383 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 | 383-414
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL 
WORK: MANAGEMENT SUPPORT, INCENTIVES, 
KNOWLEDGE IMPLEMENTATION, AND 
EMPLOYEE EMPOWERMENT*
SIMON COLNAR
1
 Received: March 18, 2019 
VLADO DIMOVSKI
2
 Accepted: August 15, 2019
ABSTRACT: In this article, we build on the current research about knowledge management 
in social work settings to demonstrate that knowledge management has the potential to 
enable social work organizations to influence public policies and improve the quality of their 
services. By increasing awareness and information about knowledge management in the field 
of social work, our goal is to examine a direct positive relationship between management 
support and incentives and knowledge implementation. In addition, as we wanted to explore 
the moderating effect of employee empowerment on knowledge implementation, we define 
and test several hypotheses in order to discover how management support, incentives and 
employee empowerment impact knowledge implementation in social work settings. We use 
moderation regression to test our hypotheses with a sample of 98 managers and employees 
of social work organizations in Slovenia who completed a questionnaire specifically prepared 
for the study. The study results support the existence of a significant and positive relationship 
between management support and incentives with knowledge implementation. Employee 
empowerment also acts as a moderator in the relationship between incentives and knowledge 
implementation, however, the interaction term is negative. In any case, the highest levels 
of knowledge implementation occur when employee empowerment is high as well. In the 
conclusion of the paper, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications derived from 
the research study.
Key words: knowledge management, social work, management support, incentives, knowledge implementation, 
employee empowerment
JEL classification: M10
DOI: 10.15458/ebr107
* The authors would like to thank the Social Chamber of Slovenia and its Secretary General Vilko Kolbl for 
identifying suitable respondents and helping us acquire the data for the study. W e would also like to thank Sandra 
Penger, Barbara Grah, Miroslav Verbič, the editor Matej Černe and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable 
comments on earlier versions of the paper. Finally, we would like to thank the Ministry of Labor, Family and 
Social Affairs, and all of the respondents who participated in the survey.
1 Corresponding author, University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: 
simon.colnar@ef.uni-lj.si
2 University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: vlado.dimovski@ef.uni-
lj.si

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 384
1 INTRODUCTION
“Knowledge and the way it is managed has been with humankind since the beginning of 
time” (Jashapara, 2011). In today’s knowledge economy, an organization’s ability to 
manage knowledge effectively is becoming increasingly crucial (Dalkir, 2005). Nowadays, 
many public organizations orient themselves towards becoming truly knowledge-based 
organizations (Willem & Buelens, 2007). In this effort, the adaptation and implementation 
of knowledge management practices is considered beneficial (Špaček, 2016) in any type 
of an organization, whether private or public (Arora, 2011), and has the potential to play 
an important role in improving their operations (Wiig, 2002). Previous research has 
established four basic knowledge management process stages: (1) creating knowledge, 
(2) storing and retrieving knowledge, (3) transferring knowledge, and (4) implementing 
knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). More than simply increasing profit and competitive 
advantages, the benefits of knowledge management in social work organizations include 
adding value to services, as well as increasing wellbeing, societal effectiveness, and general 
welfare (Myers, 2014; Örtenblad & Koris, 2014). Management support (Y ew Wong, 2005), 
incentives (Ajmal, Helo & Kekale, 2010), and employee empowerment (Akbari & Ghaffari, 
2017) have been explored in the existing literature and have come to be recognized as 
the organizational factors that influence the success of knowledge implementation. The 
implementation phase is perhaps the most important part of the knowledge management 
process as it contributes the most to value creation (Haamann & Basten, 2019), and yet 
paradoxically it has received relatively little research attention (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002).
Therefore, we believe it is of crucial importance to develop a better understanding of 
knowledge management in general and knowledge implementation in the particular 
context of the public sector, including individual social work organizations. Effective 
knowledge management enables organizations to influence public policies through the 
more systematic and effective capture, dissemination, transfer, and implementation 
of knowledge (Riege & Lindsay, 2006), and consequently has the potential to improve 
the quality of social work services and programs (Ukil, 2016). Unfortunately, the most 
frequent discussions about knowledge management do not specifically address the social 
work sector (Leung, 2007). Moreover, there exists a certain scepticism in the social work 
sector regarding more “quantocentric” cultures and approaches (McCoyd et al., 2009), 
as well as a growing discontent among social work professionals that has occurred with 
the increased formalization of social work practices (Broadhurst et al., 2010). A further 
difficulty of implementing knowledge management in social work settings arises from 
the fact that social work organizations have a tendency to rely on the existing knowledge 
and practices, and are reluctant to embrace new solutions for managing and collecting 
data (Barrett, 1999). Consequently, what is needed for a successful implementation of 
knowledge management in the public sector is the development of a research area that has 
been largely unexplored (Špaček, 2016). Information and understanding about knowledge 
management in social work remains scarce (Austin et al., 2008; Leung, 2014). Not 
surprisingly, there is also a lack of substantive discussion about knowledge management 
in the existing social work literature (Edge, 2005).

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 385
Previous research has established the positive effects of management support (Yeh, Lai 
& Ho, 2006) and incentives (Yew Wong, 2005) on knowledge implementation. However, 
the combination of those constructs represents an innovation in the context of knowledge 
management practices in social work settings and therefore requires additional empirical 
research. It has also been established that employee empowerment has a positive effect 
on knowledge management practices (Hasan, 2012; Muhammad, 2006), nevertheless, the 
impact of employee empowerment as a moderator variable has not yet been studied in the 
context of knowledge implementation in the social work sector. Therefore, we focus our 
research on the examination of a direct positive relationship between management support 
and incentives and knowledge implementation. Moreover, we explore the moderation 
effect of employee empowerment on the relationship between management support and 
incentives and knowledge implementation. We test our hypotheses in the social work 
centers of Slovenia, conducting a quantitative analysis of the data collected from 98 social 
work managers and employees in the Slovenian social work centers. Since all of our data 
for these variables come from single respondents in a one-time survey, we recognize that 
the common method bias may influence certain relationships within our model and may 
therefore pose a methodological problem.
The primary goal of our study is to contribute to the underdeveloped literature about 
knowledge management in the public sector (Špaček, 2016) and especially in social work 
settings (Austin et al., 2008; Leung, 2014). The intent of our research is to partially fill this 
gap by providing a theoretical analysis followed by an empirical examination that links 
management support and incentives to knowledge implementation, and finally, an analysis 
of this relationship by considering the moderating mechanism of employee empowerment. 
In this way, we respond to certain shortfalls in the existing research and contribute to the 
theoretical advancement of the field (Al Ahbabi et al., 2019). In line with the knowledge-
based organizational view (Grant, 1996; Hislop, Bosua & Helms, 2018; Kogut & Zander, 
2003) that recognizes the important role of knowledge in organizations, our study assumes 
knowledge to be the primary source underlying the functioning of social work centers. 
This paradigm shift has already been recommended by several social work researchers 
(Edge, 2005; Fitch, 2006). The second goal of our research is to continue in the tradition 
of Kahn (1993) who began to explore how professional caregivers can organize in more 
effective ways, in particular, how they can share (or transfer) and implement knowledge 
in order to deliver higher-quality services. This new focus on knowledge management 
in social work settings is extremely promising as an area of exploration in the context 
of the broader public sector (Henttonen, Kianto & Ritala, 2016). Moreover, by focusing 
on social work organizations, our research goes beyond previous studies on knowledge 
management in the public sector which were typically conducted within the education 
and research sectors (Massaro, Dumay & Garlatti, 2015). The third goal of our research 
is to use a quantitative approach as a way to provide a new methodological framework. 
Most previous studies researching management topics in the social work sector tend to use 
exclusively qualitative approaches (Downes, 2014), mainly case studies. Our quantitative 
approach builds on Soydan’s suggestion (2008) that since the scope of social work research 
is broad and multidisciplinary, it should include methodological diversity.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 386
2 THEORY
2.1 Enhancing the implementation of knowledge management in the public sector  
Knowledge management is a managerial activity that develops, transfers, stores, and 
implements knowledge. Moreover, it aims to equip employees with real time information 
so that they can react appropriately and make decisions that will allow them to successfully 
fulfil organizational goals (Hicks, Dattero & Galup, 2006). In recent years, knowledge and 
knowledge management have become increasingly important in the operation of public 
organizations (Willem & Buelens, 2007). Key factors that enable the implementation of 
knowledge management are organizational culture, leadership, management support, 
information-communication technologies, incentives, and performance measurement 
(Lee, Kim & Kim, 2012). In the context of the public sector and social work organizations, 
modifying organizational culture is considered especially important because it is the 
main driver for successful implementation of knowledge management in general (Riege 
& Lindsay, 2006). However, barriers that prevent successful implementation differ in 
the public and private sectors. The reduced ability to plan strategically (Ragsdell, 2013) 
resulting from regular political changes, the lack of operational maturity, and the constant 
battle between altruistic and organizational objectives (Hume & Hume, 2008) have been 
identified as barriers specific to the public sector and social work organizations.
As mentioned above, the four basic knowledge management process stages (knowledge 
creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge 
implementation) have been clearly established in previous research (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; 
Hicks et al., 2006).  Knowledge implementation is defined as the final stage of a knowledge 
seeker’s quest to solve a problem (Bock, Kankanhalli & Sharma, 2006). More importantly, 
knowledge implementation is the stage that creates real value for the organization by 
making knowledge active and relevant (Downes, 2014). In other words, problems are 
only really solved if and when knowledge is applied in practice (Bierly, Damanpour & 
Santoro, 2009). The additional value of knowledge implementation also involves providing 
feedback information to organizations, feedback that can subsequently be used as a source 
for continual learning (Grah et al., 2016). It must be recognized that the mere existence 
of knowledge will not impact an organization’s activities. Further, it is of paramount 
importance to actually use newly gained knowledge in daily practices and routines (Alavi 
& Leidner, 2001). Ranjbarfard et al. (2014) identify both the lack of management support 
and the lack of incentives as significant barriers impeding knowledge implementation. 
Because of this, we include in our research these two crucial organizational factors as 
predictors of knowledge implementation.
2.2 Management support and knowledge implementation
The first organizational factor identified above is management support that focuses on 
openly supporting and encouraging knowledge management (Downes, 2014). Management 
support can be perceived as the degree to which management understands the importance 

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 387
of knowledge management and the extent to which it participates in its implementation 
and activities (Lin, 2011). In previous research, management support has been defined 
as both a facilitator (Lee et al., 2012) and a generic critical factor of success (Yew Wong, 
2005) in knowledge management. The support and active involvement of managers 
can have a significant impact on the positive outcomes of knowledge management in 
organizations (Azmee, Kassim & Abdullah, 2017). Such support from top management 
should be ongoing and delivered in a practical manner (Storey & Barnett, 2000). The lack 
of management support for knowledge management in general can negatively impact the 
overall success of specific knowledge management initiatives (Akbari & Ghaffari, 2017).
It follows therefore that management support is one of the most important organizational 
components of knowledge management infrastructure and it is an essential factor for 
all knowledge management processes (Kulkarni, Ravindran & Freeze, 2007). As such, 
the knowledge management infrastructure, including management support, has the 
potential to improve knowledge implementation (Hoffman, Hoelscher & Sherif, 2005). 
In their study, Lee et al. (2012) predict and empirically support that management support 
positively affects knowledge process capabilities. One of the knowledge process capabilities 
they examine is the implementation of knowledge that also enables the realization of its 
practical values. In a similar vein, Kamhawi (2012) establishes and supports a positive 
relationship between management support and knowledge management activities. Yeh 
et al. (2006) also identify management support as an important factor that promotes 
knowledge implementation. Akbari and Ghaffari (2017) posit that the supportive behavior 
of management is of paramount importance in creating a workplace environment where 
employees are motivated to actually apply and implement their knowledge in their work. 
Although research on the relationship between management support and knowledge 
management does exist, these factors have not been pursued in combination in research 
studies on knowledge management in the social work setting. In light of the above, the 
following is our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Management support is positively related to knowledge implementation in 
social work.
2.3 Incentives and knowledge implementation
In addition to openly encouraging and supporting knowledge management, managers 
should also be aware of the need to recognize and reward contributions made by their 
employees (Downes, 2014). Because of this, our research also focuses on incentives and the 
impact they have on knowledge implementation. We especially focus on how incentives 
influence the amount of knowledge implemented in the practices of an organization. In 
general, incentives are regarded as a reflection of the worth an organization gives to their 
knowledge workers (Cabrera & Bonache, 1999). Both management support and incentives 
have already been established as organizational factors that have a positive impact on 
knowledge management (Svetlik, Stavrou-Costea & Lin, 2007). Ajmal et al. (2010) suggest 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 388
that incentives for knowledge efforts in general have the potential to positively influence 
the success of specific knowledge management initiatives.
In the opinion of Y ew Wong (2005), establishing the right levels of recognition, incentives, 
and rewards is one of the most important factors that shifts employees in the direction of 
knowledge implementation. Employees must be motivated (Cho & Korte, 2014) and their 
participation rewarded (Paroutis & Al-Saleh, 2009) in order to encourage behaviors that are 
related to knowledge management. Organizations should provide additional support for 
employees to improve their ability in this area (Černe, Jaklič & Škerlavaj, 2013) and enable 
them to respond to challenges (Škerlavaj et al., 2007). Incentives are viewed as the most 
effective mechanism encouraging employee participation in such activities and clearly 
demonstrating that they are valued. Incentives also show employees that their actions 
are seen and recognized by the organization and its management (Razmerita, Kirchner 
& Nielsen, 2016). Ho (2009) similarly claims that incentives positively influence levels of 
knowledge implementation in organizations. As is clear from this discussion, previous 
research has examined the benefits derived from the relationship between incentives 
and knowledge implementation. However, this combination of constructs has not been 
explored in the context of knowledge management in social work settings. In light of the 
above, the following is our second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Incentives are positively related to knowledge implementation in social work.
2.4 Moderating role of employee empowerment
Employee empowerment is an integral part of the successful functioning of organizations 
(Hunjra et al., 2011). It is considered an effective motivational tool that will influence the 
behavior and outcomes of individuals by facilitating their participation and involvement 
in decision-making processes (Meyerson & Dewenttinck, 2012). Bowen and Lawler 
(1992) developed one of the most globally recognized conceptualizations of employee 
empowerment. The latter defines employee empowerment as a multifaceted approach 
to service delivery in which managers share with their employees the following key 
organizational components: (1) information about the organization’s performance, (2) 
rewards based on the organization’s performance, (3) knowledge that allows employees 
to understand and contribute to organizational performance, and (4) the power to make 
decisions that influence organizational direction and performance. Their conceptualization 
follows that organizations with the goal of implementing knowledge-based management 
should invest in employee empowerment strategies (Akbari & Ghaffari, 2017).
Today employee empowerment is considered an important research topic and has gained 
significant attention in the context of studies on knowledge management (Akbari & 
Ghaffari, 2017). Employee empowerment occurs and can be analyzed on many different 
levels and affects employees differently in different contexts (Amichai-Hamburger, 2008). 
The study of moderator effects has a long and important history in many different research 

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 389
areas (Aiken & West, 1991), including management studies. Contemporary researchers 
have become increasingly interested in examining the complex relationships between 
variables, including moderating effects (Fassot, Henseler & Coelho, 2016). Dawson (2014) 
defines a number of statistical models that include moderation effects as one of the most 
important factors in management and organizational literature.
Previous research supports the proposal that empowerment plays a significant part in 
influencing knowledge management practices (Hasan, 2012; Muhammad, 2006). It is also 
important to recognize that employees take into account their expectations and evaluate 
their experiences in relation to their empowerment. For this reason, it is important to 
develop clear empowerment-related expectations. In the case of under-fulfilled and/or 
unclear empowerment-related expectations, employees might become confused about 
their role in decision making. This can lead to poor judgement in their work activities 
(Wong & Kuvaas, 2018) and can also hinder their perception of competence mobilization 
(Wong, Škerlavaj & Černe, 2017). To sum up, how employees evaluate the utilization of 
their competence is less dependent on the actual level of autonomy and more dependent 
on their expectations (Wong et al., 2017).
Management can enhance employee empowerment by modifying organizational structures 
that support empowerment (Leitch et al., 1995). Any significant increase in employee 
empowerment requires management support (Yukl & Becker, 2006). Akbari and Ghaffari 
(2017) propose a significant and positive relationship between management support and 
employee empowerment. They conducted one of the few applied studies that aimed to fill 
the gap between knowledge management and employee empowerment, and established 
the relationship between knowledge management initiatives and employee empowerment. 
Using a theoretical approach, Ahmed, Rafiq, and Saad (2003) discovered that employee 
empowerment had a strong connection to management and that management support is 
integral to its successful implementation. To the contrary, the failure of organizations to 
implement successful empowerment practices is often caused by the lack of management 
support (Cunningham & Hyman, 1999).
Similarly, the idea that employee empowerment endorses knowledge implementation 
has emerged in many different research fields (Wall, Cordery & Clegg, 2002). Moreover, 
employee empowerment represents the potential structure within which knowledge can 
actually be implemented in practice (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982). Ahmadi et al. (2012) 
suggest and empirically support that there is a direct relationship between employee 
empowerment and knowledge implementation. Significant relationships between 
dimensions of knowledge management, including knowledge implementation, are also 
reported in the research of Hasani and Sheikhesmaeili (2016). Empowered employees 
perceive that they have the power to deal with complex situations, events, and various 
users by drawing on the knowledge and skills they possess (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). In 
conclusion, when employees feel empowered, they tend to be more committed to using 
their knowledge for the general good of the entire organization (Chong & Choi, 2005).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 390
Nevertheless, research thus far has failed to provide a comprehensive understanding of 
how employee empowerment influences the relationship between management support 
and knowledge implementation in the context of knowledge management in social 
work settings. Previous research focusing on knowledge management has neglected the 
interaction effect of employee empowerment and management support. It should be 
noted, however, that while employee empowerment, management support, and knowledge 
implementation have been considered extensively in the existing literature, these concepts 
and the relationships and interaction effects require further conceptual development. In 
light of the above, the following is our third hypothesis:
H3: Employee empowerment moderates the positive relationship between management 
support and knowledge implementation: specifically, the positive relationship becomes 
stronger when levels of employee empowerment are high.
Previous research indicates that to implement employee empowerment within an 
organization, management must provide appropriate incentives that are linked to the 
desired employee behavior. In other words, it is necessary for management to link employee 
behavior to incentives, possibly in the form of financial benefits or promotion opportunities 
that will encourage further empowerment within the organization. Empirical research 
also supports the finding that incentives are positively related to the extent of employee 
empowerment in an organization (Baird & Wang, 2010). In addition, the provision of 
incentives is crucial in the context of empowerment, as employee empowerment increases 
risk and responsibility for individual employees and raises the demands for them to 
perform (Goldsmith et al., 1997). Recognition and financial incentives are positively 
correlated to enhancing employee empowerment (Gkorezis & Petridou, 2008). According 
to Spreitzer (1995), incentives are an essential factor in the work context determining 
employees’ feelings of empowerment.
Following this argument, we identify another potential research opportunity. Namely, there 
is a shortage in the existing literature of models that combine various streams of research 
including knowledge management and social work as well as different methods and tools 
that include moderator variables. Combining these streams could lead to a more in-
depth understanding of relationships between the constructs of employee empowerment, 
incentives, and knowledge implementation. Although employee empowerment, incentives, 
and the knowledge implementation have been extensively covered individually in the 
literature, the combination of these concepts has not been fully explored. Understanding 
the interaction effect between empowerment and incentives, as well as the relationships 
between these constructs requires additional research. In light of the above, we propose 
the following hypothesis:
H4: Employee empowerment moderates the positive relationship between incentives and 
knowledge implementation in such a way that the positive relationship is stronger with high 
levels of employee empowerment.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 391
Our conceptual model with hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Conceptual model of the relationships between management support, incentives, 
knowledge implementation and employee empowerment 
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Sample and data collection procedure 
We used an adapted online and in-person questionnaire to collect primary data from 
respondents in the period from May 2018 to January 2019. The questionnaires were 
filled out by 98 managers and employees in Slovenian social work centers that employ 
approximately 1,250 people (Ministry of Labor, Family, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities, 2018). The Slovenian government maintains a network of social work 
centers, giving them the central role for coordinating social protection and the delivery 
of welfare services (Kuzmanič Korva et al., 2004). Social work centers are the institutions 
on the national level that introduce measures and deliver services for basic social security 
and protection. For our sample, the Social Chamber of Slovenia provided us with the 
e-mail contacts of employees and we later established personal contacts with individual 
respondents. The Social Chamber of Slovenia invited all of the employees for whom 
they had e-mail contacts to participate in our research and we later contacted additional 
individuals through personal contacts.
The largest share of respondents work in organizations with 26 to 50 employees (33.3%) or 
in organizations with 50 or more employees (33.3%). The next largest share of respondents 
work in organizations with 11 to 25 employees (29.2%). The largest share of respondents 
(more than 40.0% of the total age structure) belongs to the age cohort from 40 to 49 
years old. Two-thirds of respondents (71.3%) are aged from 30 to 49 years. Of the 98 
respondents, 80.2% are women, 11.5% are men, and 8.3% of respondents did not provide 
their gender. The high proportion of female respondents is consistent with McPhail’s 
observation (2004) that social work is predominantly a female profession. In accordance 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 392
with the decree on the introduction and use of the classification system of education and 
training in Slovenia, more than half of our respondents (64.5%) had successfully acquired 
level 7 in the Slovenian education system. 15.7% of respondents had acquired level 6/2 in 
the education system and 10.5% level 8/1. Almost four-fifths of respondents (78.7%) have 
been employed in their organizations for at least six years, over half of the respondents 
(58.5%) have been employed in their organizations for at least 11 years, and 24.5% of the 
respondents have been employed in their organizations for at least 21 years.
To avoid non-response bias, we developed personal relationships with many of the 
individuals employed in social work centers and sent them several reminders to respond 
to our questionnaire. Because the data for all our model variables came from individual 
respondents in a one-time survey, the common method bias might have influenced certain 
relationships in our model. To test for the potential existence of common method bias, 
we first applied Harman’s single factor test (1976). The first factor accounted for 82.3% 
of the overall variance, which is above the 50.0% threshold recommended by Podsakoff 
et al. (2006) and suggests that the common method bias is indeed an issue in this study. 
However, as Harman’s single factor test has a number of limitations (Kemery & Dunlap, 
1986), we also adopted the common latent factor (Liang et al., 2007) and marker variable 
approach (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). 
3
Both approaches can be used to indicate the presence 
of common method bias in a study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The entire questionnaire was 
filled out by 98 respondents. Our response rate was 7.9%. We edited the data in the SPSS 
24.0 program.
3.2 Measures
For individual constructs, we selected the measurement instruments that are used in 
the scientific environment. (1) We used well-established measurement instruments 
that have been developed and/or used by key authors of the studied topics. (2) We used 
frequently-used measurement instruments that are often cited in scientific papers. (3) We 
used up-to-date and relevant measurement instruments that have been used in the latest 
research. We used the five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I completely disagree) to 5 (I 
completely agree) to assess the respondents’ level of agreement with the statements about 
what level of management support, incentives, employee empowerment, and knowledge 
implementation are present in their organizations.
3 For the marker variable, we chose a construct that is theoretically dissimilar to the principle constructs used in 
our study: namely, our marker variable is organizational infrastructure. The marker variables correlations with 
our principle constructs are as follows:  marker and management support -.469; marker and incentives -.830; 
marker and knowledge implementation -.857, and; marker and employee empowerment -.177. High correlations 
among items of the study’s principle constructs and the marker variable are an indication of the common method 
bias issue.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 393
Management support. We used the three item scale (α = .79) that Downes (2014) adapted 
from the already existing literature to measure management support.
4
 The questionnaire 
includes statements such as: “My organization has a designated manager for administering 
knowledge management processes. ”
Incentives. We used the five item scale (α = .90) that Marsick and Watkins (2003) 
developed to measure how much incentives were used in the respondents’ organizations. 
The questionnaire includes statements such as: “My organization rewards employees for 
new ideas. ”
Knowledge implementation. We used the five-item scale (α = .90) that Downes (2014) 
adapted from the already existing literature to measure knowledge implementation 
in respondents’ organizations.
5
 The questionnaire includes statements such as: “My 
organization has mechanisms for converting knowledge into action plans,” and “My 
organization uses lessons learned or best practices from projects or tasks to improve 
subsequent projects or tasks. ”
Employee empowerment. We used the six-item scale (α = .87) derived from one of the 
best-known conceptualizations of employee empowerment developed by Bowen and 
Lawler (1992) to measure employee empowerment in respondents’ organizations. W e used 
this instrument to focus on the extent to which managers share information about the 
organization’s performance. This is the information that enables employees to understand 
and contribute to organizational performance, and endows them with the power to make 
decisions that influence organizational direction and performance and to give rewards 
based on the organization’s performance. The questionnaire includes statements such as: 
“My organization has information in a form that is readily accessible to employees,” and 
“In my organization managers regularly involve staff in decision-making. ”
Control variables. We controlled for the following five variables: size of organization, age 
of respondent, gender of respondent, highest level of education, and average tenure in 
the respondents’ organizations. We used these control variables because their inclusion 
or exclusion can have important consequences on the substance of research conclusions 
(Bernerth & Aguinis, 2016). Organization size as a control variable may affect the 
ability of an organization to implement knowledge (Aragon-Correa, Garcia-Morales 
& Cordon-Pozzo, 2007). The age (Radaelli et al., 2011), gender (Feingold, 1994) and 
highest level of education (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006) of respondents are included 
as control variables because they may have a significant influence on the overall level of 
knowledge implementation in an organization. The average tenure of respondents in their 
organizations was used as a control variable in research related to knowledge management 
conducted by Jain and Moreno (2015).
4 Debowski (2006), Fahey & Prusak (1998), Marsick & Watkins (2003), Riege (2005).
5 Fahey & Prusak (1998), Lawson (2003), Marsick & Watkins (2003).

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 394
3.3 Methods
We analyzed our data and the interaction effects using hierarchical linear regression in 
the SPSS 24.0 program. We also applied the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), using 
the lavaan version 0.6-3 (Rosseel, 2012) of the programming environment R – version 
3.5.2 (R Core Team, 2018) with the R studio interface. The purpose of applying CFA was 
to make the designed model sufficiently fit the data. We checked convergent validity 
by examining the factor loadings of all items in the questionnaire, and verifying that 
they were statistically significant and above the 0.50 threshold (Hair et al., 1998). The 
CFA analysis indicated that the factor loadings of all four constructs were statistically 
significant and above the 0.50 threshold. This further supported the convergent validity of 
our constructs. The standardized loadings for management support were within the range 
of .63 to .76. The standardized loadings for incentives were within the range of .73 to .79. 
The standardized loadings for knowledge implementation were within the range of .75 to 
.91. The standardized loadings for employee empowerment were within the range of .60 to 
.87. As a result, no items in the questionnaire (measurement variables) were excluded from 
further analysis in the iterative process of purifying the scale. In our model, the 19 items in 
the questionnaire were used to measure the four constructs.
W e also calculated the composite reliability index (CRI) and the average variance extracted 
(AVE) to test for composite (construct) reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). There is no 
universally accepted standard for appropriate values of CRI, but we decided to follow the 
suggestion of Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2000) that researchers should be satisfied with 
results above the 0.60 threshold.
6
 We similarly followed the suggestion of Diamantopoulos 
and Siguaw (2000) regarding a cut-off value for AVE of 0.40.
7
 All of our constructs fell 
within the suggested CRI and AVE cut-off values found in the literature. A number of fit 
indices exist for the purposes of evaluating model fit (Škerlavaj, Song & Lee, 2010). The 
results of CFA (expected four factor solution) achieved the following results: CFI = 0.90; 
chi-square = 294.013; RMSEA = 0.12; df = 125.
8
 The CFI indicator displayed a good fit 
with the data while the RMSEA indicator was below acceptable values.
6 CRI for our constructs is as follows: Management support 0.75, Incentives 0.88, Knowledge implementation 
0.91 and Employee empowerment 0.90.
7 AVE four constructs is as follows: Management support 0.50, Incentives 0.60, Knowledge Implementation 0.68, 
Employee Empowerment 0.61.
8 Within construct items (i.e. items corresponding to the knowledge implementation scale with other items 
pertaining to the same scale), residuals were allowed to correlate. Without those modification indices, the results 
of the model fit are: CFI = 0.82; chi-square = 442.181; RMSEA = 0.15; df = 146.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 395
4 RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive statistics 
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all variables analyzed in the research study. 
We can see from the results in Table 1 that the respondents on average give the best 
evaluation to employee empowerment (2.98), closely followed by their evaluation of 
knowledge implementation and incentives (2.84 and 2.83). The lowest mean value is 
assigned to management support (2.63). Correlation coefficients between the measured 
variables are mostly moderately or strongly positive with ranges between 0.2 and 0.6. 
There is a significant positive correlation between incentives and management support 
(.71; p < 0.01) and between incentives and highest level of education (.24; p < 0.05) that 
additionally explains the correlations. Knowledge implementation showed a significant 
positive correlation with management support (.80; p < 0.01) and incentives (.84; p < 0.01). 
Employee empowerment showed a significant positive correlation with management 
support (.66; p < 0.01), incentives (.84; p < 0.01), knowledge implementation (.80; p < 0.01), 
and the highest level of education of respondents (.21; p < 0.05). Employee empowerment 
showed a significant negative correlation with organization size (-.25; p < 0.05). Among 
the control variables, average tenure is significantly and positively correlated to age (.45; 
p < 0.01).
Table 1: Mean Values, Standard Deviations and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Organization 
size
3.96 0.89 -
2. Age 3.98 0.91 -.15 -
3. Gender 1.97 0.45 -.11 -.08 -
4. Highest level 
of education
3.80 0.78 .05 -.01 -.02 -
5. Average 
tenure
3.98 1.78 -.02 .45** -.04 -.07 -
6. Management 
support
2.63 1.07 -.14 .03 -.15 .11 -.07 (.79)
7. Incentives 2.83 1.02 -.14 -.03 -.13 .24* -.14 .71** (.90)
8. Knowledge 
implementation
2.84 0.97 .19 .00 -.12 .16 -.12 .80** .84** (.90)
9. Employee 
empowerment
2.98 0.91 -.25* .11 -.12 .21* -.06 .66** .84** .80** (.87)
Note: n = 98 managers and employees employed in Slovenian social work centers. Reliability indicators 
(Cronbach’s alphas) are on the diagonal in the parentheses. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 396
4.2 Hypotheses testing
In our research paper, we test the direct relationship between management support 
and incentives with knowledge implementation in the social work sector, as articulated 
in hypotheses H1 and H2. We also include the construct of employee empowerment as 
a moderating mechanism, as articulated in hypotheses H3 and H4. We use a series of 
hierarchical regression analysis with centered variables to test our hypotheses. In the first 
regression model (Model 1), we include five control variables with management support 
as the independent variable. In the second regression model (Model 2), we include the 
same five control variables with incentives as the independent variable. In the third 
model (Model 3), we enter a two-way interaction (management support X employee 
empowerment). Similarly, in the fourth model (Model 4), we enter a two-way interaction 
(incentives X employee empowerment). The results of all four models are presented in 
Table 2.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 397
Table 2: Hierarchical regression analysis predicting knowledge implementation – Models 1-4
1
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b s.e. ß t b s.e. ß t b s.e. ß t b s.e. ß t
Organization size -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.15 -0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.42 -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.21 -0.04 0.07 -0.03 -0.54
Age -0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.74 -0.01 0.07 -0.01 -0.17 -0.06 0.07 -0.05 -0.83 -0.02 0.07 -0.02 -0.23
Gender 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 -0.02 0.13 -0.01 -0.12 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.10 -0.04 0.13 -0.02 -0.30
Highest level of 
education
0.01 0.07 0.01 0.11 -0.05 0.08 -0.04 -0.71 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.16 -0.06 0.07 -0.05 -0.82
Average tenure -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.62 -0.01 0.04 -0.02 -0.30 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.59 -0.01 0.04 -0.02 -0.32
C_Management support 0.43 0.07 0.48 6.55** 0.45 0.07 0.49 6.38**
C_Incentives 0.56 0.11 0.59 5.22** 0.56 0.11 0.58 5.31**
C_Employee 
empowerment
0.52 0.08 0.48 6.33** 0.33 0.12 0.31 2.67** 0.50 0.09 0.46 5.68** 0.33 0.12 0.30 2.73**
C_MSxC_EE -0.04 0.06 -0.04 -0.72
C_INCxC_EE -0.14 0.06 -0.13 -2.31*
R2 0.767 0.737 0.769 0.754
F(df) 37.70(80) 30.39(76) 32.85(79) 28.79(75)
ΔR2 0.767 0.737 0.002 0.017
*p < 0.05
**p < 0.01
8a As gender is not a dichotomous variable, we also rerun a regression analysis without this control variable and achieve the following results:  
Model1: R2: 0.767 F(df): 44.52(81) ΔR 2: 0.767 
Model 2: R 2: 0.737 F(df): 35.91(77) ΔR2: 0.737 
Model 3: R2: 0.769 F(df): 38.01(80) ΔR2: 0.002 
Model 4: R2: 0.754 F(df): 33.29(76) ΔR 2: 0.017
8a

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 398
In Model 1, we find a positive and significant relationship between management support (β 
= .48; exact p = .000) and knowledge implementation in the social work sector. Therefore, 
hypothesis H1 is supported by the data. In Model 2, we use the hierarchical regression 
analysis and find a positive and significant relationship between incentives and knowledge 
implementation in the social work sector (β = .59; exact p = .000). Therefore, hypothesis 
H2 is also supported by the data. Models 3 and 4, which test employee empowerment as 
a moderator of management support (Model 3) on incentives (Model 4) and knowledge 
implementation, show minimal added value in comparison with the direct effect models 
(ΔR2 in comparison with Models 1 and 2).
The results of the hierarchical regression analysis applied in Model 3 do not show a 
significant relationship between the two-way interaction of management support and 
employee empowerment on knowledge implementation (β = -.04; exact p = .476).
9
 In 
other words, on the basis of our sample data, we do not find sufficient evidence to support 
the interaction between management support and employee empowerment.
10
 Therefore, 
hypothesis H3 is rejected. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis applied in 
Model 4 show a significant negative relationship between the two-way interaction of 
incentives and employee empowerment with knowledge implementation (β = -.13; exact 
p = .023). The resulting negative interaction coefficient indicates that the effect of the 
combined action of the two predictors is less than the sum of their individual effects. The 
graphic interpretation of this model is best represented by a simple slope analysis. The 
analysis of the simple slope
11
 represents high levels of employee empowerment, suggesting 
it is significant (exact p = 0.001). The interaction between incentives and employee 
empowerment as they influence knowledge implementation is shown in Figure 2.
9 The p-value failed to reach the defined threshold. The absence of the interaction effect indicates that there is 
also no moderation between the observed variables. The size of the interaction found is not far enough from zero 
to assertively claim an interaction effect (at least not with a type I error of 0.05 and a reasonable type II error = 
1 – β). It is more reasonable to conclude from the data that management support and employee empowerment 
have individual, additive effects on knowledge implementation.
10 The lack of the interaction effect tells us that the simple slopes are not different from each other. In other 
words, the lines are parallel. To avoid misleading the readers of our paper, we did not include the simple slope 
analyses because of the statistically non-significant interaction effect.
11 We included the following in the two-way unstandardized simple slope analyses: Unstandardized Regression 
Coefficients (independent variable, moderator, interaction, and intercept/constant), Means and SDs of Variables 
(mean and SD of independent variable, mean and SD of moderator) and Simple Slopes Analysis (variance 
coefficient of independent variable and interaction, covariance of coefficients of independent variable and 
interaction, value of moderator at which to evaluate slope, sample size, and number of control variables).

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 399
Figure 2: Interaction between incentives and employee empowerment in influencing 
knowledge implementation 
Figure 2 illustrates that the highest levels of knowledge implementation are achieved 
when employee empowerment is high. We also find that the level of incentives influences 
knowledge implementation both when employee empowerment is low and when it is 
high. In both cases, incentives influence the higher levels of knowledge implementation 
in practice. Hypothesis H4 predicts that employee empowerment is a moderator of the 
relationship between incentives and knowledge implementation. It can be concluded from 
our research that the influence of incentives on knowledge implementation is stronger 
when the level of employee empowerment is higher. Thus, the results provide support for 
hypothesis H4 in cases of both low and high levels of process incentives. However, when 
the levels of incentives are higher, the contribution of employee empowerment to higher 
levels of knowledge implementation is smaller.
5 DISCUSSION
Our study examines the role of employee empowerment and its moderating effect on 
the direct relationship between management support and incentives with knowledge 
implementation. Notably, management support has a positive and significant influence on 
knowledge implementation in social work settings (Hypothesis H1). In addition, incentives 
also have a positive and significant relationship with knowledge implementation in social 
work settings (Hypothesis H2). The moderating effect of employee empowerment on 
the relationship between management support and knowledge implementation is not 
significant (Hypothesis H3). While the relationship between incentives and knowledge 
implementation is further moderated by employee empowerment (Hypothesis H4), the 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 400
interaction term is negative. Specifically, the highest levels of knowledge implementation 
occur when employee empowerment is high.
5.1 Theoretical implications
The concept of knowledge management is relatively new and remains largely unexplored 
in the public sector (Špaček, 2016). Moreover, knowledge management is particularly 
neglected as a research topic in the field of social work (Austin et al., 2008; Downes, 2014; 
Leung, 2014). In this paper, we make three important theoretical contributions to this area.
Our first theoretical contribution to the literature of knowledge management research is 
simply applying and testing components of knowledge management to the public sector. 
Svetlik et al. (2007) propose that management support and incentives are organizational 
factors that impact knowledge management practices. In our study, we provide a theoretical 
explanation and an empirical examination of how management support and incentives 
directly and positively influence the implementation of knowledge management in the 
context of the Slovenian social work centers. Previous studies established that knowledge 
management practices can help organizations to impact public policies through a 
more systematic and effective capture, dissemination, transfer, and implementation of 
knowledge (Riege & Lindsay, 2006), and in this way improve the quality of their services 
and programs (Ukil, 2016). However, these studies did not examine the relationship 
between the previously defined constructs that we explored in our research. Thus, our 
study provides a relevant contribution to the literature because we show how management 
support and incentives have the potential to shape knowledge implementation in social 
work centers and how this can influence the aforementioned organizational goals.
Moreover, our study emphasizes the significance of employee empowerment as a moderator 
that is present in the relationship between incentives and knowledge implementation. 
Knowledge implementation in cases of both low and high levels of employee empowerment 
proves to be sensitive to changes in the amount of incentives. The significance of the role 
of incentives is discernible in cases of both high and low levels of employee empowerment. 
Specifically , incentives tend to lead to higher levels of knowledge implementation in practice. 
In the case of higher levels of employee empowerment, the role of incentives appears to be 
less significant. However, because the interaction term is negative, the interaction between 
employee empowerment and incentives may have the effect of reducing the overall 
knowledge implementation in practice. Therefore, we recommend that social work centers 
do not simultaneously focus on employee empowerment and incentives as this might have 
the unintended effect of reducing knowledge implementation. Based on our results, we 
also believe that enhancing simultaneously the efforts in employee empowerment and 
incentives might confuse employees in social work centers. Finally, we note that this first 
contribution to the theory in the literature was in part a response to the need expressed 
by several researchers to advance the theoretical foundations in the field of knowledge 
management specifically in the public sector (Al Ahbabi et al., 2019).

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 401
Our second theoretical contribution to the literature involves the knowledge-based view 
of the organization (Grant, 1996; Hislop et al., 2018; Kogut & Zander, 2003). Our study 
seeks to draw attention to the importance of knowledge management in social work 
centers by identifying the primary components that underlie their functioning. This 
research orientation is in agreement with social work researchers who recommend a shift 
in emphasis to the knowledge-based view of social work organizations (Edge, 2005; Fitch, 
2006). W e aimed to conceptualize and empirically validate how knowledge and knowledge 
management can help social work centers deliver higher quality services. As Massaro et al. 
(2015) note, previous research on knowledge management in the public sector primarily 
focused on the education and research settings. By focusing our research on social work 
centers, we aim to go beyond the typical framework of knowledge management research 
in the public sector.
Our third theoretical contribution to the literature is to respond to the need for more 
methodological diversity in the scope of social work research and provide a new 
methodological foundation (Soydan, 2008). In our study, we add to the previous 
research by applying quantitative research methods to a sample of the Slovenian social 
work organizations. Quantitative research methods significantly contribute to both 
understanding and effectively responding to the existing challenges encountered by social 
work organizations (Teater et al., 2016). In our research, we identify a sample of managers 
and employees working in the Slovenian social work centers and measure their individual 
perceptions of different aspects of knowledge management.
5.2 Practical implications 
We use the results of our study to generate a number of important practical 
recommendations for managers and employees in social work organizations. Although 
social work centers are not-for-profit enterprises, they can nevertheless benefit from our 
findings by understanding the positive potential of knowledge management techniques 
for improving the quality of their services. Social work organizations have the obligation 
to provide high-quality services to their users and in this way enhance the wellbeing of 
society at large (Bloice & Burnett, 2016). Managers of social work centers have become 
increasingly aware that, like other public organizations, they must respond to the growing 
needs of the users of their services combined with a diminishing amount of resources to 
meet such demands. As a result, they will have to make internal improvements in order 
to successfully maximize the existing resources (Dimovski et al., 2017) and continue 
delivering their mission to their clients (Miller & Whitford, 2007) in the highest quality 
way possible.
The mean values of the four measured constructs in our research are at best moderate in 
practice and can at times be considered low. The moderate to low mean values indicate 
that social work centers are not realizing the many potential benefits of knowledge 
management practices. Small increments of improvement are therefore possible in all of 

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 402
the four constructs that were examined in our study to assess the current condition of 
knowledge management practices in the Slovenian social work centers. The following is 
a review of the four constructs and suggestions of practices that could be undertaken. 
First, social work centers should ascertain whether their management supports knowledge 
management and the implementation of knowledge management practices. This is crucial 
because management support has been defined as a critical success factor (Azmee et al., 
2017; Yew Wong, 2005) for knowledge management (Lee et al., 2012). If organizations 
neglect the aspect of management support, the probability of successful implementation 
of knowledge management practices significantly deteriorates (Akbari & Ghaffari, 2017). 
Second, social work centers should ascertain that appropriate incentives are being provided 
when employees make positive efforts toward knowledge implementation. Providing 
appropriate incentives is an integral part of the success of the knowledge management 
initiative (Ajmal et al., 2010). Moreover, incentives should be made to encourage 
employees to use their knowledge (Yew Wong, 2005) and positive recognition should 
be clearly expressed when such efforts are made (Razmerita et al., 2016). Third, social 
work centers should focus on employee empowerment as this can also be a significant 
factor in encouraging knowledge implementation and determining its long-term success 
(Ahmadi et al., 2012; Hasan, 2012). However, as the interaction term in our study is 
negative, there should also be an awareness that simultaneously endorsing employee 
empowerment and incentives could have a detrimental effect on the overall levels of 
knowledge implementation. In other words, employee empowerment and incentives are 
more effective when used separately. Fourth, social work centers should determine the 
extent to which knowledge is implemented in practice. Only when knowledge is applied 
in practice can it help social work organizations to actually solve their problems (Bierly et 
al., 2009). The sole existence of knowledge per se is not enough (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). 
Therefore, managers must consider how to improve knowledge implementation, which 
aspects of knowledge management are most effective in practice, and what role these 
practices might have on stimulating higher levels of knowledge implementation. Finally, 
we believe it is important to carry out an ongoing discussion with policy and decision 
makers at the national level about the potential use of knowledge management practices in 
the social work sector in order to achieve an overall improvement of services.
5.3 Limitations and future research directions
Despite the new information about knowledge management practices in the Slovenian 
social work centers generated by our research, our study is not without limitations. The 
first limitation relates to the size of the study’s sample. Due to the implementation of the 
GDPR Act in May 2018, the number of our potential respondents was small. We were able 
to collect data from only 98 managers and employees, which represent a small proportion 
of the whole population of employees working in the social work centers in Slovenia 
(1,250).
The second limitation is related to common method bias as defined in Harman’s single 
factor test (1976), the common latent factor (Liang et al, 2007), and the marker variable 

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 403
approach (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Ideally, we would deal with common method bias 
by obtaining data from our respondents in three phases during which we would measure 
independent, moderating, and dependent variables at separate points in time at least two 
weeks apart (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The failure to find an interaction effect of employee 
empowerment on the relationship between management support and knowledge 
implementation may also be the result of our common method bias issue (Jakobsen & 
Jensen, 2015). Another potential factor that could explain the lack of moderation effect 
is the misfit between empowerment and related expectations. As emphasized in previous 
research (i.e. W ong & Kuvaas, 2018; W ong et al., 2017), unclear empowerment expectations 
might result in employees’ confusion related to their decision-making roles, which in 
turn leads to poor judgement on work-related activities and can negatively impact their 
perception of competence mobilization.
The third limitation of our study is that we cannot make a general conclusion about the 
proposed relationships because we included only a proportion of social work centers 
in our study. Thus, the generalizability of our current findings across all social work 
centers or the whole social work field is not clear. Consequently, the future direction of 
research would be to include more social work centers in subsequent studies with the aim 
of generating more conclusive results. Researchers could potentially also involve other 
social work organizations to study additional aspects of knowledge implementation. This 
is an important opportunity as the whole topic of knowledge management is still fairly 
innovative and unexplored in social work settings and thus offers potential for future 
exploration for both researchers and practitioners.
The fourth limitation of our study is that we did not control for the geographic location of 
the respondents in our research. As indicated informally by some respondents, there are 
significant differences in the Slovenian municipalities that are also apparent in the field 
of social work. Therefore, we could explore whether there are variances in the level of 
knowledge management practices in social work centers across (statistical) regions.
In future research, we would like to gain a more in-depth understanding of how individual 
employees perceive knowledge management in relation to their daily work routines. 
This would require a combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. 
In particular, follow-up, open-ended, face-to-face interviews would strengthen our 
quantitative findings. Such additional research would generate greater insights into specific 
topics related to knowledge management practices and allow the researchers to overcome 
the limitations caused by our reliance on questionnaires, using only Likert scale ranges. 
We would also encourage researchers to re-examine our results of the two-way interaction 
effects. It would be interesting to gain additional insight on why the interaction effect 
between management support and employee empowerment is statistically not significant. 
Likewise, it would be beneficial to further explore why the interaction effect between 
incentives and employee empowerment is negative.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 404
Future research could also encompass new constructs. We suggest linking management 
support and incentives with knowledge creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, and 
knowledge transfer. Moreover, the leadership style of managers in social work centers 
would be an interesting independent or moderating variable. In addition, gaining insight 
about whether the novel and interesting stream of knowledge hiding (Connelly et al., 
2019) is relevant for social work might be another promising avenue of future research. 
As our present study was based on the perception of individual employees, a promising 
opportunity for future research on knowledge implementation would be to investigate 
the same constructs on the team and organizational levels. To conclude, there remain 
many areas still to be explored in the field of knowledge management in the public sector 
and specifically in social work settings. We believe that the current research offers useful 
theoretical and practical contributions and encourages more research into other aspects of 
knowledge management in social work settings.
6 CONCLUSION
Our research study focuses on understanding how individuals employed in the Slovenian 
social work centers perceive various aspects of knowledge management in their 
organizations. In our study, we combine the constructs of management support, incentives, 
knowledge implementation, and employee empowerment. Using questionnaires filled out 
by 98 respondents, working as managers or employees in social work centers, we find that 
management support and incentives positively and directly influence levels of knowledge 
implementation. We also find that employee empowerment acts as a moderator of the 
relationship between incentives and knowledge implementation, but that the interaction 
term is negative. Knowledge implementation tends to be highest when employee 
empowerment is also high. Based on these results, this paper could be used as an important 
building block to improve our understanding of how knowledge management works in the 
social work sector and how it is best implemented in specific social work organizations. 
In the future, it would be necessary to include national policy and decision makers in the 
discussion of our findings as social work centers function in the framework of the public 
sector and outcomes are in many cases determined by state employees. We hope that at 
the very least our research sparks additional interest and debate in the area of knowledge 
management in the social work sector and specifically in social work organizations in 
Slovenia.
REFERENCES
Ahmadi, S.A.A., Daraei, M.R., Khodaie, B. & Salamzadeh, Y . (2012). Structural Equations 
Modeling of Relationship Between Psychological Empowerment and Knowledge 
Management Practices (A Case Study: Social Security Organization Staffs of Ardabil 
Province, Iran). International Business Management, 6(1), 8–16.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 405
Ahmed, P., Rafiq, M. & Saad, N. (2003). Internal marketing and the mediating role of 
organisational competencies. European Journal of Marketing, 37(9), 1221–1241.
Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. 
US: Sage Publications Inc.
Ajmal, M., Helo, P. & Kekale, T. (2010). Critical factors for knowledge management in 
project business. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 156–168.
Akbari, N. & Ghaffari, A. (2017). Verifying relationship of knowledge management 
initiatives and the empowerment of human resources. Journal of Knowledge Management, 
21(5), 1120–1141.
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: knowledge management and knowledge 
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 
107–136.
Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role 
of KMS. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029–
1037.
Al Ahbabi, S.A., Singh, S.K., Balasubramanian, S. & Singh Gaur, S. (2019). Employee 
perception of impact of knowledge management processes on public sector performance. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(2), 351–373.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2008). Internet empowerment. Computers in Human Behavior, 
24(5), 1773–1775.
Aragon-Correa, J.A., Garcia-Morales, V.J. & Cordon-Pozo, E. (2007). Leadership and 
organizational learning's role on innovation and performance: Lessons from Spain. 
Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 349–359.
Arora, E. (2011). Knowledge Management in Public Sector. Journal of Arts Science & 
Commerce, II(1), 165–171.
Austin, M.J., Ciaassen, J., Vu, C.M. & Mizrahi, P. (2008). Knowledge Management: 
Implications for Human Service Organizations. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5, 
361–389.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 406
Azmee, N.N., Kassim, N.A. & Abdullah, C.Z.H. (2017). Dimensions of Knowledge 
Management Maturity: T op Management Support and Leadership, People, and Information 
Technology. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 7(2), 1–7. 
Baird, K. & Wang, H. (2010). Employee empowerment: extent of adoption and influential 
factors. Personnel Review, 39(5), 574–599.
Barrett, S. (1999). Information systems: an exploration of the factors influencing effective 
use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 4–17.
Bernerth, J.B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best‐practice recommendations 
for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 229–283.
Bierly, P .E., Damanpour, F . & Santoro, M.D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: 
organizational conditions for exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 
46(3), 481–509.
Bloice, L. & Burnett, S. (2016). Barriers to knowledge sharing in third sector social care: a 
case study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(1), 125–145.
Blumberg, M. & Pringle, C. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research: 
Some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 
360–369.
Bock, G.W., Kankanhalli, A. & Sharma, S. (2006). Are norms enough? The role of 
collaborative norms in promoting organizational knowledge seeking. European Journal of 
Information Systems, 15(4), 357–367.
Bowen, D.E., & Lawler, E.E., III. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, 
how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33, 31–39.
Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., White, S. & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the 
humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in 
children’s statutory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 352–370.
Cabrera, E.F. & Bonache, J. (1999). An expert HR system for aligning organizational 
culture and strategy. Human Resource Planning, 22(1), 51–60.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 407
Cho, T. & Korte, R. (2014). Managing knowledge performance: testing the components of 
a knowledge management system on organizational performance. Asia Pacific Education 
Review, 15(2), 313–327.
Chong, S.C. & Choi, Y.S. (2005). Critical Factors In The Successful Implementation Of 
Knowledge Management. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and 
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Connelly, C.E., Černe, M., Dysvik, A. & Škerlavaj, M. (2019). Understanding knowledge 
hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 779–782.
Cunningham, I. & Hyman, J. (1999). The poverty of empowerment? A critical case study. 
Personnel Review, 28(3), 192–207.
Černe, M., Jaklič, M. & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Management Innovation in Focus: The Role 
of Knowledge Exchange, Organizational Size, and IT System Development and Utilization. 
European Management Review, 10, 153–166.
Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Burlington: Elsevier 
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Dawson, J.F. (2014). Moderation in Management Research: What, Why, When, and How. 
J Bus Psychol, 29, 1–19.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: SAGE 
Publications.
Dimovski, V. Penger, S., Peterlin, J., Grah, B., Černe, M. & Klepec, M. (2017). Advanced 
Management and Leadership Practice. Essex: Pearson education limited.
Downes, T.V. (2014). An evaluation of knowledge management practices in nonprofit 
community services organizations in Australia (doctoral dissertation). Southern Cross 
University, Australia.
Edge, K. (2005). Powerful public sector knowledge management: A school district example. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 42–52.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 408
Fassott, G., Henseler, J. & Coelho, P.S. (2016). Testing moderating effects in PLS path 
models with composite variables. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1887–
1900.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological 
bulletin, 116(3), 429.
Fitch, D. (2006). Examination of the child protective services decision-making context 
with implications for decision support system design. Journal of Social Service Research, 
32(4), 117–134.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F . (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable 
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–51.
Gkorezis, P. & Petridou, E. (2008). Employees’ psychological empowerment via intrinsic 
and extrinsic rewards. Academy of Healthcare Management Journal, 4(1), 17–39.
Goldsmith, A.L., Nickson, D.P., Sloan, D.H. & Wood, R.C. (1997). Human Resource 
Management for Hospitality Services. London: International Thomson Business Press.
Grah, B., Dimovski, V ., Snow, C. & Peterlin, J. (2016). Economic and Business Review, 18(2), 
183–212.
Grant, R. (1996). Towards a Knowledge Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management 
Journal, 17(winter special issue), 109–122.
Haamann, T. & Basten, D. (in press 2019). The role of information technology in bridging 
the knowing-doing gap: an exploratory case study on knowledge application. Journal of 
Knowledge Management.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis 
(5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Harman, H.H. (1976). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press.
Hasan, F.H. (2012). Evaluation of Empowerment of Human Resources and Effectiveness. 
Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(10), 9998–10006.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 409
Hasani, K. & Sheikhesmaeili, S. (2016). Knowledge management and employee 
empowerment. Kybernetes, 45(2), 337–355.
Henttonen, K., Kianto, A. & Ritala, P. (2016). Knowledge sharing and individual work 
performance: an empirical study of a public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge 
Management, 20(4), 749–768.
Hicks, R., Dattero, R. & Galup, S. (2006). The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 19–31.
Hislop, D., Bosua, R. & Helms, R. (2018). Knowledge management in organizations – a 
critical introduction (4th ed.). United States of America, New York: Oxford University 
Press.
Ho, C.T. (2009). The relationship between knowledge management enablers and 
performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(1), 98–117.
Hoffman, J.J., Hoelscher, M.L. & Sherif, K. (2005). Social capital, knowledge management, 
and sustained superior performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 93–100.
Hume, C. & Hume, M. (2008). The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit 
organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2), 
129–140.
Hunjra, A.I., UlHaq, N., Akbar , S.W . & Y ousaf, M. (2011). Impact of employee empowerment 
on job satisfaction: An empirical analysis of Pakistani service industry. Interdisciplinary 
Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(11), 680–685.
Jain, A.K. & Moreno, A. (2015). Organizational learning, knowledge management 
practices and firm’s performance: An empirical study of a heavy engineering firm in India. 
The Learning Organization, 22(1), 14–39.
Jakobsen, M. & Jensen, R. (2015). Common Method Bias in Public Management Studies. 
International Public Management Journal, 18(1), 3–30.
Jashapara, A. (2011). Knowledge management: an integrated approach. London: Pearson 
Education.
Kahn, W.A. (1993). Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of organizational caregiving. 
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(4), 539–563.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 410
Kamhawi, E. (2012). Knowledge management fishbone: a standard framework of 
organizational enablers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 808–828.
Kemery, E.R. & Dunlap, W.P. (1986). Partialling factor scores does not control method 
variance: A reply to Podsakoff and Todor. Journal of Management, 12(4), 525–530.
Kogut, B. & Zander, U. (2003). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the 
multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(6), 516–529.
Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S. & Freeze, R. (2007). A knowledge management success 
model: theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management 
Information Systems, 23(3), 309–347.
Kuzmanič Korva, D., Perkovič, M., Kovač, J., Rapoša-Tajnšek, P. & Flaker, V. (2004). 
Preoblikovanje organiziranosti centrov za socialno delo v Republiki Sloveniji. Ljubljana: 
Skupnost CSD Slovenije.
Lee, S., Kim, G.B. & Kim, H. (2012). An integrated view of knowledge management for 
performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 183–203.
Leitch, J., Nieves, D., Burke, G., Little, M. & Gorin, M. (1995). Strategies for involving 
employees. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 68–74.
Leung, Z.C.S. (2007). Knowledge Management in Social Work: Towards a Conceptual 
Framework. Journal of Technology in Human Services 25(1&2), 181–198.
Leung, Z.C.S. (2014). Knowledge management in social work – The interplay of knowledge 
sharing platforms. International Social Work, 57(2), 143–155.
Liang, N., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. & Xue, Y . (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect 
of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 
59–87.
Lin, H.F. (2011). Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge management evolution. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 136–155.
Lindell, M.K. & Whitney, D.J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 411
Marsick, V .J. & W atkins, K.E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’ s learning 
culture: the dimension of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing 
Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J. & Garlatti, A. (2015). Public sector knowledge management: a 
structured literature review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(3), 530–558.
McCoyd, J.L.M., Johnson, Y.M., Munch, S. & LaSala, M. (2009). Quantocentric culture: 
Ramifications for social work education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 
28(8), 811–827.
McPhail, B.A. (2004). Setting the Record Straight: Social W ork is Not a Female-Dominated 
Profession. Social Work, 49, 323–326.
Meyerson, G. & Dewenttinck, B. (2012). Effect of empowerment on employees 
performance. Advanced Research in Economic and Management Sciences, 2, 40–46.
Miller, G.J. & Whitford, A.B. (2007). The principal’s moral hazard: Constraints on the use 
of incentives in hierarchy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 
213¬233.
Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. (2018). Social 
Work Centers Reorganization. http://www.mddsz.gov.si/197/delovna_podrocja/sociala/
reorganizacija_centrov_za_socialno_delo/ (accessed April 5, 2019).
Muhammad, S.H. (2006). Antecedents and impacts of knowledge management practices 
supported by information technology: An empirical study in a manufacturing context 
(doctoral dissertation). University of Toledo, Spain.
Myers, P.S. (2014). A Normative Model of Knowledge Management Effectiveness. In 
A. Örtenblad (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Knowledge Management: Adaptation and 
Context (pp. 28–52). Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Örtenblad, A. & Koris, R. (2014). Is the learning organization idea relevant to higher 
educational institutions? A literature review and a multi-stakeholder contingency 
approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(2), 173–214.
Paroutis, S. & Al-Saleh, A. (2009). Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 
technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 52–63.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 412
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method 
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. 
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P .M., Bommer, W .H., Podsakoff, N.P . & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Relationships 
between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, 
and behaviors: a meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organ. Behav. Hum. 
Decis. Process., 99(2), 113–142.
Radaelli, G., Mura, M., Spiller, N. & Lettieri, E. (2011). Intellectual capital and knowledge 
sharing: the mediating role of organizational knowledge-sharing climate. Knowledge 
Management Research & Practice, 9, 342–352.
Ragsdell, G. (2013). Voluntary sector organizations: untapped sources of lessons for 
knowledge management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, 
Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, Kidmore End, 335–349.
Ranjbarfard, M., Aghdasi, M., Lopez-Saez, P . & Navas Lopez, J.E. (2014). The barriers of 
knowledge generation, storage, distribution and application that impede learning in gas 
and petroleum companies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(3), 494–522.
Razmerita, L., Kirchner, K. & Nielsen, P . (2016). What factors influence knowledge sharing 
in organizations? A social dilemma perspective of social media communication. Journal of 
Knowledge Management, 20(6), 1225–1246.
R Core Team (2018). The R Project for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ 
(accessed March 25, 2019).
Riege, A. & Lindsay, N. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder 
partnership in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3), 
24–39.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of 
Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.
Soydan, H. (2008). Producing knowledge for evidence-based practice and the future of 
social work research. In I.M. Bryderup (Ed.), Evidence based and knowledge based social 
work: Research methods and approaches in social work research (pp. 173–184). Denmark: 
Aarhus University Press.

S. COLNAR, V . DIMOVSKI | KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN SOCIAL WORK ... 413
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, 
measurement & validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. & Locke, E. (2006). Empowering Leadership in Management 
Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, and Performance. The Academy of 
Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Storey, J. & Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure. 
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 145–156.
Svetlik, I., Stavrou‐Costea, E. & Lin, H. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation 
capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332.
Škerlavaj, M., Indihar Štemberger, M., Škrinjar, R. & Dimovski, V . (2007). Organizational 
learning culture – The missing link between business process change and organizational 
performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 35(3), 346–367.
Škerlavaj, M., Song, J.H. & Lee, Y. (2010). Organizational learning culture, innovative 
culture and innovations in South Korean firms. Expert Systems With Applications, 37(9), 
6390–6403.
Špaček, D. (2016): Knowledge management in public administration – what can be 
found in research outputs in the Czech Republic – preliminary findings. In L. Matejova, 
Proceedings of the 20th international conference on current trends in public sector research 
(pp. 94–101). Brno: Masaryk University.
Teater, B., Devaney, J., Forrester, D., Scourfield, J. & Carpenter, J. (2016). Quantitative 
Research Methods for Social Work: Making Social Work Count (1st ed.). London: Palgrave.
Ukil, M.I. (2016). The Impact of Employee Empowerment on Employee Satisfaction and 
Service Quality: Empirical Evidence from Financial Enterprizes in Bangladesh. Verslas, 
Teorija ir praktika, 17(2), 178–189.
Y eh, Y., Lai, S. & Ho, C. (2006). Knowledge management enablers: a case study. Industrial 
Management & Data Systems, 106(6), 793–810.
Y ew W ong, K. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in 
small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(3), 261–279.

ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW | VOL. 22 | No. 3 | 2020 414
Yukl, G.A. & Becker, W .S. (2006). Effective Empowerment in Organizations. Organization 
Management Journal, 3(3), 210–231.
Wall, T.D., Cordery, J.L. & Clegg, C.W. (2002). Empowerment, Performance, and 
Operational Uncertainty: A Theoretical Integration. Applied Psychology, 51(1), 146–169.
Wiig, K. (2002). Knowledge management in public administration. Journal of Knowledge 
Management, 6(3), 224–239.
Willem, A. & Buelens, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations: the 
effect of organizational characteristics on interdepartmental knowledge sharing. Journal of 
Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 581–606.
Wong, S.I. & Kuvaas, B. (2018). The empowerment expectation-perception gap: An 
examination of three alternative models. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(2), 
272–287.
W ong, S.I., Škerlavaj, M. & Černe, M. (2017). Build coalitions to fit: Autonomy expectations, 
competence mobilization and job crafting. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 785–801.