Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01165-4

The Effect of Knowledge Management Practices

Exploration and Exploitation on Individual Performance
and Empowerment

Yousra Harb1 · Wejdan Alakaleek2 · Yanyan Shang3 · Ayman Harb4

Received: 27 July 2021 / Accepted: 21 February 2023 / Published online: 13 March 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2023

Abstract
Purpose Knowledge management has acquired the center position of organizational
literature. However, there is a shortage of empirical studies examining the interre-
lation between knowledge management (KM) practices and employee performance
and empowerment. To fill this gap, this study aims to empirically investigate the
direct relationship between KM practices exploration and exploitation and employee
performance and empowerment in higher education institutions. This study also pro-
poses to examine the mediating effect of employee empowerment on the relationship
between KM practices exploration and exploitation and employee performance.
Design/methodology/approach Based on a sample of 163 employees from higher
education institutions in Jordan, this study tested the hypotheses with partial least
square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
Findings The results indicate that KM practices exploration has a statistically sig-
nificant positive influence on employee performance and empowerment, both
directly and indirectly through employee empowerment. The findings also reveal
that KM practices exploitation has a statistically significant direct positive influence
on employee empowerment, and indirect impact on employee performance through
employee empowerment.
Originality/value Very little is known about the impact of KM practices explora-
tion and exploitation on employee performance and empowerment in higher educa-
tion institutions (HEIs). This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature by providing
empirical evidence on the effects of various areas of KM. Practically, the findings
highlight the significance of considering both KM exploration and exploitation, and
their effect on individual level employee performance and empowerment.

Keywords Knowledge management practices · Exploration · Exploitation ·

Empowerment · Performance · Higher education

* Ayman Harb
a.harb@ju.edu.jo
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1802 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Introduction

One of the biggest changes that the organizations face nowadays is the shift in
the world’s economy from a base of financial to intangible assets (Scarborough,
2012). Knowledge has become a crucial asset for gaining and sustaining a com-
petitive advantage (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Lee et al., 2016; Torabi & Elden,
2017). Thus, the key is putting this knowledge to good use and managing it in
a way that creates value for organizations (Wiig, 1997a). Effective knowledge
management (KM) is is one of the main foundations of an organization’s success
in the twenty-first century (Wiig, 1997b). KM is the process of defining, creat-
ing, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge (Van Buren, 1999). The goal of this
process is to plan, implement, operate, and monitor all knowledge-related activi-
ties to enhance organizational performance (Wiig, 1997a; Cabrilo and Dahms,
2018). Since KM is an integrated approach to creating, sharing, and applying
all of an organization’s knowledge assets, the two key concepts exploitation and
exploration in knowledge management are equally important and require a bal-
ance between them (Dhir & Dhir, 2018; Sherif et al., 2013). KM enablers should
facilitate knowledge processes that would allow recipients to effectively interpret
knowledge with the same meaning that was expressed by a source (Alavi & Lei-
dner, 2001; Wu & Lee, 2017; Khosravi & Nilashi, 2018). Human factors such
as human resources management practice, employee empowerment, and perfor-
mance are recognized as KM enablers in extant literature (Oltra, 2005; Chong,
2006). In this vein, the essential factor for organizational survival and superior
performance is human resources empowerment and performance. Thus, linking
KM to employee empowerment and performance can boost organization perfor-
mance (Hasani, Sheikhesmaeili, 2016).
Academic literature has long examined the link between various aspects of
knowledge management process and performance as well as empowerment.
For instance, at the individual level, studies have investigated the effect of KM
process on employees’ work performance (Alyoubi et al., 2018), the relation-
ship between knowledge sharing and psychological empowerment (Feiz, soltani,
and Farsizadeh, 2019), and the link between KM processes (knowledge crea-
tion, acquisition, storage, sharing, and application) and employee empowerment
(Hasani, Sheikhesmaeili, 2016). At the organizational level, the relationship
between KM processes and public sector firm performance has been analyzed
(Ahbabi et al., 2019).
The existing literature on KM focuses on KM processes rather than KM prac-
tices, focusing on studying the KM process (Inkine, 2016) has been seen as insuf-
ficient to fully reflect the influence of knowledge on institutional development.
Examining practices of KM, in turn, provides better insights on how KM contrib-
utes to creating organizational value. The success of KM is largely affected by the
organizational practices and systems through which KM goals can be achieved.
These practices are considered a crucial mechanism for creating organizational
values (Marqués and Simón, 2006). Creating organizations values and develop-
ment depend on the organization investment in managing the knowledge that is

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1803

mostly possessed and applied by individuals, which can help increase employee
performance (Torabi et al., 2016; Mustapa and Mahmood, 2016) and empower-
ment (Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili, 2016). However, there is a shortage of empiri-
cal studies on the interrelations between KM practices exploration and exploi-
tation, and employee performance and empowerment in the existing literature,
especially in knowledge-intensive entities such as higher education.
The goal of assimilating KM practices (KM practices exploration and exploita-
tion) into organizational processes is to reap the full benefits of KM initiatives and
gain significant business value (Al-Mahaseneh and Harb, 2022). To fill this gap, the
present study seeks to empirically examine the relationships between KM practices
exploration and exploitation, and employees’ individual performance and empow-
erment. It also investigates the mediating effect of employee empowerment on the
relationships between KM practices exploration and exploitation, and employee per-
formance. By examining both exploration (the dissemination of KM practices within
an organization) and exploitation (the learning activities or experiences involving
the use of KM practices), this research will enhance the understanding of solutions
to improve employee performance and competencies.

KM Practices in Higher Education

Effective KM is widely recognized as a crucial driver of new information and ideas

and is a critical issue in all types of organizations, profit or non-profit (Omotayo,
2015). In today’s knowledge economy, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are
key places for creation and sharing productive knowledge (Elrehail et al., 2018). As
knowledge-intensive entities (Howell and Annansingh, 2013), universities are con-
sidered as a zone of knowledge and play an important role in developing the capa-
bilities of faculty members, staff, and students through effective KM practices (She-
habat, Harb, and Zahrawi, 2020). Thus, effective KM in these institutions is crucial
in shaping their strategies to achieve their objectives. Nowadays, adopting more KM
strategies is crucial for HEIs to address growing demands for transparency, competi-
tiveness, and quality (Quarchioni et al., 2020, p. 1).
The broad approach to knowledge management in Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) significantly affects knowledge development and sharing in the academic
community (Iqbal et al., 2019). Hence, implementing KM practices can enhance
the overall performance of these institutions (Hossain et al., 2013). A study by Sha-
rimilah Devi et al. (2008) emphasized that for organizations to remain competi-
tively resilient, they must focus on sharing and applying organizational knowledge
and expertise. The authors argue that establishing a KM system within HEIs is cru-
cial for identifying, transforming, evaluating, and sharing academic institutional
knowledge, which will provide these institutions with a competitive advantage and
improve their dynamics (Choi and Lee, 2003). Furthermore, providing knowledge
to employees within an organization is considered a primary source of competitive
advantage, and improving this knowledge allows the organization to maintain its
advantage for longer periods (Mahmood et al., 2020). Thus, the relationship between
knowledge management and performance is a significant concern for researchers

13
1804 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

and practitioners, and more research is needed to clarify this relationship (Rezaei,
Khalilzadeh, and Soleimani, 2021).
There are growing studies on KM in HEIs. For instance, Sahibzada et al., (2020)
examined the impact of knowledge management processes on organizational per-
formance in context of HEIs. The findings revealed that KM processes have a direct
and significant impact on organizational performance, as well as an indirect impact
via creative organizational learning. Similarly, Iqbal et al., (2019) investigated the
direct impact of KM processes on organizational performance in higher educa-
tion. The findings indicated that KM processes have a direct and indirect impact on
organizational performance through innovation and intellectual capital.
Despite the presence of such significant evidence of the role of KM in HEIs, the
literature is still in its early stage and inadequate research studies have verified the
association of KM practices exploration and exploitation toward performance at the
individual level in HEIs. In a similar vein, insufficient empirical research has been
conducted to investigate the direct and indirect effect of assimilating KM practices
on the individual performance of HEIs. The majority of information relevant to the
indirect impact of individual empowerment on the relationship between KM prac-
tices exploration and exploitation and individual performance is almost silent.
To fill these gaps in the literature, this study aims to examine KM and its prac-
tices in HEIs, which will contribute to a better understanding of how these organiza-
tions operate (Quarchioni et al., 2020). The following research questions are pro-
posed based on identified gaps in existing research: Do KM practices exploration
and exploitation have an impact on employees’ empowerment and performance in
HEIs? Does employees’ empowerment mediate the relationship between KM prac-
tices exploration and exploitation and employees’ performance in HEIs?
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we discuss the
research background and hypotheses. In the third section, we outline the research
methodology and present the results. Discussion and conclusions are illustrated in
the last two sections.

Research Background and Hypothesis

KM and its Practices: Contributions at the Individual Level

It has been over 30 years since Karl Wiig coined the KM term in 1986 (Beckman
1999). Increasingly, the field of KM has experienced unprecedented growth since
the 1980s, and more recently, it has become a core element of organizational strate-
gies (Barclay and Murray 1997; Beckman 1999). During this time, several scholars
have suggested multiple perspectives to define KM, leading to a multitude of defi-
nitions in the literature. These definitions have originated from diverse disciplines
such as social science, management science, artificial intelligence, and knowledge
engineering, shaping the concept of KM (Barclay and Murray 1997).
While KM has been defined in different ways, some definitions clearly point out
KM’s contributions to organizational success. For example, a survey of the 100
top European companies indicated that the most widely adopted definition of KM

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1805

among these companies is that KM is a ‘collection of processes that govern the crea-
tion, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge to fulfill organizational objectives’
(Cranfield School of Management, 1998 in Mertins et al. 2003, p.14). It is widely
believed that KM is a crucial factor for organizations to compete and drive growth
in the market (Giampaoli et al., 2017; Marqués and Simón, 2006). The idea is that
effective knowledge management affects various aspects of an organization (McK-
een et al., 2006). Thus, in terms of management philosophy, organizational activi-
ties, and technological methods, KM has highly penetrated the managerial rhetoric
and practice (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012). This is due to the belief that KM can
make a difference in an organization’s development. From this perspective, KM is
seen as ‘the formalization of and access to experience, knowledge, and expertise
that create new capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation and
enhance customer value’ (Beckman, 1999). This links KM to value creation; such
value lies in the relevance of knowledge and its effective and efficient management
contribute to organizational competitiveness, performance (Andreeva and Kianto,
2012) and innovation (e.g., Inkine, 2016; Donate et al., 2015; Gloet and Terziovski,
2004; Darroch and McNaughton, 2002).
Knowledge management in organizations typically has two foci: knowledge
management processes and knowledge management practices (Inkine, 2016). KM
processes focus on the process of acquiring, converting, and applying knowledge
and how this process takes place within a firm (Inkine, 2016). KM practices, by
contrast, focus on the organization’s activities that support the management process
of knowledge for organizational benefits (e.g., organizational competitiveness and
performance) (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012; Al-Mahaseneh and Harb, 2022). Study-
ing KM processes reflects a knowledge-based picture of an organization, i.e., how
knowledge is utilized and used in the organization. However, this does not give rich
insights into the potential contributions of knowledge and its management activi-
ties (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012). Thus, to examine KM activities and their benefits
for knowledge- intensive entities, such as higher education institutions, this current
study focuses on KM practices.
Within the literature, it seems that the role of KM practices in organizational
performance is very evident (e.g., Inkine, 2016; Kianto et al., 2014; Marqués and
Simón, 2006; Schiuma et al., 2012). This role has been widely examined at the
organizational level with a notable shortage of studies at the individual level. Prac-
tically, organizational performance ultimately relies on an individual performance,
and KM at the individual level is expected to facilitate the effectiveness of KM at
the organizational level (Sabherwal and Becerra-Fernandez, 2003). This study, thus,
moves down to the individual level and aims to contribute to the literature through
developing a better understanding of KM practices contribution in creating values
for individuals in higher education.
Hislop (2009) links KM with the use of internal sources of knowledge, such as
information communication technologies (ICT) and firm policy and strategy to man-
age the knowledge of employees. These KM activities at the individual level have
the potential contribution to improve their performance (North and Kumta, 2018)
and facilitate their empowerment (Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili, 2016). By investing
in implanting knowledge and its practices, organizations create an environment for

13
1806 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

employees’ superior performance (North and Kumta, 2018; Marqués and Simón,
2006). These organizations usually employ a set of practices to manage the knowl-
edge that is mostly possessed and applied by individuals. Hence, KM’s provision
of knowledge and its practices in organizations serves as a means for improving the
knowledge processes, where all types of knowledge contribute to improving indi-
vidual work performance and thereby, organizational performance (Henttonen et al.,
2016; Torabi et al., 2016). Although the recent debate around the role of KM in
organizations has become more complex (Torabi et al., 2016), there is a general
agreement that KM plays a significant role in enhancing employee performance
(Torabi et al., 2016; Mustapa and Mahmood, 2016).
At the individual level, KM also serves as an organizational mechanism to
empower employees (Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili, 2016; Haghighi et al., 2014).
Empowerment refers to the “process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among
organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster pow-
erlessness and through their removal by both formal organizational practices and
informal techniques of providing efficacy information” (Conger and Kanungo, 1988,
p474). To energize and sustain employee behavior, studies indicate some cognitions
as the basis for employee empowerment: effectiveness (an individual’s autonomy to
make a difference in the performance outcomes), competence (individual’s ability to
perform their tasks well), meaningfulness (individual’s intrinsic motivation), auton-
omy (perceived opportunity for decision-making) (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999).
Considering these elements of empowerment, Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili (2016)
noted that employee empowerment can be increased through KM, where empower-
ment is far-fetched without knowledge.
Despite many studies investigating the impact of KM and its processes on per-
formance (e.g., Henttonen et al., 2016; Masa’deh et al., 2017), there is a lack of
evidence on how assimilating the practices of KM affect performance, particularly
the job performance of individuals who possess and apply knowledge. Moreover,
literature has proven that KM processes can increase the employee empowerment
(Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili 2016). However, the relationship between assimilating
KM practices and employee empowerment is absent.

Knowledge Exploration and Exploitation

To invoke organizational values from its knowledge, organizations employ explora-

tive and exploitive practices (March, 1991). These practices encompass both tech-
nological and human-related practices (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012; Hansen et al.,
1999). Technological practices for KM include technological information systems
that are concerned with facilitating communication and information processing,
such as information technologies that support management decisions and knowl-
edge work, KM systems and tools, knowledge sharing tools, and knowledge reposi-
tory. Human-related practices for KM focus on managing employees as an essen-
tial source of knowledge (Andreeva and Kianto, 2012). Examples of such practices
include a reward system for motivating knowledge sharing and creation as well as
workforce retention.

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1807

The organizational technological and human-related KM activities can be utilized

to spread the number of KM practices, i.e., knowledge exploration, as well as to
capture the longevity or the degree of experience when employing a specific KM
practice, i.e., knowledge exploitation. KM studies argue that organizations can gain
significant value from adopting and implementing more KM practices and exploit-
ing them in ongoing work processes (Gray, 2001; Purvis et al., 2001). However, it
is noted that while there are some investigations into the relationship between KM
practices and performance in organizations, there is a neglect of the KM practices
spread and longevity and their organizational values, particularly at the individual
level. This study is on filling this gap by examining KM practice, exploration and
exploitation, and their impact on the individual level, i.e., how they relate to improv-
ing individuals’ performance and facilitating their empowerment.

Knowledge Exploration

Knowledge exploration is defined as the exploration of new possibilities of knowl-

edge management practices (Gray, 2001). It is a tool for introducing radical inno-
vations in an organization and helping extend existing product competencies (Voss
et al., 2008). This implies the organization’s ability to apply new knowledge rather
than just how to use current knowledge more efficiently (Liu, 2006). In this sense,
increasing the KM practices that are being utilized cumulatively in organizations
would improve the job performance of individuals (Harb, 2017) and creates a more
empowering work environment. For instance, broadening the scope of KM prac-
tices, such as a database of best practices, lessons learned, manuals of training,
etc., would contribute to increasing the timely access to information, supporting the
employees’ internal communication, and collaboration and enhancing the ability to
obtain prompt feedback. This, in turn, stimulates ideas and learning (Harb, 2017).
Thus, in this study, knowledge exploration is more related to an organization’s abil-
ity to adopt a wider range of KM practices in the workplace. The potential value of
applying various new practices could be achieved by enabling individuals to gener-
ate innovative solutions to work issues (Luo and Ling, 2013). Through explorative
usage, employees have the opportunity to experiment with new work alternatives
and apply them (March, 1991), thereby enhancing work performance and create a
favorable work environment that empowers them. Therefore, this study suggests the
following hypotheses:

H1a: A higher level of KM practices exploration in an organization will most

likely lead to a higher level of employee empowerment.
H1b: A higher level of KM practices exploration in an organization will most
likely lead to a higher level of employee performance.

Knowledge Exploitation

Exploitation refers to ‘the assimilation of existing knowledge management practices

in organizations’ (Gray, 2001). It reflects a greater assimilation focus (Setia et al.,
2011) and includes elements such as ‘refinement, choice, production, efficiency,

13
1808 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

selection, implementation, and execution’ (March, 1991). In addition to imple-

menting new KM practices, organizations must also sustain their use over time to
improve the work environment. This highlights the importance of both adopting a
diverse range of KM practices and enhancing exploitation of these practices in order
to achieve greater improvement in job performance and work environment (Harb,
2017). In this study, pertains to an individual’s level of exposure (i.e., usage period)
to KM practices in performing tasks. Over time, as employees gain more experi-
ence and develop new skills, they become more proficient in these KM practices,
and their internal learning and ability to share and create new knowledge would
enhance. Consequently, KM longevity has a potential contribution to create superior
job performance and conditions to enhance individual empowerment in organiza-
tions. Therefore, this study suggests the following hypotheses:

H2a: A higher level of KM practices exploitation will most likely lead to a higher
level of employee empowerment.
H2b: A higher level of KM practices exploitation will most likely lead to a higher
level of employee performance.

Employee Psychological Empowerment and Job Performance

Employee job performance refers to the extent to which an employee fulfills their duties
and responsibilities (Shields et al., 2015). Studies found several factors that contribute to
the individual’s job performance, such as recognition and appreciation, organizational
culture, and employee empowerment. Employee empowerment, also referred to as psy-
chological empowerment, is linked to the intrinsic motivation and involves employee’s
self-perception of their ability, autonomy, work environment impact, and job significance
(Seibert et al., 2011). Employee psychological empowerment has been recognized as
an essential contributor to individual job performance and in turn to organizational suc-
cess in organizational behavior literature (Danit & Menon, 2012). Shih and Tasi (2016)
suggest that empowerment aims to improve employees’ attitudes towards their jobs and
organizations, causing them to perform better, which is also applicable to their moral and
psychological well-being. Studies have found that psychological empowerment positively
impacts job performance by boosting employee motivation, commitment, productiv-
ity, and satisfaction (Ahmad & Manzoor, 2017; Hewagama et al., 2019). Spreitzer et al.
(1999) proposed a four-dimensional framework, including meaning, competence, self-
determination, and impact, to conceptualize psychological empowerment. In line with
this framework, this study adopts the four dimensions to operationalize the concept of
psychological empowerment and suggests the following hypotheses:

H3: A higher level of employee empowerment will most likely lead to a higher
level of employee performance.

Previous research suggested that employees’ feelings of empowerment increase

their willingness to contribute to improving their work performance. The research by
Abualoush et al. (2018) found that knowledge management, through the mediating fac-
tor of empowerment, has a significant positive effect on employee performance in the

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1809

pharmaceutical industry. Similarly, a study by Hameed et al. (2020) argued that green
employee empowerment mediates the relationship between green human resource man-
agement practices and employees’ environmental performance. They built their case on
the theory of social exchange, which states that employees are more likely to reciprocate
favorable behavior toward the environment when they perceive benefits from organiza-
tional actions. This theory, as described by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), suggests that
social exchange involves actions that are dependent on the rewarding reactions of others
and lead to mutually beneficial transactions and relationships over time. The current study
proposes employee empowerment as a mediator between KM practices exploration and
exploitation and employees’ performance. Based on the theory of social exchange, when
employees feel empowered through KM practices, they feel inclined to improve their per-
formance as a form of reciprocation. These arguments provide theoretical support for the
proposed role of employee empowerment as a mediator between KM practices explora-
tion and exploitation and employees’ performance. As a result, this study suggests the
following hypotheses. The research model is presented in Fig. 1.

H4: Employee empowerment mediates the relationship between KM practices

exploration and employee performance.
H5: Employee empowerment mediates the relationship between KM practices
exploitation and employee performance.

Research Method

Sample

This research investigates the influence of KM practices exploitation and exploration

on Employee performance and empowerment. The sample population consists of fac-
ulty members and administrative staff at private and public universities in Jordan. The
data were collected by a questionnaire method using a convenience sampling tech-
nique. Researchers made phone calls and sent emails to the head of departments to

Fig. 1  Research model

13
1810 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

explain the purpose of the study and to solicit support for this study. Using an online
survey tool, we sent the link of the questionnaire along with the purpose of the study
and the necessary confidentiality information to the universities that agreed to partici-
pate in the study. Of the responded cases, 163 valid questionnaires were used in this
study. The respondents consisted of 31 faculty members, 118 administrative staff, and
14 are both faculty members and hold an administrative position.
Table 1 presents the demographic detail of respondents. Results of descriptive
statistics show that 52.8% of the respondents are male and 47.2% are female. Also,
44.2% are under 36 years of age, 52.8% are between 36 and 55 years old, and 3.1% are
over 55 years old. Besides, 4.3% have a high school education, 14.1% have a diploma,
34.4% have a bachelor’s degree, 19.6 % have a master’s degree, and 27.6% have a PhD.
The table also shows the position and years of experience of respondents.

Measures

The research model consists of four constructs: KM practices exploitation and KM prac-
tices exploration as independent variables, performance, and empowerment as dependent
variables. The questionnaire used in this study to gather data and test the research hypoth-
eses consists of 39 questions related to KM practices exploitation (in two dimensions:
ICT KM practices exploitation, and HRM KM practices exploitation), KM practices

Table 1  Demographic detail of Variable N %

respondents
Gender Male 86 52.8
Female 77 47.2
Age Group Less than 25 years 8 4.9
25-35 years 64 39.3
36-45 years 65 39.9
46-55 years 21 12.9
More than 55 years 5 3.1
Educational level High school 7 4.3
Diploma 23 14.1
Bachelor 56 34.4
Master 32 19.6
PhD 45 27.6
Current position Faculty member 31 19
Administrative staff 118 72.4
Faculty member and 14 8.6
Years of experience Less than 2 years 9 5.5
2-4 years 16 9.8
5-10 years 63 38.7
11-15 years 30 18.4
16-20 years 20 12.3
More than 20 years 25 15.3

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1811

exploration (in two dimensions: ICT KM practices exploration, and HRM KM prac-
tices exploration), performance, and empowerment (in four dimensions: competency,
autonomy, job meaningfulness, and effectiveness). Content validity of the survey items
was based on previous relevant studies. In particular, to assess measure performance, the
Perceived Performance Impact Questionnaire by Goodhue and Thompson (1995) was
utilized. The questionnaire by Spreitzer (1995) and Feiz, soltani, and Farsizadeh, (2019)
was used to assess empowerment. To assess KM practices exploitation, the questionnaire
by Luo and Ling (2013) was utilized, and the questionnaires by Singh et al. (2006) and
Andreeva and Kianto (2012) were employed to measure KM practices exploration with
slight modifications to fit the research context.
The measurement items were further evaluated for ease of understanding, clarity,
and appropriateness by pretest students who took a knowledge management course.
The pilot sample was excluded from the study sample. We also consulted some fac-
ulty members and administrative staff who have expertise in the KM domain about
the survey items. Minor modifications were made to the questionnaire based on the
suggestions and comments we received.
It is worth noting that because this study used a single administration survey meth-
odology, it is necessary to assess the common method bias (Tehseen, Ramayah, & Saji-
lan, 2017). As a result, we used the correlation matrix procedure to evaluate the effect
of common method bias (Tehseen et al., 2017). If the correlation between constructs
are greater than 0.9, the common method bias will be an issue. The latent variable cor-
relations in this study are depicted in Table 2. The correlations between all constructs
were found to be less than 0.9, as shown in Table 2. As a result, common method bias
is not an issue in this study.

Results

The current study is an exploratory investigation into a specific phenomenon, there-

for, the questionnaire was used to understand employees’ perspectives and experiences
with KM practices. When the goal of the study is to predict and explain key target

Table 2  Latent variable correlations

Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

HRM_Exploration 1
ICT_Exploration .742 1
Exploitation_HRM -.378 -.207 1
Expliotation_ICT -.392 -.259 .687 1
Competence .221 .601 .104 .139 1
Autonomy .612 .652 -.231 -.078 .564 1
Effectiveness .572 .667 -.139 -.103 .593 .696 1
Meaningfulness .291 .637 .053 .027 .855 .530 .625 1
Performance .402 .611 .008 -.033 .664 .482 .497 .629 1

13
1812 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

constructs, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) would be the
appropriate choice to use (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore, in this study, to test the relation-
ships between the research model constructs, we used partial least squares (PLS) using
SmartPLS (Hair et al., 2014). The analysis was divided into two parts: the measure-
ment model and the structural model (Hair et al., 2014). In the measurement model,
validity and reliability results were reported for the research measurement items. Then,
paths significance between the model constructs were estimated in the structural model.

The Measurement Model

The measurement model was evaluated for its reliability (internal consistency reliabil-
ity and indicator reliability), convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Internal consistency reliability was assessed by composite reliability. As shown in
Table 3, the resulting values of composite reliability ranged from 0.90 to 0.97, which
are above the acceptable threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1970).
Indicator reliability was evaluated by examining standardized outer loading. As
shown in Table 2, the loadings for all measurement items on their respective constructs
are between 0.56 and 1, which is considered acceptable. This shows that the measure-
ment items or indicators have got enough reliability.
To evaluate convergent validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) was used. The
AVE values for all constructs were above the threshold value of 0.5 (see Table 3) (Hair
et al., 2014).
The third criterion to examine the measurement model is discriminant validity.
Fornell and Larcker test was used (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). According to this test,
the square root of the AVEs for a construct should be higher than its correlation with
other constructs. One indicator of HRM exploration was deleted to resolve discriminant
validity issues. Thus, as reported in Table 4, none of the correlations is greater than the
square root of AVE for each single construct. Thus, this shows that all constructs are
empirically distinct.
Taken together, the results of the measurement model evaluation provide evidence
for the reliability and validity of our constructs.

The Results of the Structural Model

In this section, we describe the relationships between the research model constructs.
Table 5 displays path coefficients and their significance levels (p-values). As shown
in Table 5, the following relationships in the structural model are statistically signifi-
cant: KM practices exploration has a direct positive effect on employee performance
with p <0.05. P-value between KM practices exploration and employee empower-
ment is less than 0.001, suggesting that KM practices exploration has a direct posi-
tive effect on empowerment. Results also show that KM practices exploitation has
a direct positive impact on employee empowerment with a p-value less than 0.001.
However, the link between KM practices exploitation and employee performance is
not supported, with a p-value greater than 0.05. Further, the results provide evidence

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1813

Table 3
Construct Dimension Items Loadings Composite AVE
reliability

KM practices exploration HRM_Exploration HRM1 0.76 0.94 0.51

HRM2 0.79
HRM3 0.71
HRM4 0.80
HRM5 0.56
HRM6 0.82
HRM7 0.84
HRM9 0.75
HRM10 0.68
HRM11 0.81
HRM12 0.82
ICT_Exploration ICT1 0.61
ICT2 0.79
ICT3 0.81
ICT4 0.82
ICT5 0.77
ICT6 0.79
KM practices exploitation HRM_exploitation HRM_Exploitation* 1 0.90 0.82
ICT_ exploitation ICT_Exploitation* 1
Performance Performance1 0.97 0.97 0.93
Performance2 0.97
Performance3 0.94
Empowerment Competence Competence 1 0.94 0.95 0.59
Competence 2 0.80
Competence 3 0.93
Competence 4 0.96
Autonomy Autonomy 1 0.88
Autonomy 2 0.90
Autonomy 3 0.91
Autonomy 4 0.81
Meaningfulness Meaningfulness 1 0.92
Meaningfulness 2 0.96
Meaningfulness 3 0.95
Meaningfulness 4 0.94
Effectiveness Effectiveness 1 0.83
Effectiveness 2 0.85
Effectiveness 3 0.89
Effectiveness 4 0.78

*Represents single item measures

13
1814 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Table 4  Fornell-Larcker criterion

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 HRM_Exploration 0.77
2 ICT_Exploration 0.75 0.77
3 HRM_ exploitation -0.38 -0.13 1
4 ICT_ exploitation -0.39 -0.25 0.65 1
5 Competence 0.21 0.59 0.10 0.13 0.91
6 Autonomy 0.61 0.64 -0.22 -0.06 0.55 0.88
7 Meaningfulness 0.29 0.62 0.05 0.03 0.85 0.52 0.94
8 Effectiveness 0.57 0.66 -0.13 -0.09 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.84

*The data on the diagonal is the square root of AVE of the construct.

of the positive impact of employee empowerment on employee performance with a

p-value less than 0.001.
The indirect effect of KM practices exploration on employee performance
through employee empowerment is positive and significant with p <0.001. Thus,
Hypothesis 4 is supported. Also, Hypothesis 5 regarding the indirect effect of KM
practices exploitation on employee performance through employee empowerment is
supported with p <0.01.
Table 6 displays the R square and Square Adjusted of the dependent variables.
The R Square Adjusted of empowerment was 0.465 and 0.465 of performance.
These results indicate that the model is sound in terms of the explained variance of
the dependent variables.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

A skilled human workforce, capable of performing their tasks effectively and effi-
ciently, is a critical factor in the development and progress of organizations. Empow-
ering and enhancing individual performance requires a supportive environment
within the organization to achieve maximum productivity and efficiency. Previous
research has suggested that knowledge management activities can foster employee
empowerment and improve performance (e.g., Feiz, soltani, and Farsizadeh, 2019).
Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the impact of KM practices exploration
and exploitation on employees’ individual performance and empowerment. The first
theoretical contribution of this study is to link the relationship between KM prac-
tices exploration and exploitation with employee performance and empowerment.
As previously noted, existing studies proposed that KM practices have positive
impact on organizational performance. Our study extends the literature by offering
new insights at the individual level. We found that KM practices exploration and
exploitation have a statistically significant positive effect on both employee per-
formance and empowerment in the higher education context. Our result is in line

13
 Table 5  Path coefficients, T-value, P-value
Hypotheses Path Original Sample T Statistics P Values Results

H1a KM Practices Exploration -> Performance 0.240 2.066 0.039 Accepted

H2a KM Practices Exploitation -> Performance 0.083 1.223 0.222 Rejected
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

H1b KM Practices Exploration -> Empowerment 0.737 15.815 0.000 Accepted

H2b KM Practices Exploitation -> Empowerment 0.249 4.213 0.000 Accepted
H3 Empowerment -> Performance 0.516 4.638 0.000 Accepted
H4 KM Practices Exploration -> Empowerment -> Performance 0.383 4.680 0.000 Accepted
H5 KM Practices Exploitation -> Empowerment -> Performance 0.133 3.060 0.002 Accepted
1815

13
1816 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Table 6  R square values R Square R Square

Adjusted

Empowerment 0.471 0.465

Performance 0.475 0.465

with extant studies (e.g., Zhang et al., 2022), which also found that both employee
exploration, referring to an individual’s ability to develop and experiment with new
knowledge, skills, and opportunities within their work tasks, and employee exploita-
tion, relating to an individual’s capability to refine and enhance existing knowledge
and skills in their work tasks, have a positive impact on task performance. This sup-
ports the notion that activities related to knowledge management can create a sup-
portive environment for universities to improve the performance and empowerment
of their employees. This also provides further evidence of the value of knowledge
management activities in improving organizational performance and competencies
(Feiz, soltani, and Farsizadeh, 2019).
The second contribution of this study is the mediating role of employee
empowerment. As shown in the result section, the hypothesized relationship
between KM practices exploitation and employee performance was not sup-
ported. Although it may seem logical that KM practices exploitation would
have a direct influence on employee performance, this study does not confirm
this hypothesis. This may be because employee psychological empowerment
serves as a mediator in the relationship between KM practices exploitation
and employee performance. In other words, KM practices exploitation does
not directly influence employee performance. but rather empowers employees,
leading to improved performance. Existing studies advocated that KM practices
are used to create, share, and apply knowledge in order to achieve employee
empowerment (e.g., Hasani, Sheikhesmaeili, 2016). Similarly, a recent study by
Hendrawijaya (2019) found that employee empowerment mediates the effect of
knowledge (education) on employee performance. In this context, empowering
concerns with strengthening individuals and boosting their self-confidence to
overcome their inability (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990).

Practical Implications

This study found a positive significant association between employee empowerment

and performance. A stream of research postulated that employee performance is pre-
dicted by empowerment (e.g., Degago 2014; Saleem et al., 2019). An empowered
employee leads to improved work quality, commitment, and performance. Some
of the potential benefits of psychological empowerment (competence, autonomy,
meaningfulness, and effectiveness) include deeper understanding of one’s job role
in the organization, increased their confidence and commitment levels, and high job
performance. Worth noting, leveraging employee performance through employee
empowerment, considering the strategies of implementing KM initiatives, is a

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1817

strategic importance in organizations as individual performance of an employee

contributes to organizational performance. Practically, businesses need employees
with high performance who can perform their job tasks effectively and efficiently to
remain competitive (Saleem et al., 2019).
Additionally, in this study, we estimated the impact of both types of KM
practices (HRM and ICT practices) on employee performance and empower-
ment. Previous literature (e.g., Andreeva and Kianto, 2012) suggest that to
reap the potential benefits from KM practices, organizations should use both
types of KM practices in a complementary manner to enhance knowledge shar-
ing and creation. Since the area of knowledge management is vital and of high
importance to organizations, it is suggested to have the required practices for
facilitating aspects of knowledge management including creating, sharing, and
applying knowledge among employees (Feiz, soltani, and Farsizadeh, 2019).
Practically, we suggest that universities can establish appropriate policies to
adapt and assimilate both ICT and HRM practices to empower their employ-
ees and leverage their performance. ICT practices include systems and tools
for facilitating the process of communicating ideas and solutions, conducting
research and collaborating with peers and experts, such as knowledge sharing
tools, knowledge repository, and information technologies to support manage-
ment decisions and knowledge work. At the level of HRM practices, universi-
ties need to focus on using various KM tools and systems such as reward sys-
tems for motivating knowledge sharing and creation.

Conclusion

To conclude, this study contributes to the literature on knowledge management by

extending the understanding of how ICT and HRM KM practices are related to
individual performance and empowerment and provide empirical evidence on the
impact of KM practices exploration and exploitation on employee performance and
empowerment in the context of higher education.

Limitations

This research is not without limitations. Firstly, the study has a sample limita-
tion. Particularly, the results mainly obtained from the universities context and
the survey sample size is relatively small. To still get a robust result, the study
used PLS-PM which is well known to perform better for small sample size than
traditional SEM approach. Additionally, there was an imbalance of partici-
pants’ positions (72.4 were administrative staff). Lastly, the survey responses
were self-reported by universities employees, and the single data source may
result in common method bias. However, the findings indicated that common
method bias was not an issue in this study. To better address this issue, future
studies could collect data from various data sources.

13
1818 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Future Study

Due to the limitations of this study, we recommend that future researchers expand
the sample and study the research model in other contexts or industries. Triangu-
late data from different universities, contexts, and time periods can provide a more
exhaustive view of KM practices. Moreover, the indirect relationship between KM
practices exploration and exploitation and employee performance should be fur-
ther investigated through some other relevant mediators in the knowledge-intensive
industry such as organizational culture, organizational learning, and technology uti-
lization. It is recommended that future research replicate this study in different cul-
tures such as western culture to validate the findings and gain a deeper understand-
ing of how knowledge management practices can be adapted to different cultural
contexts and how they impact performance in those cultures. Additionally, compar-
ing and contrasting the effects of KM practices across cultures can provide valuable
insights into how knowledge management can be implemented in an effective and
culturally sensitive way.

References
Abualoush, S. H., Obeidat, A. M., Tarhini, A., & Al-Badi, A. (2018). The role of employees’ empow-
erment as an intermediary variable between knowledge management and information systems on
employees’ performance. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems,
2(48), 217–237.
Ahmad, I., & Manzoor, S. R. (2017). Effect of teamwork, employee empowerment and training on
employee performance. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sci-
ences, 7(11), 380–394.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits.
Communications of the AIS, 1(2es), 1.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management sys-
tems: conceptual foundations and research issues. Management Information Systems Quarterly,
25(1), 107–136.
Al Ahbabi, S. A., Singh, S. K., Balasubramanian, S., & Gaur, S. S. (2019). Employee perception of
impact of knowledge management processes on public sector performance. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 23(2), 351–373.
Al-Mahaseneh, S., & Harb, Y. (2022). The Assimilation of ICT Knowledge Management Practices in
Organizations: an Empirical Study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1–28.
Alyoubi, B., Hoque, M. R., Alharbi, I., Alyoubi, A., & Almazmomi, N. (2018). Impact of Knowledge
Management on Employee Work Performance: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. The International
Technology Management Review, 7(1), 13–24.
Andreeva, T., & Kianto, A. (2012). Does knowledge management really matter? Linking knowledge
management practices, competitiveness and economic performance. Journal of Knowledge Manage-
ment, 16(4), 617–636.
Barclay, R. O., & Murray, P. C. (1997). What is knowledge management? Knowledge Praxis, 19.
Beckman, T. (1999). The current state of knowledge management. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge
Management Handbook. CRC Press.
Cabrilo, S., & Dahms, S. (2018). How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to
superior innovation and market performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(3), 621–648.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate perfor-
mance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403–417.
Chong, S. C. (2006). KM critical sucess factors: A comparison of perceived importance versus imple-
mentation in Malaysian ICT companies. The Learning Organization, 13(3), 230–256.

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1819

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Danit, A., & Menon, K. (2012). New dimensions of decisional HR practices. International Journal of
Business and Strategy, 9(2), 76.
Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge management practices
and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 210–222.
Degago, E. (2014). A study on impact of psychological empowerment on employee performance in small
and medium scale enterprise sectors. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(27), 60–72.
Dhir, S., & Dhir, S. (2018). Role of ambidexterity and learning capability in firm performance. VINE
Journal of Informationand Knowledge Management Systems, 48(4).
Donate, M. J., & de Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge man-
agement practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370.
Elrehail, H., Emeagwali, O. L., Alsaad, A., & Alzghoul, A. (2018). The impact of transformational and
authentic leadership on innovation in higher education: the contingent role of knowledge sharing.
Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 55–67.
Feiz, D., Dehghani Soltani, M., & Farsizadeh, H. (2019). The effect of knowledge sharing on the psycho-
logical empowerment in higher education mediated by organizational memory. Studies in Higher
Education, 44(1), 3–19.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
00222​43781​01800​104
Giampaoli, D., Ciambotti, M., & Bontis, N. (2017). Knowledge management, problem solving and per-
formance in top Italian firms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 355–375.
Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices
and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402–409.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quar-
terly, 19(2), 213–236.
Gray, P. (2001). A problem-Solving Perspective on Knowledge Management Practices. Decision Support
Systems, 31(1), 87–102.
Haghighi, M. A., Tabarsa, G. A., & Kameli, B. (2014). Investigation the Relationship between Knowl-
edge Management Processes and Empowerment of Human Resources. Global Journal of Manage-
ment Studies and Researches, 1(2), 122–130.
Hair Jr., J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2),
107–123.
Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Assessing PLS-SEM Results Part I A
primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
Hameed, Z., Khan, I. U., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., & Naeem, R. M. (2020). Do green HRM practices
influence employees’ environmental performance? International Journal of Manpower, 41(7),
1061–1079.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? (pp.
106–116). Harvard Business Review.
Harb, Y. (2017, September). Performance Impacts of Knowledge Management Practices Exploration
and Exploitation. In European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 1282–1285). Academic
Conferences International Limited.
Hasani, K., & Sheikhesmaeili, S. (2016). Knowledge management and employee empowerment: A study
of higher education institutions. Kybernetes, 45(2), 337–355.
Hendrawijaya, A. T. (2019). Demographic factors and employee performance: The mediating effect of
employee empowerment. Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, 34(2).
Henttonen, K., Kianto, A., & Ritala, P. (2016). Knowledge sharing and individual work performance: an
empirical study of a public sector organisation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(4), 749–768.
Hewagama, G., Boxall, P., Cheung, G., & Hutchison, A. (2019). Service recovery through empower-
ment? HRM, employee performance and job satisfaction in hotels. International Journal of Hospi-
tality Management, 81, 73–82.
Hislop, D. (2009). Knowledge management in organizations (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

13
1820 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Hossain, L., Atkinson, S. R., D’Eredita, M., & Wigand, R. T. (2013, March). Towards a Mech-Organic
Perspective for Knowledge Sharing Networks in Organizations. In UKAIS (p. 16).
Howell, K. E., & Annansingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in UK universities: a tale of
two cultures? International journal of information management, 33(1), 32–39.
Inkinen, H. (2016). Review of empirical research on knowledge management practices and firm perfor-
mance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(2), 230–257.
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U. F., & Hussain, S. (2019). From knowledge management
to organizational performance: Modelling the mediating role of innovation and intellectual capital in
higher education. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 36–59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​JEIM-​04-​2018-​0083
Khosravi, A., & Nilashi, M. (2018). Toward software quality enhancement by Customer Knowledge
Management in software companies. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 18–37.
Kianto, A., Ritala, P., Spender, J. C., & Vanhala, M. (2014). The interaction of intellectual capital assets
and knowledge management practices in organizational value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capi-
tal, 15(3), 362–375.
Lee, V., Foo, A. T., Leong, L., & Ooi, K. J. E. S. W. A. (2016). Can Competitive Advantage Be Achieved
through Knowledge Management? A Case Study on SMES, 65, 136–151.
Liu, W. (2006). Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap. Knowledge and
Process Management, 13(3), 144–161.
Luo, Y., & Ling, H. (2013). Exploration and exploitation of information systems usage and individual
performance. Procedia Computer Science, 22, 863–872.
Mahmood, Z., Iftikhar, W., Vistro, D. M., & Tariq, H. I. (2020). An examination of the use of knowledge
management/knowledge management systems in achieving and sustaining competitive advantage in
higher education institutes: a case study of Asia Pacific University, Malaysia. International Journal
of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(4), 3653–3658.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization science,
2(1), 71–87.
Marqués, D., & Simón, F. (2006). The effect of knowledge management practices on firm performance.
Journal of knowledge management, 10(3), 143–156.
Masa’deh, R. E., Shannak, R., Maqableh, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). The impact of knowledge manage-
ment on job performance in higher education The case of the University of Jordan. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 30(2), 244–262.
McKeen, J. D., Zack, M. H. and Singh, S., (2006), January. Knowledge management and organizational
performance: an exploratory survey. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 7, pp. 152b-152b). IEEE.
Mertins, K., Heisig, P., & Vorbeck, J. (Eds.). (2003). Knowledge management: concepts and best prac-
tices. Springer Science & Business Media.
Mustapa, A. N., & Mahmood, R. (2016). Knowledge Management and Job Performance in the Public
Sector: The Moderating Role of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Research in Business Stud-
ies and Management, 3(7), 28–36.
North, K., & Kumta, G. (2018). Knowledge management: Value creation through organizational learn-
ing. Springer.
Nunnally, J. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oltra, V. (2005). Knowledge management effectiveness factors: the role of HRM. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 9(4), 70–86.
Omotayo, F. O. (2015). Knowledge Management as an important tool in Organisational Management: A
Review of Literature. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1(2015), 1–23.
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge platforms in
organizations: An empirical investigation. Organization Science, 12(2), 117–135.
Quarchioni, S., Paternostro, S., & Trovarelli, F. (2020). Knowledge management in higher education: a
literature review and further research avenues. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1–16.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14778​238.​2020.​17307​17
Rezaei, F., Khalilzadeh, M., & Soleimani, P. (2021). Factors affecting knowledge management and its
effect on organizational performance: mediating the role of human capital. Advances in Human-
Computer Interaction, 2021, 16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​88575​72
Sabherwal, R., & Becerra-Fernandez, I. (2003). An empirical study of the effect of knowledge manage-
ment processes at individual, group, and organizational levels. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 225–260.

13
Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822 1821

Sahibzada, U. F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, K. F., Shah, S. A., & Sahibzada, H. F. (2020). Refuelling knowl-
edge management processes towards organisational performance: mediating role of creative organi-
sational learning. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14778​238.​
2020.​17878​02
Saleem, M. A., Bhutta, Z. M., Nauman, M., & Zahra, S. (2019). Enhancing performance and commitment
through leadership and empowerment. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(1), 303–322.
Scarborough, M. (2012). Effective Small Business Management: an entrepreneurial approach (10th ed.).
Pearson.
Schiuma, G., Carlucci, D., & Lerro, A. (2012). Managing knowledge processes for value creation. VINE
Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 42(1).
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and
team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5),
981.
Setia, P., Setia, M., Krishnan, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). The Effects of the Assimilation and Use of
IT Applications on Financial Performance in Healthcare Organizations. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 12(13), 274–298.
Sharimllah Devi, R., Chong, S. C., & Lin, B. (2008). Perceived importance and effectiveness of KM per-
formance outcomes: perspective of institutions of higher learning. International Journal of Innova-
tion and Learning, 5(1), 18–37.
Shehabat, I., Harb, Y., & Zahrawi, A. (2020). The impact of knowledge management on human capital in
higher education: perception from a developing country. International Journal of Knowledge Man-
agement Studies, 11(4), 344–369.
Sherif, K., Tsado, L., Zheng, W., & Airhia, B. (2013). An exploratory study of organization architecture
and the balance between exploration and exploitation of knowledge. VINE: The Journal of Informa-
tion and Knowledge Management Systems, 43(4).
Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., & North-Samardzic, A. (2015). Managing employee performance &
reward: Concepts, practices, strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Shih, W. L., & Tsai, C. Y. (2016). The effects of knowledge management capabilities on perceived
school effectiveness in career and technical education. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(6),
1373–1392.
Singh, M. D., Shankar, R., Narain, R., & Kumar, A. (2006). Survey of knowledge management practices
in Indian manufacturing industries. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(6), 110–128.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and
validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological
empowerment in leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511–526.
Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its substi-
tutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 24(2), 155–187.
Tehseen, S., Ramayah, T., & Sajilan, S. (2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A
review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142–168.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive”
model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681.
Torabi, F., & Elden, J. (2017). The Impact of Knowledge Management on Organizational Productivity: A
Case Study on Koosar Bank of Iran. Procedia Computer Science, 124, 300–310.
Torabi, M. H. R., Kyani, A., & Falakinia, H. (2016). An Investigation of the Impact of Knowledge Man-
agement on Human Resource Performance in Management of Keshavarzi Bank Branches in Tehran.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230, 471–481.
Van Buren, M. E. (1999). A yardstick for knowledge management. Training & Development, 53(5),
71–78.
Voss, G. B., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). The Effects of Slack Resources and Environmental
Threat on Product Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 147–164.
Wiig, K. M. (1997a). Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management. Long Range Planning,
30(3), 399–405.
Wiig, K. M. (1997b). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will go? Expert Sys-
tems with Applications, 13(1), 1–14.

13
1822 Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2024) 15:1801–1822

Wu, W., & Lee, Y. (2017). Empowering Group Leaders Encourages Knowledge Sharing: Integrating the
Social Exchange Theory and Positive Organizational Behavior Perspective. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 21(2), 474–491.
Zhang, J. A., Chen, G., O’Kane, C., Xiang, S., & Wang, J. (2022). How employee exploration and exploi-
tation affect task performance: The influence of organizational competitive orientation. The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(5), 930–964.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under
a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and
applicable law.

Authors and Affiliations

Yousra Harb1 · Wejdan Alakaleek2 · Yanyan Shang3 · Ayman Harb4

Yousra Harb
yousra.harb@yu.edu.jo
Wejdan Alakaleek
w.alakaleek@hu.edu.jo
Yanyan Shang
yshang@ut.edu
1
Information Technology Department, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan
2
Business Administration Department, Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan
3
Information and Technology Management Department, University of Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
4
Hotel Management Department, University of Jordan-Aqaba Branch, Aqaba, Jordan

13