Most of previous studies have been identified knowledge sharing has a positive impact on organization performance. Nowadays, organizations suppose to understand that they are standing in the knowledge age, where knowledge is playing the major role with their success if they know how to get, how to implement and how to make knowledge become their competitive advantages.
From the multinational enterprises (MNEs) point of view, the purpose of encourage employees sharing their experiences and experts for the benefit of their co-workers and the organization in related with the difference in culture, knowledge background, working style, is very important for administrators to seriously deal with.
Based on previous studies, we have already known that trust, personality and psychological contract, itself likely have influence on knowledge sharing behavior. The principal idea in this study aims to investigates the relationship between trust, personality and psychological contract and knowledge sharing behavior, analyze how they can affect knowledge sharing behavior. With those results, the organizations can apply strategies to engage their employees in contributing and seeking knowledge, in order to improve the performance of organization.
This study was conducted a survey by giving the questionnaire to Vietnamese employees who are working at MNEs in three industries parks near Ha Noi, the capital located in the north of Vietnam and three organizations in banking and insurance industry located in Ha Noi. The data obtain through conducting a survey was analyzed by various techniques such as descriptive analysis to provide the information regarding the respondent’s gender, age, education, position and department where they are working, then using Cronbach’s α, regression analysis, t-test to examine the correlation between each variable and observe the different point of view related to the respondent’s demographic profile.
The results have shown that most of hypotheses are supported, except the hypothesis about the impact of Competence-based Trust on Implicit Knowledge Sharing Behavior, it means most of all three independent variables are positively related to knowledge sharing behavior. Our findings suggest that, in order for Explicit Knowledge Sharing Behavior to be enabled, integrity-based trust must firstly consider in diffusing in the relationship between employee and employer, also among employees within the organization. Beside, when the manager propose to encourage their employees engage in sharing Implicit Knowledge, they should consider seriously to come out with the appropriate relational contract to satisfy both the benefit of two sides toward the perception of exchange knowledge, expertise and working experience.
These aspects are not only important especially to management, but also to the individuals who share knowledge, their feelings of having shared knowledge appear to be more important. With the current understanding that knowledge sharing is more of a human activity than technology, it is important that any information system should be assistive in boosting employees’ confidence that they are indeed sharing knowledge.

ABSTRACT…………………I
Acknowledgement………III
Table of contents………IV
Table of tables…………VI
Table of figures………VIII
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION………1
1.1 Research Background…………1
1.2 Research Motivation…………2
1.3 Statement of the problem……3
1.4 Importance of the study……4
1.5 Research Objective……………7
1.6 Research Question………………7
1.7 Research Structure & Research Process…………………………………7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW……9
2.1 Knowledge sharing behavior…11
2.2 Trust………………………………18
2.3 Personality………………………28
2.4 Psychological contract…………34
2.5 The relationship between Trust, Personality, Psychological Contract and Knowledge Sharing Behavior…………………………………48
2.6 Conclusion…………………………57
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY…………………58
3.1 Research Framework………………58
3.2 Research Hypotheses………………60
V
3.3 Measurement…………………………61
3.4 Sampling plan………………………70
3.5 Data analysis techniques…………72
3.6 Research framework and hypotheses adjustment…..………74
CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT…………………81
4.1 Descriptive Analysis………………81
4.2 The difference between Demographic Characteristics toward Research Variables ……………82
4.3 The relationship between independent and dependent variable…………94
4.4 Summary of Hypotheses Testing……………………………………110
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH CONCLUSION………111
5.1 Result…………………………………111
5.2 Managerial Implication……………120
5.3 Limitation and Future Research…124
References…………………………………127
Appendix A…………………………………131
English Questionnaire……………………132
Vietnamese Questionnaire………………140

1.Usoro, A., Sharratt, W.M., Tsui, E., and Shekhar, S. (2007). Trust as an actecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice. Knowledge Management Research and Practice.
2.Chennamaneni, A. (2006). Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Behaviors: Developing and Testing an Integrated Theoretical Model, The University of Texas, Arlington.
3.American Psychological Association (APA) : Benevolence Roget’s New Millennium Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1). Retrieved 11 December 2009, from Thesaurus.com website: http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/benevolence.
4.Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levin, J.M and Moreland, R.L (2000). Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
5.Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E (2001). Review : Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems : Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, pp. 107-136.
6.Argote, L., and Ingram, P (2000). Knowledge Transfer : A Basis for Competitive Advantage in Firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, pp. 150-169.
7.Argote, L., P. Ingram, J.M. Levine and Moreland, R.L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations, Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, pp. 1–8.
8.Ajzen, I,. and Fishbein, M (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
9.Bakker M, Leenders R.T.A.J, Gabbay S.M, Kratzer J. and Van Engelen J.M.L (2006). Is trust really social capital ? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. The Learning Organization, pp. 594-607.
10.Barrick M.R, Mount M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2000). Personality and job performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, pp. 9–30.
11.Barrick M.R, and Mount M.K (1999). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, pp. 1–26.
12.Bock,G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.G., and Lee, J.N (2005). Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing : Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social-Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate. MIS Quarterly, pp. 87-111.
13.Beckman, T (1999). The current state of knowledge management. In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge Management Handbook: CRS Press.
14.Bonnie S.O, and Adya, M. (2007). Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract : Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, pp. 411-436.
15.Costa P.T.J, and McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL.
16.Davenport, T.H., and Prusak, L (1998). Working Knowledge : How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
17.Davenport, T.H., De Long, D. W., et al (1998). Successful knowledge management Project. Sloan Management Review, pp. 43-57.
18.Clutterbuck, D. (2005). Communication and the psychological contract. Journal of Communication Mangagement, pp. 359.
19.David E.G, and Neil Conway (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: an employer perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, pp. 22.
20.Dixon, N. M (2000). Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
21.Drucker, P. (1959). The Landmarks of Tomorrow. Harper and Row, New York, NY.
22.Fukuyama F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. The Free Press, New York.
23.Grant R.M., (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), pp. 109–122.
24.Kiffin-Petersen S.A, John L.C (2003). Trust, individualism and job characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork. Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 93-116.
25.Liebeskind J.P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17, pp. 93–107.
26.Matzler K., et al., (2005) Methods and concepts in management: significance, satisfaction and suggestions for further research: perspectives from Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Strategic Change 14, pp. 1–13.
27.Mayer R.C, Davis J.H and Schoorman F.D (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, pp. 709-734.
28.Ministry of Planning and Investment (2009). www.mpi.gov.vn.
29.Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2005). www.mofa.gov.vn,
30.Polanyi M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester, Mass, Peter Smith.
31.Polanyi M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK.
32.Rogers G.M, and Revelle W. (1998). Personality, mood, and the evaluation of affective and neutral word pairs, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 1592–1605.
33.Rousseau D.M, Hui, C., Lee, C. (2004). Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in China : Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 311-321.
34.Zuckerman M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality. Cambridge University Press, New York.