Skip to content
2000
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Current Social Sciences
  4. Fast Track Articles
  5. Fast Track Article
image of Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing of Accountants in the Condition of the Pandemic of COVID-19: A Study in Ho Chi Minh City

Abstract

Aim

Knowledge is one of humanity's most valuable assets, continuously deepened and developed across various dimensions, significantly enhancing the quality of life. This study aimed to investigate the impact of six factors on the sense of knowledge sharing among accountants in Ho Chi Minh City during the COVID-19 pandemic. The factors examined were the following: (1) ability to manage personal information, (2) organizational image, (3) reciprocity, (4) loss of knowledge power, (5) characteristics of the accounting profession, and (6) legal regulations related to COVID-19.

Method

This quantitative research study has been built on the framework established by Kankanhalli et al., formulating hypotheses to assess the impact of these factors on knowledge sharing among accountants in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ho Chi Minh City.

Results

Survey data from 120 accounting professionals have indicated four of the six factors, including organizational image, reciprocity, legal regulations related to COVID-19, and characteristics of the accounting profession, to significantly influence knowledge-sharing consciousness among accountants in Ho Chi Minh City.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has positively influenced knowledge sharing, as disruptions in activities and changes in workflows have necessitated adaptation to new working environments. This adaptation has compelled individuals to share knowledge to effectively adjust and optimize their capabilities.

Limitations

This study has been strictly quantitative, limiting in-depth analysis of some variables. Relevant latent variables may have been excluded. Future research could employ a mixed methods approach to address the potential gaps.

© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/css/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
2024-09-27
2024-11-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/css/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Suhendi C. Ifada L.M. Istanti S.L.W. the role of accounting information systems in improving Sme’S successful. Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma 2022 13 2 253 262 10.21776/ub.jamal.2022.13.2.19
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Papadakis S. Kravtsov H.M. Osadchyi V.V. Marienko M.V. Pinchuk O.P. Shyshkina M.P. ACNS conference on cloud and immersive technologies in education: Report. CTE Workshop Proceed 2023 10 1 44
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Simone S. Knowledge management in a COVID-19 world. 2020 Available From: https://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News/Knowledge-management-in-a-COVID-19-world142172.aspx
  4. Eissa O.S. A Comprehensive model for factors affecting the usage of computer assisted auditing tools and techniques. Bus. Manag Rev 2023 14 2 224 233 10.24052/BMR/V14NU02/ART‑22
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Jarrett J. E. Theinfluence of the pandemic on decisions occuring during the last few years. Advances Soc Sci Res J 2023 10 2 13910 10.14738/assrj.102.13910
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Burko K. Scope of application of management accounting tools for the needs of management of the beekeeping industry. Traditional and innovative approaches to scientific research: Theory, methodology, practice. Riga, Valdeku Street Baltija Publishing 2022 10.30525/978‑9934‑26‑241‑8‑23
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gilchrist D.J. West A. Zhang Y. Barriers to the usefulness of non‐profit financial statements: Perspectives from key internal stakeholders. Aust. Account. Rev. 2023 33 2 188 202 10.1111/auar.12401
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gurdgiev C. Ni Q. Board diversity: Moderating effects of CEO overconfidence on firm financing decisions. J. Behav. Exp. Finance 2023 37 100783 10.1016/j.jbef.2022.100783
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Nonaka I. Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, England Oxford University Press 1995 10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Lin H. Hwang Y. The Influence of Knowledge Management and Psychosocial Factors on Accountants’ Knowledge Sharing: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2021 13 9 4780
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bart van den Hoof H. De Ridder J.A. Kuiper R. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. J. Knowl. Manage. 2003 7 1 64 77
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Krivtsov A.I. Tarasova T.M. The Modernization of a Company’s Internal Control System During the Pandemic. Post-COVID Economic Revival. Cham Springer 2021 I 297 313
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Romanova O.V. Mozhaeva G.V. Afanasyeva T.E. Tacit Knowledge Management as a Factor of Sustainable Development of the Organization. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Cham Springer 2021 1350 572 581
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Krivtsov V. Tarasova E. Tacit knowledge in the system of modern education. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems Cham Springer 2021
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Davenport T.H. Prusak L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, Massachusetts Harvard Business Press 1998
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Lin H. Hwang Y. The effects of personal information management capabilities and social-psychological factors on accounting professionals’ knowledge-sharing intentions: Pre and post COVID-19. Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 2021 42 100522 10.1016/j.accinf.2021.100522
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Albawwat I.E. Tacit knowledge sharing in small audit firms and audit quality inputs: The antecedent effect of auditors’ social capital. J. Knowl. Manage. 2022 26 9 2333 2353 10.1108/JKM‑02‑2021‑0113
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mohassel A. H. Hesarzadeh R. Velashani M. A. B. Leadership style, knowledge sharing and audit quality. European J. Manag. Bus. Eco. 2023 33 1 0250
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Duh R.R. The Dynamics of Reputation in Economic Transactions. J. Econ. Psychol. 2020 42 3 301 316
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Shankar R. Yuchtman-Yaar E. Reputation and corporate action: An international comparison of consumers’ reactions to environmental policy statements. J. Manage. Stud. 1997 34 6 773 798
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Law and Readers The Role of Reputation in Marketing. Law Readers J. 2021 25 3 78 92
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Duh M. Belak J. Milfelner B. Corporate social responsibility and organizational commitment: Family vs. non-family enterprises. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020 21 2 467 485
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Blau P.M. Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway, New Jersey Transaction Publishers 1964
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bock G.W. The Influence of Social Capital and Organizational Commitment on Knowledge Sharing Behavior. J. Knowl. Manage. 2009 13 6 430 448
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Lin H. Knowledge Sharing: Power Dynamics and Organizational Culture. J. Organ. Behav. 2021 38 4 621 637
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kankanhalli A.T. Tan Wei Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 2005 29 1 113 143 10.2307/25148670
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Venkatesh V.M. Morris Davis Davis User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Manage. Inf. Syst. Q. 2003 27 3 425 478 10.2307/30036540
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Blau P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. NewYork John Wiley 1964
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tabachnick B.G. Fidell L.S. Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA Thomson/Brooks/Cole 2007 724
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Nguyen D.T. Research Methods in Business. Vietnam Social Sciences Publishing House 2011
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Tabachnick B.G. Fidell L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed London, United Kingdom Pearson 2007
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hair J.F. Black W.C. Babin B.J. Anderson R.E. Tatham R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed Hoboken, New Jersey Prentice Hall 2006
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Etikan I. Musa S.A. Alkassim R.S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016 5 1 1 4 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Bock G-W. Shin K-S. Suh A. Hu A. The factors affecting success of knowledge-based systems at the organization level. J. Compute. Informat. Syst. 2009 50 2 95 105
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Shankar V. Yuchtman-Yaar E. Reputation and image: Creating and projecting self. J. Mark. Manage. 1997 13 6 539 553
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Law D.S. Readers B. Reputational Dynamics and the Prospects for International Cooperation. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2021 31 1 1 16
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Duh R.R. Knechel W.R. Lin C.C. The effects of audit firms’ knowledge sharing on audit quality and efficiency. Auditing 2020 39 2 51 79 10.2308/ajpt‑52597
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/css/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
Loading
Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing of Accountants in the Condition of the Pandemic of COVID-19: A Study in Ho Chi Minh City
Bentham Science Publishers ; https://doi.org/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
/content/journals/css/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
/content/journals/css/10.2174/012772316X289872240918185932
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:     Research Article
Keywords: accounting ; knowledge-sharing consciousness ; legal regulations on COVID-19 ; Knowledge ; knowledge power
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test