Abstract

This study aims to explore the attitude of faculty members in the universities towards knowledge sharing (KS). The study also analyzed the impact of the organizational learning environment (OLE) on the knowledge-sharing attitude among the university is teaching staff. An empirical model is developed while an integrated theory of Planned Behavior (PB) to conceptualize the Knowledge Sharing Behavior among the employees of Higher Education Institutions (HEI). Moreover, the study recognizes the levels of Knowledge Sharing between the staff members within the organization. Out of 407 respondents, 300 responses were collected through self-administer a survey. The results provide empirical evidence that OLE and Intention to Sharing knowledge (ISK) are significantly related among academic Staff at HEI. The results of the study may help the institution level of intention in sharing knowledge and attitude toward perceived behavior subjective norms to retain core employees within the organization.

Key Words

Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing, Perceived Behavior Control, Organization       Learning Environment, Higher Education Institutions, knowledge sharing Behavior

Introduction

Knowledge management can be described as a set of practices used by an organization or a person to interpret, reflect, create, and disseminate knowledge (Bello and Oyekunle, 2014). Ahmad and Karim (2019) discussed the impact of knowledge sharing; they determine the success of an organization in different ways is its knowledge sharing contribution. In this study Knowledge, sharing factors affected by knowledge sharing were learning, creativity, and performance.

The university's academic staff (especially professors) may play a critical role in higher education by conducting research, writing, and coordinating professional activities. The main aim of this study is to examine the factors that affect their information-sharing behaviour and organizational learning behaviour. Zhang et al. (2019) examined. It is important to investigate the knowledge sharing behavior of employees when it comes to sharing information. 

KM is essential for improved collaboration; in HEIs, KM excels as a vital component of collaboration and exploration (Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2018; Iqbal et al., 2019). Information is created, acquired, stored, shared, and utilized by HEIs (Sahibzada et al., 2020). HEIs are being modernized with ever-intensive revolutions in terms of science and economic growth rather than focusing on teaching (Ramjeawon and Rowley, 2018).

As knowledge-driven organizations, HEIs specialize in subject learning as well as knowledge development, acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilization, thereby supporting social and economic progress (Tan, 2016; Ahmad et al., 2017; Fullwood and Rowley, 2017). Al Kurdi did a systematic review of KS in HEIs. He determined that there is a limited contribution to understanding KS in HEIs as a comparison of other sectors. He suggested appropriate strategies and programs which promote KS among academics and also increasing their institution’s performance (Al Kurdi, El-Haddadeh et al. 2018). The current study comes up with logical arguments, the well-supported philosophical link between the constructs and large statistical evidence for the sector evidence for the identical connections from the sector study.

Only one qualitative study linking IM and KM was found by the scientists, and Sahibzada et al.(2019) suggested evaluating the effect of IM on KM in HEIs. Second, previous research has found that KM increases Knowledge Worker Satisfaction (KWS) within organizations (Shujahat et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020), enabling JEIM organizations to achieve improved performance (Sahibzada et al., 2020). ). In knowledge-intensive organizations, KWS is undeniably essential (Sahibzada et al., 2020); however, the current literature has rarely addressed its role in improving organizational efficiency (OP) (Shujahat et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020). Third, the process of KM's effect on OP remains a mystery (Shahzad et al., 2016; Iqbal et al., 2019). In the same arena, insufficient empirical studies have examined the mechanism of KM's influence on HEI efficiency (Ahmad et al., 2017; Iqbal et al., 2019). Iqbal et al. (2019) stressed the importance of using KM to verify mediating variables. Within the connection of KM and OP, existing research has piqued KWS's interest (Shujahat et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020). The main aim of this study was to examine the factor that weakens Knowledge sharing behaviour, according to this report, is participants' lack of trust (Jarrah and Alkhazalah 2020). The study would significantly aid in understanding and highlighting the role of KM in Chinese HEIs, given the paucity of research on the topic (Baptista Nunes, Kanwal, et al. 2017).

The basic purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that promote KS among academics in HEIs.(Alsaadi 2018). The study of KS among University faculty members was done in Central China Normal University by Hanna Yeshinegus et al. this article highlighted the effective ways of among faculty members in HEIs, and they emphasize how KS strategies help to promote quality teaching and research among faculty members to achieve the goals of Higher education(Adamseged and Janne 2018).

The formulation of hypotheses and the research framework are discussed first. Second, the research methodology is discussed, which includes sampling, data collection, measurements, and data analysis procedures. The third step is to present the data analysis and findings. Finally, the paper is finished with a discussion, conclusion, consequences, limitations, and future study directions.

Literature Review

A cultural dimension, which consists of organizational principles or postures, may be applied to organizational learning (Schein, 1996). This may be a philosophy of support for a management organizational growth agenda, which is mostly decentralized and in post-bureaucratic formats, and which explores their staff and transforms students into self-disciplining partners (McHugh et al., 199). Nonetheless, organizational learning is a challenge that should be addressed in its entirety, suggesting advances like innovations in academic training and ongoing professional growth, especially in the engineering field, as a result of shifts in job profiles and, as a result, competencies in the workplace or labour world. As a result, the concept of learning is more than just training because it includes the life long development of Learning and Competencies (Schein, 1996; McHugh et al., 1998; Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Hancock and Tyler, 2008; Kagermann et al., 2013; Steinbuß et al., 2017; Simper et al., 2018, Tortorella et al., 2020).

The principles must be specifically stated for a scientific literature review to be viable, according to Liao et al. (2017) (Chang, Liao, et al. 2017; Al-Kurdi, El-Haddadeh, et al. 2018). Thus, organizational learning is the method of developing a learning atmosphere or creating a learning environment for workers/employees to share their implicit and tacit information in order to achieve the organization's long- and short-term objectives (Ardito et al., 2019; Tvenge and Martinsen, 2018). Universities must be highly agile in order to function in such a dynamic setting, and they must cultivate high levels of agility, risk minimization, and structural flexibility in order to respond rapidly to those challenges (Ben-Dayaa et al., 2017; Soomro et al., 2019).




Organizational Learning Environment in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

Learning new methods of teaching, research and study, as well as engaging students from a more realistic and experiential academic standpoint, HEI must embrace environmental change (Turyasingura 2011). Organizational learning is a challenge that should be addressed in its entirety, suggesting advances in academic training and ongoing professional growth, especially in the social sciences area, as a result of shifts in employee profiles and competencies in the workplace of labour. As a consequence, learning includes far more than just schooling, as it requires the ongoing acquisition of skills and experience throughout one's life Schein, 1996; McHugh et al., 1998; Baker and Sinkula, 1999; Hancock and Tyler, 2008; Kagermann et al., 2013; Steinbuß et al., 2017; Simper et al., 2018). People(human), computers(machines), and tools (resources) interact with one another with the 

same neutrality as in universities via a knowledge-oriented training session in intellectual training (Ardito et al., 2019; Tvenge and Martinsen, 2018, Ben-Dayaa et al., 2017; Soomro et al., 2019). ). Based on this scenario, authors like Wagner et al. (2012), Hummel et al. (2015), and Yang et al. (2018), The method of detecting and fixing errors is one of the principles associated with OL.

Still, organizational learning has a positive mediation between the organizational learning environment and the teacher’s knowledge sharing intention (Tortorella et al., 2020). According to this study, a related paper has been published in the management field, Organizational learning and management, Knowledge sharing (Nosalska et al., 2019); Guidelines for the preparation and management of OLE systems are provided by process design principles (Hermann et al., 2019). Organizational learning is presented from a number of viewpoints.

A positive relationship between the Organizational Learning Environment and Teachers' Knowledge Sharing Intention of HEIs has been investigated and verified in recent literature (Chiu and Chen, 2016; Ngah et al., 2016; Shahzad et al., 2016). Similarly, Ahmad et al. (2017) and Iqbal et al. (2019) also focused on Knowledge sharing intentions.

H1:  Organization learning environment has an impact on Intention to Share Knowledge. 




Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning

The relationship between the knowledge management discipline and organizational learning is still in its infancy, and it needs psychoanalysis as well as empirical validation. Organizations are constantly attempting to establish a connection between organizational learning and knowledge management. According to some scholars, there is a degree of similarity between them (e.g. course, process, procedure). However, they vary from an ontological and metaphysical standpoint  (Pasteur and Pettit).

Higher education institutions should strengthen and develop an organizational culture in which individuals are encouraged to build, store, and share information in order to leverage valuable knowledge assets, according to Bello and Oyekunle (2014). (Alfes et al., 2013). As a result, the study attempts to investigate the impact of KMI processes (creation, acquisition, storage, sharing, and utilization) on organizational performance through the mediating function of Knowledge Sharing Attitude (ATT).

H2: Knowledge net management has a significant and positive effect on the organizational learning environment.




Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing (ATT)

The acronym ATT stands for (Ajzen 1991). It refers to an employee's ability to participate, disseminate, and exchange expertise, sharing skills, experience,  knowledge and information with another employee. It is the positive or negative evaluation of human beings, as well as the evaluation of the actions in the question. It can also describe an individual's perceived actions/ behaviour based on a positive or negative evaluation of the behaviour and performance (Ajzen 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein 2004).

This relationship is supported through previous studies(Kolekofski and Heminger 2003; Bock, Zmud, et al. 2005; Pavlou and Fygenson 2006; Kuo and Young 2008). The discoveries uncovered that human feelings or human sentiments and tendencies toward sharing, ability experience, and mastery straightforwardly affect their activities or conduct, bringing about a readiness to include him all the while and arrangement of Knowledge sharing (Kolekofski& Heminger, 2003). Therefore, the first conversation is dependent upon one's motivation, behaviour or action and capacity to impact and shape his conduct or activities to Knowledge Sharing (Pavlou& Fygenson, 2006). Accordingly, the subsequent speculation is as per the following: 

 H1: Attitude toward knowledge sharing has a mediating impact between Organization learning Environment and Intention to Share Knowledge.




The Context of Pakistan Academic’s Staff at HEI

Shah and Mehmood (2016) conducted an analysis of the literature and concluded that KS is a newly emerging field of study in Pakistan. KS behavior conduct of employees of different companies or organization specializing in the sector has recently been the subject area of a variety of studies (Ali et al., 2018; Aslam et al., 2018; Gillani et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2015; Iqbal and Asrar-ul-Haq, 2017; Malik and Kanwal, 2018; Muqadas et al., 2017; Rafique et al., 2018; Yasir and Majid, 2017). Only a few studies are performed in academic institutions; Rafique and Anwar (2017) recently examined the KS  behavior or actions of academic staff like Teacher’s knowledge sharing intention at a pedagogy institution in Quetta, Pakistan.

Research conducted in HEIs of Pakistan like COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan. This study was conducted by Sadia Bibib and Amjad Ali. They researched the KS behavior of Academics in Higher Education. The main purpose of this study was the investigation of the effect of motivation job involvement, job satisfaction, and continuance commitment to KS Behavior in HEIs (Bibib and Chaudhry 2017). The result of this study indicated that academicians usually share their knowledge through documents, reports, team meetings, personal conversations, their participation in brainstorming sessions by sharing their success stories, organizational meetings, their personal experiences, asking questions, their past mistakes, and their failure stories, coaching of their junior employees, making a presentation in meetings and also supporting the personal development of new members(Shahid and Asif Naveed 2020).

Yasir et al. (2017) investigated the KS behaviour of college students in research universities, focusing on the role of KM enablers in predicting KS behaviour and, as a result, the mediating role of Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing (ATT). A self-administered survey of Academic Workers at Higher Education Institutions was used to perform the analysis (Yasir and Majid 2017). “Communication, training, and growth, interrelations, encouragement, incentives, and job support between the worker and thus the organization,” according to Sahibzada et al. (2019), are important barriers to KMI processes. This backs up early research on “how” to establish the internal marketed for action employee, namely the role of the Organizational Learning Environment and Teachers' Knowledge Sharing Purpose (Iqbal et al., 2019, Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003; Sahibzada et al., 2019).




Theoretical Background

Prior research has shown that the main content of research or a portion of the research, more generally the latter, can motivate Knowledge sharing. Scholars in various fields have used various theories to build their research frameworks. Market theory, self-determination theory, and social exchange theory are all theories that relate to Knowledge sharing behaviour. The social trade hypothesis of Social Exchange Theory (SET), the hypothesis of objective activity of Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), and hypothesis of anticipated activities of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) are among the speculations utilized all through the investigations; however, TPB is the one that is coordinated in the data sharing observational examination and also integrated into the knowledge sharing empirical research analysis (Bock, Zmud, et al. 2005).




Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Through the viewpoint of segment and social-conduct attributes, this exploration intended to more readily comprehend the relationship and connection between a Teacher's Knowledge Sharing Behaviour and the Organizational Learning Environment, just as the reasonable utilization of these abilities, skills, procedures, strategies, information and knowledge. Individuals collectively exchanging information or knowledge (implicit or explicit) and building new knowledge together are known as knowledge sharing (Van Den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). As a result, the organization's theory conceptualization and formulation of its variable are gaining considerable value. 

TPB connects actions and beliefs by incorporating two normative factors: the first is behavior, and the second is belief. This theory encompasses all aspects of human nature (behavior). As a result, generalizing its findings is simple and predictable. The theory's early experiments and analysis centered on behavioral motives and their interactions with other variables. This TPB model is built on a foundation of research, particularly in the area of intention-behaviour relationships.

Research Design and Method

Usually, in Pakistan, Education’s Universities performed this quantitative analysis. Faculty members were given a survey questionnaire that was designed to explore faculty attitudes and measure the impact of various factors on Teacher Knowledge Sharing Intention among Academic Staff at Higher Education Institutions.

The survey was split into two parts. Certain criteria were followed during the questionnaire creation process, including the informants' demographic data.

A: The demographic includes gender, age, marital status, department, working experience, education, last degree attended from, designation, salary per month, and Nature of Organization

B: The second section of the questionnaire assessed the Organization Learning Environment, sharing attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral influence or impact, and individuals' intention to share knowledge. The variables in the study are measured using a 5-point Likert scale. The legitimacy things or validity items in the examination poll (questionnaire) were gotten from past data in order to assess and measure a person's desire to share knowledge within the organization. The attitude toward knowledge sharing items was gotten from this study (Bock, Zmud et al. 2005; So and Bolloju 2005; Smith 2015); the validity items of the subjective norms (SN) are also drawn from a previous study (Bock, Zmud et al. 2005; Lu, Leung et al. 2006), Perceived Behavior Control (PBC) items were taken from Hussein and Mohamad’s paper (Hussein, Mohamad, et al. 2014; Smith 2015), Organizational Learning Environment’s items  (Seba, Rowley et al. 2012). The responses for the variables  of Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing (ATT), Perceived Behavior Control (PBC), Organization learning Environment (OLE), Higher Education Institutions (HEI)  and knowledge sharing 

Intention(KSI) were designed using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree and 5 = Strongly agree). The next section in Part B was about demographic information.

The study's Cronbach's alpha was determined, and the results are shown in Table I. Cronbach's alpha test is used by researchers to assess the internal accuracy and consistency of their studies. However, the minimum acceptable value is 0.7, while the maximum value required for internal consistency in quantitative analysis is 0.90. A value of 50 to 0.7 is considered moderate, and a value of less than 0.50 is considered poor reliability (Hinton 2014).

Table 1: View the Cronbach's alpha worth, which indicates that all variables/factors have high reliabilities and demonstrating inside consistency for all scales utilized in this analysis.

 




Table 1.  Reliability Measure of the Current Study

Variables	Number of Measures	Cronbach's Alpha among Items	Types of Reliability
Organizational Learning Environment	4	.806	High reliability
Attitude Toward  knowledge Sharing	6	.726	High reliability
Perceived Behavior Control	5	.776	High reliability
Intention to share knowledge	8	.870	High reliability

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The KMO test's outcomes and findings fall into two categories: zero and one. A worth that is closer to one implies that it is excellent (Hinton 2014). Furthermore, some researchers, such as Kaiser (1974), argued that the value ought to be somewhere in the range of 0.5 and 1.0, with 1.0 indicating that the information utilized in the study is sufficient and reasonable. The results of the value below 0.5, on the other hand, indicate that factor analysis in the study is not possible (Kaiser,1974).

It is important if the p-value obtained during Bartlett's test is less than 0.5. After determining the importance, the factor analysis can be used in the study (Hair 2010). The KMO value is near 1, indicating that the sample is sufficient, whereas Bartlett's Test of Sphericity value is 4569.495, and the p-value is.000, indicating that the sample is significant.




 

Table 2.  Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		.796
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	4569.495
	Df	300
	Sig.	.000

 




In this study, discriminant validity is determined by contrasting the measure of variance captured by the construct (AVE) against the variance/change imparted to different developments. For sufficient discriminant validity, every one of the square roots underlying the foundation of AVE should be higher than the other correlation coefficients. (1981, Fornell and Larcker).

 

Regression model Summary

In this study, ISK is a dependent variable, and ATT, PBC is a predictor, with a Durbin value of.904 in the model description. The results of the study indicated that attitude is positively correlated or associated with knowledge sharing. (?: 0.182). The analysis revealed that an individual's attitude had a prescient association and relationship with thoughtfulness regarding attention to share knowledge among Quetta's HEIs. p = 0.004 0.05 p = 0.004 0.05 p = 0.004 0.05 p = 0.00, the tolerance outcome value is instead of the above values (.518). The VIF result has a value of 1.931).  As a result of the above findings in the table, it can be inferred that there is a clear desire t. It is basic to relate and contrast the investigation's discoveries with past examinations. Therefore, the examination results and results were steady with the investigation of Quetta HEIs (p = 0.004 0.05), though its Tolerance is (.518) and VIF is (1.931). Discoveries are solid, reliable with the investigation of (Bock, Zmud et al., 2005; Fahimeh and Kermani 2011; Goh and Sandhu 2013; Smith 2015). These researchers' exploration gave guidance, direction and a reason for beginning this examination. As indicated by the findings of these analysts, ATT is decidedly related to the ISK among faculty staff members of HEIs. As per the quantitative examination of this investigation, the Subjective Norm(SN) variable was found in a relationship to Knowledge sharing, and the relationship is emphatically associated or positively correlated. As a result of the above findings in the table, it can be inferred that there is a clear desire to share information. (p = 0.000 0.05), with a Tolerance of (.447) and a VIF of (.447). (2.237). This study's findings were found to be consistent with the analysis (Elogie 2010). It's worth noting that the scale used in his research to assess Perceived Behavioral Control was adapted from his findings.

The Multiple Regression Analysis Model was used to derive the results of the ANOVA analysis. Because of the discoveries, it has been resolved that the fundamental usefulness of ANOVA is dependent on Frequency investigation. F=61.773 shown fluctuation/Variance in the model at the degree of Significance 0.000 indicates Frequency. Nonetheless, in ANOVA models, the estimation of Residual and Regression as far as Sum of Square is (60.958+97.421=158.379), Degree of Freedom is meant by df and is (3296=299), and Mean square is (3296=299), (20.319, .329). The overall result has a significance value of 0.000, showing that it is significant. If the worth/value is less than or equivalent to 0.5 and not more prominent than that, the information is genuinely significant, as per measurements.




 

Table 3. Regression Model Summary

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. The error of the estimate	Change Statistics					Durbin-Watson
					R Square Change	F Change	df1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	.620a	.385	.379	.57370	.385	61.737	3	296	.000	.904

a. Predictors: (Constant), PBC, ATT     b. Dependent Variable: ISK

Table 4. ANOVA

ANOVA
Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	60.958	3	20.319	61.737	.000b
	Residual	97.421	296	.329
	Total	158.379	299

a. Dependent Variable: ISK  b. Predictors: (Constant), PBC,ATT

 




A bootstrapping strategy was utilized to test the mediation impact of ATT toward Knowledge sharing and PBC between Organization’s learning climate/environment and ISK (Baron and Kenny 1986). To comprise mediation, as indicated by Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions should be met: Independent factors (Organizational Learning Environment) have a huge relationship with mediating factors (ATT toward Knowledge Sharing, and PBC). Mediating Variables (ATT toward Knowledge Sharing and PBC) have a huge relationship with Independent factors (Attitude toward Knowledge Sharing and Perceived Behaviour Control). The connection between Independent Variables (Organizational Learning Environment) and Dependent Variables is important (Intention to Share Knowledge).

As the mediating variable (ATT toward Knowledge Sharing and PBC) is introduced as a mediator, the intensity of the relationship in (3) decreases/disappears. The bootstrapping method was used to obtain the additional result for each variable, as well as estimate bias-corrected Confidence (MacKinnon, Lockwood et al., 2004; Preacher and Hayes 2004).  Via Andrew F Hayes' method (Preacher and Hayes 2008), the indirect effect was obtained with a 95 percent confidence interval at 5000 bootstraps resamples

H1: Attitude (ATT) mediates the relationship between Organization Learning Environment (OLE) and Intention to Share Knowledge (ISK).

The findings of the direct relationship show that:

• OLE has a significant and positive relationship with ATT (b= .53, p= .00< .05),

• ATT has a positive and significant relationship with ISK (b=.54, p= .00< .05),

• OLE has a significant relationship with ISK (b=.50, p= .00 < .05),

Further results of mediation analysis indicate that when ATT is added as the mediator between Organization Learning Environment (OLE) and Intention to share Knowledge (ISK).




 

Table 5.  Attitude (ATT) has a mediating impact between OLE and ISK.

Relationship	Coefficient (Beta)	Standard error	T	P-value	LICT	UICT	Effect
ATT <--- OLE	.5315	.0408	13.0145	.000	.4511	.6119	Significant
ISK <--- ATT	.5442	.0725	7.5037	.000	.4015	.6869	Significant
ISK <--- OLE	.5040	.0640	12.3119	.0006	.0420	.2100	Significant
ATTà ISK <--- OLE	.2892	.0334	---------------		.0795	.4279	Full Mediation

Theoretical Model

Figure 1: An Indirect effect of OLE on ISK through Attitude toward Knowledge sharing.



Results of direct relationship indicate that

• OLE has significant and positive relationship with SN (b= .35, p= .00< .05),

• OLE has significant relationship with ISK (b=.16, p= .00< .05).

• Further results of mediation analysis indicate that when ATT is added as a mediator between OLE and ISK (see table of Regression Model Summary).

When controlling for ATT, the coefficient (Beta) drops from.16 to.09, and the lower limit (LICT) and upper limit (UICT) values are both greater than zero (.1131 _.3342), implying absolute mediation.

This was a quantitative analysis paper with a questionnaire. The market check table method was used with the accredited proportioned method, and 407 respondents were targeted, but only 300 respondents returned the filled questionnaire. Through a literature review, the following four hypotheses were developed:

1. The organizational learning environment (OLE) has an impact on the Intention to Share Knowledge (ISK).

2. Attitude (ATT) toward Knowledge Sharing intention has an intervening/ mediating impact on OLE and ISK.




Since the Independent  Variables or autonomous factors are more than 1 and determined on a 5-point Likert scale, the MLR (Multiple Regression Analysis)  analysis was utilized with the enter approach  (all variables entered at once) for hypothesis testing. The MLR assumptions were first confirmed. It looked into the effect of attitude on the desire to share knowledge. An overview of the regression model was found, as well as mediation analyses. Individual attitudes have a positive and meaningful association with the desire to Share Knowledge (= 0.182), according to the study's findings. According to the research's findings, when a person shows positive behavior in an organization, their willingness to sharing knowledge increases. The calculated predictive value is (p = 0.004 0.05). Its Tolerance, on the other hand, is (.518), and VIF is (1.931). The analysis was steady and consistent, demonstrating that ATT had a positive huge significant impact in predicting academics’  ISK.

According to the results of the mediation study, the attitude has a mediating effect on the learning environment of the organization and the intention to share knowledge. When controlling for ATT, the coefficient (Beta) diminished from.50 to.28, and the estimation of lower limit (LICT) and upper limit (UICT) was greater than zero (.0795 _.4279), indicating that maximum mediation was present.

The beta value of subjective Norm (= 0.373) indicated a strong and important link to knowledge Sharing. According to the study, as the subjective standard rises, so does the desire to share knowledge. Subjective predicts intention to Share Knowledge (p = 0.000 0.05), according to the results. It has a Tolerance of (.447) and a VIF of (2.237). However, after changing the scale for determining subjective norms, it was discovered that SN has an effect on intentions to share information. It has a Tolerance of (.447) and a VIF of (2.237). Though, after changing the scale for determining SN, it was discovered that SN has an impact on ISK.

The ATT has a mediating effect between OLE and the ISK, according to the Mediation report. When ATT is used as a mediator between Organization Learning Environment and ISK, the results of the mediation analysis indicate that the lower limit (LICT) and upper limit (UICT) values are both greater than 0 (.1131 _.3342), and the coefficient (Beta) decreased from.16 to.09. Therefore, OLE suggests significant effects on teachers’ KS behavior.

Perceived behavior Control (PBC) was found to be positively and significantly associated with the intention to share information (= 0.144) in this study. The results indicate that as perceived behavior Control increases, so does the ability to share knowledge. Perceived behavior Control (PBC) has a prognostic association with the ISK, according to the findings (p = 0.022 < 0.05), while Tolerance is (.530), which is determined by MLR, and VIF is (1.887). The results are consistent as compared to previous research (Elogie 2010; Nordin, Daud, et al., 2012; Hussein, Mohamad et al., 2014; Smith 2015). PBC was found to influence ISK after the scale for evaluating perceived behavioral control was modified.

The ATT has a mediating effect between the organization's learning Environment and ISK, according to the study's mediation report. When Attitude (ATT) is introduced as a mediator between OLE and ISK, the results of the mediation analysis show that. Covariance was decreased from.22 to.14,  and the lower limit and upper limit (LICT-UICT) values were both greater than zero (.0669 .3328) when controlling for ATT than recommended full mediation.

Conclusion

Research is one of the most significant academic activities, and every faculty member is required to participate in it. The aim of this study was to see how the organizational learning environment affects teachers' willingness to share. Willingness shows teacher’s intentions to share knowledge. The HEI learning environment creates an educational environment in which teachers learn and are more able to share their knowledge with their colleagues and students. The organizations’ learning environments offer a platform for employees to share their experience and knowledge. The speculation of Planned Behavior (TPB) is most commonly used to conceptualize the Teacher's non-volitional point, which can't be completely explained by using TRA (the theory of examined action).  In Academic staff, behavioral intentions are not considered the sole determinant of their Behavior or Action. The theory of planned behavior seeks to construct and conceptualize the relationship between behavioral purpose and the actual behavior of individuals by integrating PCB, according to this and previous study. As a result, the TPB hypothesis is important because it tend to be utilized to predict the behavioral intentions of faculty staff in HEI when contrasted to the theory of reasoned action (TRA). Although, by using social norms as a significant variable in the study, this hypothesis may explain the employees' social behavior.

Limitation and Suggestion for Further Research

Despite its contributions, this study has some limitations. This study was mainly confined to the concept of information sharing activity by integrating the TPB theory in an OLE sense, so its measurement was focused on statistical reasoning. This study has, despite its contributions, some limitations. Primarily, this study was limited to that idea of knowledge sharing behavior conduct by consolidating the theory of TPB in OLE setting, so its estimation depended on statistical logic and on casual design, strategy and the data collection approach was based on an integrated model and cross-sectional testing. This study was performed as a quantitative study due to the short time span. This research will be performed in a qualitative manner. A paper-based questionnaire was used in this analysis. The tool used was cross-sectional. A closed-ended questionnaire was used; however, due to time constraints, open-ended questions and extensive interviews with faculty staff were not performed.

Future research should collect qualitative data in addition to quantitative data in a larger sample of Pakistani public universities on this important topic of Teacher's Knowledge Sharing Intention among Academic Staff at Higher Education Institutions. It is strongly recommended that in-depth interviews with main university stakeholders be conducted in order to obtain useful information and a better understanding of faculty attitudes toward knowledge sharing Attitude (ATT) among Academic Staff at Higher Education Institutions. Countries in the same field, as well as other developing countries in general, will examine the effect of those factors on their own cultures. They aim to use the findings to inspire information workers to follow an IKS culture. A positive OLE mindset will assist in requiring knowledge-based decisions, which can eventually lead to the development of a knowledge-based economy, which is what these countries most urgently need.

References

• Adamseged, H. & Janne, J. (2018).
• Ahmad, F. & Karim, M. (2019).
• Ajzen, I. & Fisbbein, M. (1974).
• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2004).
• Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005).
• Ajzen, I. (1991).
• Akhtar, C., A. Arif, et al. (2012).
• Al Kurdi, O., R. El-Haddadeh, et al. (2018).
• Alsaadi, F. M. (2018).
• Andrews, K. M. & Delahaye, B. L. (2000).
• Antal, A. B. & Richebé, N. (2009).
• Ardichvili, A., V. Page, et al. (2003).
• Argyris, C. & Schon, D. (1978).
• Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A.(1997).
• Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (1999).
• Aulawi, H., I. Sudirman, et al. (2009).
• Azen, I. & Madden, T. (1986).
• Baptista Nunes, J. M., S. Kanwal, et al. (2017).
• Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986).
• Bibib, S. & Chaudhry, A. (2017).
• Bierly III, P. E., E. H. Kessler, et al. (2000).
• Bock, G.-W., R. W. Zmud, et al. (2005).
• Chang, W.-J., S.-H. Liao, et al. (2017).
• Choo, C. W. (1996).
• Connelly, C. E., D. Zweig, et al. (2012).
• Elogie, A. (2010).
• Fahimeh, B. & Kermani, Z. J. (2011).
• Goh, S.-K. & Sandhu, M.-S. (2013).
• Hair, J. (2010).
• Hinton, P. R. (2014). Statistics explained, Routledge.
• Hussein, N., A. Mohamad, et al. (2014).
• Jarrah, H. & Alkhazalah, M. (2020).
• Jessica Sze-Yin, H., Y. Cheng Ming, et al. (2008).
• Jiménez-Jiménez, D. & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011).
• Kolekofski, K. E. & Heminger, A. R. (2003).
• Lu, L., K. Leung, et al. (2006).
• Ngoc, P. & Huy, T. (2016).
• Nordin, N., N. Daud, et al. (2012).
• Preacher, K. J. & A. F. Hayes (2008).
• Seba, I., J. Rowley, et al. (2012).
• Shahid, Q. & D.-M. Asif Naveed (2020).
• Shahzadi, I., R. Hameed, et al. (2015). Individual motivational factors of optimistic knowledge sharing behavior among University academia.
• Smith, A. Y. (2015). Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control as indicators for nurse educators' intention to use critical thinking teaching strategies: A structural equation model analysis, Andrews University.
• Smith, D. (1999).
• So, J. C. & Bolloju, N. (2005).
• Sorakraikitikul, M. & Siengthai, S. (2014).
• Spender, J. C. (2008).
• Thuy Pham, N. & Swierczek, F. W. (2006).
• Ting Si Xue, C. (2017).
• Turyasingura, W. (2011). Interdependency of knowledge management and learning: the case of higher education institutions in Uganda.
• Vermeulen, M., P. Runhaar, et al. (2014).
• Watkins, K. E. & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change, ERIC.
• Yasir, M. & Majid, A. (2017).