111 Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management Noa Aharony Noa Aharony is a lecturer in the Department of Information Science at Bar-Ilan University; e-mail: aharonn1@mail.biu.ac.il. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the factors that support or constrain the individual’s sharing knowledge in the orga- nization. The current study seeks to explore whether personality (self- ef- ficacy and self-esteem) and situational (cognitive appraisal: threat versus challenge) characteristics influence participants’ knowledge sharing in the organization. The research was conducted during the summer semester of the 2009 academic year and encompassed two main groups of Israeli librarians: academic librarians and public librarians. The study used five questionnaires: a personal details questionnaire, perceptions towards knowledge management questionnaire, a cognitive appraisal questionnaire measuring threat versus challenge, a self-efficacy questionnaire, and a self- esteem questionnaire. The results show that personality and situational characteristics influence participants’ knowledge sharing in the organiza- tion. The findings may have theoretical as well as practical implications. s more and more information and knowledge is created and technology develops rapidly, the world has become more knowledge-oriented. Many organizations recognize the role of knowledge as a key source for competitive advantage. Knowl- edge management is perceived as a tool for improving organizational productivity and success;1 thus, different organizations have adopted and assimilated the con- cept of knowledge management. Many researchers,2 however, have claimed that knowledge sharing is the most critical hurdle for knowledge management. It is thus crucial to encourage knowledge sharing among workers to ensure knowl- edge management success. This research purports to develop an understanding of the factors that support or constrain the sharing of knowledge in the organization. The literature on knowledge man- agement is extensive and rich. Little research, however, has been conducted on knowledge sharing at the individual level. Moreover, the critical barrier for knowledge management, as reported in the professional literature, is knowledge sharing. Thus, the current study ad- dresses knowledge sharing at the indi- vidual level and seeks to explore whether personality (self-efficacy and self-esteem) and situational (cognitive appraisal: threat versus challenge) characteristics influence participants’ knowledge shar- ing in the organization. The findings of this research will provide insight into knowledge-sharing at the individual level and may predict if and which personality or situational characteristics may moti- vate or hinder knowledge sharing and collaboration in the organization. crl-87 112  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 Literature Review Knowledge The term of knowledge has been defined in various ways. Drucker3 has treated it as a meaningful resource that makes a new society unique; he also coined the term “knowledge worker.” Toffler4 saw knowledge as the essence of power in the information age. Davenport, De Long, and Beers5 viewed knowledge as experience, context, judgment, belief, and information, presenting knowledge as the most strategically important resource that organizations possess. Buckland6 states that knowledge is personal, subjective, and conceptual; thus, one should expose it via text or communication. Nonaka and Takeuchi7 claimed that knowledge, as distinguished from information, is about beliefs, commitment, and action. They added that knowledge is about meaning that is context-specific and relational. Nonaka and Takeuchi8 differentiated be- tween two types of knowledge: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is subjective, context specific, and difficult to capture; it is not easily expressed or communicated visually or verbally. In contrast, explicit knowledge is objective, can be communi- cated visually or verbally, and is more eas- ily codified. Polanyi9 also proposed two types of knowledge: implicit and explicit. Knowledge Management Knowledge management (KM) refers to the overall process of activities affecting knowledge: creating, capturing, identify- ing, organizing, storing, representing, transferring, and reusing knowledge. Several definitions are proposed for knowledge management. Skyrme10 defines knowledge management as a “process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and per- formance in organizations.” White11 pro- vides a similar definition for knowledge management as “a process of creating, storing, sharing and re-using organiza- tional knowledge (know how) to enable an organization to achieve its goals and objec- tives.’’ Another definition is suggested by Priti,12 who sees knowledge management as ‘‘a purposeful management process to create, capture, store, exploit, share and apply both implicit and explicit knowl- edge for the benefit of the employees, organization and its customers. With its visionary approach KM emphasizes turning internal and external knowledge into actionable framework.’’ The defini- tion of Davenport, De Long, and Beers13 suggests that “knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation and development of the knowledge assets of an organization with a view of furthering the organization’s objectives.” Knowledge assets include employees’ expertise and experience, information services and sources, and information technology. The above definitions emphasize the ongoing process of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing, and using knowledge to improve organizational performance, partnership, and interpersonal relationships. Knowl- edge management allows organizations to generate value from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets.14 It is the process of obtaining the right information for the right people at the right time so that people create, share, and act on that information.15 It is important to note that knowledge management is different from information management. While information manage- ment focuses on explicit knowledge or information contained in books and jour- nals,16 knowledge management focuses on another dimension: tacit knowledge or the “know how” that is embedded within the minds of the people in an or- ganization.17 The literature emphasizes the difficulty and confusion of measuring and managing this tacit knowledge.18 Koenig concludes19 and compares knowledge management with a forest that contains all the trees of information management, con- tent management, and IT management. Knowledge Sharing The current study in knowledge manage- ment refers to knowledge sharing, which means being aware of knowledge needs, Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  113 constructing technical and systematic infrastructure, and making knowledge available to others who need it.20 The term “knowledge sharing” emphasizes the process by which knowledge possessed by an individual is transformed into a form that can be understood and used by others.21 Several studies have found that knowledge sharing is the flow of knowl- edge from someone who has it to someone wants it.22 Cabrera and Cabrera23 proposed that knowledge sharing is the contribution of individuals to the collective knowledge of an organization. Furthermore, Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado24 suggested that knowledge sharing consists of two major elements: seeking information and ideas from coworkers and providing ideas and insights to others. In light of the above discussion on knowledge, knowledge management, and knowledge sharing, the following section will focus on personality characteristics (self-efficacy and self-esteem) and situa- tional characteristics (cognitive appraisal: threat versus challenge) that might affect librarians’ readiness to collaborate and share information with other librarians in an organization. The researchers’ assump- tion was that these variables may help us predict why people choose to share or not to share knowledge in some contexts and not in others. Self-efficacy The term self-efficacy was first introduced by Alberto Bandura in 1977. It is defined as “people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over events in their lives.”25 Self-efficacy influences decisions about which behaviors to undertake, the amount of effort and persistence to put forth when faced with obstacles, and the mastery of the behavior. In other words, self-efficacy plays an important role in influencing individuals’ motivation and behavior.26 Bandura27 asserts that self- efficacy is not a static concept; he proposes that people construct their self-efficacy beliefs from four sources of informa- tion: enactive mastery experience (direct experience and performance feedback), vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion (encouraging feedback), and physi- ological and affective states (arousal). According to Bandura, people who have high self-efficacy will be more likely to undertake realistically challenging tasks than those with low self-efficacy. Various studies have focused on self-efficacy: some dealt with the effect of computer self-efficacy on computer training performance28 and on Informa- tion Technology usage; others29 focused on Internet self-efficacy and studied the relationship between Internet self-efficacy and Internet use.30 Several studies showed a positive link between self-efficacy and work-related behaviors.31 Pintrich and Garcia32 and Pajares33 delved into the relationship between self-efficacy and academic achievement. Recently the concept of self-efficacy has been applied to knowledge management, and the relationship between personal ef- ficacy belief and knowledge sharing has been researched.34 In the current study, it was assumed that the self-efficacy variable, based on the individual’s assumptions about his or her capabilities to contribute to the organization, is a major factor affect- ing knowledge sharing and knowledge management in the organization. Self-esteem According to Rosenberg,35 self-esteem refers to an individual’s overall self-eval- uation. Self-esteem can be analyzed from both the cognitive and affective aspects. Regarding the cognitive, Korman36 claims that self-esteem indicates the degree to which a person perceives himself or herself as a need-satisfying individual who has a sense of personal adequacy and of achiev- ing satisfaction in the past. Pelham and Swann37 refer to the affective component of self-esteem and note that those with high self-esteem like who and what they are. The self-esteem construct is usually conceptualized as a hierarchical phenom- 114  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 enon.38 Scholars agree that self-esteem may develop around a number of other dimen- sions: the social, physical, academic, and moral-self.39 In the present study, it was supposed that the self-esteem variable that reflects the individual’s self-evaluation is also an important factor, which may sup- port or restrain knowledge management or knowledge sharing in the organization. Cognitive Appraisal: Threat versus Challenge The Lazarus stress theory40 portrays two central processes that are very important to the relationship between person and environment: cognitive appraisal and coping. Cognitive appraisal refers to the individual’s evaluation of the sig- nificance of what is happening for his or her well-being, and coping refers to the individual’s efforts in thought and action to manage specific demands. According to Lazarus,41 appraisal of any situation can be divided into pri- mary and secondary. Primary appraisal examines the nature of the stimuli and determines whether the event is to be viewed as irrelevant, positive, or stressful. Stressful appraisals can take three forms: harm, threat, or challenge.42 Harm refers to psychological or physiological damage that has already occurred, as well as threat to potential future harm accompanied by fear.43 Challenge pertains to situations in which there is potential for gain or benefit. The emotions associated with challenge are excitement, eagerness, happiness or joy.44 The current research focuses on the appraisal concept, which is a key factor for understanding stress-relevant transac- tions. It emphasizes the emotional process- es that accompany a person’s expectations regarding the significance and outcome of a specific encounter. The appraisal concept may explain individual differences in cop- ing with emotions in environments that are objectively similar. Some researchers45 have referred to threat and challenge as motivational states, which result from the individual’s evaluation of situational demands and personal resources. Threat takes place when, following the individ- ual’s evaluations, resources do not meet situational demands. Challenge occurs when, as a result of the individual’s evalua- tions, resources meet situational demands. Examining the literature review reveals that threat suggests potential danger to one’s well-being or self-esteem.46 Those who experience anxiety in stressful or social situations, in tests and sports, an- ticipate failure and negative evaluation.47 Conversely, a challenge appraisal portrays confidence that the demands of a stressful situation can be overcome.48 Those who make a challenge appraisal focus on op- portunities for success, social rewards, and personal growth.49 Several studies50 have supported Lazarus’s51 theory that challenge is associated with higher coping expectations, lower subjective stress, and higher perceptions. According to social psychologists, challenge and threat are context bound and occur only in motivated performance situations, which are goal relevant to the performer, require instrumental cognitive responses, and are active.52 This study assumes that these variables are important, as they may predict the in- dividual’s tendency to share or not to share knowledge with his or her colleagues. The research hypotheses are: 1. High scores of self-efficacy will be associated with a positive attitude toward knowledge management and with a high degree of collaboration in the organization. 2. The higher self-esteem librarians possess, the more positive their attitude toward knowledge management will be and the higher their degree of collabora- tion in the organization will be. 3. The more challenged librarians are, the more positive attitude toward knowl- edge management they have, and the more they collaborate in the organization. 4. The more threatened librarians are, the less positive attitude toward knowl- edge management they have, and the less they collaborate in the organization. 5. The older and more experienced Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  115 librarians are, the higher their attitudes toward knowledge management, and the higher their degree of collaboration in the organization. Procedures The research was conducted during the summer semester of the 2009 academic year. It encompassed two main groups of Israeli librarians: public librarians and academic librarians. In Israel there are about 5,000 librarians, and the researcher sent 100 questionnaires via mail and 150 online questionnaires to randomly selected librarians who work in central libraries in the north, south, and center of Israel. Of this group, 190 librarians answered the questionnaires. Twenty-two respondents were male (11.6%) and one hundred sixty-eight were female (88.4%). Most (n= 108, 56.8%) were 41–60 years old, and the youngest age group (20–30) was also the smallest (n = 13, 6.8%). Regarding work experience, 47 (24.7%) had been librarians for more than 20 years, and 41 (21.6%) had been librarians for not more than five years. Their places of employment were di- vided between academic libraries (n = 105, 55.3%) and public libraries (n = 85, 44.7%). The study used five questionnaires: a personal details questionnaire (Question- naire A), perceptions toward knowledge management questionnaire (Question- naire B), a cognitive appraisal question- naire measuring threat versus challenge (Questionnaire C), a self-efficacy question- naire (Questionnaire D), and a self-esteem questionnaire (Questionnaire E). (All questionnaires appear in Appendix 1.) Questionnaire B measured librarians’ perceptions toward the concept of knowl- edge management. It is based on Boryung and Kim’s questionnaire53 (2008), but it was modified for the present research. It consists of 17 statements rated on a 5-point scale (1 – disagree; 5 – agree). A principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser Normaliza- tion was conducted and explained 65.9 percent of the variance. The principal components factor analysis revealed four distinct factors. The first relates to workers’ attitudes toward knowledge management in the organization (items 16, 10, 3, 17, 7, 5, 11); the second, to trust among the workers (items 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, 9); the third, to rewards granted by the orga- nization (items 14–15); and the fourth, to collaboration among the workers (items 16–17). It is important to note that two fac- tors are associated with the organization itself (trust and reward) and the other two are associated with workers’ readiness to collaborate (attitudes and collaboration). Table 1 presents the factor loading at- titude questionnaire on the four factors. Table 1 shows that the first factor’s load- ing is higher than .50, the second is .46, and the third and fourth are higher than .80. The cognitive appraisal questionnaire measured librarians’ feelings of threat ver- sus challenge when confronted with new situations (Questionnaire C). It consisted of 10 statements rated on a 6-point scale (1 – disagree; 6 – agree). This questionnaire was previously used54 and consisted of two factors: threat (6 items) and challenge (4 items). The Cronbach alpha was .86 for the threat factor and .58 for the challenge factor. The self-efficacy questionnaire (Ques- tionnaire D) measures people’s belief in their capabilities to mobilize the motiva- tion, cognitive resources, and courses of action. It consisted of 18 statements rated on a 5-point scale (1 – disagree; 5 – agree). This questionnaire was previously used55 and its Cronbach alpha coefficient was .95. The self-esteem questionnaire (Ques- tionnaire E) was adapted from a long- established self-report inventory.56 It consisted of 10 statements rated on a 7-point scale (1 – disagree; 7 – agree). This questionnaire was previously used57 and its Cronbach alpha coefficient was .83. Results Table 2 presents the Pearson correlations across the variables of self-esteem, self-ef- ficacy, threat and challenge, trust, reward, and attitudes and collaboration. It also shows the means and standard deviations of different measures of these variables. 116  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 Significant positive correlations were found for three measures (self-esteem, self-efficacy, trust) and attitudes and collaboration. The higher librarians’ self- esteem, the higher librarians’ self-efficacy; and the higher librarians’ level of trust in the organization, the higher their attitudes toward knowledge management and the higher their level of collaboration is. Sig- nificant negative correlations were found between threat and attitudes: r = –.19, p < .01. The more librarians feel threatened by knowledge management, the lower their attitudes are. TABLE 1 Factor Loading Attitude Questionnaire on the Four Factors Statement First Factor Second Factor Third Factor Fourth Factor 16. I am willing to share professional materials with colleagues .84 .12 –.08 .13 10. I am actively willing to share or provide infor- mation with colleagues when they ask .81 .18 .07 –.00 3. I voluntarily share my important information and knowledge with my colleagues .71 .23 .25 .16 17. I am willing to accept and use materials from colleagues .64 .28 –.07 .14 7. I interact with my colleagues in an exchange of information or knowledge .60 .47 .23 .14 5. I think if I provide valuable information and knowledge to colleagues, then they will do the same in return .56 .35 .37 –.28 11. My colleagues try to share their own materials .55 .46 .28 –.03 2. I trust the expertise of my colleagues .08 .76 .10 .14 4. When I face difficulties, I’m willing to ask my colleagues for help .12 .72 .16 .01 6. I freely and regularly communicate with my colleagues .32 .71 .02 .03 8. I do not hesitate to ask my colleagues to share information or knowledge with me if I need it .28 .65 .09 .10 1. I trust my colleagues in general .31 .64 –.15 –.10 9. My colleagues do not hesitate to ask me to share information or knowledge with them if they need it .39 .46 .14 –.34 15. Individual or group–based knowledge sharing is measured with fairness .12 .05 .91 .12 14. I feel that my organization provides workers with fair evaluation/reward systems based on their knowledge, material sharing .04 .13 .88 .22 12. I prefer working collaboratively to working alone .12 .06 .14 .85 13. If I have options, I prefer working with other people or groups to working independently .13 .08 .18 .84 α .88 .82 .78 .92 Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  117 To examine the relationship between personal characteristics (gender, work- place) and continuous variables (age, experience years, and education), a MANOVA was performed. The test did not reveal any significant differences concerning gender: F (2,175) = .85, p>.05, or concerning workplace: F (2,175) = .57, p>.05. Pearson correlations were also per- formed for age, number of working years, education, and the two dependant vari- ables: attitudes and collaboration. Signifi- cant positive correlations were found for age: r = .31, p < .001; number of working years: r = .19, p<.01; and collaboration. The older and the more experienced librarians are, the higher their level of collaboration. The researchers conducted a hierarchi- cal regression analysis using attitudes toward knowledge management as the dependant variable. The predictors were entered as five steps: 1) the personal characteristics of number of working years and librarian education; 2) the per- sonality characteristics (self-esteem and self-efficacy); 3) the situational character- istics (threat and challenge); 4) variables associated with the organization (trust and reward); and 5) interactions between the research variables. This regression explained 41 percent of attitudes toward knowledge management. Table 3 presents the hierarchical regression of attitudes toward knowledge management. An examination of the two first steps (personal and personality characteristics) reveals that these variables did not contrib- ute significantly to the explained variance. The third step introduced the situational characteristics (threat and challenge) and only the threat variable contributed signifi- cantly. The more participants feel threat- ened, the lower their attitudes toward knowledge management are. The fourth step added the trust and reward variables, which added 29 percent to the explained variance. The more the participants trust the organization and the larger the rewards they receive, the more positive an attitude they have toward knowledge manage- ment. At the fifth step, researchers multi- plied the interactions between the research variables. The interaction threat X reward contributed significantly and explained 7 percent of the explained variance. To understand this interaction, the participants’ group was divided into two subgroups according to their threat level: low or high. Researchers examined the correlation between reward and at- titudes toward knowledge management. A positive correlation was found in par- TABLE 2 Pearson Correlations of Self Esteem, Self–efficacy, Threat and Challenge, Trust, Reward, and Attitudes and Collaboration, and the Standard Deviation of Different Measures toward Attitudes and Collaboration Esteem Efficacy Threat Challenge Trust Reward Attitudes Collaboration Esteem Efficacy .53*** Threat –.27*** –.22** Challenge .22** .12 –.16 Trust .28*** .18** –.18* .09 Reward .07 .18* –.13 .01 .15 Attitudes .18* .14* –.19* .07 .71*** .26 Collaboration .19** .24*** –.04 .08 .23** .25*** .24*** M 5.96 4.10 1.82 4.58 4.52 2.91 4.52 3.95 SD .85 .49 .93 .87 .53 1.24 .54 .98 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 118  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 ticipants whose level of threat is low (r = .49, p <.001) and not in those whose level of threat is high (r =.01, p >.05). Librar- ians who are less threatened and receive rewards have better attitudes toward knowledge management. The next hierarchical regression refers to librarians’ collaboration. Table 4 pres- ents the hierarchical regression of librar- ians’ collaboration. The first four steps were identical to the previous hierarchical regression analysis. The fifth step added the attitude variable while the sixth step in- troduced interactions between the research variables. Table 4 presents the hierarchical regression of librarians’ collaboration. TABLE 3 Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Librarians' Attitudes Towards Knowledge Management b Steps Predictors 1 2 3 4 5 Working Years .00 –.03 –.03 –.01 .00 Education –.05 –.05 –.04 –.06 –.07 Self Esteem .15* .11 .09 .10 Self–Efficacy .07 .06 .01 –.01 Threat –.13 –.04 –.07 Challenge .02 –.02 –.02 Trust .53*** .51*** Reward .15** .12 Threat X Reward –.17** R² .00 .04 .06 .37*** .39*** DR² .00 .04 .02 .35*** .02 TABLE 4 Hierarchical Regression Coefficients of Librarians' Collaboration b Steps Predictors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Working Years .19** .16* .17* .17* .17* .17* Education .03 –.03 –.03 –.03 –.03 –.02 Self Esteem .07 .06 .06 .05 .05 Self–Efficacy .20* .20* .16* .16* .19* Threat .04 .10 .10 .07 Challenge .07 .06 .06 .09 Trust .23*** .18* .22** Reward .17* .16* .20** Attitude .08 .01 Attitude X Reward –.17* R² .04* .10** .10** .19*** .19*** .21*** DR² .04* .06* .00 .09*** .00 .02* Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  119 This regression explained 22 percent of librarians’ collaboration. An examination of the first step (personal characteristics) reveals that the working years variable contributed significantly and added 4 percent to the explained variance. The more years the librarians work, the higher their level of collaboration. In the second step, personality characteristics (self- esteem and self-efficacy) were entered. The self-efficacy contributed significantly and added 6 percent to the explained vari- ance. The higher librarians’ self-efficacy, the higher their level of collaboration is. The third step included the situational characteristics (threat and challenge), which did not contribute significantly to the explained variance. The fourth step added the trust and reward variables, which added 9 percent to the explained variance. The beta coef- ficient of these variables was positive. The more librarians feel that they receive rewards and the more they trust the organization, the more they are ready to collaborate. The fifth step introduced the attitude variable, which did not contribute significantly to the explained variance. At the sixth step, the researchers multiplied the interactions between the research variables. The interaction re- ward X attitude contributed significantly and explained 2 percent of the explained variance. To understand this interaction, the participants’ group was divided into two subgroups according to their at- titudes: low or high toward knowledge management. Researchers examined the correlation between low or high attitude and reward toward collaboration. A posi- tive correlation was found in both groups of participants between reward and col- laboration, but this correlation was higher among those participants whose attitudes toward knowledge management were lower toward knowledge management (r= .32. p <.05) than those participants whose attitudes toward knowledge man- agement were higher (r = .20. p <.05). In other words, the reward variable plays an important role among those whose attitudes toward knowledge management are lower. If they receive a reward, they will be willing to collaborate. Discussion H1 was supported; it indicated that librar- ians who scored highly on the self-efficacy scale also scored highly on attitudes toward knowledge management and collaboration in the organization. This result is commensurate with research on self-efficacy58 that shows that there is a positive link between self-efficacy and knowledge sharing. Moreover, accord- ing to Bandura,59 people who have high self-efficacy scores will be more likely to undertake realistically challenging tasks than those with low self-efficacy scores. In other words, those workers with high self-efficacy scores may perceive the process of knowledge management and knowledge sharing as a challenging task in the organization. The results pertaining to H2 demon- strate that this hypothesis was also ac- cepted. Librarians who scored highly on the self-esteem scale also scored highly on attitudes toward knowledge management and collaboration in the organization. This finding is interesting, as it emphasizes again the effect of the individual and his or her personality in the organizational process of knowledge management. H3 was rejected. The challenge vari- able that appears in this hypothesis is part of the cognitive appraisal variable that consists of challenge and threat, and H3 refers to the challenge aspect only. It was supposed that librarians who scored highly on challenge also scored highly on attitudes toward knowledge management and collaboration in the organization. However, H4 which is the second part of the cognitive appraisal variable, was partially accepted. H4 refers to the pos- sible association between high scores of threat and low scores of attitudes toward knowledge management and collaboration in the organization. The findings indicate that the more librarians are threatened by knowledge management, the lower their 120  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 attitudes toward knowledge management are. This result echoes the professional lit- erature finding that those people who view situations as threats assume that there is potential danger to their well-being or self- esteem.60 In the present study, it seems that those librarians who experience anxiety, or anticipate failure and negative evaluation when coping with the new, unknown, or unclear concepts of knowledge manage- ment or knowledge sharing, had low at- titudes toward knowledge management. H5 was supported. This finding is not surprising, as those older and experienced librarians, who are more familiar with their organizations and feel more secure in their workplace, understand the impor- tance and essence of knowledge manage- ment and are ready to share knowledge with their colleagues. They acknowledge that the processes of knowledge manage- ment and knowledge sharing may be use- ful both to them and to the organization, as it may improve their personal work and contribute to the organization. Our findings reveal some interesting facts about the significance of the reward in the context of knowledge management and knowledge sharing. The more librar- ians feel that they receive rewards, the more they trust the organization, the more they are ready to collaborate. Further- more, the larger the rewards the librarians receive, the more positive attitude they have toward knowledge management. The current study also shows that, among those librarians whose attitudes toward knowledge management are lower, the reward plays an important role; if they receive a reward, they will be ready to col- laborate. Moreover, librarians who are less threatened and are rewarded have better attitudes toward knowledge management. These findings are consistent with previous studies and can be associated with those of Constant, Kiesler, and Sproull61 and Kelly and Thibaut.62 These researchers have dis- cussed the value of rewards and asserted that knowledge sharing occurs when its reward exceeds its cost. Thus, if employees believe they will receive extrinsic rewards or promotion, they will develop positive attitudes toward knowledge sharing. Conclusion This study highlighted the character- istics that affect librarians’ attitudes toward knowledge management and collaboration (self-efficacy, self-esteem, and cognitive appraisal). These findings may have both theoretical and practical implications. On the theoretical level, the findings emphasize the importance of individual differences in the process of changes and assimilations of new con- cepts such as knowledge management in the organization, which may lead to further research in this field. On the prac- tical level, library directors may look for these traits when selecting new workers. The library directors may understand that the organization might benefit from hir- ing people with positive attitudes toward knowledge management and collabora- tion, as those workers may collaborate and share information while instructing students or conducting researches, thus improving the services the library offers to its patrons. Furthermore, if library di- rectors identify workers who are inclined to have negative attitudes toward knowl- edge management and collaboration, they can offer training programs to help them to overcome their inclination. Library directors can also propose rewards to encourage workers to share knowledge and collaborate. LIS programs should also include courses on knowledge manage- ment in the curriculum, highlighting the significance of this issue to the library. The limitation of the current study is that it was conducted only in one country: Israel. To generalize the impact of the findings, it should be recommenced to replicate this study in other countries, thus gain- ing a more thorough perspective of how personality characteristics and situational characteristics affect librarians’ readiness to collaborate and share information with other librarians in an organization. Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  121 Appendix 1: Questionnaires Librarians' Perceptions Towards Knowledge Management Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards knowledge management in your organization. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1=not at all; 5=at a very high level) Statement 1. Not at all 2. Slightly 3. Average Level 4. More than Average 5. At a Very High Level 1. I trust my colleagues in general 2. I trust the expertise of my colleagues 3. I voluntarily share my important information and knowledge with my colleagues 4. When I face difficulties, I’m willing to ask my colleagues for help 5. I think if I provide valuable information and knowledge to colleagues, then they will do the same in return 6. I freely and regularly communicate with my colleagues 7. I interact with my colleagues in an exchange of information or knowledge 8. I do not hesitate to ask my colleagues to share information or knowledge with me if I need it 9. My colleagues do not hesitate to ask me to share information or knowledge with them if they need it 10. I am actively willing to share or provide information with colleagues when they ask 11. My colleagues try to share their own materials 12. I prefer working collaboratively to working alone 13. If I have options, I prefer working with other people or groups to working indepen- dently 14. I feel that my organization provides work- ers with fair evaluation/reward systems based on their knowledge, material sharing 15. Individual or group-based knowledge shar- ing is measured with fairness 16. I am willing to share professional materials with colleagues 17. I am willing to accept and use materials from colleagues 122  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 Cognitive Appraisal Questionnaire: Threat versus Challenge Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards new situations. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1=not at all; 6=at a very high level) Statement 1. Not at all 2. Very Slightly 3. Slightly 4. Average Level 5. More than Average 6. At a Very High Level 1. The situation stresses me 2. The situation seems difficult to me 3. The situation threatens me 4. The situation challenges me 5. The situation will harm me 6. You think you can benefit from this situation 7. The situation makes me angry 8. This situation causes anxiety 9. This situation causes certainty 10. The situation enables me to show my capacity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards your capacities. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1=not at all; 5=at a very high level) 1. Not at all 2. Slightly 3. Average Level 4. More than Average 5. At a Very High Level 1. I believe I can be efficient in various roles 2. I believe I can make good decisions 3. Everything is possible, if I really try 4. When I face difficult missions, I'm sure I can cope with them 5. Generally, I think I can achieve what I think is important 6. I can succeed, when I'm determined 7. I can face challenges, successfully 8. I believe my sense of judgment 9. I will always find a way to achieve my aims, even if they are complicated 10. I can do things properly even in bad conditions 11. I am sure I can fulfill missions success- fully 12. I believe I can correct my mistakes 13. I know how to face new missions Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  123 Self Esteem Questionnaire Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards your self esteem. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1=not at all; 7=at a very high level) 1. Not at all 2. Very Slightly 3. Slightly 4. Less than Average 5. Average Level 6. More than Average 7. At a Very High Level 1. Generally, I'm satis- fied of myself 2. Sometimes I think, I do not worse anything 3. I feel I have some good qualities 4. I can do things well, as others do 5. I think I do not have much to be proud of 6. Sometimes I feel useless 7. I wish I would have more personal dignity 8. I feel I am worthy, comparing others 9. I think I am a failure 10. I have a positive personal image Self-Efficacy Questionnaire Below are statements concerning your attitudes towards your capacities. Please mark with X the column which describes your accordance with the following statements (1=not at all; 5=at a very high level) 1. Not at all 2. Slightly 3. Average Level 4. More than Average 5. At a Very High Level 14. Even when the situation is difficult, I can do things on the best side 15. I can achieve most of the goals which I have planned 16. I am sure I can fulfill most of my plans 17. Comparing to others, I can do most of the things on the best side 18. Even if I face difficulties, I do not give up. 124  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 Notes 1. J.C. Spender and Robert M. Grant, “Knowledge and the Firm: Overview,” Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter 1996): 5–9; Thomas A. Stewart, Intellectual Capital: The Wealth of Organizations (New York: Doubleday Currency, 1997). 2. Morten T. Hansen, “The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowl- edge across Organization Subunits,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 no. 1 (1999): 82–111; Carla O’Dell and Jackson Grayson, If Only We Knew What We Know (New York: Free Press, 1988); G. Szulanski, “Exploring Internal Sickness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter 1996): 27–43. 3. Peter Drucker, Post-capitalist Society (Oxford: Butterwort Heinemann, 1993). 4. Alvin Toffler, Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century (New York: Bantam Books, 1990). 5. Thomas H. Davenport, David W. De Long, and Michael C. Beers, “Successful Knowledge Management Projects,” Sloan Management Review 39, no. 2 (1998): 43−57. 6. Michael Buckland, “Information as Thing,” Journal of the American Society of Information Science 42 no. 5 (1991): 351–60. 7. Ikujirō Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japan Com- panies Create the Dynamics of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 8. Nonaka and Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company.” 9. Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (New York: Doubleday, 1996). 10. David Skyrme, “Knowledge Management: Making Sense of an Oxymoron,” Management Insights 2 (1997). 11. Tatiana White, “Knowledge Management in an Academic Library Case Study: KM within Oxford University Library Services (OULS),” 2004. Available online a: http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac. uk/archive/. [Accessed 8 August 2009]. 12. Jain Priti, “An Empirical Study of Knowledge Management in Academic Libraries in East and Southern Africa,” Libri 56, no. 5 (2007): 377–92. 13. Davenport, De Long, and Beers, “Successful Knowledge Management Projects.” 14. Megan Santosus and Jon Surmacz, “The ABCs of Knowledge Management” (2001). Avail- able online at www.cio.com/research/knowledge/edit/kmabcs.html. [Accessed 15 August 2009]. 15. Jeanne Holm, Capturing the Spirit of Knowledge Management. Paper presented at the American Conference on Information Systems, Boston, Mass., 2001; Gordon Petrash, Managing Knowledge Assets for Value. Paper presented at the Knowledge Based Leadership Conference (Boston, Mass.: Linkage Inc., 2006). 16. Gunter Dueck, “Views of Knowledge Are Human Views,” Knowledge Management, IBM Systems Journal 40, no. 4 (2001): 885–88. Available online at www.research.ibm.com/journals/sj/404/ dueck.html. [Accessed 8 October 2009]. 17. France Bouthillier and Kathleen Shearer, “Understanding Knowledge Management,” In- formation Research 8 no. 1 (2002): 1–30. Available online at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper141. html. [Accessed 8 October 2009]. 18. Dueck, “Views of Knowledge Are Human Views”; Bouthillier and Shearer, “Understanding Knowledge Management”; Ravi Shankar, M.D. Singh, Amol Gupta, and Rakesh Narain, “Strategic Planning for Knowledge Management Implementation in Engineering Firms,” Work Study 52, no. 4 (2003): 190–200. 19. Michael Koenig, “KM: The Forest for All the Trees,” Knowledge Management World. Avail- able online at www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News-Analysis/KM-the-forest-for-all-the- trees-15385.aspx. [Accessed 7 May 2009]. 20. Kim Seonghee and Ju Boryung, “An Analysis of Faculty Perceptions: Attitudes toward Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration in an Academic Institution,” Library & Information Science Research 30 (2008): 282–90. 21. Minu Ipe, “Knowledge-Sharing in Organizations: A Conceptual Framework,” Human Resource Development Review 2, no. 4 (2003): 337–59. 22. Nancy M. Dixon, Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000); Ming Kang and Yeongho Kim, “Development of Knowledge Flow Diagram for Intraorganizational Knowledge-Sharing Enhancement,” in Proceed- ings of the Conference of Korea Society of Management Information System, ed. S.C. Ryu (1999), 141–52. 23. Angel Cabrera and Elizabeth F. Cabrera, “Knowledge-Sharing Dilemmas,” Organization Studies 23 (2002): 687–710. 24. Angel Cabrera, William Collons, and Jesus F. Salgado, “Determinants of Individual En- gagement in Knowledge Sharing,” International Journal of Human Resource Management 17, no. 2 (2006): 245–64. Librarians’ Attitudes toward Knowledge Management  125 25. Albert Bandura, “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency,” American Psychologist 37 (1982): 122–47. 26. Bandura, “Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency”; Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986); M. Igbaria and J. Iivari, “The Effects of Self-efficacy on Computer Usage,” Omega 23, no. 6 (1995): 587–605. 27. Albert Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control (New York: Freeman, 1997. 28. Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins, “Application of Social Cognitive to Training for Computer Skills,” Information Systems Research 6, no. 2 (1995): 118–43; Deborah R. Compeau and Christopher A. Higgins, “Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study,” MIS Quarterly 23, no. 2 (1999): 145–58; Richard D. Johnson and George M. Marakas, “Research Report: The Role of Behavioral Modeling in Computer Skills Acquisition—Toward Refinement of the Model,” Information Systems Research 11, no. 4 (2000): 402–17. 29. Rob F. Easley, Sarv Devaraj and Michael J. Crant, “Relating Collaborative Echnology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of Management Information Systems 19, no. 4 (2003): 247–68; Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, and Davis B. Gordon, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2003): 425–78. 30. Meng-Hsiang Hsu and Chao-Min Chiu, “Internet Self-efficacy and Electronic Service Ac- ceptance,” Decision Support Systems 38, no. 3 (2004): 369–81; Jolie Lam and Matthew Lee, “Bridge the Digital Divide—The Role of Internet Self-efficacy towards Learning Computer and the Internet among Elderly in Hong Kong, China,” Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (2005): 1–10. 31. Golnaz Sadri and Ivan T. Robertson, “Self-efficacy and Work-Related Behaviour: a Review and Meta-analysis,” Applied Psychology: An International Review 42, no. 2 (1993): 139-52; Alexander D. Stajkovic and Fred Luthans, “Self-efficacy and Work-Related Performance: A Meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 124, no. 2 (1998): 240–61. 32. Paul R. Pintrich and Teresa Garcia, “Student Goal Orientation and Self- regulation in the College Classroom,” in Advances in Motivation and Achievement: Goals and Self-regulatory Processes, eds. Martin L. Maehr and Paul R. Pintrich (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1991), 371–402. 33. Frank Pajares, “Current Directions in Self-efficacy Research,” in Advances in Motivation and Achievement, eds. Martin L. Maehr and Paul R. Pintrich (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1991), 1–49. 34. Gee W. Bock and Young-Gul Kim, “Breaking the Myths of Rewards: An Exploratory Study of Attitudes about Knowledge Sharing,” Information Resources Management Journal 15, no. 2 (2002): 14–21; Atreyi Kankanhalli, Bernard Cheng-Yian Tan, and Kwok Kee Wei, “Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation,” MIS Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2005): 113–43. 35. Morris Rosenberg, Society and the Adolescent Self-image (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965). 36. Abraham K. Korman, “Self-esteem Variable in Vocational Choice,” Journal of Applied Psy- chology 50 (1966): 479–86; Abraham K. Korman, “Toward a Hypothesis of Work Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (1970): 31–41. 37. Brett W. Pelham and William B. Swann, “From Self-conceptions to Self-worth: On the Sources and Structure of Global Self-esteem,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1989): 672–80. 38. Kenneth C. Simpson and David Boyle, “Esteem Construct Generality and Academic Per- formance,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 35 (1975): 897–904. 39. Korman, “Toward a Hypothesis of Work Behavior”; Richard J. Shavelson, Judith J. Hubner, and Geirge C. Stanton, “Validation of Construct Interpretations,” Review of Educational Research 46 (1976): 407–41. 40. Richard S. Lazarus, “Coping Theory and Research: Past, Present and Future,” Psychosomatic Medicine 55 (1993): 234–47. 41. Richard S. Lazarus, Psychological Stress and the Coping Process (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966). 42. Richard S. Lazarus and Suzan Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping (New York: Springer, 1984). 43. Richard S. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991); Lazarus and Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping. 44. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation. 45. Jim Blascovich, Wendy Berry Mendes, Sarah B. Hunter, and Brian Lickel, “The Social Psychology of Stigma,” in Stigma, eds. Todd Heatherton, Robert Kleck, and Jay G. Hull (New 126  College & Research Libraries  March 2011 York: Guilford Publications, Inc., 2000). 46. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation; Lazarus and Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Ronald M. Rapee and Richard G. Heimberg, “Cognitive-Behavioral Model of Anxiety in Social Phobia,” Behaviour Research and Therapy 35, no. 8 (1997): 741–56; Irwin G. Sarason and Barbara R. Sarason, “Test Anxiety,” in Handbook of Social-Evaluative Anxiety, ed. Harold Leitenberg (New York: Plenum, 1990), 475–85. 47. Aaron T. Beck, Gary Emery, and Ruth Greenberg, Anxiety Disorders and Phobias: A Cognitive Perspective (New York: Basic Books, 1985); Rapee and Heimberg, “Cognitive-Behavioral Model”; Barry R. Schlenker and Mark R. Leary, “Social Anxiety and Self-presentation: A Conceptualization and Model,” Psychological Bulletin 92 (1982): 641–69; Philip Wilson and Robert C. Eklund, “The Relationship between Competitive Anxiety and Self-presentational Concerns,” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 20 (1998): 81–97. 48. Richard S. Lazarus, Allen D. Kanner, and Suzan Folkman, “Emotions: A Cognitive-Phe- nomenological Analysis,” in Emotion: Theory, Research and Experience, eds. Robert Plutchik and Henry Kellerman (New York: Faculty Press, 1980), 189–217; Crystal L. Park and Suzan Folkman, “Meaning in the Context of Stress and Coping,” Review of General Psychology 1, no. 2 (1997): 115–44. 49. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation; Lazarus and Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Lazarus, Kanner, and Folkman, “Emotions: A Cognitive-Phenomenological Analysis.” 50. Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, and Lickel, “The Social Psychology of Stigma”; Jim Blascovich and Joe Tomaka, “The Biopsychosocial Model of Arousal Regulation,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 28, ed. Mark P. Zanna (San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press, 1996), 1–51. 51. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation. 52. Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, and Lickel, “The Social Psychology of Stigma.” 53. Kim and Boryung, “An analysis of faculty perceptions: Attitudes toward knowledge shar- ing and collaboration in an academic institution.” 54. Noa Aharony, “Web 2.0 Use by Librarians,” Library and Information Science Research 31 (2009): 29–37; S. Yekutiel, “Fathers’ and Mothers’ Confrontation with the Transition of Parent- hood” (unpublished master’s thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 1990). 55. O. Haviv, “Inaction Bias, Self-efficacy and Escalation of Commitment” (master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2006); Y. Rozen, “Self-efficacy and Anxiety as Factors of Anticipation” (master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1998). 56. Rosenberg, Society and the Adolescent Self-image. 57. D. Ben David, “Self-esteem and Help-Seeking as Mediators in Coping with Stress” (master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University, 2001); H. Levi, “High Self-esteem, Realistic Self-esteem, and Student Adjustment to School” (master’s thesis, Haifa University, 1982). 58. Bock and Kim, “Breaking the Myths of Rewards.” 59. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. 60. Lazarus, Emotion and Adaptation; Lazarus and Folkman, Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Rapee and Heimberg, “Cognitive-Behavioral Model”; Sarason and Sarason, “Test Anxiety.” 61. David Constant, Sara Kiesler, and Lee Sproull, “What’s Mine Is Ours, or Is It? A Study of Attitudes about Information Sharing,” Information System Research 5, no. 4 (1994): 400–21. 62. Harold H. Kelly and John W. Thibaut, Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence (New York: Wiley, 1978). Palgrave Macmillan is pleased to introduce: The Shakespeare First Folios A Descriptive Catalog Edited by Eric Rasmussen and Anthony James West ISBN: 978-0-230-51765-3 / $350.00 hc. (C$403.00) Distributor of Berg Publishers, I.B.Tauris, Manchester University Press, Pluto Press and Zed Books (888) 330-8477 • Fax: (800) 672-2054 • www.palgrave.com Browse these reference wor ks and many other Shakespeare resources at www.palgrave.com A Directory of Shakespeare in Performance (available as a 3 volume set) 978-0-230-54677-6 $275.00 hc. (C$332.00) 978-1-4039-1734-8 $275.00 hc. (C$332.00) 978-0-230-22397-4 $275.00 hc. (C$316.00) “A reference work to be reckoned with.” —Robert Shore, Around the Globe Is Your Collection Complete? Coming September 2011 978-0-230-54677-6 978-0-230-54677-6 978-0-230-22397-4 978-0-230-22397-4