Assessing antecedents of individual readiness to adopt knowledge management in higher educational institutions

Abstract

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are profoundly vested in knowledge-based endeavors. It emphasizes creating a knowledge-based atmosphere and recognizing knowledge as an intellectual capital. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of factors such as top management support, the perceived degree of collegiality, and organizational culture (OC) in fostering trust among members of HEIs and enabling individual readiness for knowledge management (KM). The faculty members affiliated with India’s HEIs provided the data for this study. At AMOS, data was analyzed using EFA, CFA, and SEM. The present study suggests that perceived collegiality and organizational culture are crucial for increasing faculty members’ trust in their own preparedness for implementing knowledge management in higher education institutions. This paper determined that to promote and enhance institutional KM activities, it is crucial that individuals’ trust is encouraged. The findings of the study are relevant for policymakers, practitioners, and service recipients at HEIs. In addition, the results contribute a novel model to the field of knowledge administration in the higher education sector.

Keywords:

• knowledge management
• higher education institutions
• trust
• organizational culture
• top management support
• perceived degree of collegiality

1. Introduction

Knowledge can be defined as awareness, experience, values, or comprehension of a person or thing, such as facts (descriptive knowledge), skills (procedural knowledge), or objects (acquaintance knowledge). Knowledge management drives the higher education institution’s capability to collect and analyze information, transform data, and apply that information (Lo et al., 2021). It is crucial to identify valuable data pertaining to academic, research, and subject area updates, receive those, consolidate them, and share them with stakeholders such as students, faculties, and employees in order to promote and foster creativity and innovation (Barba-Sanchez et al., 2022; Sedziuvienne & Vveinhardt, 2009). For colleges and universities to thrive in the changing landscape and greater challenges of higher education, they will need to pursue creative knowledge (Agarwal & Marouf, 2014; U. F. Sahibzada, Jianfeng, et al., 2020). Capitalizing knowledge and skills with a high level of value addition must be the institution’s primary goal if it is to succeed in economic and social progress (U. F. Sahibzada & Mumtaz, 2023). Determining whether a specific knowledge or ability is high-value or low-value and whether it is easy to replace or difficult to replace, would be a significant difficulty in this situation (Agarwal & Marouf, 2014). Contrary to tacit information held by individuals, explicit knowledge may be replaced. The college or university also loses the social capital—the totality of all the ties and resources connected to those connections—that a faculty member or staff member brings to the institution when they leave or retire. Also, the true challenge for HEIs is to make knowledge easily and freely accessible to their faculty, students, and other staff (Lo et al., 2021; Pinto, 2014). While knowledge management has grown in importance in higher education institutions in India, there is a dearth of research that looks at the enabling factors and results of knowledge management methods (U. F. Sahibzada, Jianfeng, et al., 2020). According to Bhusry and Ranjan (2011), HEIs are required to establish a knowledge environment and acknowledge knowledge as intellectual capital (Iqbal et al., 2019).

As we enter the twenty-first century, novelty, profundity, and innovation are reshaping and redefining the world. When a “knowledge society” has been achieved, “knowledge” and “information” are regarded as fundamental development factors. In the 1960s and mid-1970s, economists such as Machlup and Porat evaluated the impact of knowledge on the economy, and management researchers such as Drucker (1992) investigated the application of management knowledge from a definitive perspective. He argued that land, labor, and capital-quality creation factors have become the fundamental sources of knowledge and that knowledge has become a secondary driver of the new economy. Presently, it is widely acknowledged that the majority of modern affiliations value knowledge, not “things.” This knowledge has emerged as the focal point of institutional and legitimate planning and administration. As the most significant centers for instruction, learning, and evaluation, universities require effective management of their intellectual and knowledge assets. As universities strive to provide quality instruction and evaluation within their limited budgetary framework, the management of these assets is becoming progressively more complicated.

The changing era has introduced the advent of online education. Knowledge and information are being shared free on platforms such as MOOCs. It brings challenges for Indian HEIs to maintain a balance between offline lectures and online courses. Indian HEIs also face duplicates in teaching material that affects the creativity of the faculty (Agarwal & Marouf, 2014; DiMaio, 2010). In the lack of a knowledge integration system, teachers are always involved in recreating course material, because of which they lag in spending time on students’ mentoring and project collaborations. Although academic institutions demand professors to publish their work, there is frequently little to no support in the form of research groups, mentoring, collaboration, or regular research meetings. Faculty need knowledge access in terms of research paper repositories, and software for similarity checks of their articles, as their career growth depends much on the availability of such integrated systems that speed up their task. Consequently, based on the performance of employees the performance of HEI is also constantly evaluated (Sahibzada et al., 2023).

Further, informal knowledge, which is the knowledge that is always changing, does not have adequate space for sharing and participation in such organizations. There is space for considerably more collaboration and interaction between the various departments or schools at the Indian university as well as between the administration, faculty, and personnel (U. F. Sahibzada, Jianfeng, et al., 2020; Veer Ramjeawon & Rowley, 2018). In this context, studying antecedents such as trust, perceived degree of collegiality, and top management support may be crucial in facilitating the adoption and participation of knowledge management practices by HEIs in India (Debowski, 2006; U. F. Sahibzada, Cai, et al., 2020).

The critical processes of an organization are contingent upon the strategic decisions made by the upper management (Lo et al., 2021). HEIs must be swift in their innovation practices (U. F. Sahibzada et al., 2023) if they are to survive in a competitive environment (U. F. Sahibzada, Jianfeng, et al., 2020). Top management makes all crucial decisions regarding the formulation of policies, restructuring, and alterations. Also, they are agents of cultural change, infrastructure development, and the motivation of employees to adopt organizational procedures. In addition, collegiality is essential in organizations for supporting the decisions of upper management and facilitating their actions. Through this, people respect their relationships reciprocally. They respect one another’s contributions and are concerned for one another’s welfare (Gappa et al., 2007). As a result, this becomes the primary motivator for bringing about any change in organizations, as employees are more cooperative towards management decisions and work with other members to ensure the success of implementation (Ambrose et al., 2005). Organizational culture is also regarded as extremely relevant for the establishment of all organizational practices within businesses. In addition, organizational culture encourages employees to share similar emotions, beliefs, and behaviors. In (HEIs), faculty, staff, and students adhere to the same vision, mission, norms, and goals in order to operate the institution and achieve their individual goals. Organizational culture facilitates the seamless implementation of any new process when leaders follow it correctly and strategically (Abbas & Kumari, 2021). As antecedents of individual readiness (IR) for knowledge management in HEIs, organizational culture (OC), perceived degree of collegiality (PDC), and support from top management (TM) cannot be disregarded in addressing the readiness of employees for knowledge management. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there are few studies examining the mediating role of trust among OC, PDC, TM, and IR.

Thus, the purpose of the study is to examine the relationship between organizational culture, the perceived degree of collegiality, support from top management, and trust. In addition, the study investigates the function of trust in determining readiness for adopting KM in higher education institutions.

2. Literature review

2.1. Knowledge management

Wilson (2002), Vandavasi et al. (2020), and Abbas and Kumari (2021) all assert that the management of knowledge is a challenging endeavor due to its complexity. Knowledge management is defined by Davenport and Prusak (1998) as a method that facilitates the process of sharing, distributing, creating, capturing, and comprehending various facts and figures within an organization. In a more technical definition, Liebowitz (1999) emphasized that knowledge management is an interaction between human capital and information within an organization. To elaborate, Liebowitz (1999) proposed that human capital is determined by intelligence, imagination, intuition, level of education, skills, experience, and other human characteristics. In addition to documentation of human experiences and achievements, Liebowitz (1999) argues that information also includes solutions to specific problems. In the context of education, Petrides and Nodine (2003) define KM as a set of practices designed to enhance teaching, research, and administrative duties, as well as promote the use and sharing of data and information (Kumari & Saharan, 2020). According to Ashok (2004) and U. F. Sahibzada, Jianfeng, et al. (2020), KM is an effective learning process that focuses on the explication, exploitation, and sharing of human knowledge, which is appropriate to improve organizational performance. Knowledge management creates intellectual capital, which brings innovation and a competitive advantage for organizations to compete in a globalized and turbulent market (Dal Mas et al., 2018). Deloitte (2021) highlighted the significance of knowledge management as a cultural strategy to increase firms’ resistance to the current social and economic complexity brought on by the pandemic crisis around the world. Further, the learning culture aspect as a core part of KM was highlighted by Sahibzada et al. (2021) and Cillo et al. (2022)

2.2. Top management support and trust

Support from senior management are essential for the successful implementation of knowledge management (Horak, 2001; Ribiere & Sitar, 2003; Imam & Zaheer, 2021, Sahibzada et al., 2023). Top management must instill in their workers the habits of knowledge sharing, perpetual learning, and the pursuit of new ideas for improved organizational performance (Abbas & Kumari, 2021; Sahibzadaet al., 2020). In order for employees to participate in the process of knowledge management, senior executives must serve as models (Lo et al., 2021). The executive leadership must maintain morale and foster a culture that makes knowledge management simple. Support and commitment from senior management are essential for the successful implementation of KM in organizations, according to previous research (Abbas & Kumari, 2021; Jarrar, 2002; Sharp, 2003). Top management must provide consistent and concrete leadership support for KM implementation (Latif et al., 2023; Lo et al., 2021; Rofiaty, 2019). This facilitates the formulation of the initial hypothesis.

H₀₁:

Support from the top management significantly and positively influences the trust among the faculty members in higher education institutions.

2.3. Perceived degree of collegiality and trust

Collegiality reflects the collective responsibility shared by every member of a group without oversight from superiors (Cipriano, 2012; Peters, 2021). Specifically, collegiality emphasizes fostering productive disagreement among group members. In the context of education, collegiality refers to the mutually respectful relationship between individuals that motivates them to value each other’s contributions and care about their well-being (Gappa et al., 2007; Peters, 2021). According to Ambrose et al. (2005), collegiality among faculty members is the primary reason for faculty members’ satisfaction and, consequently, their contribution to positive changes in the institution. Considering these arguments, a higher degree of perceived collegiality can contribute to the knowledge management process and further an institution’s increased productivity (Bird et al., 2019; Marouf & Agarwal, 2016). The necessity of the following hypothesis is necessitated by the significance of collegiality in fostering employees’ mutual comprehension at work.

H₀₂:

Perceived degree of collegiality significantly and positively influences trust among the faculty members in higher education institutions.

2.4. Organizational culture and trust

In addition to senior management support, organizational culture is a crucial factor for knowledge management implementation (Kumari & Saharan, 2020; Lauri et al., 2016). Culture refers to the “fundamental beliefs, values, norms, and social customs that govern how individuals act and behave in an organization” (Cillo et al., 2022). Developing a positive culture is a significant obstacle for organizations. Creating a culture conducive to the implementation of KM is already half the battle won. A collaborative culture encourages employees to create and share knowledge in groups. Iqbal et al. (2019) also mentioned that culture works well to set the ground for the KM process and it varies as per countries and organizations. Organizations must create and promote a culture where Individual employees congregate in order to communicate and collaborate (Kumari & Saharan, 2021). Lee and Choi (2003) provided empirical support for the central function of collaborative culture in KM implementation. Trust is another crucial aspect of culture for the successful implementation of knowledge management (Lee & Choi, 2003; Fischer, 2022). According to Wong (2005), a lack of mutual trust among employees will make them suspicious of one another. Further, a culture of innovation is an essential component of the KM implementation procedure (Sahibzada et al., 2023) and employees should be granted more autonomy and authority in this area (Cillo et al., 2022). Organizations with an open culture in which employee errors are tolerated and absolved permit employees to make errors. Employee errors should be viewed as an investment because they are a significant source of learning (Cillo et al., 2022; Sahibzada, et al., 2020; Wong & Aspinwall, 2003; Wong, 2005). If an organization believes that its culture is too rigid to embrace new ideas, it must either adapt its KM implementation process to its culture or change its culture entirely. KM initiatives should align with the culture, style, and fundamental values of the organization (Cillo et al., 2022; Lee & Hong, 2002). This may increase confidence in the system. We create the following hypothesis based on these statements:

H₀₃:

Organisational culture significantly and positively influences the trust among the faculty members in higher education institutions.

2.5. Trust and individual readiness for KM

Trust is the faith and confidence between two or more parties that ensures they will share a fair, dependable, ethical, competent, and non-threatening relationship (Caldwell & Clapham, 2003; Von Behr et al., 2023). Putnam (1993) & Kankanhalli et al. (2005) define it as having faith in the good intent, competence, and dependability of employees regarding the contribution and use of knowledge. Trust provides a context for cooperation and knowledge exchange among people, even when they lack intimate knowledge of one another (Von Behr et al., 2023). Moreover, research indicates that trust facilitates knowledge exchange in organizations (Liao & Wu, 2010; Von Behr et al., 2023). A study by Sahibzada et al. (2022) highlighted that trust helped in the process of KM amongst knowledge workers in HEIs of Pakistan and China. Individuals must have trust in their coworkers in order to share their knowledge, as knowledge sharing is a form of authority sharing (Marouf & Agarwal, 2016). Seeing the dearth of research, studying the relationship between trust and individual readiness for KM in Indian HEIs is pertinent. Thus, the following hypothesis is created.

H₀₄:

Trust significantly and positively influences the readiness to implement knowledge management in higher education institutions.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Item generation

Depending on their applicability in the milieu of the present study, various studies were mined for items to assess diverse constructs. In the 2016 study by Marouf & Agarwal, for instance, items were adapted to measure such constructs as trust, the perceived degree of collegiality, and individual preparedness. Similarly, the items used to assess organizational culture and senior management were adapted from Agarwal and Marouf’s (2014) study. Therefore, the items employed in these studies have been altered to be more suitable for measuring perceived utility and perceived risk post-adoption. All items in the questionnaire were asked on 5-point Likert scale, that ranged from 1 “(strongly disagree)” to 5 “(strongly agree).”

Ten academicians from a prestigious university located in northern India and funded by the central government were consulted for pre-testing purposes (Hinkin, 1995). They were given directions to evaluate the questionnaire items for relevance, clarity, and inconsistencies. These academicians believed that the written expression of certain items could be streamlined to make them more applicable to the Indian context. These items were rephrased based on their suggestions. The questionnaire was re-sent to academics, and only after their approval did further research proceed.

3.2. Sample

Faculty members associated with HEIs in the Delhi-NCR region provided the data. The sample was collected using the non-probability sampling techniques from which the convenience sampling method is been employed. The institutes in this region naturally attract students from disparate racial, social, and religious backgrounds from across the nation. Thus, it is anticipated that these students will represent the cultural diversity of the nation.

4. Data collection

Bashir and Madhavaiah’s (2015) guidelines for collecting data from Internet users are followed in the current study. Initially, a questionnaire was developed using Google Forms. The URL to the survey was created and spread on a variety of online student pages, forums, and groups. One month was allotted for responses. 318 responses were generated in a month. 173 of these questionnaires were eliminated because they were regarded as insufficient or unsuitable for further analysis. Thus, only 245 questionnaires were deemed appropriate for further examination, equating to an impressive utilization rate of 77.04 percent. On the basis of 17 questionnaire items, this sample size is deemed adequate for structural equation modeling (Hatcher, 1994; Wegener et al., 1999).

The skewness and kurtosis of the rest of the respondent variables fell within the allowable range of −2 to + 2, showing adequate normality (Hair et al., 2010; Malhotra et al., 2008). The VIF values were below 3, eliminating the possibility of multicollinearity among dependent and independent variable pairs (O’brien, 2007). All reported VIF values were less than 3.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Data reduction and model assessment

A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the constructs. The sample for the pilot study was 100 faculty members from Delhi-NCR. The results were favorable and under acceptable values. Then, finally, the survey was conducted on 245 respondents by implementing exploratory factor analysis to determine the uni-dimensionality of the instruments (Hair et al., 2010; Malhotra et al., 2008). Further, Principal component analysis along with Varimax rotation was used for factor extraction. Given that the assessments of the constructs were reflective, each item assessing a particular construct can be regarded as its own reflection. Therefore, items with load values below 0.40 were eliminated to avoid future problems with model validation. All items were strongly loaded on their respective constructs, establishing their discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha values for the five extracted constructors are 0.925 (continuation intention), 0.928 (user satisfaction), 0.838 (post-adoption perceived risk), 0.848 (post-adoption perceived utility), and 0.745 (post-adoption perceived value).

5.2. Measurement model

AMOS 24 was used to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). All items were significantly loaded in the model (Cmin/df = 1.995; TLI = 0.946; CFI = 0.957; RMSEA = 0.065 (Hair et al., 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999).; AVE (>0.5) values, Composite reliability (>0.7) (Table 1) for factors confirmed convergent validity (Fornell & Larker, 1981). The HTMT scores (estimated by the Monte Carlo Simulation) remained within the 0.85 allowable range (Table 2), supporting discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). Utilizing Harman’s single factor score, Roni et al. (2014) examined the problem of common method bias (CMB). The poor fit of the single factor model (Cmin/df = 9.955; GFI = 0.599; TLI = 0.564; CFI = 0.597; RMSEA = 0.156) indicates that the data are not impacted by the issue of CMB.

Table 1. Data reduction and constructs

S.No.	Item Code	Item	EFA Loading	Factor (Source)
Total Variance= 78.119 percent; “KMO=0.842”; “BTS (sig=0.000)”
1.	TM1	Senior managers openly express their determination in the adoption of KM system.	0.920	Top Management support (TM) Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.948 CR= 0.942 AVE= 0.803
2.	TM2	Senior managers always guide and support in executing KM projects and policies.	0.910
3.	TM4	Top management appreciates novel ideas of employees.	0.900
4.	TM5	There is a clear linkage between top management planning and KM strategy.	0.873
5.	Tr1	“I believe that peers in my college or university give credit where credit is due for the knowledge of others.”	0.704	Trust (Tr) Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.874 CR= 0.876 AVE= 0.638
6.	Tr2	“I believe that peers at my college or university are competent in knowledge management application.”	0.836
7.	Tr3	I believe that peers at my college or university appropriately credit the origin of the information they obtain.	0.838
8.	Tr4	Regarding the reuse of knowledge, I believe that my peers have excellent intentions.	0.789
9.	PDC1	The majority of my college/university peers are more knowledgeable than I am.	0.827	Perceived Degree of Collegiality (PDC) Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.849 CR= 0.849 AVE= 0.652
10.	PDC2	The students and faculty at my college/university respect one another.	0.837
11.	PDC3	Colleagues at my college/university are mutually supportive.	0.832
12.	OC2	My college/university provides proper space and time for learning.	0.884	Organizational Culture (OC) Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.895 CR= 0.897 AVE= 0.743
13.	OC3	My college/university provides opportunity for innovations.	0.891
14.	OC4	There is an environment of mutual trust and cooperation among employees.	0.884
15	IR1	I will always share my knowledge with college/university colleagues who request it.	0.753	Individual Readiness to Implement Knowledge Management Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.753 CR= 0.766 AVE= 0.526
16.	IR2	“I intend to frequently share my knowledge with my college/university peers in the future.”	0.763
17.	IR3	“I will attempt to effectively impart my knowledge to my college/university peers.”	0.811
Items Not Retained after EFA
18.	OC1	My college/university openly discuss its vision strategy and policy.	<0.40	Not Retained
19.	OC5	Employees in my college/university are positive about sharing knowledge among themselves.	<0.40
20.	TM3	Top management provides necessary resources and budget for implementing KM policies.	<0.40
21.	PDC4	Colleagues at my college/university negotiate with mutual courtesy.	<0.40
22.	PDC5	Colleagues at my college/university collaborate with mutual respect.	<0.40
25.	IR4	“I will share my knowledge with anyone at my college or university if it will benefit the institution.”	<0.40

Table 2. (HTMT analysis) discriminant validity

Construct	TM	Trust	PDC	OC	IR
TM	-	-	-	-	-
Trust	0.309	-	-	-	-
PDC	0.376	0.526	-	-	-
OC	0.251	0.298	.255	-	-
IR	0.216	0.646	.359	0.317	-

5.3. Structural model

Cmin/df = 1.967; RMSEA = 0.064; CFI = 0.957; TLI = 0.948) indicate that the model fitness is good for the data (Table 3 and Figure 1). The support from upper management has no discernible effect (ß = 0.086; p-value = 0.24) on the faculty members’ trust. Consequently, the H01 hypothesis was not substantiated. The significant and positive relationship between organizational culture and faculty members’ trust provides support for hypothesis H02 (ß = 0.189; p-value = 0.006). Similarly, hypothesis H03 was supported, confirming a positive relationship between the perceived degree of collegiality and trust (ß = 0.449; p-value = 0.014). H04 was supported by the observation of a significant and positive relationship between trust and individual preparedness to implement knowledge management (ß = 0.634; p-value = 0.000).

Figure 1. Structural model.

Table 3. Results of hypotheses test

S.NO.	Hypothesis	Path	Estimates	C.R	P	Result
1.	H01	TM→Trust	0.086	1.215	.224	Not Supported
2.	H02	OC→Trust	0.189	2.746	.006	Supported
3	H03	PDC →Trust	0.449	5.563	.000	Supported
4.	H04	Trust→IR	0.634	7.485	.000	Supported

6. Discussion

This study has produced some intriguing findings. First, it has been suggested that top management support positively influences the employee’s readiness for KM in Indian HEIs. Latif et al. (2023) also emphasized that in HEIs leadership clarifies the path for KM. Further H2 and H3 proved that factors such as organizational culture and perceived degree of collegiality are essential for increasing faculty trust in the implementation of knowledge management at their college or university. This is consistent with the findings of previous research, which suggested that the support of colleagues and a conducive organizational culture can inspire faculty members with confidence in their college or university and motivate them to contribute to the knowledge management implementation in their organization (Al-Hakim & Hassan, 2013; Choo, 2013; Iqbal et al., 2019, Von Behr et al., 2023; Lauri et al., 2016).

The findings of the study as per H4 suggested that faculty members are more willing to implement knowledge management in their college or university if they have greater trust in their organization (college or university). This implies that the better a faculty member’s relationships are with his or her fellow faculty members and the organization as a whole, the greater the likelihood that he will take the initiative to implement knowledge in his or her college or university. This is consistent with the findings of earlier studies, which supported the notion that employee trust can lead to the implementation of knowledge management (Von Behr et al., 2023, Sahibzadaet al., 2020).

However, in a rather striking finding, the present study suggests that top-level management support does not play a significant role in the organization’s implementation of knowledge management. This also contradicts the findings of previous studies, in which it was explicitly observed that upper management support is a crucial factor to implement knowledge management (Asl & Khademi, 2018; Fischer, 2022; Hasanali, 2002; Von Behr et al., 2023; Wong, 2005, 2003).

7. Theoretical implication

By proposing a new paradigm, the findings of this paper make significant theoretical contributions to the field of knowledge management. The paper examined the relationship between collegiality, organizational culture, and top management support and trust and provided researchers with relevant inputs for incorporating these findings into their studies. The paper presented a novel theoretical framework for assuring knowledge management practices success in the area of higher education institution studies. First, the study empirically proved the relationship of top management support and trust in HEIs. Second, the perceived collegiality role of trust in enhancing employee readiness for KM adoption was highlighted, which contributed to the KM literature stream. Third, the influence of organizational culture on employee trust was tested, which again provided insight into the study area of KM. At last, the importance of trust for enhancing employee readiness was empirically verified. These findings enhanced the horizons of KM studies, specifically in HEIs.

8. Managerial implications

This study has significant managerial implications. HEIs can use the paper’s findings to facilitate the adoption of KM in their organizations. The demonstrated relationship between organizational culture and trust will assist management in implementing the appropriate cultural practices for fostering trust among faculty and staff in order to establish KM. In addition, managers can encourage a sense of collegiality among HEIs employees to increase confidence in KM adoption and its successful implementation at their college or university. In addition, the paper suggests that HEIs should implement trust-building practices for their faculty and staff, as this will increase their readiness to adopt KM in organizations.

9. Limitations, future scope, and conclusion

Although the study provides substantial contributions, it is not devoid of limitations. The research has only considered organizational variables such as culture, collegiality, and support from upper management. Future research may also include a few other variables, such as the demeanor, perception, and attitude of HEIs employees, as part of the model. These can be investigated as moderators. In addition, the data is collected exclusively from India; to increase the generalizability of the results, data may also be collected from other nations. Future research may include comparative analyses by stream and nation.

In conclusion, it is important to note that the present study focused on analyzing individual preparedness for KM adoption in HEIs. It is crucial for educational institutions to foster a sense of collegiality among employees and promote a distinct organizational culture in order to develop faculty members’ trust in KM adoption. In higher education institutions, trust has a significant impact on people’s propensity to adopt knowledge management.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Arpana Kumari

Arpana Kumari is an Assistant professor at Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies Noida, (Symbiosis International University, Pune) in the area of HR. Her area of interest is knowledge management, organisational behaviour, artificial intelligence in HR, mental wellbeing and behavioural modelling.

Muskan Khan

Muskan Khan is an Assistant professor India in the area of HR at Galgotias University, Greater Noida, India.

Nirupa Lakshmi

Nirupa Lakshmi is Professor and HOD, MBA in Galgotias College of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, India