practice. By the means of
reviewing relevant literature of community of
practice this paper aims to identify the
antecedents that drive individuals’ participate in
the community of practice
Literature Review
Community of practice is self-organized groups
that cut across organizational units, geographical
dispersion and professional frontiers to enable
individuals that have same interest and tasks to
communicate (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). It was
first coined by Lave and Wenger 1991 when they
introduced their book “Situated Leaning”.
Wenger et al., (2002, p. 4) have defined
community of practice as “ groups of people who
share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion
about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge
and expertise in this area by interacting on an
ongoing basis”. They added, individuals joining
the communities of practice as they find benefits
resulted from their interactions, as they share
their knowledge, developing their skills and
helping each other to solve problems.
Participants in the community of practice are the
ones that determined the issues of interactions,
how they interact and the length of interaction
(Agrifoglio, 2015). In fact, they are informally
bounded by the benefits that they find in their
learning from each other (Wenger et al., 2002).
According to Wasko and Faraj (2005 p. 37) “A
community of practice consists of a tight knit
group of members engage in a shared practice
who know each other and work together,
typically meet face-to-face, and continually
negotiate, communicate, and coordinate with
each other directly”. Li et al., (2009) mentioned
that there are three key characteristics that
recognize a group of employees as community of
practice. First, knowledge domain that
employees share interest in, where membership
requires minimum level of knowledge of that
domain. Second, strong ties between the group
members that enable them to cooperate and learn
from each other. Third, the development of
shared practice that lead to shared resources,
knowledge, stories and tools. Communities of
Practice is viewed as it is stemmed from the
concept of teams (Wenger et al. 2002). However,
it is different from network of practice that
consists of large group of individuals that are
distinguished to have loose knit, geographically
dispersed, doing the same work and not
necessarily know each other and not expecting to
meet each other face-to-face. In network of
practice knowledge is shared through different
entities such as conferences, specialized
newsletters and professional association (Wasko
& Faraj, 2005; Orders, 2013).
Thus, Wenger et al. (2002) in their book stated
that not all communities are community of
practice. They identified three characteristics of
community of practice, they are; domain,
community and practice. They consider them as
fundamental elements to distinguish community
of practice from other types of communities
(Agrifoglio, 2015) and a framework for all types
of community of practice (Langley et al., 2017).
Domain, according to Wenger et al., (2002),
represent the area of knowledge that members of
community have shared interest in and outlines
their concerns that need to be addressed. The
shared issues in the domain can range from
simple knowledge, like eating healthy, to highly
specialized knowledge of a profession, like
designing an equipment. Community refers to the
social fabric that allow individuals to interact on
issues that were defined in the domain (Wenger
et al., 2002). It is considered a strong entity that
has a structure and consistent interaction that
allow members continuously meet and discuss
shared topics (Brown and Stokes, 2021).
Practice, on the other hand, indicates the
knowledge that community members are
interested in (Brown and Stokes, 2021). As when
they share, develop and maintain these
knowledge, it will be embedded in documents,
ideas, experiences, and methods used to address
recurring problems (Li et al. 2009). In fact,
through practice and by the use of dialogue, tacit
knowledge can be easily articulated and
converted into explicit knowledge (Hafeez and
Alghatas, 2007).
Li et al., (2009) assume that when domain,
community and practice integrated and work
well together, they will be key structures to
support knowledge management initiatives in the
organization (Venkatraman & Venkatraman,
2018). Therefore, community of practice is seen
as knowledge management framework (Brown &
Stokes, 2021) and a way of managing knowledge
in the organization (Blankenship & Ruona, 2008;
Orders, 2013). Thus, to explore how community
164
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of practice is evolved previous research has
considered three levels of analysis to identify the
antecedents of members’ participation in the
community of practice. They are: individual
level, concerning human factors that impact their
involvement to their community of practice,
community level, concerning the nature of the
community and organizational level, concerning
organizational culture (Zboralski, 2009). Since,
most of knowledge sharing occurs at individual
level in informal meetings, hence, individuals are
the ones who build their community of practice
through the development of their personal
relationships and ongoing dyadic interactions
that foster collective learning (Wasko & Faraj,
2000). According to Zboralsk (2009) individuals
are rational in their thinking when participating
in their community of practice, as their decision
will be primarily based upon their self-interest.
Researchers indicate that when knowledge is
considered to be owned by individuals they will
share it for intangible return that satisfy their
intrinsic motivation such as reputation, self-
esteem, status, respect and self-efficacy (Wasko
& Faraj, 2000; Chen et al., 2012). In fact, these
factors are generated inside the individual and
satisfied by the individual. Hence, the main aim
of this research is to identify the intrinsic factors
that have impact on individuals’ participation in
their communities of practice.
The literature search has revealed several studies
have been conducted on communities of practice
from deferent perspectives. Some of these studies
have explored community of practice at
organizational level and they investigated the
impact of knowledge networks (Burt, 1999;
Allee, 2000) learning (Soekijad et al 2011; Boud
& Middleton, 2003), leadership (Chua, 2006;
Zboralski, 2009), the use of IT (Van Beynen T
Fleury, 2010; Hara, 2007; Bhatt, 2001) and
innovation (Brown and Duguid, 1991; Kahan,
2004) on members participation. Other studies
have focused on individual level factors and they
investigated the effect of norms (Brown &
Duguid, 1991), commitments (Corso et al.,
2006; Gibson and Meacheam, 2009; Hemmasi &
Csanda, 2009), engagement (Corso et al., 2006;
Probst and Borzillo, 2008; Cadiz et al., 2009)
power of relations (Contu and Willmott, 2003;
Hong & O, 2009), trust (Pastoors, 2007;
Hemmasi & Csanda, 2009), behavior (Garavan et
al., 2007), collaborative capabilities (Schreiner
and Corsten, 2004). Others, have explored the
effect of an unequal distribution of work among
participants (Cook and Buck, 2014), tensions
between members (Mak & Pun, 2015) and lack
of time to participate in the community of
practice (Mak & Pun, 2015).
While the previous research provide insight into
the subject of community of practice, which,
allowed us to understand the organizational,
social, environmental and technological factors
that have direct or indirect impact on individuals’
involvement in the community of practice.
However, not much is known about the factors
that affect individuals’ participation in the
community of practice, especially, personal
cognition as an outcome expectation based on
their participation in the community of practice.
Outcome expectation refers to “beliefs about the
likelihood of various outcomes that might result
from the behaviors that a person might choose to
perform” (McAlister et al., 2015, p. 172). Hence,
it concerns about the results of individuals
activities, which may guide individuals’
behaviors and have impact on their experiences
and perceptions. According to Wasko and Faraj
(2005) the expectation of personal benefits have
a significant impact on individuals’ motivation to
contribute their knowledge to others. Further,
Zboralski (2009) assumes that individuals’
intentions to participate in the community of
practice stem from their internal needs that
associated with expected benefits. According to
social cognitive theory individuals are inclined to
engage in a behavior when they expect a results
that have favorable consequences. This implying
that individuals will place judgement on the
consequences of their knowledge contribution
behaviors as what will provide to them (Chiu &
Wang, 2007). Since, the participation in the
community of practice is informal, where the
management of the organization cannot evaluate
that behavior and reward it accordingly. Hence,
it can be argued that members of the community
of practice will participate only to satisfy their
intrinsic needs. Such as through sharing
knowledge with other members in their
community individuals can enhance their
competence or their confidence in their ability
(Olatokun & Nwafor, 2012), feelings of
belongings to community (Ergun & Avci, 2018)
and gain support from their peers (Cabrera et al.,
2006). Therefore, this research assumes that the
expected benefits of association, contribution
and social support will encourage individuals to
actively participate in the community of the
practice.
Expected association
Expected association refers to individuals’ sense
of belonging and the feeling of intimacy that
develop a positive emotions towards their
community (Chiu & Wang, 2007). It is defined
as “a feeling that members have of belonging, a
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
165
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
feeling that members matter to one another and
to the group, and a shared faith the members’
needs will be met through their commitment to
be together” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9).
Being part of the community is actually derived
by the needs of belonging and love that
illustrated by Maslow. It denotes that the
expectation of an individual to fit into a group
which is based on the intrinsic benefits that he
will gain from his membership such as feelings
of value and recognition. Hence, individuals will
exert great effort, as investment, in their
contribution to the discussion of the group to
obtain a place within a group. As result of that,
members will receive social enhancement that is
derived from gaining acceptance and approval
from others, also the enhancement of individual
status within the community based on what the
individual can provide to the community. Hence,
the membership of the community will be
meaningful and valuable to the individuals as that
will help them to disperse their loneliness, meet
like-minded, and receive companionship
(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Consequently,
individuals will develop a positive attitude
towards their involvement in the knowledge
sharing processes as that can strength their
relationship with others in the group. Based on
that, it can be said that expected association is the
driving force behind individuals’ integration with
their peers in their community of practice
(Watkins et al., 2018, Javaid &vAbdullah, 2020).
This will lead us to the following research
hypotheses:
H1: Expected association significantly impact
individuals’ participation in the community of
practice.
Expected contribution
Expected contribution refers to individuals’
confidence in their knowledge that through their
contribution to the collective it will improve
organization’s performance (Kuo, 2013). Hardin
(1982) assumed that individuals will contribute
their knowledge to the community when they
perceive a gain from their contribution in the
form of acknowledgement. As individuals can
gain recognition of being an expert that comes
from other individuals in the form of feedback,
which indicates that others are using their
knowledge. Also, knowledge contribution is
considered as self-evaluation of an individual’s
skills and capabilities in answering questions
posted by others (Widyani et al., 2017).
Kankanhalli et al., (2005) illustrate that
confidence in ability is typically evident in the
form of individual believing that his knowledge
can help in solving work related problems,
improve work or make an add to the
organization. They added that it serves as
motivational driver to individuals’ contribution
to their communities. Moreover, contribution to
the community of practice can be caused by
altruistic behavior that is derived from
individuals’ intrinsic enjoyment in helping other
without expecting return (Kankanhalli et al.,
2005). Previous research has approved that
altruism has significant impact on members’
knowledge contribution to their groups in both
quantity and quality (Wasko & Faraj 2005) and
frequency (Taylor & Murthy, 2009). Hence,
altruistic behavior is considered to be important
in facilitating knowledge contribution intention
in the communities (Fang & Chiu, 2010) and
fostering collectivistic orientation (Eddleston &
Kellermanns, 2007). It is also has been found to
strengthen the relationships between members by
increasing their loyalty, interdependence and
commitment (Ma & Chan, 2014). Based on that,
the following hypotheses proposed:
H2: Expected contribution has significantly
impact individuals to participate in the
community of practice.
Expected Support
Social support has an affective role in
individuals’ assimilation in social setting, and the
interdependence of workgroup members
(Ducharme & Martine, 2000). At work, social
support defines the interpersonal relationships
that mingle individuals in order to extend their
capabilities at work place (Tufail et al., 2016).
According to Carver et al., (1989) individuals
seeking social support for three reasons; when
individual is seeking feedback, knowledge and
substantial assistance. It satisfies the
belongingness needs and increase the chances of
being effective in achieving work related goals
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Rousseau & Aube
(2010) contend that social support that come
from social network (i.e. coworkers) is
conducive to community building, where
individuals are attracted to interact with each
other as they perform similar types of work or
complementary tasks. They added, in community
of practice social support can come in the form
of information and feedback, which is beneficial
to newcomers for adjustment and learning. Also,
it provides empathy, caring and encouragement
that promote social integration among the
members of the community. Hence, social
support is considered to be one of the
motivational factors that encourage individuals
to participate in the community of practice (Yang
166
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
et al., 2020), and tied individuals to their
organizations (Rousseau & Aube, 2010). This
provides the third hypotheses of this study:
H3: Expected support has significant impact
individuals to participate in the community of
practice.
Methodology
This study conducted a survey in the form of
questionnaire to validate the research
hypotheses. The questionnaire was selected
because it is the most effective method to gather
data about individuals’ intentions toward
community of practice and its related factors.
The questionnaire items were adopted from
related literature. The items measuring the
impact of independent variables: expected
association items adopted from Bock and Kim
(2002), expected contribution items adopted
from Bock et al., (2005) and expected support
items adopted from Kankanhalli et al., (2005).
The items of dependent variable were adopted
from Bock and Kim (2002). The items are
measured by using 5-point likert scale where 1
means strongly agree and 5 means strongly
disagree. All items adopted in this research have
been validated in the mentioned previous studies.
To assess the reliability of the research measures,
we used Cronbach’s alpha to test for reliability.
The questionnaire prior to be administrated for
data collection it was given to a group of thirty
participants of the same research sample. The test
results show that Cronbach’s alpha is above the
threshold of 0.7 recommended by Hair et al.,
(1998), as reliability statistics indicate that the
overall level is .75 meaning that the measurement
items in this study are reliable.
The questionnaire was administrated in SG
hospital in Saudi Arabia, which employs more
than 800 employees. The healthcare sector was
chosen because hospitals are considered
knowledge based organizations (Kelder et al.,
2015). They rely heavily on individuals’
knowledge, since the delivery of the service
requires collaboration among groups’ members
to provide high quality clinical outcomes. The
participants in this study are the medical staff that
working in different locations and under different
specialties. A total of 450 questionnaires were
randomly distributed to the study sample, where
216 completed questionnaires were returned.
Yielding 48% response rate, where, 52.9% of the
respondents are males while 45.4% of the
respondents are females. To examine the impact
of outcome expectations on the individuals’
participation in community of practice.
Regression analysis was conducted to identify
the impact of expected association, expected
contribution and expected support on
individuals’ participation in community of
practice.
Findings and Discussion
This study explore how outcome expectations in
form of expected association, expected
contribution and expected support impact
individuals’ participation in community of
practice. The results of regression analysis (table
1) indicate that some types of outcome
expectations can be considered as motivators for
individuals to participate in the community of
practice. The independent variables accounted
for 22 per cent of the total variance in the
participation of individuals in the community of
practice. The results show that expected
association has a significant effect on individuals
participation in the community of practice (B=
.370; p< .05). Thus, the first hypothesis is
supported, as expected association has
significant impact individuals to participate in
the community of practice. This results are in line
with the findings of Chiu & Wang (2007),
Watkins et al., (2018) and Javaid and Abdullah
(2020). Moreover, this result confirms previous
results by Fullwood and Rowley (2017) indicate
that expected association impacts individuals to
be more active in their discipline rather than on
their institution. This is due to the reciprocal
benefits received from others resulted from their
knowledge sharing. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(1998) explain that impact as it comes from the
influence of the network of the relationships that
enable individuals to combine and exchange
knowledge for the benefit of the participants.
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
167
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Results of regression analysis
Variables
Coefficient
Error
t
Sig.
Constant
11.217
2.060
5.445
.000
Expected Association
.370
.091
4.081
.000
Expected Contribution
-.492
-.295
-3.433
.001
Expected Support
.224
.211
1.982
.049
= .000 (F)Prob = .212 ; F = 15.523 ;
2
Adjusted R ;= .227
2
R R = .476 ;Note:
Unexpectedly, the results show that expected
contribution has a negative impact on individuals
participation in the community of practice (B= -
.492; p< .05). Based on this result the second
hypothesis is rejected, as expected contribution
has significant impact individuals to participate
in the community of practice. The possible
explanation of this result is attributed to the
implemented government policy of job
localization in Saudi Arabia. This policy focuses
on assimilation of local job applicants through
the process of replacement with foreign workers.
By doing so, the government aims to increase the
employment of local job seekers in all sectors of
the local economy (Al-Dosary & Rahman, 2005).
Imran et al., (2020) demonstrate that the possible
outcome of this policy on expatriates is either to
quit or to preserve their value in their
organizations in order to protect their jobs. As
such, expatriates will consider the knowledge
that they gain during years of working their
source of power. Where, sharing that knowledge
will erode their value to their employers. Hence,
they will not allow others to access that
knowledge in order to secure their jobs (Ali et al.,
2020).
On other hand, the results show that individuals’
participation in the community of practice was
positively affected by expected support (B= .224;
p< .05). Hence, the third hypothesis is supported,
as expected support has significant impact
individuals to participate in the community of
practice. This result ties well with the findings of
previous studies by Ducharme and Martine
(2000), Bock and Kim (2002), Tufail et al.,
(2016) and Yang et al., (2020). The result of this
study suppots those of Bartol and Srivastava
(2002) findings that indicates when individuals
contribute their knowledge in informal setting is
mostly based on the potential of social exchange.
This is considered to be an away of building a
strong relationship amongst individuals (Javaid
& Abdullah, 2020). In fact, previous research
pointed that individuals are encourage to
participate in their work group to gain social
integration that entails empathy, caring and
providing help at work. Within each form of
these benefits, the expectation of attainment of
these benefits will motivate individuals to
participate in their working group. Hence,
community of practice is the place that enable the
individuals in organization to receive support
(Chiu & Wang, 2007).
As previous research has indicated that informal
networks are affected by outcome expectations,
where, the outcome expectations are associated
with various personal benefits resulted from
social interactions in these networks. In this
study, expected association implies social
approval that individuals gain when engage in
knowledge sharing behavior through answering
tasks related questions. In order to increase that
the organization need to promote the sense of
social inclusion to enhance interpersonal
relationships, which in turn, can increase
individuals’ feeling of belonging to social
grouping. This would be through enhancing
communication between individuals and
promoting the social norms that govern
individuals’ interactions and perceptions. Also,
promoting social integration and satisfaction
among individuals in the organization. On the
other hand, as expected contribution concerns the
provision of knowledge to others, which help
them to perform their work better. In fact, this has
reflection on the contributor image as knowledge
holders through their knowledge sharing will
show others that they possess valuable
knowledge that benefit them. Consequently they
become a trusted source of knowledge in their
communities. Since, the results in this study
indicate that expected contribution has negative
impact, in fact, this is attributed to the
implementation of job localization.
Organizations operating in the same context in
order to enhance individuals’ contribution to
their communities, they should create
organizational culture that promoting fairness,
social equality, clear carrier bath and transparent
recruitment and promotion procedures to
mitigate the impact of job insecurity. The
expected support denotes the influence of
coworkers on employees’ opinions and attitudes
towards their work through the utilization of
168
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
coworkers’ experiences and knowledge to learn
and accomplish tasks. The organization can
foster that through task-direct helping, coworker
mentorship and on job training.
Conclusion
The importance of community of practice stems
from its benefits that can be gained from the
promotion of knowledge at individuals’ and
organizational level. Since, individuals’
participation in their informal networks can help
them to progress in their tasks, expand career
prospects, streamlining their works and
strengthen their relationships with others in the
organization. Managing individuals’
participation in the community of practice is not
an easy task. As management cannot dictate the
intensity of communication, its pattern and the
type of knowledge exchanged. The difficulty of
managing such of these behaviors is centered
around the lack of understanding of the impact of
personal benefits that encourage them to build
their community of practice and participate in it.
While, these communities are primarily formed
by individuals to satisfy their needs of learning
and knowledge reciprocation, either providing or
acquiring knowledge. The organization can
create an environment that facilitating social
gathering, where individuals can interact with
others to gain benefits from their interaction In
fact, it has been identified in this study that
individuals’ outcome expectations has
significant impact on individuals’ participation in
the community of practice. However, based on
the results, the causal relationships between
independent and dependent variables may vary
according to the mediating role of the contextual
factors such as job localization. The contribution
of this study to the literature is through
demonstrating that community of practice is
socially constructed, where individuals’
participation is based on benefit-related outcome.
They participate in the community of practice to
gain intrinsic return in the form of help, feeling
of belongingness and confidence in their
abilities. Whereas, the provision of these returns
are not subjected to the rules and procedures of
organization, as they are tied to individuals’
participation with other members in the
organizations.
Bibliographic references
Agrifoglio, R. (2015). Knowledge Preservation
Through Community of Practice: Theoretical
Issues and Empirical Evidence. Springer.
Al-Dosary, A. S., & Rahman, S. M. (2005).
Saudization (localization)--a critical review.
Human Resource Development International,
8(4), 495-502.
Ali, I., Ali, M., Grigore, G., Molesworth, M., &
Jin, Z. (2020). The moderating role of
corporate reputation and employee-company
identification on the work-related outcomes
of job insecurity resulting from workforce
localization policies. Journal of Business
Research, 117, 825-838
Allee, V. (2000). Knowledge networks
andcommunities ofpractice. OD Practitioner,
32(4), 4-13.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002).
Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role
of Organizational Reward Systems. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1),
64-76.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in
organizations: Examining the interaction
between technologies, techniques, and
people. Journal of Knowledge Management,
5(1), 68-75.
Blankenship, S. S., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2008).
Exploring Knowledge Sharing Among
Members of a Community of Practice.
Academy of Human Resource Development
International Research Conference in the
Americas, Panama City.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the
Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of
Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing.
Information Resources Management Journal
(IRMJ), 15(2), 14-21.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., &
Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention
formation in knowledge sharing: Examining
the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-
psychological forces, and organizational
climate. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 29(1), 87-111.
Boud, D., & Middleton, H. (2003). Learning
from others at work: Communities of practice
and informal learning. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 15(5), 194-202.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Toward a
Unified View of Working, Learning, and
Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1),
40-57.
Brown, T., & Stokes, P. (2021). Events
management as a community of practice.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights,
4(2), 224-242.
Burt, R. S. (1999). Entrepreneurs, Distrust, and
Third Parties: A Strategic Look at the Dark
Side of Dense Networks. Thompson, L.,
Levine, J & Messick, D., (Eds.), Shared
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
169
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Cognition in Organizations (pp. 213-244).
Erlbaum.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering
knowledge sharing through people
management practices. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 16(5),
720-735.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. (2006)
Determinants of individual engagement in
knowledge sharing. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 17(2),
245-264
Cadiz, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffith, T. L. (2009).
Developing and validating field measurement
scales for absorptive capacity and
experienced community of practice.
Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 69(6), 1035-1058.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, K. J.
(1989). Assessing Coping Strategies: A
Theoretically Based Approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2),
267-283.
Chen, S. S., Chuang, Y. W., & Chen, P. Y.
(2012). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of
KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and
organizational climate. Knowledge-Based
Systems, 31(1), 106-118.
Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2007).
Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
communities: An integration of expectancy
disconfirmation and justice theories. PACIS
2007 - 11th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems: Managing Diversity in
Digital Enterprises, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Chua, A. Y. K. (2006). The rise and fall of a
community of practice: A descriptive case
study. Knowledge and Process Management,
13(2), 120-128.
Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003). Re-embedding
situatedness: The importance of power
relations in learning theory. Organization
Science, 14(3), 283-296.
Cook, K., & Buck, G. (2014). Pre-service
elementary teachers’ experience in a
community of practice through a place-based
inquiry. International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education, 9(2),
111-132.
Corso, M., Martini, A., Pellegrini, L., Massa, S.,
& Testa, S. (2006). Managing Dispersed
Workers: The New Challenge in Knowledge
Management. Technovation, 26(5), 583-594.
Ducharme, L. J., & Martin, J. K. (2000).
Unrewarding work, coworker support, and
job satisfaction. Work and Occupations,
27(2), 223-243.
Eddleston, K. A., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2007).
Destructive and productive family
relationships: A stewardship theory
perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,
22(4), 545-565.
Ergun, E., & Avci, U. (2018). Knowledge
sharing self-efficacy, motivation and sense of
community as predictors of knowledge
receiving and giving behaviors. Journal of
Educational Technology and Society, 21(3),
60-73.
Fang, Y. H., & Chiu, C. M. (2010). In justice, we
trust: Exploring knowledge-sharing
continuance intentions in virtual
communities of practice. Computers in
human behavior, 26(2), 235-246.
Fullwood, R., & Rowley, J. (2017). An
investigation of factors affecting knowledge
sharing amongst UK academics. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1254-1271.
Gibson, J., & Meacheam, D. (2009). The
individual and organizational commitments
needed for a successful diabetes care
community of practice. Health Services
Management Research, 22(3), 122-128.
Hafeez, K., & Alghatas, F. (2007). Knowledge
Management in a Virtual Community of
Practice using Discourse Analysis. Electronic
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1),
29-42.
Hair, J. J., Anderson, R., Tatman, R., & Black,
W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5th ed). Prentice Hall
Hara, N. (2007). Information technology support
for communities of practice: How public
defenders learn about winning and losing in
court. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 58(1),
76-87.
Hardin, R. (1982). Exchange theory on strategic
bases. Social Science Information, 21(2),
251-272
Hemmasi, M., & Csanda, C. M. (2009). The
effectiveness of communities of practice: An
empirical study. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 21(2), 262-279.
Hong, J. F. L., & Fiona, K. H. (2009). Conflicting
identities and power between communities of
practice: The case of IT outsourcing.
Management Learning, 40(3), 311-326.
Imran, R, Shabbir, M., & Mahmood, A. (2020).
High-performance work system: an
important link between transformational
leadership and job performance. Polish
Journal of Management Studies, 22(1),
217-230.
Javaid, M., & Abdullah, N. H. (2020). The
effects of self-efficacy and expectations on
knowledge sharing behavior. International
170
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Journal of Scientific and Technology
Research, 9(3), 2050-2055.
Kahan, S. (2004). Etienne Wenger on
communities of practice: Engagement,
identity & innovation.". The Journal of
Association Leaderhip, 2(3), 12-37.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K.
(2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical
investigation. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 29(1), 113-143.
Kelder, S. H., Hoelscher, D., & Perry, C. L.
(2015). How individuals, environments, and
health behaviors interact. Health behavior:
Theory, research, and practice, 159, 144-149.
Kuo, T. H. (2013). How expected benefit and
trust influence knowledge sharing. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 113(4),
506-522.
Langley, A., Patel, H., & Houghton, R. J. (2017).
Fostering a community of practice for
industrial processes. In: Grösser, S., Reyes-
Lecuona, A., Granholm, G. (eds) Dynamics
of Long-Life Assets. Springer, Cham.
(pp. 151–168).
Li, L. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Nielsen, C., Judd, M.,
Coyte, P. C., & Graham, I. D. (2009).
Evolution of Wenger’s concept of
community of practice. Implementation
Science, 4(1), 1-8
Ma, W. W. K., & Chan, A. (2014). Knowledge
sharing and social media: Altruism,
perceived online attachment motivation, and
perceived online relationship commitment.
Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 51-58.
Mak, B., & Pun, S. H. (2015). Cultivating a
teacher community of practice for sustainable
professional development: Beyond planned
efforts. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice, 21(1), 4-21.
McAlister, A.L., Perry, C.L., & Parcel, G.S.
(2015). How individuals, environments, and
health behaviors interact: Social cognitive
theory. In K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer, & K.
Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health
education: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 169–185). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense
of community: A definition and theory.
Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),
6-23.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social
capital, intellectual capital, and the
organizational advantage, 23(2), 242-266
Olatokun, W., & Nwafor, C. I. (2012). The effect
of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on
knowledge sharing intentions of civil
servants in Ebonyi State, Nigeria.
Information Development, 28(3), 216–234.
Orders, A. (2013). Cultivating communities of
practice. Journal of Chemical Health and
Safety, 20(3), 44-45.
Pastoors, K. (2007). Consultants: Love-hate
relationships with communities of practice.
Learning Organization, 14(1), 21-33.
Probst, G., & Borzillo, S. (2008). Why
communities of practice succeed and why
they fail. European Management Journal,
26(5), 335-347.
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Social support
at work and affective commitment to the
organization: The moderating effect of job
resource adequacy and ambient conditions.
Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4),
321-340.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job
demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi‐
sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schreiner, M., & Corsten, D. (2004). Integrating
Perspectives: a Multidimensional Construct
of Collaborative Capability. Beyerlein, M.
Johnson, D. & Beyerlein, S. (Eds.) Complex
Collaboration: Building the Capabilities for
Working Across Boundaries (Advances in
Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams,
Vol. 10), pp. 125-159.
Soekijad, M., van den Hooff, B., Agterberg, M.
& Huysman, M. (2011), ``Leading to Learn
in networks of practice: two leadership
strategies’’. Organization Studies, 32(8),
1005-1027.
Taylor, E. Z., & Murthy, U. S. (2009).
Knowledge sharing among accounting
academics in an electronic network of
practice. Accounting Horizons, 23(2),
151-179.
Garavan, T. N., Carbery, R., & Murphy, E.
(2007). Managing intentionally created
communities of practice for knowledge
sourcing across organisational boundaries
Insights on the role of the CoP manager.
Learning Organization, 14(1), 34-49.
Tufail, M. S., Hassan, M. ul., Ismail, H., &
Zahra, S. (2016). The Impact of Work Social
Support on Firm Innovation Capability: The
Meditational Role of Knowledge Sharing
Process and Job Satisfaction and Moderating
Role of Organizational Trust. Pakistan
Journal of Social Sciences, 36(2), 1215-1228.
Van Beynen, K., & Fleury, E. S. (2010).
Learning and Engaging the Information
Values of a Karst Community of Practice.
Volume 12 - Issue 68
/ August 2023
171
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(1),
79-85.
Venkatraman, S., & Venkatraman, R. (2018).
Communities of practice approach for
knowledge management systems. Systems,
6(4), 1-20.
Wasko, M. M. L., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why
should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic
networks of practice. MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems, 29(1),
35-57.
Wasko, M. M. L., & Faraj, S. (2000). “It is what
one does”: why people participate and help
others in electronic communities of practice.
The journal of strategic information systems,
9(2-3), 155-173.
Watkins, C., Zavaleta, J., Wilson, S., &
Francisco, S. (2018). Developing an
interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral
community of practice in the domain of
forests and livelihoods. Conservation
Biology, 32(1), 60-71.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice:
A guide to managing knowledge. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Widyani, A. A. D., Sarmawa, I. W. G., &
Dewi, I. G. A. M. (2017). the Roles of
Knowledge Sharing in Mediating the Effect
of Self-Efficacy and Self-Leadership Toward
Innovative Behavior. Jurnal Manajemen Dan
Kewirausahaan, 19(2), 112-117.
Yang, H., van Rijn, M. B., & Sanders, K. (2020).
Perceived organizational support and
knowledge sharing: employees’ self-
construal matters. In International Journal of
Human Resource Management. 31(17),
2217-2237.
Zboralski, K. (2009). Antecedents of knowledge
sharing in communities of practice. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 13(3), 90-101.
