The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-1335.htm

IMR
39,3 Impact of knowledge sharing
on employees’ service quality:
the moderating role of
482 artificial intelligence
Received 21 February 2021 Tuyet-Mai Nguyen
Revised 11 July 2021
25 October 2021 University of Queensland Business School, University of Queensland,
Accepted 29 November 2021 Brisbane, Australia and
Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Viet Nam, and
Ashish Malik
The University of Newcastle – Central Coast Campus, Ourimbah, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – A growing number of international travellers have influenced how hotels manage their customer
satisfaction reviews and ratings. This study examines the influence of knowledge sharing on employee service
quality and customer satisfaction in the hotel industry. Another purpose of this study is to investigate the
moderating effect of artificial intelligence (AI) system quality on the relationship between knowledge sharing
on employee service quality and customer satisfaction.
Design/methodology/approach – The research design was developed using the positivism approach and
quantitative method. Data were collected via a self-administered survey from Vietnamese hotels that used AI
systems in employees’ work tasks. Three hundred and fifty pairs of questionnaires for frontline employees and
customers were collected and used for the data analysis. Structural equation modelling was accessed to
examine the framework model.
Findings – This research shows that the increase of knowledge sharing behaviours significantly influenced
customer perceptions of employees’ service quality. Furthermore, employee service quality positively affected
customer satisfaction. An indirect impact of knowledge sharing on customer satisfaction via employee service
quality was found. AI system quality moderated the effect of knowledge sharing on employee service quality
whereby the higher the AI system quality, the stronger the impact of knowledge sharing on employee service
quality. Therefore, a moderated mediation of employee service quality was found in examining the relationship
between knowledge sharing and customer satisfaction.
Research limitations/implications – This study’s findings direct hotel knowledge management and
marketing strategies to attract international customers. The study provides hotel managers with directions to
increase customer satisfaction to create a competitive advantage in international marketing strategies.
Originality/value – This study’s distinctive contribution lies in examining the phenomenon of employee
service quality at the intersection of knowledge sharing and customer satisfaction and the use of AI systems
from an emerging market context. Furthermore, the moderation role of AI quality has rarely been explored.
Keywords Challenges, Knowledge sharing, Employee service quality, Customer satisfaction,
Artificial intelligence, Hotels
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The hospitality industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors globally (Cheng et al., 2019; Hole
et al., 2019). Many hotels seek expansion opportunities to attract international customers due
to an increasing number of international trips being made every year (de Correia et al., 2019).
Along with the need to generate more opportunities with international customers, hotels face
International Marketing Review fierce competition with competitors worldwide (George Assaf et al., 2017). There is research
Vol. 39 No. 3, 2022
pp. 482-508
that suggests that, in the retail and hospitality sector, the job satisfaction of employees (i.e.
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-1335
anyone who works for an organisation) and the quality of the social support they receive are
DOI 10.1108/IMR-02-2021-0078 key determinants for customer satisfaction because employees are the crucial touchpoints
while interacting with the customers (Pinna et al., 2020). Furthermore, investment in certain Knowledge
critical human resource management (HRM) mechanisms is vital for achieving strong sharing and
relationship quality and performance outcomes in the services industry, especially where
several multicultural encounters are involved (Malik et al., 2018). Knowledge sharing has
employees’
been noted as a crucial process in human resource management and a source of service quality
organisational competitiveness (Hajro et al., 2017). It can provide employees with the social
support and knowledge needed for effectively serving their internal and external customers.
Commonly used knowledge sharing approaches vary from unidimensional to 483
multidimensional interpersonal exchanges of knowledge between employees (Chen et al.,
2014). One of the key ways to sustain increases in sales and performance, and achieve
employee satisfaction, is to share critical common and specialist knowledge with other
employees in an organisation (Lee et al., 2020) through a range of knowledge sharing
mechanisms, both formal and informal, but also through emerging artificial enabled
technology platforms (Lee et al., 2020; Nguyen and Malik, 2020, 2021). Given the increasing
adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) applications, employees and customers have reported
mixed impacts from their use of an AI-mediated knowledge-sharing exchange, as they use
such AI applications (Gursoy et al., 2019; Malik et al., 2020, 2021; van Esch and Black, 2019).
Therefore, hotels must improve their service quality by investing in appropriate AI
applications and managerial capabilities to satisfy customers and therefore maintain their
competitive advantage.
The increasing proliferation of such AI-enabled knowledge sharing platforms is occurring
in all functional domains, including international marketing, and especially in global
multinational enterprises (MNEs), such as technology, hospitality and hotel organisations.
These MNEs employ several AI-enabled applications; chatbots and virtual and digital service
assistants interact and share knowledge and information with customers and employees
worldwide. Often, these MNEs offer such platforms and applications as the first point of
contact for sharing and exchanging knowledge with their customers. However, despite the
increasing proliferation, there is limited evidence as to whether there are any service quality
issues related to using these AI applications. Furthermore, can these applications and
platforms deal with the diversity of the intercultural service encounters (Robinson et al., 2020;
Sharma et al., 2009) that arise from the MNE’s global customer base? This issue has
implications for the overall customer service experience, as well as service quality.
Consumer satisfaction has become the primary concern in the fiercely competitive
hospitality industry because it often affects customer loyalty and word of mouth (Zhao et al.,
2019). Customer satisfaction can also be transformed into a powerful competitive marketing
approach to influence users’ choice of hotels through online reviews (Amatulli et al., 2019).
Before booking a hotel room, international customers tend to look at the hotel’s reputation
through online customer review platforms, such as Instagram, Facebook, Yelp and
TripAdvisor (Bridges, 2019). According to a study by TripAdvisor, more than 80% of
travellers checked hotel reviews before booking a room, and more than 50% agreed that they
would never book a hotel with zero reviews (Bridges, 2019). Positive reviews and comments
may help hotels attract more customers, while negative ones can destroy a hotel’s reputation
(Amatulli et al., 2019). Thus, hotels need to record customer feedback to improve their service
quality to meet customer needs and wants and increase customer satisfaction (Rollins and
Halinen, 2005). According to Rollins and Halinen (2005), customer knowledge has been
increasingly recognised as a critical strategic resource for the success of any company, and
customer knowledge management should be a continuous process within an organisation to
integrate customer knowledge into customer relationship management in order to increase an
organisational competitive advantage.
A significant effort has been made in examining the determinants of customer satisfaction
in the hotel industry. Among them, employee service quality has received considerable
IMR attention over three decades (Bahadur et al., 2018). Interaction with frontline employees is
39,3 crucial because customers evaluate service quality, which affects a hotel’s image and
reputation (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). When hotels open their market to target international
customers, they often face one particular challenge: the diversity of international customers’
expectations due to their diverse employee service quality experiences (Cheng et al., 2019). A
deep understanding of different cultures has become a must for frontline employees because
they represent the hotel in serving international customers (Mariani and Predvoditeleva,
484 2019). If employees can share their knowledge, experiences and skills to understand the needs
and wants of customers better, they can improve their service quality. Prentice and Nguyen
(2020) suggest that knowledge sharing among employees is essential for addressing work
issues and overcoming the challenge of understanding customers’ needs. Besides, serving
customers involves a group of employees who perform different tasks or the same tasks at
different times; therefore, customers’ information and the knowledge of how to serve them
well need to be connected to make customers feel that they are being treated the same way,
even with different employees. Creating seamless experiences across a hotel’s service is
significant because this may affect customer satisfaction and the perception of the hotel’s
service quality. These job demands often lead to the need to transfer information, skills and
expertise to provide customers with the best service. Knowledge sharing often helps
employees tackle issues with solutions already been generated to improve their service
quality (Bharati et al., 2015). Some employees may face work difficulties that they do not know
how to address, while others, who have the solutions to these work difficulties, may not know
how to share their knowledge with their colleagues (Bharati et al., 2015). Thus, knowledge
sharing helps connect issues and solutions (Bharati et al., 2015). However, there is a lack of
research on knowledge sharing among employees in the hospitality industry literature.
Previous studies have focused heavily on the outcomes of employee service quality rather
than investigating its determinants by providing direction for hotel managers to improve
employee service quality.
Another challenge that hotels face nowadays is the increasing level of personalised service
they are expected to provide. The hospitality industry uses AI tools to provide personalised
services. These tools can also help organisations explore data to understand customers and
create patterns and personalised services (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). One of the most
exciting uses of AI in the hotel industry is to assist customers online, especially international
customers, and to be able to take into account the vast distances and differences in cultures,
languages and needs involved. AI can assist the knowledge exchange process by producing
essential information about customers to improve their service quality. In the hospitality
literature, AI has mainly been approached from the technology acceptance perspective. A few
studies, such as by Prentice and Nguyen (2020), examine AI tools according to their service
quality, including information and system quality. However, the moderation role of AI
quality has been overlooked in the knowledge sharing literature and hospitality literature.
The presence of AI and its impact on the relationship between knowledge sharing and
employee service quality has not been paid sufficient attention.
This study aims to address the existing gaps identified above by (1) examining the impact
of knowledge sharing on employee service quality and customer satisfaction in the hotel
context and (2) investigating the moderating effect of AI system quality in examining the
relationship between knowledge sharing about employee service quality and customer
satisfaction. We contribute by developing a conceptual model to examine the above
relationships. This study contributes to the knowledge sharing and international marketing
literature by examining the outcomes of knowledge sharing behaviour and the determinants
of employee service quality in the hotel industry, where AI is adopted to improve customer
relationship management. The results of this study are intended to provide hotel managers
with directions to increase customer satisfaction, manage the relationship with customers
and create a competitive advantage in international marketing strategies. The significance of Knowledge
this research is also interpreted by its potential to assist stakeholders interested in enhancing sharing and
knowledge sharing to improve employee service quality. In addition, by understanding how
AI facilitates the knowledge sharing process to increase employee service quality, this
employees’
research indicates to help hotel managers to decide whether it is necessary to adopt AI in the service quality
operation of their hotel. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. First, we offer a review
of the literature on knowledge sharing, using the theoretical lens of social exchange theory.
Next, a review of employees’ service quality, AI systems and the study’s hypotheses are 485
provided. The details of the research methodology, analytical procedures and a discussion of
the results are then offered. The paper concludes with implications for theory and practice.

2. Literature review
Given the importance of knowledge sharing for strengthening employees’ service quality and
consequent customer satisfaction, there is a need for further research to examine the
increasing use of technology and AI-enabled applications in supporting employees and
customers in their experience of such technologies, and the impact that such technologies
have on employees’ service quality and customers’ satisfaction. Despite the increasing
adoption of AI applications for a range of marketing and customer relationship management
functions (Malik et al., 2020, 2021; Prentice and Nguyen, 2020), limited research exists at the
intersection of knowledge sharing, employee service quality, customer satisfaction and the
effects of the quality of the AI-enabled applications adopted by large service sector MNEs,
such as international hotel and hospitality chains. There is a gap in the literature that
examines how the quality of AI applications may impact the relationship between employee
knowledge sharing and customer satisfaction via employees’ service quality. Addressing
such a gap is relevant for scholars in international marketing because it brings to the fore how
MNEs are adopting AI-enabled applications that both employees and customers use and how
little research there is that examines how they experience a technology-mediated knowledge-
sharing exchange and its impact on employees’ service quality and customer satisfaction.
Furthermore, the issue of how the quality of AI applications affects the above relationship is
an important one for marketing scholars. This is important because most large, resource-rich
MNEs, have implemented AI applications, and they leverage voluminous data points about
their employees and customers to implement such AI-based solutions for enhanced service
quality and customer satisfaction.

2.1 Knowledge sharing and social exchange

According to the social exchange theory (SET) (Blau, 1964), employees exchange their
knowledge and resources with others with an expectation of reciprocity or receive something
through their social exchange. Knowledge sharing is one such exchange behaviour (Nguyen,
2020). Employees regulate their interactions with co-workers through knowledge sharing
based on comparing costs and benefits (Omotayo and Babalola, 2016). In other words,
employees tend to maximise their benefits and minimise their costs in the exchange of
knowledge (Omotayo and Babalola, 2016). Knowledge, including ideas, expertise and skills, is
considered a valuable resource in the workplace (Nguyen, 2020). However, sharing knowledge
with others is often regarded as a cost because employees may lose competitive advantage;
therefore, employees may not be willing to share their knowledge without a strong motivator
(Kim et al., 2017). The motivators can be the outcomes of knowledge sharing behaviour which
are regarded as the benefits through reciprocation, such as rewards, job security and increased
job performance (Nguyen, 2020; Nguyen and Malik, 2020).
The main focus has been placed on the determinants of knowledge sharing behaviour in
the knowledge sharing literature. In contrast, few studies have examined the outcomes of the
IMR knowledge sharing process, such as employee job performance (see Table 1 for the studies on
39,3 knowledge sharing underpinning SET). The increase in employee job performance often
results in organisational productivity and maintains organisational competitive advantage
(Nguyen and Prentice, 2020). The mainstream research in the knowledge sharing literature
has concentrated on identifying the determinants of online knowledge sharing behaviour
(Nguyen, 2020); however, whether knowledge sharing behaviour could improve employee job
performance.
486

2.2 Service quality and knowledge sharing

In the hotel industry, the job performances of frontline employees can be measured through
customer perceptions of employees’ service quality (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020).
Parasuraman et al. (1985) posit that customers find it challenging to evaluate employee
service quality because it assesses the results and provides the service. Also, customers often
compare the service of employees with their expectations to determine service quality (Padlee
et al., 2019). Parasuraman et al. (1985) built the SERVQUAL model. It is one of the best-known
scales for measuring service quality, and its application continues to increase in different
settings, including the hospitality industry. The SERVQUAL model is used to compare
customers’ expectations before and after delivering service (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Parasuraman et al. (1988) posit that a customer’s perception of service quality, on a
continuum, is based on the discrepancy between expected service and perceived service.
Many researchers in the hospitality literature, such as Beheshtinia and Azad (2019), have
applied this model in their research.
Based on the definition by Parasuraman et al. (1985), the concept of employee service
quality is understood as the degree of the discrepancy resulting from an evaluation process
where customers compare their expectations with the service provided by employees that
they perceive they have received. Prentice and Nguyen (2020) and Nguyen and Malik (2021)
adapt the SERVQUAL model to develop their scale to measure employee service quality
through four dimensions: (1) Responsiveness relates to an employee’s ability to perform
service efficiently; (2) Reliability relates to an employee’s capability to provide precise and
trustworthy services; (3) Empathy refers to an employee’s response to the changes in
customer demands; and (4) Assurance is related to the levels of accuracy and currency of
services offered by employees. This scale is adopted in this study.
The increasing use of AI applications in customer relationship management has attracted
research that considers, for example, its impact on the service experience of users and their
satisfaction with such applications (Malik et al., 2020, 2021; Nguyen and Malik, 2021). The
hotel industry is identified as using AI quite extensively (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). As
international customers of a hotel often have different cultures and needs, the marketing
strategies of a hotel must be flexible enough to deal with complex market situations to satisfy
the needs of people residing across borders (Malhotra and Galletta, 2004). Thus, AI often
plays an important role in communicating with customers to help them decide on a hotel in
which to stay (Garrido et al., 2016). From the employee’s perspective, AI often helps manage
customer relationships, such as cutting down the manual workload borne by marketing
teams to reach the right person, at the right time, with the right service and messaging
(Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). However, because of their limited information processing
capability, employees may not be able to deal with a large increase in information volume
(Delone and McLean, 2003; Nguyen and Malik, 2021). However, AI can support customer
relationship management by offering customised services (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). For
example, AI-powered e-travel agents facilitate employees in the hospitality industry in
offering or managing customer travel plans, car rentals, and hotel bookings (Garrido et al.,
2016) and extracting information that is useful for personalising the customer experience
Author(s) and Moderating/controlling Outcomes of knowledge
year Sample description Determinants of knowledge sharing behaviour variable sharing behaviour

Bartol et al. 55 information technology Perceived organisational support Perceived job security None
(2009) professionals and their supervisors
working in the information
technology industry in China
Chiang et al. 198 practitioners in northern Taiwan High-commitment human resource management, None None
(2011) perceived organisational support, organisational
trust, organisational commitment
Choi et al. 184 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Abusive supervision, leader-member exchange Psychological contract None
(2019) large companies in South Korea fulfilment, self-
enhancement motive
Hu et al. (2012) 466 employees in Taiwan’s Trust None Leader-member exchange,
international tourist hotels team-member exchange,
team service innovation
performance
Kim et al. 50 supervisor-subordinate dyads Abusive supervision Organisational support, None
(2015) coworker support
Kim et al. 255 supervisor-subordinate dyads in Subordinate’s exchange ideology, leader-member Supervisor’s exchange None
(2017) 17 manufacturing organisations in exchange ideology
South Korea
Lee et al. 391 managers of major Chinese Benevolence, morality, authoritarianism, None None
(2018) companies perceived organisational support, paternalistic
leadership
Liao (2008) 105 R&D employees Reward, coercive, legitimate, reference, expert, None
trust
Omotayo and 214 Perceived benefit, social interaction, trust, social None None
Babalola identification, shared language and goals
(2016)
Park et al. 126 client-side project leaders in three Relationship benefits, relationship investments, Project types, project None
(2015) different IT service firms expertise, similarity of project value, stages
communication frequency, dependence, trust

(continued )
Knowledge

service quality

487
sharing and

Table of literature
employees’

Table 1.

social exchange theory

sharing underpinning
review on knowledge
 39,3
IMR

488

Table 1.
Author(s) and Moderating/controlling Outcomes of knowledge
year Sample description Determinants of knowledge sharing behaviour variable sharing behaviour

Staples and 824 employees in large global high- Trust within the team Tas interdependence, Team effectiveness
Webster tech company virtualness
(2008)
Tsai and 252 IT professionals from IT Organisational justice, trust, organisational None None
Cheng (2012) companies and departments in commitment, knowledge sharing self-efficacy
Taiwan
Wang et al. 314 research and development (R&D) Trust, knowledge sharing intention None None
(2015) engineers from 52 high-technology
firms in Taiwan
Wu (2013) 323 employees in research and Friendly knowledge-sharing environment, Trust None
development departments at extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation,
knowledge-intensive high-technology altruistic motivation
companies in Taiwan
Wu and Lee 64 group leaders and 537 group Empowering leadership, psychological capital Trust, transformational None
(2017) members in Taiwan leadership, group size,
industry type
Wu and Zhu 180 employees from ten companies in Perceived organisational incentives, perceived None None
(2012) China reciprocal benefits, perceived reputation
enhancement, perceived loss of knowledge power,
perceived enjoyment in helping others, perceived
organisational climate, tools and technology,
attitude towards knowledge sharing, subjective
norms, perceived behavioural control, knowledge
sharing intention
Yan et al. 323 users of two well-known online Sense of self-worth, face concern, reputation, social None None
(2016) health communities in China support, cognitive costs, executional costs
Zhang and 519 at three hospitals and two large Information support, emotional support, perceived Trust None
Liu (2021) communities in a large city in China health risks, relationship commitment
Zhang et al. 10–12 team members from three Reputation, reciprocity, economic reward, self- Power distance, None
(2014) different cultures and 113 members in efficacy, enjoyment of helping individualism,
13 virtual project teams uncertainty, Confucian
Zhao and 968 IT professionals Loss of knowledge power, knowledge sharing Generalised trust, pro- None
Detlor (2021) effort, online status seeking, social affiliation, sharing norms
enjoyment in helping others
(Zanker et al., 2008). Personalised offerings are very important for attracting customers in Knowledge
marketing strategies, especially in the competitive hotel industry (Nguyen and Malik, 2021). sharing and
However, previous studies have mainly focused on accepting AI rather than on AI service
quality as it pertains to research on the hotel industry. Further, the moderation role of AI
employees’
quality has rarely been explored. Therefore, this study’s conceptual framework employs the service quality
theoretical lenses of SET to examine the relationship between knowledge sharing, employee
service quality, customer satisfaction and AI quality, as depicted in Figure 1.
489
3. Hypotheses development
Knowledge sharing refers to the process of disseminating information, ideas and expertise to
colleagues (Nguyen, 2020). Nguyen (2020) argues that organisations can gain a competitive
advantage if their employees have a strong tendency to share knowledge. Valuable and
appropriate knowledge can help employees improve job performance and serve customers
better (Kwahk and Park, 2016). In the hospitality industry, knowledge sharing among
employees is essential because it helps employees deliver timely service to customers
(Lee and Hidayat, 2018). Increasingly, hotels are operating internationally to attract
customers from different countries (de Correia et al., 2019). Given the hospitality industry’s
international nature, cultural awareness and intercultural communication have become
crucial, creating numerous challenges for hotel employees. Customers from different social
and cultural backgrounds may have different preferences and expectations (Mariani and
Predvoditeleva, 2019) and may perceive hotel services differently. A service encounter may
fail if frontline employees lack sufficient knowledge of different cultures, resulting in
misunderstandings and conflicts (Lam et al., 2020). Therefore, knowledge sharing among
employees regarding customers’ worldviews and culture-specific needs can facilitate the
deliverance of a service based on customer preferences (Chen and Cheng, 2012). The more
employees can share their experience and skills to serve customers well, based on their
understanding of customers’ cultures and preferences, the more they can provide a
memorable experience (Chen and Cheng, 2012).
Employees who are active in sharing knowledge with colleagues seem to be enthusiastic
and committed to the hotel; therefore, they are more likely to contribute by providing high-
quality service to enhance the hotel’s likelihood of success (Nguyen and Prentice, 2020). Such
employees often aim to improve their customers’ quality to improve their job performance
(Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). The engagement in knowledge exchange often reflects the
desire to know more about job tasks and the ways to improve one’s performance (Kwahk and
Park, 2016). Those engaged in knowledge sharing tend to be more creative and cooperate
with others to enhance their service quality. Previous studies, such as by Delone and McLean
(2003), suggest that those staff who are active in knowledge sharing are more likely to be both
willing and capable of delivering a higher level of service quality. Knowledge sharing is how
they train themselves to enhance their skills and expertise and overcome difficulties at work
(Chen and Cheng, 2012). Engagement in knowledge sharing often indicates employees’ efforts

AI informaƟon quality AI system quality

Figure 1.
Knowledge sharing Employee service quality Customer saƟsfacƟon Conceptual framework
IMR to promote service quality to serve customers better (Chen and Cheng, 2012). Therefore, we
39,3 propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Knowledge sharing positively relates to employee service quality.
Customer satisfaction summarises psychological states that stem from the emotions
surrounding disconfirmation compared with customers’ prior feelings about the service
(Dominici and Guzzo, 2010). Disconfirmation is related to expectation fulfilment and can be
490 positive if the service quality exceeds expectations (Rahimi and Kozak, 2017). Customer
satisfaction has long been recognised as a central focus, as it is a crucial hotel goal (Zhou et al.,
2014). Customer satisfaction is also a crucial factor in forming customers’ desires for future
purchases (Mittal and Kamakura, 2001).
In the hospitality industry, intensive competition requires hotels to provide high-quality
service to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage because employee service quality
may determine customer satisfaction (Alhelalat et al., 2017). If a hotel wants to compete with
others in this fiercely competitive environment, they need to increase customer satisfaction
through service quality (Lu et al., 2015). The service quality is mainly dependent on frontline
employee service delivery (Lee, 2014). Interaction with employees is a crucial touchpoint that
considerably affects how customers perceive the hotel’s service quality and satisfaction
(Lu et al., 2015). Thus, hotels are often concerned with increasing customer satisfaction
through the in-person touchpoint with frontline employees (Lu et al., 2015). Many other
researchers have supported this view, such as Markovic and Jankovic (2013), who argue that
employee service quality and customer satisfaction are highly intercorrelated. Padlee et al.
(2019) also support this line of evidence and suggest that this is consistent with the generally
accepted cognitive evaluations-emotional responses. When employees provide a high level of
service quality and exceed expectations, customers tend to be satisfied with the service
(Padlee et al., 2019).
One of the hotel industry’s most complex challenges is that customers have higher and
higher expectations (Radojevic et al., 2017). Satisfying customers in the hospitality industry is
becoming more difficult due to the changes in customer expectations (Kim et al., 2019). For
example, return visits by a customer may bring changed demands from that customer, as the
service that satisfied the customer on the previous visit may now be an expectation (Park,
2019). Therefore, employees who actively participate in the knowledge sharing process are
more inclined to be well prepared for new or creative ways to bring different customer
experiences to increase customer satisfaction (Kwahk and Park, 2016). Through an exchange
of knowledge with colleagues, employees can enhance their ability to anticipate evolving
customer needs. If employees can provide what customers perceive as high-quality service,
customers are likely to believe that the service they are consuming positively, resulting in
customer satisfaction (Lu et al., 2015). In other words, a feeling of leisure that stems from
employee service quality over expectation often makes customers feel satisfied (Bahadur
et al., 2018). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2. Employee service quality positively relates to customer satisfaction.
H3. Employee service quality mediates the impact of knowledge sharing on customer
satisfaction.

3.1 The moderating effect of AI information and system quality

AI relates to machine simulations of human intelligence to act humanly and have the ability
to learn, communicate or perform human tasks (Nguyen and Malik, 2021; Russell et al., 2016).
According to Prentice et al. (2020), AI is a technology-based service wherein its performance
can be measured through information and system quality. Delone and McLean (2014, p. 25)
agree with this position and suggest that AI quality “cannot be analysed and understood Knowledge
without ‘system quality’ and ‘information quality’ measurements”. AI information quality sharing and
refers to the users’ perception of the quality of AI and related information (Nguyen and Malik,
2021; Wixom and Todd, 2005). AI information quality is often measured through accuracy
employees’
and currency (Nguyen and Malik, 2021; Wixom and Todd, 2005). Accuracy is related to the service quality
correctness of AI information, whereas currency is the degree to which the information
produced from AI is up to date (Wixom and Todd, 2005). AI system quality is another aspect of
AI quality related to employees’ perception of AI’s technical infrastructure (Nguyen and 491
Malik, 2021; Wixom and Todd, 2005). AI system quality is reflected via flexibility, reliability
and timeliness (Nguyen and Malik, 2021; Wixom and Todd, 2005). Reliability refers to how
dependably a system operation can minimise errors (Nguyen and Malik, 2021; Wixom and
Todd, 2005). Flexibility refers to the ability of AI to adapt to changing user demands, and
timeliness is related to the speed of the system’s response to requests (Nguyen and Malik,
2021; Wixom and Todd, 2005).
Employees can use AI to support them in enhancing customer relationship management.
Along with fierce competition, hotels must deal with customers’ growing expectations
(Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). If hotels want to create a competitive advantage, they need to
provide a memorable experience and personalised service (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). While
knowledge sharing among employees is essential for increasing service quality, AI can
facilitate even more effectively. Employees have a limited capacity to process information;
therefore, AI may help deal with an onerous increase in information volume (Delone and
McLean, 2014). In many hotels, AI helps employees create customer patterns to personalise
service because AI can often minimise employees’ efforts to process information and in
exploration (Delone and McLean, 2014).
AI is also efficient, which can be evidenced through its ability to: work around the clock,
offer prompt service with fewer mistakes, and generate several insights from big data to
provide personalised or even hyper-personalised services manually (Bowen and Morosan,
2018; Garrido et al., 2016). AI often provides both deep understanding and customer patterns
that can be discussed among employees in the knowledge sharing process, and that help
employees increase the service quality perceived by customers due to unexpected and highly
appreciated personal experiences. For example, based on customers’ previous spending, AI
can provide more insights into customer preferences and budgeting so that employees can
discuss the best solutions for serving customers (Russell et al., 2016). Through the knowledge
exchange with AI support, a more memorable and personalised experience generated by
employees may influence customers to perceive a higher service quality (Prentice and
Nguyen, 2020). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
H4. AI information quality moderates the impact of knowledge sharing on employee
service quality.
H5. AI system quality moderates the impact of knowledge sharing on employee service
quality.

4. Methodology
4.1 Research design
This study integrates a positivist approach using the quantitative method to develop the
research design. Positivism is related to the belief that reality is stable and that reality can be
observed and described from an objective viewpoint (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002); positivists
believe that only phenomena that can be observed will produce credible data (Saunders et al.,
2009). Positivists tend to use a deductive approach, which involves developing a theory and a
hypothesis, alongside designing a research strategy to test that hypothesis (Saunders et al., 2009).
IMR The most often used research method, which is underpinned by positivism, is the quantitative
39,3 method. From the quantitative method approach, selected variables are placed in a controlled
setting, and the researcher then examines the interrelationship among the variables to
understand the phenomena (Taylor, 2000).
In the context of this study, the research objectives have been well defined. This study is
designed to examine the impact of knowledge sharing on employee service quality and
customer satisfaction, the mediating effect of employees’ service quality and the moderating
492 effect of AI service quality. The literature review identified numerous studies related to the
constructs elaborated in the conceptual framework. Therefore, the conceptual framework will
test hypotheses derived from that framework through statistical procedures (Cresswell,
2003). According to Cresswell (2003), positivism and the quantitative research method are the
most suitable tools for this study because SET was advanced, and data were collected to test
the conceptual framework.

4.2 Research method

As directed by the research objectives, the research design serves as a guide for considering
the appropriate research methods (exploratory, descriptive and causal) developed from the
study design (Kumar et al., 2002). This follows a causal research method because it aims to
understand the functional or cause and effect relationships among the key variables (Hair et
al., 2003 ). As the emphasis of this research is on identifying whether the value of one variable
causes or determines/mediates the value of another and then establishing a relationship
between them, causal research seems to be the most suitable method (McDaniel and
Gates, 2005).

4.3 Data collection

This research method of study dictated the use of primary data. Despite various data
collection methods (e.g. survey, experiments, interviews), this study used the self-
administered survey method to collect data for testing the hypotheses. This data collection
method was deemed appropriate because of cost-efficiency, quick results, convenient
administration and storage (Aaker et al., 2005; Burns and Bush, 2003). The prospective
respondents were frontline employees working in the hotel industry and the customers they
serve. The employees were above 18 years old and were experienced in using AI applications,
while their customers were 18 years old or above and had been served by these employees. A
phone call was made to all leading Vietnam hotels to search for where AI was used in the
workplace. In addition, we sent an invitation letter to the human resource managers of all of
the hotels that used AI for workplace tasks to ask for permission to collect data there. Only
four hotels agreed to support the data collection for this research. These four hotels were
international hotels with more than 100 employees and used AI applications for facial
recognition, digital assistance, chatbots and travel experience enhancement.
The original version of the questionnaire was written in English. We translated it into
Vietnamese following the back-translation approach (Brislin, 2016). The relevance and
validity of the questions in the questionnaires were checked by conducting an in-depth
interview with five employees; this was followed by a pilot study with 25 other employees.
For the main survey, due to the hotel’s policies, only a paper-based survey could be conducted
with assistance from these hotels’ HR management functions. Frontline employees were
approached to complete the questionnaire, and then the customers they served were
approached to evaluate the employee service quality and rate their customer satisfaction.
Each employee and his/her customer were coded with a unique identifier to link them. After
three months of data collection, 350 pairs of questionnaires were used for data analysis. The
demographics of the respondents are summarised in Table 2.
 Employees Customers
Knowledge
Variables Categories Number Percentage Number Percentage sharing and
employees’
Gender Male 125 35.7 219 62.6
Female 225 64.3 129 36.9 service quality
Others 0 0 2 0.6
Age 18–25 155 44.3 53 15.1
26–35 139 39.7 139 39.7 493
36–45 56 16.0 35 10.0
46 or more 0 0 19 5.4
Education High school 11 3.1 10 2.9
Some college/diploma 48 13.7 53 15.1
Bachelor’s degree 240 68.6 105 30.0
Post-graduate 51 14.6 155 44.3
Others 0 0 27 7.7
Marital status Single 172 49.1 135 38.6 Table 2.
Married without children 86 24.6 63 18.0 Demographic
Married with children 92 26.3 151 43.1 information for the
Others 0 0 1 0.3 respondents (N 5 350)

4.4 Measure
The construct measurements were adapted from existing studies. All items were measured
on a five-point Likert scale, wherein 1 indicates strongly disagree, and 5 indicates strongly
agree. Knowledge Sharing was measured by adopting the Yang et al. (2018) scale with six
items used to measure how information, ideas, and expertise were shared with colleagues. An
example of this measure was, “I often share information, experience and expertise with my
colleagues”. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.89. The Customer Satisfaction scale
was adapted from Han et al. (2011) and Torres and Kline (2013), with four items being used to
measure psychological states that stem from the emotions or feelings the subjects have about
the service. An example of this scale was, “This is one of the best hotels I have ever stayed in”.
The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.75. In this study, the Employee Service Quality, AI
Information Quality and AI System Quality were measured as second-order constructs. The
items used to measure Employee Service Quality were adapted from Parasuraman et al. (1988)
to measure the degree of a discrepancy between customer expectations and the service they
received from employees. The employee service quality variable consisted of four
dimensions: responsiveness, reliability, empathy and assurance. The scale of employee
responsiveness had three items, an example being, “Employees seem to handle busy times
smoothly”. The scale of employee reliability consisted of three items, an example of which
was, “Employees follow through on their promises”. Some examples of the three-item scale of
employee empathy and assurance were, “Employees give extra effort to handle my special
requests” and “Employees can answer my questions completely”. The various Cronbach’s
alphas for the employee responsiveness, reliability, empathy and assurance scales were 0.78,
0.73, 0.73 and 0.80, respectively.
The scale for AI Information Quality was adapted from Wixom and Todd (2005) to
measure the user perception of the quality of the information provided by AI. The AI,
information quality variable, consisted of two dimensions: accuracy and currency. An
example of the AI Information Accuracy scale items was, “AI tools produce correct
information”, while an example of the AI Information Currency scale was, “AI tools provide
me with the most recent information”. The Cronbach’s alphas for the AI information accuracy
and currency scale were 0.82 and 0.78, respectively. The scale for AI System Quality was
adapted from Wixom and Todd (2005) to measure the user perception of the quality of AI
IMR technical infrastructure. The AI system quality variable consisted of three dimensions:
39,3 reliability, flexibility and timeliness. An example of the AI System Reliability scale was, “AI tools
operate reliably”, while some examples of the AI System Flexibility and Timeliness scale were,
“AI tools can be adapted to meet a variety of needs” and “AI tools return answers to my
requests quickly”, respectively. The Cronbach’s alphas for the AI System Reliability, Flexibility
and Timeliness scale, were 0.76, 0.83 and 0.88, respectively.
A reflective model was recommended for use in this study based on the following
494 suggestions of Jarvis et al. (2003) and Nguyen and Malik (2021): (1) all items of a construct
share a common theme, (2) all items of a contract are highly correlated and can be used
interchangeably, and (3) if one item of a contract is dropped, the conceptual meaning of the
construct does not change. In addition, although the constructs were not directly measurable,
they existed independently of their items.

5. Results
Because the study variables were adapted from previous studies (Tables 2 and 3),
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted
before testing the hypotheses to examine the model’s reliability and validity. The CFA results
showed a good fit: χ 2 5 1,020.18, df 5 572, χ 2/df 5 1.78, p < 0.001; CFI 5 0.92; TLI 5 0.90,
RMSEA 5 0.05. The standardised factor loadings, composite reliabilities (CR), and average
variance extracted (AVEs) are all presented in Table 3. All CR values were above 0.70
(Nunnally, 1994). All AVE values of constructs exceeded the recommended 0.50 level (Hair
et al., 2003). The results in Table 4 show that the square root of the AVE of each construct is
larger than the squared correlations for each pair of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
To test the hypotheses, structural equation modelling was accessed. The model appears to
have acceptable fit indices as follows: χ 2 5 364.58, df 5 209, χ 2/df 5 1.74, p < 0.001;
CFI 5 0.98; TLI 5 0.97; RMSEA 5 0.05. H1 proposes that knowledge sharing affects
employee service quality. The results in Table 5 show a significant effect ( ß 5 0.25, p < 0.01),
thus supporting H1. In H2, employee service quality is hypothesised to influence customer
satisfaction. In Table 5, employee service quality significantly impacts customer satisfaction
( ß 5 0.38, p < 0.001); therefore, H2 is supported.
To further understand the impact of knowledge sharing on employee service quality, and
employee service quality on customer satisfaction, following Prentice and Nguyen’s (2020)
suggestions, each employee service quality dimension was accessed. The results in Table 6
show that knowledge sharing affects three dimensions of employee service quality:
responsiveness ( β 5 0.17, p < 0.05), empathy (β 5 0.17, p < 0.05), and assurance (β 5 0.16,
p < 0.05). Employee reliability was not affected by knowledge sharing (β 5 0.12, p > 0.05).
Among the four dimensions of employee service quality, responsiveness (β 5 0.39, p < 0.001)
and empathy ( β 5 0.22, p < 0.05) influenced customer satisfaction, while reliability (β 5 0.09,
p > 0.05) and assurance (β 5 0.04, p > 0.05) did not.
Hayes PROCESS SPSS macro was used to test any mediating and moderating effects
(Table 5 and Figure 2). The mediating effect of employee service quality in the relationship
between knowledge sharing and customer satisfaction are supported ( β 5 0.04, p < 0.05).
Therefore, H3 is supported. H4 is not supported because the moderating effect of AI
information quality ( ß 5 0.06, p > 0.05) on the impact of knowledge sharing on employee
service quality is not found.
H5 is supported due to the significant moderating effect of AI system quality in the
association between knowledge sharing and employee service quality (ß 5 0.13, p < 0.05),
resulting in a moderated mediation of the AI System Quality in the indirect effect of
knowledge sharing on customer satisfaction through Employee Service Quality. An increase
in the AI system quality from the medium ( ß 5 0.02, p < 0.05, CI [0.00; 0.05]) to a high level
 Standardised Cronbach’s Construct
Latent variable Source Item loading alpha AVEs reliability

Knowledge sharing Yang et al. (2018) I often share information, experience and expertise with 0.75 0.89 0.64 0.92
my colleagues
When I know anything new, I often share with my 0.83
colleagues
When I learn new skills, I often share with my colleagues 0.84
When my colleagues consult me, I am willing to answer 0.84
their questions as well as I can
When my colleagues are in need, I do my best to offer 0.76
them needed information and documents
I do my best and offer suggestions while discussing work- 0.79
related matters with my colleagues
Employee Parasuraman et al. Employees seem to handle busy times smoothly 0.79 0.78 0.70 0.88
responsiveness (1988) Employees provide prompt and quick service 0.87
Employees never are too busy to respond to your requests 0.85
Employee Parasuraman et al. Employees follow through on their promises 0.78 0.73 0.66 0.85
reliability (1988) Employees do things right the first time 0.86
Employees properly handle any problems that arise 0.79
Employee empathy Parasuraman et al. Employees give extra effort to handle my special requests 0.79 0.73 0.66 0.85
(1988) Employees are sensitive to my individual needs and 0.85
wants, rather than always relying on policies and
procedures
Employees make me feel special 0.79
Employee Parasuraman et al. Employees can answer my questions completely 0.82 0.80 0.72 0.88
assurance (1988) Employees make me feel comfortable and confident in my 0.87
dealings with them
Employees are both able and willing to give me 0.85
information about the hotel services
Customer Han et al. (2011) This is one of the best hotels I have ever stayed in 0.73 0.75 0.58 0.85
satisfaction I’m pleased to have stayed at this hotel 0.73
It was a good idea to have stayed in this hotel 0.80
I do not regret choosing this hotel 0.78

(continued )
Knowledge

service quality

495
sharing and
employees’

Measurement items
Table 3.
 39,3
IMR

496

Table 3.
Standardised Cronbach’s Construct
Latent variable Source Item loading alpha AVEs reliability

AI information Wixom and Todd AI tools produce correct information 0.86 0.82 0.75 0.90
accuracy (2005) There are a few errors in the information I obtain from AI 0.86
tools
The information provided by AI tools is accurate 0.87
AI information Wixom and Todd AI tools provide me with the most recent information 0.78 0.78 0.69 0.87
currency (2005) AI tools produce the most current information 0.84
The information from AI tools is always up to date 0.87
AI system Wixom and Todd AI tools operate reliably 0.77 0.76 0.68 0.86
reliability (2005) AI tools perform reliably 0.87
The operation of AI tools is dependable 0.83
AI system Wixom and Todd AI tools can be adapted to meet a variety of needs 0.80 0.83 0.75 0.90
flexibility (2005) AI tools can flexibly adjust to new demands or conditions 0.87
AI tools are versatile in addressing needs as they arise 0.93
AI system Wixom and Todd It takes too long for AI tools to respond to my requests (
) 0.86 0.88 0.82 0.93
timeliness (2005) AI tools provide information in a timely fashion 0.94
AI tools return answers to my requests quickly 0.92
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Knowledge sharing 0.80

2. Employee responsiveness 0.12* 0.84
3. Employee reliability 0.10 0.37** 0.81
4. Employee sympathy 0.13* 0.21** 0.30** 0.81
5. Employee insurance 0.13* 0.25** 0.26** 0.25** 0.85
6. Customer satisfaction 0.11* 0.30** 0.10 0.21** 0.12* 0.76
7. AI information accuracy 0.29* 0.13* 0.08 0.12* 0.13* 0.16** 0.87
8. AI information currency 0.22* 0.11* 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.40** 0.83
9. AI system reliability 0.11* 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.39** 0.30** 0.82
10. AI system flexibility 0.19* 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.25** 0.39** 0.11* 0.87
11. AI system timeliness 0.11* 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.11* 0.19* 0.25** 0.18** 0.07 0.91
Note(s): Diagonal elements are the square root values of AVEs; Off-diagonal elements are the correlations among constructs; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Knowledge

service quality

497
sharing and
employees’

Discriminant validities
Table 4.

for the study variables

IMR Direct effect β SE
39,3
Knowledge sharing → employee service quality 0.25** 0.04
Employee service quality → customer satisfaction 0.38*** 0.17

Boot Boot Boot

Mediating effect of employee service quality β SE LLCI ULCI
498
Knowledge sharing → employee service quality → customer 0.04* 0.02 0.01 0.08
satisfaction

Moderating effect of AI information and system quality

Standardised regression
weight on DV
IV MOD DV IV MOD IAT

Knowledge sharing AI information quality Employee service quality
0.27
0.26 0.06
Knowledge sharing AI system quality Employee service quality
0.69
0.70 0.13*

Moderated mediation: conditional indirect effects of AI system quality

β Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI

AI system quality
þ1 SD 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.03
Table 5.
Direct effect, M 0.02* 0.01 0.00 0.05
mediation, moderation
1 SD 0.03* 0.02 0.01 0.08
and moderated Note(s): *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
mediation DV 5 dependent variable, IV 5 independent variable, MOD 5 moderator, IAT 5 interaction term

Knowledge sharing as the determinant Customer satisfaction as the outcome

Table 6.
Determinants and Employee responsiveness 0.17* 0.39***
outcomes of employee Employee reliability 0.12 0.09
service quality Employee empathy 0.17* 0.22*
dimensions Employee assurance 0.16* 0.04

( ß 5 0.03, p < 0.05, CI [0.01; 0.08]) results in an increase in the indirect effect of knowledge
sharing on customer satisfaction through an employee’s service quality.

6. Discussion
This study examines whether employees’ knowledge sharing behaviour can increase
customer perception of their service quality and increase customer satisfaction. AI
information and system quality are investigated as moderators in the relationship between
knowledge sharing behaviour and employee service quality. The significant findings of this
study show that (1) knowledge sharing behaviour has a direct effect on employee service
quality; (2) employee service quality has a direct impact on customer satisfaction;
(3) employee service quality mediates the impact of knowledge sharing behaviour on
customer satisfaction; and (4) AI system quality positively moderates the influence of
 Knowledge
sharing and
employees’
service quality

499

Figure 2.
The moderating effect
of AI system quality

knowledge sharing behaviour on employee service quality. A detailed discussion of the

findings is presented as follows.

6.1 Knowledge sharing behaviour and employee service quality

The results of this study support the relationship between knowledge sharing behaviour
and employee service quality. In other words, if employees actively share knowledge, they
tend to know how to serve customers better. As a result, customers are more likely to
perceive high-quality service from the employees. This study also indicates that employee
responsiveness, empathy and assurance are three dimensions that are significantly
improved through knowledge sharing. Employee responsiveness is manifested in the
prompt and quick service delivered by employees. Through knowledge sharing, employees
can learn how to organise their tasks to reduce the time taken to respond to customer
requests; thus, customers are inclined to perceive that their requests are responded to
faster. Employee empathy is related to the ability to serve individual requests from
customers and make customers feel special. The knowledge exchange process may help
employees learn how to handle different customer needs and wants, rather than always
following policies and procedures. Employee assurance involves the ability to answer
customer questions about the hotel in which they are staying. Sharing knowledge among
employees is very important for enhancing the hotel staff’s understanding of how to help
and serve its customers. However, knowledge sharing among employees is not shown to
increase the customer perception of employee reliability. One possible explanation can be
that employees are often presumed to be reliable and able to deliver on their promises and
handle any problems raised.
These findings consolidate previous studies, such as Kwahk and Park (2016), who found
that knowledge sharing can help employees improve their performance. However, in this
study, knowledge sharing behaviour among employees in the hotel industry is shown to help
improve customer perceptions of employee service quality. Furthermore, this study’s
IMR employee performance is measured objectively and precisely by customers through four
39,3 dimensions: responsiveness, reliability, empathy and assurance.

6.2 Employee service quality and customer satisfaction

The results support this proposed relationship between employee service quality and
customer satisfaction. If customers perceive that the service quality produced by employees
500 is high, they tend to be satisfied with the service and the hotel. Especially, responsiveness and
empathy are the key dimensions of employee service quality that increase customer
satisfaction. In other words, when customer requests are responded to promptly, even with
special orders, they are more likely to be pleased with their stay in the hotel. These findings
align with existing literature, which has found that employee service quality is the key to
making customers satisfied with a hotel. A hotel receives considerable feedback from its
frontline employees’ service quality (Prentice and Nguyen, 2020). Quick service and the
ability to make its customers’ stay as comfortable and relaxing as possible are essential for
success because a high level of customer satisfaction is now the key to marketing (Amatulli
et al., 2019). Customer satisfaction is widely recognised as a critical factor in customer
retention and repeat sales by positive word-of-mouth (Park, 2019). A satisfied customer may
review or rate a hotel through social media or other rating channels, such as TripAdvisor,
which significantly affects future customers’ reputation and purchasing intention (Zhao et al.,
2019). In the fiercely competitive environment of the hospitality industry, online word-of-
mouth, ratings, or reviews of customers can be used as a marketing weapon to attract
domestic and international customers because they are objective and reflect the experience of
previous customers (Zhou et al., 2014). Mostly, for international customers, word-of-mouth
through reviews or ratings plays a crucial role in their decision making, as they are often
unfamiliar with the destination and rely on these sources to evaluate their future bookings
(Zhou et al., 2014).

6.3 The mediating effect of employee service quality

This study examines the mediation role of employee service quality in the relationship
between knowledge sharing and customer satisfaction. The study shows that if employees
engage in knowledge sharing, they tend to increase customer perception of their service
quality and increase customer satisfaction. These results reflect that those who actively
participate in knowledge sharing activities are more inclined to learn more about their hotel
and improve their skills and expertise to serve their customers better. Employees can
determine that they have learned better customer service by their ability to meet customer
needs and that their service exceeds customer expectations, leading to increased customer
satisfaction. Previous studies, such as by Bahadur et al. (2018) and Alhelalat et al. (2017), focus
on improving the impact of employee service quality on customer satisfaction but do not
examine its determinants. This study indicates that enhancing knowledge sharing among
employees is an effective means of increasing employee service quality.

6.4 The moderating effect of AI quality

In this study, AI quality is proposed as a moderator of the relationship between knowledge
sharing and employee service quality. Unexpectedly, AI information quality is not found to
moderate knowledge sharing on employee service quality. One possible explanation for this
is that the accuracy and currency of information produced by AI are often presumed to be a
given or a baseline table stake. Employees tend to believe that AI tools always provide a high
level of accurate and current information; thus, AI information quality is not their concern
and does not seem to affect employees’ knowledge sharing. However, AI system quality is
found to moderate knowledge sharing about employee service quality and the indirect impact Knowledge
of knowledge sharing on customer satisfaction. These results imply that if AI tools operate sharing and
reliably, adapt to various needs, and provide answers on time, employees can rely on them to
produce the necessary information useful in the knowledge sharing process. With AI tools
employees’
facilitating it, the exchange of knowledge seems to be more effective if the AI system’s quality service quality
is perceived to increase from a medium to a high level. As a result, employees can improve
their knowledge, skills and expertise to serve customers better. In the competitive hospitality
industry, customer demand for service quality is steadily increasing. Hotels need to offer an 501
extra level of service to provide a memorable experience to customers. AI tools can help to
increase employee knowledge about customers by generating patterns based on customer
information. Such knowledge can be discussed among employees to find the most suitable
ways to personalise service for customers. These results support Prentice and Nguyen (2020),
who found that AI tools can help reduce employee workloads in serving customers. However,
this study goes beyond that, and indicates that AI tools affect employee workloads, and
explores big data to obtain more insights into customers. Humans with limited capability find
it hard to acquire such rich data as this.

7. Implications
7.1 Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature on international marketing by exploring the
relationship between knowledge sharing, employee service quality, customer satisfaction and
AI quality in global hotel MNEs. This study is one of the first studies that examine the impact of
knowledge sharing on employees’ service quality. The majority of the international hotel MNEs
literature studies tend to find employee service quality outcomes, such as customer satisfaction,
while its determinants have been neglected thus far. Examining the determinants of employee
service quality can provide directions for increasing the service quality produced by employees.
As customers often judge a hotel’s service quality according to their perception of the service
quality of its employees, finding employee service quality determinants is crucial.
This study also contributes to the knowledge sharing literature and customer relationship
management when examining employee service quality as an outcome. Previous studies,
such as Kwahk and Park (2016), often examine innovation or job performance as knowledge
sharing behaviour outcomes. However, measuring the effectiveness of knowledge sharing
behaviour through employee service quality is rarely conducted in the knowledge sharing
literature. This study also evaluates employee service quality from the customer perspective,
which is then linked with customer satisfaction. Such an evaluation seems to be more
objective and reflect the reality of the situation more accurately than employees’ self-
evaluation (Zhao et al., 2019).
The majority of the research on AI in the service industry has mainly focused on accepting
AI. A few studies, such as by Prentice and Nguyen (2020), investigate AI tools from the
perspective of their service quality. However, these studies mainly examine AI quality as a
determinant of customer engagement or customer satisfaction. This study is the first to
approach AI quality as a moderator to the best of our knowledge. This study confirms that AI
quality can play a role as a moderator in facilitating the transfer of knowledge among
employees, which helps to increase employee service quality, and consequently, customer
satisfaction. This study contributes to the international marketing literature to confirm the
important role of AI in improving customer relationship management.

7.2 Practical implications

This study has several implications for hotel managers, including human resources,
international marketing and customer relationship professionals. As this study indicates that
IMR an increase in the exchange of knowledge among employees can lead to an increase in the
39,3 employee service quality perceived by customers, the managers (including marketing
managers) of international hotel MNE chains may like to consider investing in knowledge
sharing processes. A favourable knowledge-sharing environment is necessary for the
strength of the subsequent relationships examined in this research. Especially in an
international marketing context, regular meetings are essential in creating opportunities for
employees to share common and specialist knowledge about the global hotel chain and to
502 know one another and discuss work-related tasks. Informal meetings among employees
should be encouraged in some public areas, such as the hotel cafeteria and using AI-enabled
applications across the hotel MNEs’ network. Besides all of these, hotel managers may
consider establishing online knowledge sharing channels across the MNE’s network to create
more opportunities for employees to interact with one another without the limits of time and
space (Nguyen, 2020). In recruitment, hotel managers should consider those who show a high
tendency to share their knowledge and an eagerness to learn from colleagues. The right set of
employees will increase the likelihood of success for any hotel.
Employee responsiveness, empathy and assurance need to be emphasised to improve
employee service quality. These dimensions should be regularly discussed in meetings with
employees. Further, the global hotel MNE’s marketing managers should check the customer
perceptions of employee service quality through online reviews or ratings to adjust their
service and to understand customers and their employee service quality. Furthermore, the
quality of the AI systems used by the global MNE chain is critical for improving the
information produced to facilitate the knowledge sharing process, which leads to an increase
in employee service quality, customer relationship management and international
marketing strategies. Reliability, flexibility and timeliness are the three dimensions of an
AI system that frequently need to be checked to support the knowledge-sharing process
among employees.

7.3 Limitations and directions for future research

Despite the considerable effort made, a few limitations must be acknowledged in this study.
First, we collected data from the hospitality industry in Vietnam, and thus the findings may
be limited to Western cultures. Vietnam is a country with a high level of collectivism, and
knowledge sharing is considered a way to contribute to the hotel’s development; therefore,
Vietnamese employees tend to have a more robust attitude towards knowledge sharing.
Future researchers may want to cross-validate the results of this study and include the
impacts of cultural factors as moderators. Second, AI quality may be different across
different service industries; caution needs to be exercised when the results of this study are
discussed and applied to the entire service industry. Third, this study collected data at only a
one-time point. Future research should consider conducting a longitudinal study and
collecting data from different time points to examine the effectiveness of the knowledge-
sharing process on the customer perception of employee service quality and customer
satisfaction. Fourth, the mediation role of employee service quality can be tested thoroughly
through a cross-lagged research design. Finally, this study used a quantitative approach to
access the relationship among variables from a large scale of sample size. However, future
researchers may consider a qualitative study, which facilitates further insights into the
employee and customer perspectives.

References
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V., Day, G.S. and Lawley, M. (2005), Marketing Research: The Pacific Rim,
Edition, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Milton.
Alhelalat, J.A., Habiballah, M.M.A. and Twaissi, N.M. (2017), “The impact of personal and functional Knowledge
aspects of restaurant employee service behaviour on customer satisfaction”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 66, pp. 46-53, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.001. sharing and
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M. and Stoppani, A. (2019), “Analysing online reviews in hospitality: data-
employees’
driven opportunities for predicting the sharing of negative emotional content”, Current Issues in service quality
Tourism, Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 1904-1917, doi: 10.1080/13683500.2019.1594723.
Bahadur, W., Aziz, S. and Zulfiqar, S. (2018), “Effect of employee empathy on customer satisfaction
and loyalty during employee-customer interactions: the mediating role of customer affective 503
commitment and perceived service quality”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2018.1491780.
Bartol, K.M., Liu, W., Zeng, X. and Wu, K. (2009), “Social exchange and knowledge sharing among
knowledge workers: the moderating role of perceived job security”, Management and
Organization Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 223-240.
Beheshtinia, M.A. and Azad, M.F. (2019), “A fuzzy QFD approach using SERVQUAL and Kano
models under budget constraint for hotel services”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 30 Nos 7-8, pp. 808-830, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1340830.
Bharati, P., Zhang, W. and Chaudhury, A. (2015), “Better knowledge with social media? Exploring the
roles of social capital and organizational knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 456-475, doi: 10.1108/JKM-11-2014-0467.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
Bowen, J. and Morosan, C. (2018), “Beware hospitality industry: the robots are coming”, Worldwide
Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 726-733, doi: 10.1108/whatt-07-2018-0045.
Bridges, J. (2019), “20 stats about online reviews that hoteliers need to know”, available at: https://
www.reputationdefender.com/blog/online-reviews/20-stats-about-online-reviews-that-hoteliers-
need-to-know.
Brislin, R.W. (2016), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216, doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301.
Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (2003), Marketing Research: Online Research Applications, 4th ed., Prentice
Hall, New Jersey.
Chen, W.-J. and Cheng, H.-Y. (2012), “Factors affecting the knowledge sharing attitude of hotel service
personnel”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 468-476, doi: 10.
1016/j.ijhm.2011.07.005.
Chen, Y.-H., Lin, T.-P. and Yen, D.C. (2014), “How to facilitate inter-organisational knowledge sharing:
the impact of trust”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 568-578, doi: 10.1016/j.im.
2014.03.007.
Cheng, B.L., Gan, C.C., Imrie, B.C. and Mansori, S. (2019), “Service recovery, customer satisfaction and
customer loyalty: evidence from Malaysia’s hotel industry”, International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 187-203, doi: 10.1108/IJQSS-09-2017-0081.
Chiang, H.H., Han, T.S. and Chuang, J.S. (2011), “The relationship between high commitment HRM and
knowledge sharing behavior and its mediators”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32
Nos 5/6, pp. 604-622.
Choi, W., Kim, S.L. and Yun, S. (2019), “A social exchange perspective of abusive supervision and
knowledge sharing: investigating the moderating effects of psychological contract fulfillment
and self-enhancement motive”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 305-319.
Cresswell, J.W. (2003), Research Designs: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
de Correia, R.J.C., Lengler, J. and Mohsin, A. (2019), “Entrepreneurial approaches to the
internationalisation of Portugal’s hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1141-1165, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2017-0567.
IMR Delone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information systems
success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4,
39,3 pp. 9-30, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
Delone, W.H. and McLean, E.R. (2014), “The DeLone and McLean Model of information systems
success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-
30, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
Dominici, G. and Guzzo, R. (2010), “Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: a case study from
504 Sicily”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 3-12, doi: 10.5539/ijms.v2n2p3.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002), Management Research: An Introduction, 2nd ed.,
Sage Publications, London.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50,
doi: 10.2307/3151312.
Garrido, P., Barrachina, J., Martinez, F.J. and Seron, F.J. (2016), “Smart tourist information points by
combining agents, semantics and AI techniques”, Computer Science and Information Systems,
Vol. 14, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.2298/CSIS150410029G.
George Assaf, A., Josiassen, A., Woo, L., Agbola, F.W. and Tsionas, M. (2017), “Destination
characteristics that drive hotel performance: a state-of-the-art global analysis”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 60, pp. 270-279, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.010.
Gursoy, D., Chi, O.H., Lu, L. and Nunkoo, R. (2019), “Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent
(AI) device use in service delivery”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 49,
pp. 157-169.
Hair, J., Bush, R.P. and Ortinau, D.J. (2003), Marketing Research: Within a Changing Information
Environment, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hajro, A., Gibson, C.B. and Pudelko, M. (2017), “Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural teams:
linking organisational diversity climates to teams’ effectiveness”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 345-372, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0442.
Han, H., Kim, W. and Hyun, S.S. (2011), “Switching intention model development: role of service
performances, customer satisfaction, and switching barriers in the hotel industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 619-629, doi: 10.1016/j.
ijhm.2010.11.006.
Hole, Y., Khedkar, E.B. and Pawar, S. (2019), “Challenges and solutions to the development of the
tourism and hospitality industry in India”, African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Hu, M.-L.M., Ou, T.-L., Chiou, H.-J. and Lin, L.-C. (2012), “Effects of social exchange and trust on knowledge
sharing and service innovation”, Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 783-800.
Kim, S.L., Kim, M. and Yun, S. (2015), “Knowledge sharing, abusive supervision, and support: a social
exchange perspective”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 599-624.
Jarvis, C.B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Kim, S.L., Han, S., Son, S.Y. and Yun, S. (2017), “Exchange ideology in supervisor-subordinate dyads,
LMX, and knowledge sharing: a social exchange perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 147-172.
Kim, B., Kim, S. and Heo, C.Y. (2019), “Consequences of customer dissatisfaction in upscale and budget
hotels: focusing on dissatisfied customers’ attitude toward a hotel”, International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 15-46, doi: 10.1080/15256480.2017.
1359728.
Kumar, V., Aaker, D.A. and Day, G.S. (2002), Essentials of Marketing Research, 2nd ed., John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Kwahk, K.Y. and Park, D.H. (2016), “The effects of network sharing on knowledge-sharing activities Knowledge
and job performance in enterprise social media environments”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 55 No. Part B, pp. 826-839, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.044. sharing and
Lam, R., Cheung, C. and Lugosi, P. (2020), “The impacts of cultural and emotional intelligence on hotel
employees’
guest satisfaction: Asian and non-Asian perceptions of staff capabilities”, Journal of China service quality
Tourism Research, pp. 1-23, doi: 10.1080/19388160.2020.1771500.
Lee, K.-J. (2014), “Attitudinal dimensions of professionalism and service quality efficacy of frontline
employees in hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 41, pp. 140-148, doi: 505
10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.015.
Lee, C.-W. and Hidayat, N. (2018), “The influence of knowledge sharing on service innovation
performance: an empirical study on hotel in Northe Borneo, Indonesia”, Eurasian Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 23-32, doi: 10.15604/ejbm.2018.06.02.003.
Lee, J.Y., Jang, S.H. and Lee, S.Y. (2018), “Paternalistic leadership and knowledge sharing with
outsiders in emerging economies”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 1094-2115.
Lee, Y.L.A., Malik, A., Rosenberger, P.J. and Sharma, P. (2020), “Demystifying the differences in the
impact of training and incentives on employee performance: mediating roles of trust and
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1987-2006, doi: 10.
1108/JKM-04-2020-0309.
Liao, L.F. (2008), “Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: a social power and social exchange theory
perspective”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 10,
pp. 1881-1895.
Lu, C., Berchoux, C., Marek, M.W. and Chen, B. (2015), “Service quality and customer satisfaction:
qualitative research implications for luxury hotels”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 168-182, doi: 10.1108/IJCTHR-10-2014-0087.
Malik, A., Ngo, L.V. and Kingshott, R.P.J. (2018), “Power, resource dependencies and capabilities
in intercultural B2B relationships”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 629-642,
doi: 10.1108/JSM-01-2018-0006.
Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D.F. (2004), “Building systems that users want to use”, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 12, pp. 88-94, doi: 10.1145/1035134.1035139.
Malik, A., Budhwar, P., Patel, C. and Srikanth, N.R. (2020), “May the bots be with you! Delivering HR
cost-effectiveness and individualised employee experiences in an MNE”, International Journal
of Human Resource Management. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1859582.
Malik, A., De Silva, M.T., Budhwar, P. and Srikanth, N.R. (2021), “Elevating talents’ experience
through innovative artificial intelligence-mediated knowledge sharing: evidence from an IT-
multinational enterprise”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, p. 100871.
Mariani, M. and Predvoditeleva, M. (2019), “How do online reviewers’ cultural traits and perceived
experience influence hotel online ratings? An empirical analysis of the Muscovite hotel sector”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 4543-4573,
doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-11-2018-0927.
Markovic, S. and Jankovic, S.R. (2013), “Exploring the relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction in the Croatian hotel industry”, Tourism and Hospitality Management,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-164.
McDaniel, C. and Gates, R. (2005), Marketing Research, 6th ed., John Willey & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. (2001), “Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior:
investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 131-142.
Nguyen, T.-M. (2020), “Four-dimensional model: a literature review in online organisational knowledge
sharing”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 109-138, doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-05-2019-0077.
IMR Nguyen, T.M. and Malik, A. (2020), “Cognitive processes, rewards and online knowledge sharing
behaviour: the moderating effect of organisational innovation”, Journal of Knowledge
39,3 Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1241-1261, doi: 10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0742.
Nguyen, T.M. and Malik, A. (2021), “A two-wave cross-lagged study on AI service quality: the
moderating effects of job role”, British Journal of Management. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12540.
Nguyen, T.-M. and Prentice, C. (2020), “Reverse relationship between reward, knowledge sharing and
performance”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice. doi: 10.1080/14778238.2020.
506 1821588.
Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Omotayo, F.O. and Babalola, S.O. (2016), “Factors influencing knowledge sharing among information
and communication technology artisans in Nigeria”, Journal of Systems and Information
Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 148-169.
Padlee, S.F., Thaw, C.Y. and Zulkiffli, S.N.A. (2019), “The relationship between service quality,
customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions”, Tourism and Hospitality Management,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-139, doi: 10.20867/thm.25.1.9.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50, doi: 10.1177/
002224298504900403.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “Servqual: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perception”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Park, E. (2019), “Motivations for customer revisit behavior in online review comments: analysing the
role of user experience using big data approaches”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 51, pp. 14-18, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.019.
Park, J.G., Lee, H. and Lee, J. (2015), “Applying social exchange theory in IT service relationships:
exploring roles of exchange characteristics in knowledge sharing”, Information Technology and
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Pinna, R., De Simone, S., Cicotto, G. and Malik, A. (2020), “Beyond organisational support: exploring
the supportive role of co-workers and supervisors in a multi-actor service ecosystem”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 121, pp. 524-534.
Prentice, C. and Nguyen, T.-M. (2020), “Engaging and retaining customers with AI and employee
service”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 56, 102186, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.
2020.102186.
Prentice, C., Weaven, S. and Wong, I.A. (2020), “Linking AI quality performance and customer
engagement: the moderating effect of AI preference”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 90, p. 102629, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102629.
Radojevic, T., Stanisic, N. and Stanic, N. (2017), “Inside the rating scores: a multilevel analysis of the
factors influencing customer satisfaction in the hotel industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 134-164, doi: 10.1177/1938965516686114.
Rahimi, R. and Kozak, M. (2017), “Impact of customer relationship management on customer
satisfaction: the case of a budget hotel chain”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 40-51, doi: 10.1080/10548408.2015.1130108.
Robinson, S., Orsingher, C., Alkire, L., De Keyser, A., Giebelhausen, M., Papamichail, K.N. and
Temerak, M.S. (2020), “Frontline encounters of the AI kind: an evolved service encounter
framework”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 366-376.
Rollins, M. and Halinen, A. (2005), “Customer knowledge management competence: towards a
theoretical framework”, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, IEEE, p. 240a.
Russell, S.J., Norvig, P. and ProQuest (2016), Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed.,
Pearson Education, Harlow, Essex.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009), Research Methods for Business Students, 5th ed., Knowledge
Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New York, Harlow.
sharing and
Sharma, P., Tam, J.L. and Kim, N. (2009), “Demystifying intercultural service encounters: toward a
comprehensive conceptual framework”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 227-242.
employees’
Staples, D.S. and Webster, J. (2008), “Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and
service quality
virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 617-640.
507
Taylor, G.R. (2000), Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Research, University Press of
Merica, Lanham, MD.
Torres, E.N. and Kline, S. (2013), “From customer satisfaction to customer delight”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 642-659, doi: 10.1108/
IJCHM-Dec-2011-0228.
Tsai, M.T. and Cheng, N.C. (2012), “Understanding knowledge sharing between IT professionals—an
integration of social cognitive and social exchange theory”, Behaviour and Information
Technology, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1069-1080.
van Esch, P. and Black, J.S. (2019), “Factors that influence new generation candidates to engage
with and complete digital, Al-enabled recruiting”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 729-739,
doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2019.07.004.
Wang, H.-K., Yen, Y.-F. and Tseng, J.-F. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in knowledge workers: the roles of
social exchange theory and the theory of planned behavior”, Innovation (North Sydney), Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 450-465.
Wixom, B.H. and Todd, P.A. (2005), “A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology
acceptance”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 85-102, doi: 10.1287/isre.1050.0042.
Wu, W.-L. (2013), “To share knowledge or not: dependence on knowledge-sharing satisfaction”, Social
Behavior and Personality, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Wu, W.-L. and Lee, Y.-C. (2017), “Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing:
integrating the social exchange theory and positive organisational behavior perspective”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 474-491.
Wu, Y. and Zhu, W. (2012), “An integrated theoretical model for determinants of knowledge sharing
behaviours”, Kybernetes, Vol. 41 No. 10, pp. 1462-1482.
Yan, Z., Wang, T., Chen, Y. and Zhang, H. (2016), “Knowledge sharing in online health communities: a
social exchange theory perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 643-653.
Yang, Z., Nguyen, V.T. and Le, P.B. (2018), “Knowledge sharing serves as a mediator between
collaborative culture and innovation capability: an empirical research”, Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 958-969, doi: 10.1108/JBIM-10-2017-0245.
Zanker, M., Fuchs, M., Hopken, W., Tuta, M. and Muller, N. (2008), “Evaluating Recommender in
tourism—a case study from Austria”, paper presented at the Information and Communication
Technologies in Tourism.
Zhang, X. and Liu, S. (2021), “Understanding relationship commitment and continuous knowledge
sharing in online health communities: a social exchange perspective”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
Zhang, X., de Pablos, P.O. and Xu, Q. (2014), “Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multinational
virtual classes: a mixed method”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 491-498.
Zhao, L. and Detlor, B. (2021), “Towards a contingency model of knowledge sharing: interaction
between social capital and social exchange theories”, Knowledge Management Research and
Practice, pp. 1-13.
Zhao, Y., Xu, X. and Wang, M. (2019), “Predicting overall customer satisfaction: big data evidence
from hotel online textual reviews”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76,
pp. 111-121, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.017.
IMR Zhou, L., Ye, S., Pearce, P.L. and Wu, M.-Y. (2014), “Refreshing hotel satisfaction studies by
reconfiguring customer review data”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 38,
39,3 pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.12.004.

Further reading
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
508 sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organisational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2004), “Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: best
practices for IT support and knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8
No. 4, pp. 75-88.

About the authors

Tuyet-Mai Nguyen is based at the University of Queensland Business School, University of Queensland,
Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Currently, she is a lecturer in Marketing in the UQ Business School at the
University of Queensland, Australia. Her research interests include e-marketing, knowledge sharing and
social media. Mai is also serving as a Senior Lecturer and a Marketing Specialist at the Department of
Information and E-commerce, Thuongmai University, Vietnam. She has published her research in
Journal of Business Research, British Journal of Management, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, among others. Tuyet-Mai Nguyen is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: [email protected], [email protected]
Ashish Malik is an associate professor at University of Newcastle, Central Coast Campus in New
South Wales, Australia. His academic qualifications, training and professional experience are in the
fields of Human Resources Management and Industrial Relations. His current research is at the interface
of strategy, HRM and innovation management focusing on knowledge-intensive services industries in
an international context. He serves as Associate Editor (HRM) for the Journal of Business Research and
Asian and Business Management and is a member of the Editorial Board of Human Resource
Management Review and Journal of Knowledge Management. His work is published in several high-
ranked journals, including Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business
Research, Journal of International Management, Thunderbird International Business Review, Social
Identities, Human Resource Management Review, among others.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]