Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open

innovation and organizational performance
Sanjay Kumar Singha, , Shivam Guptab, Donatella Bussoc, Shampy Kambojd
⁎

a
College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
b
Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, 2300 Avenue des Moulins, 34185 Montpellier, France
c
University of Turin, Department of Management, Corso Unione Sovietica, 218 bis, 10134 Torino, Italy
d
Amity School of Business, Amity University, Noida 201313, Uttar Pradesh, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Open innovation as driver of organizational performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has
Top management knowledge value received relatively little scholarly attention. Drawing upon the resource-based view and the knowledge-based
Knowledge sharing practices view of firms, we examined antecedents and outcome of open innovation in SMEs. We collected multisource data
Open innovation from 404 SMEs and used structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. Our study suggests that top
Organizational performance
management knowledge value and knowledge creating practices influence open innovation, which, in turn,
SMEs
influences organizational performance. Results of the study are discussed in the light of previous studies and
suggest implications for theory and practice of open innovation.

1. Introduction 2015) have impact on open innovation. Furthermore, the effect of

leaders and their directions (West et al., 2003) along with knowledge
Open innovation has received much academic interest in recent sharing practices (Del Giudice, Della Peruta, & Maggioni, 2015;
years (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Huizingh, 2011), as firms, including Shujahat et al., 2019) play critical roles in open innovation. Therefore,
the SMEs, need to depend on external information and research colla- we posit that knowledge sharing drives innovation (Calantone &
borations (Popa, Soto-Acosta, & Martinez-Conesa, 2017) for continuous Stanko, 2007; Khedhaouria & Jamal, 2015; Lin, 2007; Tangaraja, Mohd
innovation in processes, products, and services and increase competi- Rasdi, Ismail, & Abu Samah, 2015) and the support of top management
tive advantages over their rivals. Open innovation refers to a cognitive is necessary for knowledge sharing practices (Lin, 2007); however, to
framework for SMEs to generate revenue out of process and product date, few studies have been conducted on SMEs. The key findings and
innovation (Chesbrough, 2006) through purposeful usage of inflow and the gaps in the above mentioned past studies draw our attention to
outflow of knowledge to fast-track innovation. Furthermore, open in- investigate how top management value knowledge and knowledge
novation consists of inbound –identification, selection, utilization, and sharing practices affect open innovation and organizational perfor-
internalization of novel ideas flowing into firms from the external en- mance. Using the resource-based view and the knowledge-based view,
vironment - and outbound – commercialization of internally developed we speculate that knowledge sharing practices drive innovation
ideas to the firms' external environment (e.g., Burnswicker & (Calantone & Stanko, 2007; Castro, 2015; Khedhaouria & Jamal, 2015;
Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Chesbrough, 2003). However, the extant litera- Lin, 2007; Oliva et al., 2019) and top management's emphasis on va-
ture suggests that the focus of open innovation research is primarily on luing knowledge as strategic resources for knowledge sharing practices
large high-tech firms than SMEs, though innovation plays significant (Al Ahbabi, Singh, Balasubramanian, & Gaur, 2018; Kwon & Cho, 2016;
role in SMEs too (Burnswicker & Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Dell'Anno, Lin, 2007) influences OI in SMEs.
Evangelista, & Del Giudice, 2018; Popa et al., 2017). This study makes three key contributions to advance knowledge in
Previous studies suggest that organizational flexibility (Hienerth, the domain of open innovation in SMEs together with advancing the
Keinz, & Lettl, 2011), organizational culture and employees' char- aims of the Journal of Business Research. First, our study suggests the
acteristics (Appu & Sia, 2017; Della Peruta, Holden, & Del Giudice, critical role of top management valuing knowledge and knowledge
2016; Huizingh, 2011), innovation climate (Popa et al., 2017; Sia & sharing practices to support open innovation. Second, this study pre-
Appu, 2015) and innovation strategy (Burnswicker & Vanhaverbeke, dicts that open innovation affects organizational performance of SMEs

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.K. Singh), [email protected] (S. Gupta), [email protected] (D. Busso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040
Received 30 November 2018; Received in revised form 18 March 2019; Accepted 25 April 2019
0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sanjay Kumar Singh, et al., Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

wherein the extant literature has scarce research-based knowledge on with knowledge-based resources (Marr, 2004), and knowledge re-
linkage between open innovation and organizational performance. sources are imperative to ensure sustained levels of open innovation
Third, this study supports emerging research interest in open innova- and organizational performance (e.g., Wiklund & Shepherd, 2003).
tion in SMEs and how to use internal knowledge sharing practices and These tangible resources facilitate a firm's competitive advantage and
external information and research collaborations for product innova- make it hard for rivals to imitate (Grant, 1996a, 1996b). Therefore, this
tion to stay competitive in their markets. Lastly, this study contributes study posits that SMEs' competitive advantage depends upon their
to the aims of the Journal of Business Research to apply theoretical capability to use their established and new knowledge for creating new
knowledge to actual business decisions, processes, and activities, processes and goods/products. In this sense, knowledge management
especially those of SMEs. favors identification and application of knowledge to support and
This paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 presents theoretical nurture open innovation in enterprises (Santoro, Ferraris, Giacosa, &
lenses and hypotheses, followed by the methods in Section 3. Then, Giovando, 2018; Santoro, Vrontis, Thrassou, & Dezi, 2018; Darroch,
Section 4 details the results followed by the discussion and conclusion 2005).
in Section 5. However, the implementation and usage of knowledge sharing
practices in SMEs can be daunting and challenging tasks. Nevertheless,
2. Theoretical background we speculate that top management value for knowledge will drive
knowledge sharing practices to help achieve open innovation and de-
2.1. The resource-based view (RBV) and knowledge-based view (KBV) sired organizational performance.

Drawing upon the RBV and the KBV for the firms, this study ex- 2.2. Top management knowledge value
amines how SMEs use their strategic resources to support open in-
novation to influence organizational performance. Using the RBV, we Top management people have massive influence on the path and
argue that distribution of valued resources and capabilities by SMEs success of managing knowledge in the organization (Nguyen &
that are inelastic in supply results in improved OI and OP (Barney, Mohamed, 2011). The top management knowledge value (TMKV) in
1991) and that, in turn, enhances their competitive advantage over SMEs creates environments that allow employees across functions to
their competitors. SMEs should hold assets that are valued, rare, and exercise and nurture their knowledge manipulation skills (e.g.,
hard for the competitors to emulate (Barney, 1991). Furthermore, these Crawford, Gould, & Scott, 2003; Politis, 2002) in a manner that influ-
intangible resources of SMEs deliver competitive advantage, as their ences open innovation and organizational performance. Wang and Noe
values are difficult for competitors to duplicate and their functions very (2010) submit that top management support for valuing knowledge can
hard to replace (e.g., Hitt, Bierman, Uhlenbruck, & Shimizu, 2006). All create employee commitment along with knowledge sharing and ex-
that is required is the synchronization of varied resources, capabilities, change amongst the employees. Similarly, a study by J. Singh (2008)
and strategy implementation for SMEs to offer superior products/goods and S.K. Singh (2008) found that delegating rather than directive lea-
to customers and thus increases advantage over their rivals (Hitt, Xu, & dership style has a positive influence in knowledge management prac-
Carnes, 2016). To add to this, we posit that performance differential tices in technological settings. Furthermore, Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling,
between SMEs depends upon how their employees allow realization of and Veiga (2006) emphasized how the essential role played by top
the varied bundles of resources for potential value creation (e.g., management behavioral integration leads to dispensation of disparate
Bridoux, Coeurderoy, & Durand, 2011; Del Giudice, Scuotto, Garcia- demands vital for achieving ambidexterity in SMEs. Therefore, this
Perez, & Petruzzelli, 2018). Therefore, we deduce that managing and study posits that top management knowledge value facilitates knowl-
using cognitive capabilities of coworkers, in terms of critical knowledge edge sharing wherein the former motivates employees to share their
that they possess, become essential for firms to engage in open in- knowledge for organizational success (Lee, Shiue, & Chen, 2016; Yew
novation for superior organizational performance (e.g., Bridoux et al., Wong & Aspinwall, 2005) through both inbound and outbound in-
2011). Thus, RBV puts “employees” on the strategy radar monitor novation. However, what remains unclear is how top management
(Snell, Stueber, & Lepak, 2001) that helps align top management knowledge value supports knowledge sharing practices for open in-
knowledge value and knowledge sharing practices with organizational novation and SMEs' performance. Therefore, this paper examines how
processes (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997) to influence open innovation top management value for knowledge in SMEs may influence knowl-
and that, in turn, enhances organizational performance of SMEs. edge sharing practices for OI and OP.
The knowledge-based view (KBV), an extension of the RBV, offers
organizations strategies to attain competitive advantage through 2.3. Knowledge sharing practices
leveraging the potential of their knowledge workers to achieve orga-
nizational outcomes. The theory and research suggests that knowledge Knowledge sharing denotes making available relevant knowledge to
varies by organization and knowledge is generally associated with de- coworkers in the enterprise (Grant, 2016; Lin & Lo, 2015; Wang, Wang,
sired organizational outcomes (Grant, 1996a, 1996b). Furthermore, & Liang, 2014; Zhang & Jiang, 2015) for the purpose of attaining in-
knowledge as a unique strategic resource is at the core of knowledge- novation at the individual level (Bavik, Tang, Shao, & Lam, 2018;
based theory and views the organization as a dynamic entity that Huang, Hsieh, & He, 2014), the team level (Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu,
continuously evolves through knowledge production and utilization 2013), and the organizational level (Donnelly, 2019; Oyemomi, Liu,
(Spender, 1996). Therefore, if knowledge is the key strategic resource Neaga, Chen, & Nakpodia, 2019). Past research suggests that knowl-
and allows firms to compete in the dynamic environment (Grant, edge sharing increases the innovativeness of the organization (e.g.,
1996a, 1996b; Spender, 1996), it becomes imperative for top man- Chen & Huang, 2009; Del Giudice & Straub, 2011; Tsai, 2001). Simi-
agement to value knowledge, create and sustain knowledge sharing larly, other colleagues establish the vital role of knowledge sharing
practices that fuel open innovation and desired levels of organizational practices (KSP) in open innovation, and that depends upon adequate
performance. Furthermore, we argue that top management value for organization arrangements (Cavaliere, Lombardi, & Giustiniano, 2015;
knowledge and knowledge sharing practices are extremely valued in- Cunha & Orlikowski, 2008), but further research is required, as the
tangible resources (e.g., Grant, 1996a, 1996b; Grant, 2002) that SMEs literature on knowledge sharing practices vis-à-vis OI and OP in SMEs is
need to enhance open innovation and firm level performance to beat scant. In addition, there is scarce coverage in the extant literature on
competition in dynamic markets. This study posit that SMEs are filled explorative and exploitative innovation in SMEs rather than larger firms

2
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(Lubatkin et al., 2006) and how top management support facilitates 3. Hypotheses development
sharing of knowledge (Lee et al., 2016; Wang & Noe, 2010; Yew Wong,
2005) for enhanced performance (Pittino, Martinez, Chirico, & Galvan, 3.1. Top management knowledge value and knowledge sharing practices
2018; Lee et al., 2016).
Top management knowledge value (TMKV) is an essential pre-
condition for knowledge sharing practices in the organization.
2.4. Open innovation
Knowledge-oriented leadership emphasizes that knowledge manage-
ment practice plays a noticeable role in the organization, so that it can
The extant literature on innovation management suggests that or-
effectively sense and seize occasions for innovation (Teece, 2009) and
ganizations should and must innovate while leveraging their available
stay relevant in dynamic markets. Therefore, it becomes imperative for
internal and external knowledge sources (Ferraris, Santoro, & Bresciani,
the knowledge-oriented leaders in organizations to champion the cause
2017). Open innovation (OI) is best stated as the opposite of the old-
of development of knowledge sharing practices and initiatives for
style vertical integration model wherein internal innovation events af-
knowledge exploration and exploitation (Donate & Sánchez de Pablo,
fect internally developed products and services (Chesbrough, 2017;
2015) for open innovation and enhanced organizational performance.
Della Peruta, Del Giudice, Lombardi, & Soto-Acosta, 2016) that firms
Top management in organizations that values knowledge as competi-
sell in the markets. OI is a dispersed innovation practice that depends
tive advantage for firms' success, has a strong tendency to create the
on consciously monitored flow of knowledge across a firm's frontiers,
internal environment in a manner that allows coworkers to exercise and
using financial and non-financial instruments in sync with the firm's
nurture their knowledge manipulation abilities (Crawford et al., 2003;
business model to monitor and motivate the sharing of knowledge
Del Giudice & Maggioni, 2014; Politis, 2002), which can be leveraged
(Chesbrough, 2017). OI consists of inbound and outbound open innova-
by the firms for innovation and performance. Similarly, J. Singh (2008)
tion (Popa et al., 2017) that help firms to meet the needs of the custo-
and S.K. Singh (2008) argues that delegating, rather than a directive
mers and beat competition in the markets. Inbound OI (IOI) in SMEs
leadership style, has a positive influence on knowledge sharing prac-
comprises exploratory learning behavior (e.g., Popa et al., 2017) to
tices in technological settings. The top management value for knowl-
discover and seize new information and knowhow from the external
edge influences employee commitment along with high levels of
sources, namely research institutions, universities, consultants, com-
sharing and exchange of knowledge amongst employees (Wang & Noe,
petitors, governmental agencies, suppliers, and customers (Cheng &
2010). Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Shiu, 2015; Popa et al., 2017). Whereas, outbound OI (OOI) aims to
exploit internal ideas or knowledge through licensing, patenting or H1. TMKV positively influences KSP.
contractual arrangements (Hung & Chou, 2013; Lichtenthaler, 2009) to
enhance organizational performance. Moreover, OI repeatedly starts
with subcontracting to service firms (Gassmann, Enkel, & Chesbrough,
3.2. Knowledge sharing practices and open innovation
2010) and it relates to how firms should cooperate with outside parties
to boost process and product innovation (Huizingh, 2011). We note that
Knowledge sharing is a vital constituent of innovation (Brachos,
OI has curvilinear association with the development and launch of the
Kostopoulos, Eric Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2007; Chiang & Hung, 2010;
newest products (Greco, Grimaldi, & Cricelli, 2016) and OI moderates
Gächter, von Krogh, & Haefliger, 2010) and innovation depends how
the influence of dynamic innovation on breakthrough innovation
firms use employees' knowledge, ability, and experience during orga-
(Cheng & Chen, 2013). However, past studies on OI have been con-
nizational value creation processes. A firm's capability to renovate and
ducted mainly in medium to large organizations, and inquiry in the
use knowledge may influence innovation levels, for instance, how firms
context of SMEs is still in its infancy (Santoro, Ferraris, et al., 2018),
use the latest tools, techniques and methods of problem-solving (Du
though attempts have been made to investigate how SMEs engage in
Plessis, 2007). However, firms can only begin to efficiently deal with
knowledge sourcing (Burnswicker & Vanhaverbeke, 2015). Therefore,
knowledge when workforces are eager to be involved in knowledge
our study is an endeavor to plug the knowledge gap and advance un-
sharing activities. Knowledge sharing practices in firms is essential for
derstanding of open innovation in SMEs.
idea generation for innovative organizational actions to respond to
evolving business opportunities in the markets (Lundvall & Nielsen,
2.5. Organizational performance 2007) and results in quick reactions to customer requirements at
minimum costs (Sher & Lee, 2004). Similarly, Lin (2007) found
Organizational performance (OP) is a key construct in management knowledge sharing as an essential element of firm's learning tasks, re-
research and it has received much attention (Kirby, 2005). Organiza- sulting in the development of market innovation activities (Lin, 2007).
tional performance relates to three precise areas of organizational Several studies suggest a new topology of innovation based on the
outcomes - financial performance, market performance, and return to conceptualization of knowledge using three facets, namely implicit-
shareholder (Pierre, Timothy, George, & Gerry, 2009). Several studies explicit, general-independent and simple-complex (Gopalakrishnan &
indicate that open innovation positively influences different measures Bierly, 2001) and knowledge sharing practices help increase relative
of organizational performance (Carayannis & Grigoroudis, 2014; innovation performance of organizations (Ritala, Olander, Michailova,
Chiang & Hung, 2010; Popa et al., 2017). Therefore, SMEs can benefit & Husted, 2015). Abou-Zeid and Cheng (2004) propose different in-
from outside knowledge, as they are more responsive to the needs of the novation types and link them with knowledge formation and exploita-
markets and are also flexible compared to large organizations tion activities. Similarly, Wang and Wang (2012) suggest that the
(Spithoven, Vanhaverbeke, & Roijakkers, 2013) and likely to increase sharing of knowledge amongst coworkers positively influences in-
their overall performance through open innovation (Popa et al., 2017). novation, which augments superior firm performance. Therefore, SMEs
OI practices are strategic assets that drive sustainable competitive ad- should effectively harness potential benefits of knowledge sharing
vantage and enhanced firm level performance (Camisón & Villar-López, through the use of varied combinations of organizational and man-
2014) in SMEs too. Previous studies suggest that OI helps firms to attain agerial practices to reward employees for exhibiting knowledge sharing
competitive advantage (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, 1995) and results in behaviors in the workplace (Foss, Laursen, & Pedersen, 2011). There-
enhanced organizational performance (OECD, 2005) and both the RBV fore, we predict that:
and the KBV consider differential organizational performance as an
H2. KSP positively influences IOI.
outcome of an organization's internal characteristics (Camisón & Villar-
López, 2014). H3. KSP positively influences OOI.

3
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3.3. Open innovation and organizational performance H5. OOI positively influences OP.

In dynamic markets, organizations generally do not have any choice

other than to open up; however, they differ in their capability to seize 3.4. The mediating role of knowledge sharing practices
benefits from open innovation (Biscotti, Mafrolla, & Giudice, 2018;
Lichtenthaler, 2011). Wang, Chang, and Shen (2015) found that orga- Organizations surely benefit when they search for ideas beyond
nizations with the ability to construct solid connections with outside their factory gates (Von Krogh, Netland, & Wörter, 2018), as ideas and
channels increase the effectiveness of inbound open innovation to en- knowledge sharing are not only a must from internal organizational
hance their organizational performance. The extant literature on open members, but from outside the organization as well. Such a scenario
innovation advances past research by openly integrating inward and calls for the top management to value knowledge essential for OI; and
outward knowledge transfer (Chesbrough, 2006). At the same time, Van several past studies argue the positive influence of the top management
de Vrande, De Jong, Vanhaverbeke, and De Rochemont (2009) em- people in building a helpful environment for knowledge sharing prac-
phasize how organizations concurrently rely on both IOI and OOI to tices in organizations (Crawford et al., 2003; Donate & Sánchez de
enhance their performance. At the same time, much of the work on Pablo, 2015; J. Singh, 2008; S.K. Singh, 2008. Therefore, we argue that
open innovation has focused on inbound rather than outbound open SMEs' top management in consonance with formalized organizational
innovation (Lichtenthaler, 2011; Chesbrough, 2003) and that calls upon processes play a vital part in supporting knowledge sharing practices
firms to develop organizational policies and practices for the kind of for OI (e.g., Brunswicker & Chesbrough, 2018), wherein the top man-
organizational capabilities that leverage the benefits of both IOI and agement needs to purposefully weigh the tension between sharing and
OOI to augment organizational performance. protecting knowledge amongst coworkers (e.g., Jarvenpaa &
IOI refers to discovering and assimilating outside knowledge to Majchrzak, 2016) to reap the benefits of OI. Wang and Noe (2010)
develop and exploit technology for the benefits of organizations propose top management support for employee commitment along with
(Parida, Westerberg, & Frishammar, 2012). The extant literature re- knowledge sharing and exchange amongst the coworkers in the orga-
ports heterogeneous findings on the association between IOI and or- nization. Similarly, several other studies suggest knowledge sharing
ganizational performance wherein many researchers contend that IOI enhances firms' innovation performance (Ritala et al., 2015; Wang &
influences organizational performance (Rass, Dumbach, Danzinger, Wang, 2012) and that, in turn, augments organizational performance
Bullinger, & Moeslein, 2013), while other colleagues suggest negative (Wang & Wang, 2012). Furthermore, this paper argues that organiza-
or non-linear associations between IOI and organizational performance tions need to utilize their organizational and managerial practices to
(Laursen & Salter, 2006; Love, Roper, & Bryson, 2011). Therefore, or- reward their employees for their knowledge sharing activities (Foss
ganizations that engage in IOI practices benefit from innovative et al., 2011), in turn helping open innovation to flourish in the SMEs. As
thinking and amalgamations of renewed problem-solving capabilities, a result, we advance our hypotheses:
knowledge, and new opportunities in the markets (Hung & Chou, 2013;
H6. KSP mediates the influence of TMKV on IOI.
Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). Several studies suggest that firms
engage in different forms of pecuniary (i.e., purchasing and licensing) H7. KSP mediates the influence of TMKV on OOI.
and non-pecuniary (i.e., external Research & Development and/or Re-
search & Development cooperation) IOI (Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander
& Gann, 2010) to satisfy customer needs and beat competition from 3.5. The mediating role of open innovation
rivals to stay competitive in dynamic markets. Therefore, we hy-
pothesize that: Knowledge sharing is a vital aspect of innovation (Chiang & Hung,
2010; Gachter et al., 2010; Brachos et al., 2007). It is evident that the
H4. IOI positively influences OP.
capabilities of firms to renovate and use knowledge may decide their
Outbound open innovation (OOI) consists of the spinning-off of levels of innovation, for instance, the latest methods of problem-solving
different undertakings grounded on past products or technological de- (Du Plessis, 2007). Knowledge sharing practices help enhance value for
velopment and outside connection to develop innovative products and/ the innovator (Gachter et al., 2010), in turn augmenting open innova-
or authorize other firms to use their technologies (Lichtenthaler, 2011; tion in the organization. As a result, this study posits that SMEs' en-
Van De Vrande et al., 2009). OOI allows organization to gain financial gagement in external knowledge sourcing offers performance benefits
and non-financial profits from the utilization of its current knowledge and improves their innovation performance (Burnswicker &
and technologies, and effective usage of their capabilities to reduce Vanhaverbeke, 2015). On the other hand, other researchers argue for
obsolescence threats and stay competitive in the markets (Hung & the role of organizational culture (Tellis, Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009),
Chou, 2013). However, past research shows organizations' inclination customer acquisition (Arnold, Fang, & Palmatier, 2011), and absorptive
for IOI (Bianchi, Campodall'Orto, Frattini, & Vercesi, 2010; Grönlund, capacity (Forés & Camisón, 2016) in supporting and enhancing open
Rönnberg-Sjödin, & Frishammar, 2010), as OOI activities impose severe innovation. Several other studies suggest linkages amongst knowledge
management challenges owing to inadequacies in marketing the new management, innovation and performance in organization (Santoro,
knowhow (Lichtenthaler & Ernst, 2007), along with absence of efficient Ferraris, et al., 2018; Santoro, Vrontis, et al., 2018; Del Giudice & Della
internal procedure to support such ingenuities (Lichtenthaler, Peruta, 2016; López-Nicolás & Meroño-Cerdán, 2011) along with open
Lichtenthaler, & Frishammar, 2009). search from a broad range of external channels influence firms' radical
Several scholars have argued that SMEs, rather than large firms, innovation performance (Chiang & Hung, 2010).
possess comparatively fewer assets to screen out their external business Open innovation depends on knowledge sharing culture, which is
environment for invaluable information (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Van significantly boosted when top management implements, supports, and
de Vrande et al., 2009). Furthermore, SMEs that engage in outbound OI nurtures knowledge sharing and innovation (Vera & Crossan, 2004) of
mainly prefer activities such as venturing or spinoffs, outward IP li- firms operating in dynamic markets. It is true that SMEs operating in
censing, etc. (Van de Vrande et al., 2009). Hence, SMEs that employ dynamic markets do not have any choice other than to open up; how-
outbound OI will have a tendency to calculate direct monetary benefits ever, they differ in their capability to seize benefits from open in-
when they commercialize their internally developed innovative pro- novation (Lichtenthaler, 2011). Several previous studies suggest that
ducts and technologies in the markets (Popa et al., 2017). Hence, we open innovation thrives in firms that have intentions and capabilities to
predict that: openly integrate inward and outward knowledge transfer (Chesbrough,

4
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.

Inbound
Open
Innovation
Top Knowledge
Management Sharing Organizational
Knowledge Practices Performance
Value
Outbound
Open
Innovation

2006), such that it increases the effectiveness of IOI and that, in turn, automobile accessories, communication equipment, detergents and
influences firm performance (Wang et al., 2015). Furthermore, firms disinfectants, electrical switchgears, firefighting equipment, lubricants
that engage in different forms of financial and non-financial IOI and and grease, perfumes, pipes and pipe fittings, plastic accessories, steel
OOI prefer activities such as venturing or spinoffs, and outward IP li- fabrication, telephone equipment, and water purifiers. Furthermore, as
censing (Chesbrough, 2003; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Van De Vrande per Table 1, the average age of the CEOs, the production managers, and
et al., 2009) to satisfy customer needs and enhance their financial and the HR managers were 43.4, 36.28, and 35.84 years respectively.
market performance. Drawing upon both RBV and KBV, we predict that Table 1 also shows that 86.4% of the CEO participants were male, while
open innovation practices facilitate the influence of knowledge sharing 93.07% of the production managers and 84.65% of the HR managers
practices on SMEs' performance. Therefore, we hypothesize that: were male. Similarly, In terms of educational qualifications, 82.18% of
the CEOs, 75.25% of the production managers, and 69.80% of the HR
H8. IOI mediates the influence of KSP on OP.
managers had minimum bachelor level degrees in management, sci-
H9. OOI mediates the influence of KSP on OP. ences, or technology disciplines (see Table 1).
Fig. 1 depicts the hypothesized framework.
4.2. Measures

4. Methods The respondent rated each items measuring instruments on seven

point rating scale (1 = low; 7 = high). Appendix A presents the Cron-
4.1. Data and sample bach's alpha coefficient, the Composite reliability, and the average
variance explained (AVE) of the measuring instruments, namely Top
We approached 939 manufacturing sector SMEs in the United Arab management knowledge value, Knowledge sharing practices, Open in-
Emirates (UAE) to take part in the study. The specific criteria adopted novation and Organizational performance.
to approach the SMEs and make a request to participate in the study
were: a) the SMEs should have established HR and production depart- 4.2.1. Top management knowledge value (TMKV)
ments, and b) the SMEs should be at least two years old so that they TMKV measuring instruments had six items adopted from
have relatively well developed process and systems to manage their Davenport, De Long, and Beers (1998), Davenport and Prusak (2000),
operations. Only 887 SMEs agreed to participate and distributed phy- Hsu (2005), Hauschild, Licht, and Stein (2001), Husted and Michailova
sical copies of the survey questionnaire to the chief executive officer (2002) and Cabrera and Cabrera (2002). Appendix A presents the
(CEO), the production manager, and the HR manager from each SME. sample items, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and
We met and distributed the physical copies of the survey questionnaire average variance explained (AVE) of the TMKV measuring instrument.
to the triads from each of the SMEs, whereby the CEO filled in survey The results of these were 0.934, 0.934, and 0.704 respectively.
questionnaire for top management knowledge value (TMKV) and or-
ganizational performance (OP), whereas the production manager and
4.2.2. Knowledge sharing practices (KSP)
the human resource (HR) manager responded to the questionnaires on
The KSP scale had seven items adopted from Calantone, Cavusgil
open innovation (OI) and knowledge sharing practices (KSP) respec-
and Zhao (2002), Alavi and Leidner (2001), Gupta and Govindarajan
tively. We received filled-in questionnaires back from the matched
(2000), Lepak and Snell (1999), Liebowitz (1999), and Delaney and
triads (i.e., the CEO, the production manager, the HR manager) of 428
Huselid (1996). Appendix A depicts the sample items, Cronbach's alpha
SMEs. However, 24 sets of triadic respondents (i.e., the CEO, the pro-
coefficient, composite reliability, and average variance explained (AVE)
duction manager, the HR manager) had left many items unanswered.
of the KSP scale. The results were 0.937, 0.937, and 0.679 respectively.
We therefore deleted them and used the remaining 404 sets to examine
the hypotheses of this study. Overall, the response rate was 45.55%. It is
important to mention that data collection from triads from the SMEs 4.2.3. Open innovation (OI)
was a difficult and tiresome journey. However, we took help of friends The OI scale consisted of five items for inbound OI and four items
to introduce one of the co-authors to the CEOs of these SMEs to talk for outbound OI adopted from Naqshbandi (2016) and Sisodiya,
about the purpose of this study and make a request to participate. Johnson, and Grégoire (2013). Appendix A illustrates the sample items,
Before proceeding with actual data collection, we pre-tested the survey Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and average var-
questionnaire on 15 experts to establish validity, readability and use- iance explained (AVE) of the inbound OI. The results were 0.918, 0.918,
fulness of the measurement instruments. The data was collected from and 0.691 respectively; whereas, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, compo-
three different sources (i.e., the CEOs, the production manager and the site reliability, and average variance explained (AVE) of the outbound
HR manager) from each of the participating SMEs to avoid the common OI were 0.894, 0.894, and 0.678 respectively.
method biases.
Table 1 shows that the SMEs in our study were established between 4.2.4. Organizational performance (OP)
2000 and 2016 and the employee counts in these SMEs ranged from The OP measuring instrument consisted of six items adopted from
115 to 355. Furthermore, 52.3% of the participating SMEs were Delaney and Huselid (1996). Appendix A presents the sample items,
founded between 2006 and 2010 with the majority (i.e., 82.7%) having Cronbach's alpha coefficient, composite reliability, and average var-
employee counts ranging from 201 to 300. All 404 SMEs in this study iance explained (AVE) of the OP scale as 0.930, 0.929, and 0.686 re-
were from the manufacturing sector, namely aluminum fabrications, spectively.

5
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Sample and organization details.
CEOs (n = 404) Production managers (n = 404) HR managers The SMEs (N = 404)
(n = 404)

Average age (in years) 43.40 Average age (in years) 36.28 Average age (in years) 35.84 Year when born
2000–2005 64 (15.8%)
2006–2010 211 (52.3%)
2011–2016 129 (31.9%)
Gender Gender Gender Employee counts
Male 348 (86.14%) Male 376 (93.07%) Male 342 (84.65%) 115–200 55 (13.6%)
Female 56 (13.86%) Female 28 (6.93%) Female 62 (15.35%) 201–250 166 (41.1%)
251–300 168 (41.6%)
> 301 15 (3.7%)
Education Education Education Industry
Bachelor degree 332 (82.18%) Bachelor degree 304 (75.25%) Bachelor degree 282 (69.80%) Manufacturing 404 (100%)
Master degree 72 (17.82%) Master degree 100 (24.75%) Master degree 122 (30.20%) Others None

5. Results Table 3
Assessment indices for causality.
5.1. Data analysis Sympson's paradox ratio 1.000
R-squared contribution ratio 1.000
We tested for non-response bias before analyzing the data to ex- Statistical suppression ratio 1.000
amine the hypotheses of our study. The test was performed to ensure Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio 0.800

that the sample of our study had the same characteristics with sampling
frame wherein we used an independent sample t-test to compare the
Table 4
responses of early respondents with responses of the late respondents
Latent variable coefficients.
after the cut-off date. The results suggest no significant differences in
the responses of the early and the late respondents. Thus, our study TMKV KSP IOI OOI OP
does not have problems related to the non-response bias.
R-squared – 0.312 0.038 0.007 0.187
Yunis, Tarhini, and Kassar (2018) employed partial least squares Adjusted R-squared – 0.311 0.036 0.005 0.183
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in their theory-backed re- Composite reliability 0.934 0.937 0.918 0.894 0.929
search and we have employed the same to analyze the standardized Cronbach's alpha 0.934 0.937 0.918 0.894 0.93
Average variances extracted 0.704 0.679 0.691 0.678 0.686
data of the 404 respondents. Hair, Sarstedt, Pieper, and Ringle (2012)
and Ali, Kan, and Sarstedt (2016) suggest that PLS-SEM is more ap-
pealing in cases where the research objective focuses on prediction. In
Table 5
this study, WarpPLS version 6.0 was used to perform PLS-SEM. Factor-
Testing for discriminant validity.
based SEM with the common factor model assumptions method was
employed as compared to the use of the conventional PLS Regression TMKV KSP IOI OOI OP
algorithm (Kock, 2017). In Table 2, the model fit and quality indices are
TMKV (0.839)
showcased. It is evident that APC and ARS have significant values. The KSP 0.545 (0.824)
AVIF value is within the ideal limit of 3.3. IOI 0.144 0.057 (0.831)
Table 3 shows the causality assessment which suggests that the di- OOI −0.028 −0.013 0.297 (0.824)
OP 0.145 0.052 0.364 0.296 (0.828)
rections of the hypotheses are correctly posited. The four indices ob-
tained and depicted in Table 3 affirm that the model that we tested was Note: Diagonal bold value shows square roots of AVEs (SQAVEs).
appropriate. Here, the values of these four indices are more than the
acceptable limit and this suggests that the direction of the hypotheses 0.50 as suggested by Hair et al. (2012). Furthermore, Table 5 suggests
that were considered in this study is correct. that all the constructs in the study had discriminant validity, as the
The reliability and validity of the model can be tested by employing correlations amongst the constructs are less than squared roots of the
confirmatory factor analysis. In Appendix B, the factor loading of items AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
from each of the constructs in the study is more that 0.50 as per the
recommendations of Hair et al. (2012). Table 4 illustrates that R-
5.1.1. Testing for direct effect
squared coefficients of exploration, exploitation and organizational
Table 6 illustrates that the path coefficients (direct effects) on the re-
performance suggest that these variables have been well explained by
lationships amongst the hypothesized constructs were supported, and
the factors that we considered in this study. In addition, the value of R-
significant at 0.05 level of significance. Specifically, the hypothesized re-
squared coefficients and adjusted R-squared coefficients is similar and
lationship between TMKV→KSP (H1), KSP→IOI (H2), KSP→OOI (H3),
this re-affirms the extent of the explanation of the variables by their
IOI→OP (H4), and OOI→OP (H5) were significant, with beta (β) values of
factors. The value of composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha for
0.56, 0.20, 0.08, 0.32, and 0.22 respectively, and significant at
each variable is more than the threshold value of 0.70 (Tellis, Yin, &
p = 0.01 < 0.05, p = 0.01 < 0.05, p = 0.04 < 0.05, p = 0.01 < 0.05,
Bell, 2009). The average variances extracted of the constructs were >
and p = 0.01 < 0.05 of 95% BCa CI. This means that hypotheses 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5 (i.e., H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5) were supported.
Table 2
Quality indices and model fit. 5.1.2. Testing for indirect effect
We tested for the indirect effect to determine the role of the KSP
Average path coefficient 0.276, p < 0.001
construct as mediator in the relationships TMKV and IOI, and TMKV
Average R-squared 0.136, p < 0.001
Average block VIF 1.063 and OOI. Also, we examined for the mediating influence of inbound OI
and outbound OI on the linkage between KSP and OP. Table 6

6
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 6 open innovation were established in past research on large firms (Lee
Hypotheses testing. et al., 2016; Wang & Noe, 2010). A possible reason may be that
Hypotheses β and p-value Decision knowledge-oriented leaders support the development of knowledge
sharing practices for making SMEs effectively sense and seize oppor-
H1: TMKV positively influences KSP. β = 0.56, p < 0.01 Accepted tunities to innovate (Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015; Teece, 2009)
H2: KSP positively influences IOI. β = 0.20, p < 0.01 Accepted
and stay competitive in dynamic markets. Furthermore, previous stu-
H3: KSP positively influences OOI. β = 0.08, p = 0.04 Accepted
H4: IOI positively influences OP. β = 0.32, p < 0.01 Accepted
dies also report that knowledge sharing practices influence inbound and
H5: OOI positively influences OP. β = 0.22, p < 0.01 Accepted outbound open innovation (Lee, Ooi, et al., 2010; Lee, Park, et al.,
H6: KSP mediates the influence of TMKV on β = 0.109, p < 0.001 Accepted 2010; Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Liu, Chen, & Tsai, 2005). Therefore,
IOI. our study confirms that top management knowledge value and
H7: KSP mediates the influence of TMBV on β = 0.047, p = 0.088 Rejected
knowledge sharing practices also support open innovation in the con-
OOI.
H8: IOI mediates the influence of KSP on OP. β = 0.017, p = 0.364 Rejected text of SMEs. As a result, we contend that knowledge-oriented leaders
H9: OOI mediates the influence of KSP on β = 0.003, p = 0.820 Rejected have the tendency to install and support knowledge sharing practices
OP. and initiatives to facilitate knowledge exploration and exploitation
(Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015) for open innovation and enhanced
organizational performance in SMEs.
illustrates the relationships between TMKV→KSP→IOI (H6) as Secondly, our study advances the existing knowledge that open
β = 0.109, p < 0.001 and was found significant, whereas the re- innovation predicts organizational performance (Popa et al., 2017;
lationship between TMKV→KSP→OOI (H7) as β = 0.047, p < 0.088 Wang et al., 2015; Lichtenthaler, 2011; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; van
and was found non-significant. Therefore, H6 was supported and H7 de Vrande et al., 2009) in the context of SMEs, as there is a dearth of
was not supported in this study. On the other hand, we also tested for research-based knowledge on the linkage between open innovation and
the mediating role of both inbound OI and outbound OI on the influ- organizational performance. Therefore, our study suggests that open
ence of knowledge sharing practices on organizational performance innovation requires integration of both inward and outward knowledge
(Table 6). We found that relationships between KSP→IOI→OP (H8) as transfer (Chesbrough, 2006) to benefit from the amalgamation of SMEs'
β = 0.017, p < 0.364 and KSP→OOI→OP (H9) as β = 0.003, renewed problem-solving capabilities, knowledge, and new opportu-
p < 0.820 were non-significant. Therefore, H8 and H9 were not sup- nities (Hung & Chou, 2013; Zahra et al., 2006) in dynamic markets. Our
ported in our study. study advances the existing literature that inbound (Chesbrough, 2003;
Dahlander & Gann, 2010) and outbound open innovation (Popa et al.,
6. Discussion and conclusions 2017) bring pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits to SMEs especially
when they operate in a dynamic business environment.
Drawing on the RBV and the KBV, our study focuses on the ante- Thirdly, we found evidence that knowledge-sharing practices med-
cedents and the outcomes of open innovation in SMEs. The findings of iate the influence of top management knowledge value on open in-
our study confirm that organizations with strong knowledge sharing novation – inbound and outbound. These findings of our study are
practices are more competent in chasing open innovation. The results of supported by previous studies, which found knowledge sharing prac-
our study support the findings of previous studies where top manage- tices to mediate the influence of top management knowledge value on
ment knowledge value influences knowledge sharing practices (Del inbound and outbound open innovation in SMEs (Brunswicker &
Giudice & Maggioni, 2014; Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015; Wang & Chesbrough, 2018; Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2016). We believe that top
Noe, 2010) and knowledge sharing practices affect open innovation management in consonance with formalized organizational processes
(Veronica, Del Giudice, Bresciani, & Meissner, 2017; Wang & Wang, play an important role for knowledge sharing practices for open in-
2012; Lee, Ooi, Tan, and Chong, 2010; Lee, Park, Yoon, and Park, novation (Brunswicker & Chesbrough, 2018), where top management
2010). Our study also supports previous studies that suggest that open purposefully weigh tension between sharing and protection of knowl-
innovation benefits organizations in terms of enhanced organizational edge (Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2016) for SMEs to reap the benefits of
performance (Popa et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2015). Furthermore, our open innovation. At the same time, our study concurs with the findings
study suggests that top management knowledge value indirectly affects of Von Krogh et al. (2018) that SMEs could really benefit when they
open innovation through knowledge sharing practices and finds some search for ideas and knowledge beyond their factory gates together
support from previous studies (e.g., Brunswicker & Chesbrough, 2018; with knowledge sharing practices amongst their internal organizational
Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2016), and that is the unique contribution of members.
our study. However, in a dynamic business environment, organizational Finally, we contend that our study supports emerging research in-
knowledge quickly becomes outdated (Jansen, Van Den Bosch, & terests on open innovation in SMEs (Dahlander & Gann, 2010;
Volberda, 2006; Popa et al., 2017), but open innovation policies and Huizingh, 2011), as they need to rely on both internal knowledge
practices (Cheng & Shiu, 2015) help SMEs to stay relevant and com- sharing practices and external information and research collaborations
petitive in the markets. Therefore, the findings of this study have the- (Popa et al., 2017) for innovation in processes and products to stay
oretical and practical implications. competitive in their markets.

6.1. Implications for theory 6.2. Implications for practice

The findings of our study suggest an association between top man- We found that top management commitment to value of knowledge
agement knowledge value, knowledge sharing, open innovation and helps create and sustain knowledge sharing practices so as to increase
organizational performance of SMEs. The findings of our study offer organizational ability for OI and organizational performance.
three key contributions to theoretical development on the antecedents Therefore, our study has three implications for practice too.
and the outcomes of the open innovation. Firstly, our study suggests that SMEs depend upon how top man-
Firstly, the roles of top management knowledge value and knowl- agement teams value knowledge creation and sharing amongst orga-
edge sharing practices as critical for influencing inbound and outbound nizational members in value creation processes to beat competition

7
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

from their rivals and stay relevant in their markets. Therefore, we posit management knowledge value impacts knowledge sharing practices,
that top management in SMEs should engage and direct collective knowledge-sharing practices influence open innovation and open in-
minds of organizational members in a manner that motivates their novation, in turn, influences organizational performance. Furthermore,
employees to share knowledge amongst themselves for SMEs to develop we found that top management knowledge value indirectly through
processes and products to satisfy the changing needs of their customers. knowledge sharing practices influences open innovation. The findings
Secondly, the findings of our study suggest that SMEs that believe in of our study supports previous studies in the field, advance theory and
knowledge sharing practices have a competitive advantage over their influence practice of open innovation in SMEs. Lastly, but not the least,
rivals in the markets, as knowledge sharing practices enhances open our study suggests that open innovation benefits SMEs, as it enhances
innovation - quick actions to customer requirements at minimum costs. their organizational performance.
Therefore, our study recommends the top leadership team of SMEs to However, like any other study in the management science dis-
install and support knowledge sharing practices essential for them to be cipline, our study has limitations. Firstly, we tested the conceptual re-
market oriented in terms of their products and services that are valued, search framework of our study in the manufacturing sector, which
rare, and tough to duplicate by their rivals. limits its generalization to the service sector SMEs in the UAE.
Thirdly, our study suggests that SMEs' open innovation practices are Therefore, we suggest that future research should extend our research
their strategic asset to attain sustainable competitive advantage and framework and make comparative study of both service and manu-
enhanced organizational level performance. Therefore, we suggest that facturing sector SMEs for a bigger picture to advance knowledge and
SMEs should endeavor to install functional processes and systems to help policy makers develop suitable policy to help support SMEs that
support inbound and outbound open innovation to seize market op- have open innovation practices in the UAE. Secondly, our study tested
portunities to outperform their competitors. Our study offers sugges- the role of macro level variables on open innovation and SMEs' per-
tions to SMEs' top management to embrace the philosophy of open formance. Therefore, we suggest that future research in this area should
innovation to make their firms responsive to the needs of their custo- explore how micro level variables (i.e., trust, personality character-
mers and to be quick enough to incorporate customer's demands in the istics, employee engagement and involvement) operate in the work-
offerings to outperform the competitors in their markets. place to support or obstruct open innovation in SMEs. Thirdly, our
study used quantitative inquiry, which has its own limitations, to study
6.3. Conclusions, limitations and direction for future research open innovation in SMEs. Thus, the future research should use mixed
methods to investigate what makes open innovation thrive in SMEs.
Based on the findings of our study, we conclude that top

Appendix A. Operationalization of constructs

Latent variable Indicator Measurement construct items

Top Management Knowledge Value (TMKV) The top management……

TMKV1 Emphasis on sharing of knowledge
TMKV2 Supports knowledge sharing
TMKV3 Establishment of knowledge sharing mechanisms
TMKV4 Knowledge sharing contributes to performance
TMKV5 Knowledge sharing for SMEs to earn profits
TMKV6 Firm-specific knowledge
Knowledge Sharing Practices (KSP) My organization…..
KSP1 Uses mentoring
KSP2 Uses work team
KSP3 Disseminates data on past failure & lessons learned amongst employees
KSP4 Uses IT systems to share knowledge
KSP5 Uses knowledge sharing mechanisms
KSP6 Uses of incentives
KSP7 Uses varied training programs
Inbound Open Innovation (IOI) Scanning external environment for…..
IOI1 Technology, information, ideas, etc.
IOI2 Knowledge and know-how to develop novel products
IOI3 Finding external sources to supplement R&D
IOI4 Information and know-how to use in combination with own R&D
IOI5 Know-hows and copyrights from outside
Outbound Open Innovation (OIO) We sell novel information, knowledge, etc. to.....
OOI1 Outside firms
OOI2 Outside firms that are also used internally
OOI3 Mature and proven technologies
OOI4 Core technologies
Organizational Performance (OP) As compared to the competitors, my organization has high……..
OP1 Long-run profitability
OP2 Growth prospect
OP3 Employee job satisfaction
OP4 Productivity
OP5 Goodwill in the markets
OP6 Quality products or services

8
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Appendix B. Combined loadings and cross-loadings

TMKV KSP IOI OOI OP Std. error p value

TMKV1 0.838 −0.025 0.01 0.039 −0.103 0.044 < 0.001

TMKV2 0.865 0.022 −0.059 0.004 −0.054 0.044 < 0.001
TMKV3 0.831 −0.085 −0.042 −0.037 −0.008 0.044 < 0.001
TMKV4 0.857 −0.03 −0.008 0.032 −0.002 0.044 < 0.001
TMKV5 0.818 −0.089 −0.017 −0.017 0.044 0.045 < 0.001
TMKV6 0.823 −0.074 0.027 −0.038 0.026 0.045 < 0.001
KSP1 −0.026 0.838 −0.053 0.071 −0.023 0.044 < 0.001
KSP2 −0.021 0.834 0.009 0.005 0.007 0.044 < 0.001
KSP3 −0.046 0.808 −0.091 0.096 −0.025 0.045 < 0.001
KSP4 0.013 0.828 −0.007 0.011 0.027 0.044 < 0.001
KSP5 −0.088 0.816 −0.023 0 0.037 0.045 < 0.001
KSP6 −0.038 0.833 0.045 0.017 −0.073 0.044 < 0.001
KSP7 −0.048 0.809 0.085 −0.037 0.015 0.045 < 0.001
IOI1 −0.043 0.021 0.838 −0.024 −0.097 0.044 < 0.001
IOI2 0.024 −0.02 0.854 −0.084 −0.01 0.044 < 0.001
IOI3 0.109 −0.115 0.829 −0.007 −0.009 0.044 < 0.001
IOI4 −0.018 0.036 0.834 0.025 −0.034 0.044 < 0.001
IOI5 −0.05 0.051 0.8 0.027 −0.049 0.045 < 0.001
OOI1 0.009 0.016 0.026 0.801 −0.012 0.045 < 0.001
OOI2 −0.023 0.017 −0.043 0.846 −0.067 0.044 < 0.001
OOI3 0.016 −0.055 −0.099 0.818 0.026 0.045 < 0.001
OOI4 0.017 0.031 0.029 0.829 −0.06 0.044 < 0.001
OP1 −0.04 0.002 −0.049 0.029 0.871 0.044 < 0.001
OP2 0.061 0.005 −0.03 −0.055 0.799 0.045 < 0.001
OP3 −0.002 0.015 0.046 −0.089 0.818 0.045 < 0.001
OP4 0.019 −0.033 −0.059 0.071 0.835 0.044 < 0.001
OP5 −0.049 0.041 −0.007 −0.004 0.838 0.044 < 0.001
OP6 −0.005 0.051 0.018 −0.007 0.805 0.045 < 0.001

Note: Unrotated loadings and oblique-rotated cross-loadings.

References organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241–1263.

Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies,
23(5), 687–710.
Abou-Zeid, E. S., & Cheng, Q. (2004). The effectiveness of innovation: A knowledge Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation
management approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), capability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management, 31(6), 515–524.
261–274. Calantone, R. J., & Stanko, M. A. (2007). Drivers of outsourced innovation: An ex-
Al Ahbabi, S. A., Singh, S. K., Balasubramanian, S., & Gaur, S. S. (2018). Employee per- ploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(3), 230–241.
ception of impact of knowledge management processes on public sector performance. Camisón, C., & Villar-López, A. (2014). Organizational innovation as an enabler of
Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2017-0348 technological innovation capabilities and firm performance. Journal of Business
(Online). Research, 67, 2891–2902.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge Carayannis, E., & Grigoroudis, E. (2014). Linking innovation, productivity, and compe-
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, titiveness: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2),
25(1), 107–136. 199–218.
Ali, M., Kan, K. A. S., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Direct and configurational paths of absorptive Castro, L. (2015). Strategizing across boundaries: Revisiting knowledge brokering activ-
capacity and organizational innovation to successful organizational performance. ities in French innovation clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(5),
Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5317–5323. 1048–1068.
Appu, A. V., & Sia, S. K. (2017). Creativity at workplace: Role of self-efficacy and har- Cavaliere, V., Lombardi, S., & Giustiniano, L. (2015). Knowledge sharing in knowledge-
monious passion. International Journal of Human Resources Development and intensive manufacturing firms. An empirical study of its enablers. Journal of
Management, 17(3–4), 205–219. Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1124–1145.
Arnold, T. J., Fang, E. E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition Chen, C.-J., & Huang, J.-W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation
and retention orientations on a firm's radical and incremental innovation perfor- performance: The mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of
mance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–251. Business Research, 69, 104–114.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Cheng, C. C., & Chen, J. S. (2013). Breakthrough innovation: the roles of dynamic in-
Management, 17(1), 99–120. novation capabilities and open innovation activities. Journal of Business & Industrial
Bavik, Y. L., Tang, P. M., Shao, R., & Lam, L. W. (2018). Ethical leadership and employee Marketing, 28(5), 444–454.
knowledge sharing: Exploring dual-mediation paths. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), Cheng, C. C., & Shiu, E. C. (2015). The inconvenient truth of the relationship between
322–332. open innovation activities and innovation performance. Management Decision, 53(3),
Bianchi, M., Campodall'Orto, S., Frattini, F., & Vercesi, P. (2010). Enabling open in- 625–647.
novation in small and medium sized enterprises: How to find alternative applications Chesbrough, H. (2017). The Future of Open Innovation: The future of open innovation is
for your technologies. R&D Management, 40(4), 414–431. more extensive, more collaborative, and more engaged with a wider variety of par-
Biscotti, A. M., Mafrolla, E., Giudice, M. D., & D'Amico, E. (2018). CEO turnover and the ticipants. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 35–38.
new leader propensity to open innovation: Agency-resource dependence view and Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
social identity perspective. Management Decision, 56(6), 1348–1364. from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brachos, D., Kostopoulos, K., Eric Soderquist, K., & Prastacos, G. (2007). Knowledge ef- Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation
fectiveness, social context and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(5), landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
31–44. Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived in-
Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2011). Heterogeneous motives and the col- novation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows.
lective creation of value. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 711–730. R&D Management, 40(3), 292–299.
Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2006). The moderating effect of organizational co- Crawford, C. B., Gould, L. V., & Scott, R. F. (2003). Transformational leader as champion
hesiveness in knowledge use and new product development. Journal of the Academy of and techie: Implications for leadership educators. Journal of Leadership Education,
Marketing Science, 34(3), 295. 2(1), 1–12.
Brunswicker, S., & Chesbrough, H. (2018). The adoption of open innovation in large Cunha, J. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Performing catharsis: The use of online dis-
firms. Research-Technology Management, 61(1), 35–45. cussion forums in organizational change. Information and Organization, 18(2),
Burnswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-sized 132–156.
enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6),

9
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

699–709. Hauschild, S., Licht, T., & Stein, W. (2001). Creating a knowledge culture. The McKinsey
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Quarterly, 1(6), 74–81.
Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115. Hienerth, C., Keinz, P., & Lettl, C. (2011). Exploring the nature and implementation
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge man- process of user-centric business models. Long Range Planning, 44(5–6), 344–374.
agement projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43–57. Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Uhlenbruck, K., & Shimizu, K. (2006). The importance of re-
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what sources in the internationalization of professional service firms: The good, the bad,
they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. and the ugly. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1137–1157.
Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2016). The impact of IT-based knowledge man- Hitt, M. A., Xu, K., & Carnes, C. M. (2016). Resource based theory in operations man-
agement systems on internal venturing and innovation: A structural equation mod- agement research. Journal of Operations Management, 41, 77–94.
eling approach to corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), Hsu, I.-C. (2005). Developing a model of knowledge management from a human capital
417–422. perspective – Preliminary thoughts. Paper Presented at the 2005 Academy of
Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Maggioni, V. (2015). A model for the diffusion of Management Meeting, Aug. 5–10.
knowledge sharing technologies inside private transport companies. Journal of Huang, X., Hsieh, J. J., & He, W. (2014). Expertise dissimilarity and creativity: The
Knowledge Management, 19(3), 611–625. contingent roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Applied
Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of Psychology, 99(5), 816–830.
knowledge management within inter-firm networks: A global view. Journal of Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives.
Knowledge Management, 18(5), 841–846. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9.
Del Giudice, M., Scuotto, V., Garcia-Perez, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2018). Shifting Wealth Hung, K. P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The
II in Chinese economy. The effect of the horizontal technology spillover for SMEs for moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation,
international growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10. 33(10), 368–380.
1016/j.techfore.2018.03.013 (Online). Husted, K., & Michailova, S. (2002). Diagnosing and fighting knowledge-sharing hostility.
Del Giudice, M., & Straub, D. (2011). IT and entrepreneurism: An on-again, off-again love Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 60–73 (Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.).
affair or a marriage? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 3–11. Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation,
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and
practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
Journal, 39(4), 949–969. Jarvenpaa, S., & Majchrzak, A. (2016). Interactive self-regulatory theory for sharing and
Della Peruta, M. R., Del Giudice, M., Lombardi, R., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016). Open in- protecting in inter-organizational collaborations. Academy of Management Review,
novation, product development, and inter-company relationships within regional 2(3), 226–246.
knowledge clusters. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–14. Khedhaouria, A., & Jamal, A. (2015). Sourcing knowledge for innovation: Knowledge
Dell'Anno, D., Evangelista, F., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). Internationalization of science- reuse and creation in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(5),
based start-ups: Opportunity or requirement? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 932–948.
649–664. Kirby, J. (2005). Toward a theory of high performance. Harvard Business Review, 83,
Donate, M. J., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented lea- 30–39.
dership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Kock, N. (2017). Structural equation modeling with factors and composites: A comparison
Research, 68(2), 360–370. of four methods. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 13(1), 1–9.
Donnelly, R. (2019). Aligning knowledge sharing interventions with the promotion of Kwon, K., & Cho, D. (2016). How transactive memory systems relate to organizational
firm success: The need for SHRM to balance tensions and challenges. Journal of innovation: The mediating role of developmental leadership. Journal of Knowledge
Business Research, 94, 344–352. Management, 20(5), 1025–1044.
Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining
Knowledge Management, 11(4), 20–29. innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Bresciani, S. (2017). Open innovation in multinational com- Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
panies' subsidiaries: The role of internal and external knowledge. European Journal of Lee, J.-C., Shiue, Y.-C., & Chen, C.-Y. (2016). Examining the impacts of organizational
International Management, 11(4), 452–468. culture and top management support of knowledge sharing on the success of software
Forés, B., & Camisón, C. (2016). Does incremental and radical innovation performance process improvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 462–474.
depend on different types of knowledge accumulation capabilities and organizational Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs - an intermediated
size? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 831–848. network model. Research Policy, 39(2), 290–300.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un- Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., Tan, B. I., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2010). A structural analysis of the
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), relationship between TQM practices and product innovation. Asian Journal of
39–50. Technology Innovation, 18(1), 73–96.
Foss, N. J., Laursen, K., & Pedersen, T. (2011). Linking customer interaction and in- Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
novation: The mediating role of new organizational practices. Organization Science, human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1),
22(4), 980–999. 31–48.
Gächter, S., von Krogh, G., & Haefliger, S. (2010). Initiating private-collective innovation: Lichtenthaler, U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance:
The fragility of knowledge sharing. Research Policy, 39(7), 893–906. Examining environmental influences. R&D Management, 39(4), 317–330.
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future
Management, 40(3), 213–221. directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 75–93.
Goldman, S., Nagel, R., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organisations: Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2007). Developing reputation to overcome the imperfec-
Strategies for enriching the customer. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. tions in the markets for knowledge. Research Policy, 36(1), 37–55.
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal or- Lichtenthaler, U., Lichtenthaler, E., & Frishammar, J. (2009). Technology commerciali-
ientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, zation intelligence: Organizational antecedents and performance consequences.
56(3), 827–851. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(3), 301–315.
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Bierly, P. (2001). Analyzing innovation adoption using a knowl- Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization's knowledge
edge-based approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(2), management strategy. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(1), 37–40.
107–130. Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study.
Grant, R. (1996a). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
Journal, 17, 109–122. Lin, S. W., & Lo, L. Y. S. (2015). Mechanisms to motivate knowledge sharing: Integrating
Grant, R. (2002). The knowledge-based view of the firm. In N. Bontis, & C. Wei Choo the reward systems and social network perspectives. Journal of Knowledge
(Eds.). Strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge. New Management, 19(2), 212–235.
York: Oxford University Press. Liu, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2005). An empirical study on the correlation be-
Grant, R. M. (1996b). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: tween the knowledge management method and new product development strategy
Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), on product performance in Taiwan's industries. Technovation, 25(6), 637–644.
375–387. López-Nicolás, C., & Meroño-Cerdán, Á. L. (2011). Strategic knowledge management,
Grant, S. B. (2016). Classifying emerging knowledge sharing practices and some insights innovation and performance. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6),
into antecedents to social networking: A case in insurance. Journal of Knowledge 502–509.
Management, 20(5), 898–917. Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Bryson, J. R. (2011). Openness, knowledge, innovation and
Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Cricelli, L. (2016). An analysis of the open innovation effect on growth in UK business services. Research Policy, 40(10), 1438–1452.
firm performance. European Management Journal, 34(5), 501–516. Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and perfor-
Grönlund, J., Rönnberg-Sjödin, D., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Open innovation and the mance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team
stage-gate process: A revised model for new product development. California behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
Management Review, 52(3), 106–131. Lundvall, B.Å., & Nielsen, P. (2007). Knowledge management and innovation perfor-
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge management's social dimension: mance. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 207–223.
Lessons from Nucor Steel. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 71. Marr, B. (2004). Is it impossible to benchmark intellectual capital? In Bart, Bontis and
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares Head (Eds.) Conference Proceedings of the 25th McMaster World Congress, Janeiro
structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past de 2004, Hamilton, Canada: MWC.
practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), Naqshbandi, M. M. (2016). Managerial ties and open innovation: Examining the role of
320–340. absorptive capacity. Management Decision, 54, 2256–2276.

10
S.K. Singh, et al. Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and Teece, D. J. (2009). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management: Organizing for innova-
knowledge management practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management tion and growth. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Development, 30(2), 206–221. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
OECD (2005). The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Oslo manual. agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data(3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation across nations: The
EUROSTAT. preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 3–23.
Oliva, F. L., Semensato, B. I., Prioste, D. B., Winandy, E. J. L., Bution, J. L., Couto, M. H. Tellis, G. J., Yin, E., & Bell, S. (2009). Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country
G., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Innovation in the main Brazilian business sectors: differences and demographic commonalities. Journal of International Marketing, 17(2),
Characteristics, types and comparison of innovation. Journal of Knowledge 1–22.
Management, 23(1), 135–175. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network
Oyemomi, O., Liu, S., Neaga, I., Chen, H., & Nakpodia, F. (2019). How cultural impact on position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance.
knowledge sharing contributes to organizational performance: Using the fsQCA ap- Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
proach. Journal of Business Research, 94, 313–319. Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open
Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound open innovation activities innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,
in high-tech SMEs: The impact on innovation performance. Journal of Small Business 29(6–7), 423–437.
Management, 50(2), 283–309. Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organization learning. Academy
Peruta, M. R. D., Holden, N. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2016). Cross-cultural challenges for of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.
innovation management. In I. Dubina, & E. Carayannis (Eds.). Innovation, technology, Veronica, S., Del Giudice, M., Bresciani, S., & Meissner, D. (2017). Knowledge-driven
and knowledge management. (pp. 95–107). New York, NY: Springer. preferences in informal inbound open innovation modes. An explorative view on
Pierre, J. R., Timothy, M. D., George, S. Y., & Gerry, J. (2009). Measuring organizational small to medium enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 640–655.
performance: Towards methodological best practices. Journal of Management, 35(3), Von Krogh, G., Netland, T., & Wörter, M. (2018). Winning with open process innovation.
718–804. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(2), 53–56.
Pittino, D., Martinez, A. B., Chirico, F., & Galvan, R. S. (2018). Psychological ownership, Wang, C. H., Chang, C. H., & Shen, G. C. (2015). The effect of inbound open innovation on
knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: The moderating firm performance: Evidence from high-tech industry. Technological Forecasting and
role of governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 312–326. Social Change, 99, 222–230.
Politis, J. D. (2002). Transformational and transactional leadership enabling (disabling) Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams: The consequences for performance. research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 186–197. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation, and firm performance.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal, 39(10), 8899–8908.
outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Wang, Z., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual capital and firm
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118, 134–142. performance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230–238.
Rass, M., Dumbach, M., Danzinger, F., Bullinger, A. C., & Moeslein, K. M. (2013). Open West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A., & Haward, B.
innovation and firm performance: The mediating role of social capital. Creativity and (2003). Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership
Innovation Management, 22(2), 177–194. Quarterly, 14(4–5), 393–410.
Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S., & Husted, K. (2015). Knowledge sharing, knowl- Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2003). Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial or-
edge leaking and relative innovation performance: An empirical study. Technovation, ientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic
35, 22–31. Management Journal, 24, 1307–1314.
Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., Giacosa, E., & Giovando, G. (2018). How SMEs engage in open Yew Wong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management
innovation: A survey. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 9(2), 561–574. in small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3),
Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The Internet of Things: Building a 261–279.
knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management Yew Wong, K., & Aspinwall, E. (2005). An empirical study of the important factors for
capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347–354. knowledge-management adoption in the SME sector. Journal of Knowledge
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing Management, 9(3), 64–82.
dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information & Management, Yunis, M., Tarhini, A., & Kassar, A. (2018). The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing
41(8), 933–945. organizational performance: The catalysing effect of corporate entrepreneurship.
Shujahat, M., Sousa, M. J., Hussain, S., Nawaz, F., Wang, M., & Umer, M. (2019). Journal of Business Research, 88, 344–356.
Translating the impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic
innovation: The neglected and mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity. capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies,
Journal of Business Research, 94, 442–450. 43(4), 917–955.
Sia, S. K., & Appu, A. V. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity: Moderating Zhang, X., & Jiang, J. Y. (2015). With whom shall I share my knowledge? A recipient
role of task complexity. Global Business Review, 16(5), 772–784. perspective of knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 277–295.
Singh, J. (2008a). Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of
innovative output. Research Policy, 37(1), 77–96. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Management, College of Business,
Singh, S. K. (2008b). Role of leadership in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, UAE. His research interests include, Big Data Analytics,
Management, 12(4), 3–15. Knowledge Management, Innovation Management, Sustainability, International HRM,
Sisodiya, S. R., Johnson, J. L., & Grégoire, Y. (2013). Inbound open innovation for en- and SMEs. He can be reached at [email protected].
hanced performance: Enablers and opportunities. Industrial Marketing Management,
42(5), 836–849.
Snell, S. A., Stueber, D., & Lepak, D. P. (2001). Virtual HR departments: Getting out of the Shivam Gupta, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor, Montpellier Business School, Montpellier
middle. In R. L. Heneman, & D. B. Greenberger (Eds.). Human resource management in Research in Management, Montpellier, France. He can be reached at sh.gupta@
montpellier-bs.com.
virtual organizations. Greenberg: Information Age Publishing.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62. Donatella Busso, Ph.D., is Associate Professor, Department of Management, University of
Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in Turin, Italy. She can be reached at [email protected].
SMEs and large enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41(3), 537–562.
Tangaraja, G., Mohd Rasdi, R., Ismail, M., & Abu Samah, B. (2015). Fostering knowledge Shampy Kamboj, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor, Amity School of Business, Amity
sharing behaviour among public sector managers: A proposed model for the University, Noida, India. The author can be reached at [email protected].
Malaysian public service. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(1), 121–140.

11