EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 426 (2023) E3S Web Conf., 426 (2023) 02007 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 426, 2023
The 5th International Conference of Biospheric Harmony Advanced Research (ICOBAR 2023)
Article Number 02007
Number of page(s) 10
Section Innovative Management and Sustainable Society
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342602007
Published online 15 September 2023
  1. H. Khan and M. Khan, “Defining and measuring professionalism in professions of service sector,” SEISENSE J. Manag., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 20–33, 2018, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1218832. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Z. Wang, M. Hangeldiyeva, A. Ali, and M. Guo, “Effect of Enterprise Social Media on Employee Creativity: Social Exchange Theory Perspective,” Front. Psychol., vol. 12, no. January, pp. 1–9, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.812490. [Google Scholar]
  3. M. C. J. Caniëls and M. Veld, “Employee ambidexterity, high performance work systems and innovative work behaviour: How much balance do we need?,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 565–585, 2019, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1216881. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. N. N. Nguyen, P. T. Nham, and Y. Takahashi, “Relationship between ability-based emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 8, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11082299. [Google Scholar]
  5. O. Kassotaki, “Review of organizational ambidexterity research,” SAGE Open, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.1177/21582440221082127. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. S. U. R. Malik, H. Akram, S. S. Gill, H. Pervaiz, and H. Malik, “EFFORT: Energy efficient framework for offload communication in mobile cloud computing,” Softw. - Pract. Exp., vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1896–1909, 2021, doi: 10.1002/spe.2850. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. F. Tonoto, “Gen Z: Tantangan dan kesempatan untuk indonesia,” 2022. https://www.tanotofoundation.org/id/news/gen-z- tantangan-dan-kesempatan-untuk-indonesia/ (accessed Mar. 23, 2023). [Google Scholar]
  8. K. Simic, “The impact of generational diversity on organizational culture within the hotel industry,” pp. 1–54, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. G. Statnickė, A. Savanevičienė, and I. Šakys, “The relationship between work engagement of different generations and mobile learning,” Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun., vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1627–1642, 2019, doi: 10.11118/actaun201967061627. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. S. Stevanin, A. Voutilainen, V. Bressan, K. Vehviläinen-Julkunen, V. Rosolen, and T. Kvist, “Nurses’ generational differences related to workplace and leadership in two European countries,” West. J. Nurs. Res., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 14–23, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0193945919838604. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. F. Alghamdi, “Ambidextrous leadership, ambidextrous employee, and the interaction between ambidextrous leadership and employee innovative performance,” J. Innov. Entrep., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–14, 2018, doi: 10.1186/s13731-018- 0081-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. J. Peng, J. Zhang, Y. Zhang, and P. Gong, “Relative deprivation and job satisfaction in Army officers: A moderated mediation model,” Work, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 49–58, 2019, doi: 10.3233/WOR-182841. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. B. Schnellbächer and S. Heidenreich, “The role of individual ambidexterity for organizational performance: examining effects of ambidextrous knowledge seeking and offering,” J. Technol. Transf., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1535–1561, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09781-x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. M. G. Herlina and K. Iskandar, “Ambidextrous social media experience in fostering innovative behavior among white-color workers,” Int. J. Data Netw. Sci., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 397–406, 2020, doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2020.x.002. [Google Scholar]
  15. T. P. L. Nguyen, K. N. Nguyen, T. D. Do, and T. T. M. Nguyen, “Knowledge sharing and innovative work behavior: The case of Vietnam,” Uncertain Supply Chain Manag., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 619–634, 2019, doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2019.5.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. N. Ngoc-Tan and A. Gregar, “Impacts of knowledge management on innovations in higher education institutions: An empirical evidence from Vietnam,” Econ. Sociol., vol. 11, no. 3, 2018, doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2018/11-3/18. [Google Scholar]
  17. S. A. Woods, M. J. Mustafa, N. Anderson, and B. Sayer, “Innovative work behavior and personality traits: Examining the moderating effects of organizational tenure,” J. Manag. Psychol., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 29–42, 2018, doi: 10.1108/JMP-01-2017-0016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. I. Siregar et al., “The role of motivation of unified theory acceptance, use of technology model and innovation diffusion theory on e-learning intention of SMEs employee,” Int. J. Data Netw. Sci., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1055–1064, 2022, doi: 10.5267/j.ijdns.2022.8.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. K. M. A. Mansour and F. J. S. Al-Najjar, “The social media usage and its impact on the innovative behavior: The mediator role of information technology: A field study in the information and communication technology organizations in Jordan,” Int. J. Bus. Manag., vol. 13, no. 11, p. 46, 2018, doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v13n11p46. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. M. M. Moy, E. R. Cahyadi, and E. Anggraeni, “The impact of social media on knowledge creation, innovation, and performance in small and medium enterprises,” Indones. J. Bus. Entrep., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2020, doi: 10.17358/ijbe.6.1.23. [Google Scholar]
  21. A. B. Onamusi, “Adaptive capability, social media agility, ambidextrous marketing capability, and business survival: A mediation analysis,” Mark. Brand. Res., no. January, 2021, doi: 10.33844/mbr.2021.60328. [Google Scholar]
  22. M. A. Ali, N. Hussin, H. Haddad, D. Alkhodary, and A. Marei, “Dynamic capabilities and their impact on intellectual capital and innovation performance,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 18, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su131810028. [Google Scholar]
  23. W. Sung and C. Kim, “A study on the effect of change management on organizational innovation: Focusing on the mediating effect of members’ innovative behavior,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1–26, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13042079. [Google Scholar]
  24. H. K. Mohajan, “Knowledge sharing among employees in organizations,” J. Econ. Dev. Environ. People, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 52, 2019, doi: 10.26458/jedep.v8i1.612. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fischer, “Motivated to share? Development and validation of a domain-specific scale to measure knowledge-sharing motives,” J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst., pp. 1–48, 2022, doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-09-2021-0200. [Google Scholar]
  26. A. S. Hussein, N. H. Rosita, and R. F. Ayuni, “Knowledge management orientation behaviour and innovation: A lesson from Indonesia creative economy sector,” Int. J. Sociotechnology Knowl. Dev., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2019, doi: 10.4018/IJSKD.2019010102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. D. I. Castaneda and P. Toulson, “Is it possible to share tacit knowledge using information and communication technology tools?,” Glob. Knowledge, Mem. Commun., vol. 70, no. 8–9, pp. 673–683, 2021, doi: 10.1108/GKMC-07-2020-0102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. S. Razzaq et al., “Knowledge management, organizational commitment and knowledge-worker performance: The neglected role of knowledge management in the public sector,” Bus. Process Manag. J., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 923–947, 2019, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2018-0079. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. I. Jabeen, H. Zahur, and N. N. Jalalzai, “Impact of ambidextrous leadership on innovative work behavior: Mediating role of individual ambidexterity,” J. Dev. Soc. Sci., vol. 13, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.3390/admsci13010004. [Google Scholar]
  30. K. Kosasih, Wibowo, and Saparuddin, “The influence of ambidextrous organization and authentic followership on innovative performance: The mediating role of change readiness,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 1513–1520, 2020, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.12.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. R. Ogulin, G. Guzman, and S. M. Nuwangi, “Knowledge capabilities in supply chain networks: A taxonomy,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 655–674, 2020, doi: 10.1108/JKM-06-2019-0266. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. I. Helmy, “Examining the role of thriving and ambidexterity on workplace friendship and innovative work behavior,” J. Behav. Sci., vol. 4675, no. 3, pp. 19–34, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  33. K. ; Shahzadi and K. Sobia, “Self-efficacy and Innovative Work Behavior: The role of individual ambidexterity and formalization at work place in Pakistan,” J. Res. Soc. Pakistan, vol. 57, no. 1, p. 31, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. A. Aamir, S. U. Jan, A. Qadus, A. A. Nassani, and M. Haffar, “Impact of knowledge sharing on sustainable performance: Mediating role of employee’s ambidexterity,” Sustain., vol. 13, no. 22, pp. 1–13, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132212788. [Google Scholar]
  35. E. K. Appiah, “Ambidextrous learning and survival of early international firms-the role of social media usage,” Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., vol. 2020-Janua, pp. 2760–2769, 2021, doi: 10.24251/hicss.2021.337. [Google Scholar]
  36. Y. Zhao, X. Zhang, J. Wang, K. Zhang, and P. Ordóñez de Pablos, “How do features of social media influence knowledge sharing? An ambient awareness perspective,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 439–462, 2020, doi: 10.1108/JKM-10- 2019-0543. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. A. I. Damayanti and A. Adhiatma, “The role of social media orientation to improve relationship quality and innovation performance in SME’s,” e- Academia J., vol. 9, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.24191/e- aj.v9i2.11521. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. G. Stei, L. Szász, and A. Rossmann, “How to facilitate knowledge ambidexterity with the use of enterprise social media,” Proc. Eur. Conf. Knowl. Manag. ECKM, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1457–1461, 2022, doi: 10.34190/eckm.23.2.437. [Google Scholar]
  39. A. S. Hussein, N. H. Rosita, and R. F. Ayuni, “Knowledge management orientation behaviour and innovation,” Int. J. Sociotechnology Knowl. Dev., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 17–28, 2019, doi: 10.4018/ijskd.2019010102. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. E. M. Pertusa-Ortega, J. F. Molina-Azorín, J. J. Tarí, J. Pereira-Moliner, and M. D. López-Gamero, “The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework,” BRQ Bus. Res. Q., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 355–371, 2020, doi: 10.1177/2340944420929711. [Google Scholar]
  41. H. K. Mohajan, “Knowledge sharing among employees in organizations,” J. Econ. Dev. Environ. People, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 52, 2019, doi: 10.26458/jedep.v8i1.612. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. M. Kordab, J. Raūdeliunienė, and I. Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, “Mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between organizational learning and sustainable organizational performance,” Sustain., vol. 12, no. 23, pp. 1–20, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su122310061. [Google Scholar]
  43. C. Storey and K. B. Kahn, “The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in stimulating service,” no. July, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  44. D. I. Castaneda and S. Cuellar, “Knowledge sharing and innovation: A systematic review,” Knowl. Process Manag., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 159– 173, 2020, doi: 10.1002/kpm.1637. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. E. Ode and R. Ayavoo, “The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation,” J. Innov. Knowl., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 210–218, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jik.2019.08.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. D.-G. J. Dei and T. B. van der Walt, “Knowledge management practices in universities: The role of communities of practice,” Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 100025, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100025. [Google Scholar]
  47. T. Akram, S. Lei, M. J. Haider, and S. T. Hussain, “Exploring the impact of knowledge sharing on the innovative work behavior of employees: A study in China,” Int. Bus. Res., vol. 11, no. 3, p. 186, 2018, doi: 10.5539/ibr.v11n3p186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. R. Munir and L. S. Beh, “Measuring and enhancing organisational creative climate, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior in startups development,” Bottom Line, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 269–289, 2019, doi: 10.1108/BL-03-2019-0076. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  49. Y. Deng, “Influence of social media on enterprise knowledge sharing based on social network analysis,” Entrep. Res. J., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 99– 118, 2021, doi: 10.1515/erj-2020-0245. [Google Scholar]
  50. Q. Y. Pian, H. Jin, and H. Li, “Linking knowledge sharing to innovative behavior: the moderating role of collectivism,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 1652–1672, 2019, doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2018-0753. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. N. R. Nasution, Z. M. E. Siregar, and P. Pristiyono, “The effect of job autonomy on employee innovative behavior: The role of job satisfaction as intervening variable,” Budapest Int. Res. Critics Inst. Humanit. Soc. Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 2846–2853, 2021, doi: 10.33258/birci.v4i2.1994. [Google Scholar]
  52. N. A. Ricadonna, “The effect of ambidextrous leadership, knowledge sharing and work engagement on innovative work behavior (Study: Bank Muamalat Indonesia),” Proceeding 2nd Int. Conf. Res. Dev. 2022, no. 2021, pp. 139–142, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  53. A. Papachroni and L. Heracleous, “Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices,” J. Appl. Behav. Sci., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 143–165, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0021886320913048. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. T. Mu, A. van Riel, and R. Schouteten, “Individual ambidexterity in SMEs: Towards a typology aligning the concept, antecedents and outcomes,” J. Small Bus. Manag., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–32, 2020, doi: 10.1080/00472778.2019.1709642. [Google Scholar]
  55. M. Sanchez-Gomez and E. Breso, “The Mobile Emotional Intelligence Test (MEIT): An ability test to assess emotional intelligence at work,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1–17, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11030827. [Google Scholar]
  56. A. Di Fabio and D. H. Saklofske, “Positive relational management for sustainable development: Beyond personality traits-the contribution of emotional intelligence,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–9, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11020330. [Google Scholar]
  57. J. R. Ferretti and M. da C. L. Afonso, “Tacit knowledge sharing: a literature review applied to the context of the Brazilian judiciary,” Knowl. Manag. Strateg. Appl., 2017, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.70066. [Google Scholar]
  58. T. P. L. Nguyen, N. M. Tran, X. H. Doan, and H. Van Nguyen, “The impact of knowledge sharing on innovative work behavior of Vietnam telecommunications enterprises employees,” Manag. Sci. Lett., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–62, 2020, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. M. Kraska-Miller, Nonparametric statistics for social and behavioral sciences. 2013. doi: 10.1201/b16188. [Google Scholar]
  60. M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and J. F. Hair, Partial least squares structural equation modeling. 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2. [Google Scholar]
  61. Z. Kurniawan, Agung Widhi; Puspitaningtyas, Metode penelitian kuantitatif. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. R. S. Hamid and S. M. Anwar, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) berbasis varian: konsep dasar dan aplikasi dengan program SmartPLS 3.2.8 dalm riset bisnis, vol. 21, no. 1. PT Inkubator Penulis Indonesia, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://journal.um- surabaya.ac.id/index.php/JKM/article/view/2203 [Google Scholar]
  63. S. Rietze and H. Zacher, “Relationships between agile work practices and occupational well-being: The role of job demands and resources,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 19, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031258. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. D. I. Castaneda, L. F. Manrique, and S. Cuellar, “Is organizational learning being absorbed by knowledge management? A systematic review,” J. Knowl. Manag., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 299–325, 2018, doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0041. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.