The emergence of the knowledge-based economy dictates that organisations innovate, create, find and combine knowledge into new products and services, and improve distribution methods so as to have a competitive edge over their competitors (Amar & Hlupic 2016; Brem, Maier & Wimschneider 2016; Esternhuizen, Schutte & Du Toit 2012). Academic libraries, just like other organisations, are interested in knowledge management (KM) to boost the efficiency and quality of their processes and services and to increase productivity and create innovative solutions and products for their users (De Bem et al. 2016). The success of academic libraries depends on how well they use staff knowledge to improve services (Marouf 2017). Jantz (2012) succinctly urges librarians to think of and craft services to satisfy the current and future needs of users. This can be partially achieved through engaging staff and using their knowledge to reorganise library processes. The success of an organisation partly depends on its ability to create and use knowledge.

Challenges to managing knowledge include an absence of management support, being unclear of motivation frameworks that support knowledge holders and receivers, and an absence of a knowledge-sharing culture and trust among staff (Chouikha 2016). To this end, institutions should build and establish norms and values that are supportive of knowledge management and rewards. It is surmised that when a culture that rewards staff co-exists with other factors such as policies and procedures, the performance of staff improves. Although several scholars, such as Ahmed, Sheikh and Akram (2018), Marouf (2017) and Daland (2016), have highlighted the importance of knowledge in organisations, currently there is limited evidence which shows that a reward culture has had an influence on the creation and sharing of knowledge in academic libraries in Uganda.

Knowledge creation has explicitly been conceived as the sum total of collaboration, communication, research and hiring of staff with a view to improving organisational performance (Brix 2017; Hubers 2016; Li, Liu & Zhou 2018). Knowledge creation largely depends on how staff relate to each other in terms of sharing what they know. Extant literature suggests that humans are selfish and sometimes only engage in activities that are beneficial to them (Menon & Pfeffer 2003), which could be a result of workplace ostracism, workplace political skill or even mere competition (Zhao & Xia 2017).

The changing library environment as reflected in transitory information needs requires libraries to have up-to-date information to keep up with the technological onslaught (Nakhoda & Tajik 2017). This situation requires staff who are motivated to engage in knowledge-creating situations, such as meetings, training and conferences. There is empirical evidence that knowledge is created through dialogues and continuous interactions which provide a basis for making new products, services or anything new geared towards the improvement of organisations (Suorsa 2014; Wu, Kao & Shih 2018). Dialogues are regarded as the mainstay of cross-team working, workshops and meetings, which are also the main components of knowledge creation (Majchrzak, More & Faraj 2010). Staff members are able to exchange task-specific knowledge during such dialogues (Chatterjee, Pereira & Sarkar 2018).

Furthermore, when staff members contribute what they know to central organisational databases, others can access this information and come up with new knowledge (Little & Deokar 2016). Raja, Ahmad and Sinha (2009) identified the use of information technology, sufficient funding, training and staff mobility as crucial components of knowledge creation. All these activities consume time, and for staff to effectively participate in dialogues and discussions there needs to be motivations, such as allowances, bonus, commendation letters, or even promises to attend training. There is a possibility that when staff members are rewarded for activities such as collaboration and sharing knowledge, organisational goals are achieved (Iqbal, Toulson & Tweed 2016).

It is apparent that staff members work better when rewards are commensurate to the effort they need to put in to accomplish the task. This stance exhibits the significance and centrality of staff in the functioning of an organisation, and in a bid to keep the staff satisfied, organisations have ‘suggested policies to increase employee motivation’ (Belenzon & Schankerman 2015:795). A reward culture can play a significant role in motivating staff. The reward culture may constitute any values, norms and behavioural patterns that individual academic libraries have grown and developed over time, to guide the compensation and motivation of their staff towards the attainment of goals and targets. Rewards can be a combination of monetary and non-monetary benefits that accrue for work performed as required by the employer (Bussin & Diez 2017). Monetary or financial rewards include salaries, allowances and bonuses (Shields 2016). Financial rewards are associated with achievement, respect, freedom and power; these are social components which are crucial in human resource management (Perkins, White & Jones 2016). On the other hand, non-financial rewards comprise training and development (Brown 2014; Yang, Sanders & Bumatay 2012), promotions, appreciation and recognition (Thumbran 2010). In the study, based on the definitions by Perkins et al. (2016) and Shields (2016), rewards are considered as benefits that libraries have set aside to interest staff in what they do, as well as to push them to achieve organisational goals and mandates. These rewards may include pay, allowances, training (including seminars), attendance of conferences and commendation.

Reward systems in organisations determine how staff members relate to the organisation with regard to the exchange of resources, such as knowledge, money and time (Kerr & Slocum 2005). They also determine the way they solve problems and how they commit to organisational goals and achievements (Taba 2018). Rewards systems are hinged on two factors: performance and rewards (Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz 2015). This essentially means that for each task accomplished, there is a reward for it. It is then probable that staff may accomplish tasks based on what is available to them in the form of rewards.

Gilley and Maycunich (2000) observe that organisations have failed to appreciate the value of compensating staff for their increased efforts, employee contribution and development. Yet scholars such as Drabe, Hauff and Ritcher (2015) and Yacoob (2009) argue that rewards can either foster or inhibit the accomplishment of organisational goals and activities. For instance, Drabe et al. (2015:784) maintain that factors such as ‘recognition, promotion and growth are assumed to increase job satisfaction but do not diminish job dissatisfaction’. Staff may be satisfied if, for instance, they are recognised for their effort, but for as long as there are still factors such as absence of promotions and training opportunities, they will continue to be disgruntled. It is therefore a good practice to look out for those rewards that increase job satisfaction among staff in order to ensure that tasks that organisations, such as libraries, have set aside for staff are accomplished.

Rewards are considered motivators in organisations as they determine how staff members respond to certain stimuli (Martin-Perez & Martin-Cruz 2015). Literature has revealed that there is a positive relationship between reward culture, performance and innovation (Durcikova et al. 2011). Although much of the literature reveals that knowledge is a driver of innovation, not much has been written about the importance of rewards as a catalyst for knowledge management practices, such as knowledge creation, in academic libraries in Uganda.

The study is underscored by Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory that opines that staff put in effort to do particular tasks when they are promised a reward, which can be financial or non-financial. However, it is not clear in the literature reviewed whether libraries have engaged their staff to find out what kind of rewards would motivate them to create knowledge. Martin-Perez and Martin-Cruz (2015) argue that when rewards are instituted, knowledge creation improves in organisations, and at the same time rewards act as a key motivator among academic staff (Cheng, Sze-Yin & Lau 2009).

Because of rewards potentially having an influence on knowledge creation, the significance of reward culture in academic libraries is taking centre stage as staff members decry dwindling budgets and expenditure. When libraries begin to pay attention to cost, they tend to compromise on management processes and practices that include the reward practices of the library and knowledge creation (Kont 2012). Although scholars, such as Hosoi (2005), argue that rewards should be linked to staff expectancies, this is not the case in most academic libraries, as expressed in the many complaints raised in the Librarianship Round Table Meeting (2015). Complaints about the disparity in pay and in other non-financial rewards such as promotions, recognition and training have been expressed. Several head librarians decried the way their universities were handling issues of rewards to their staff. Consequently, staff members were not performing as expected (Librarianship Round Table Meeting 2015). This has been further evidenced by the different levels of services offered in university libraries, with some having advanced services on offer and better staff academic profiles in comparison to others. Yet knowledge management practices such as the creation and sharing of knowledge are mainly anchored on how well staff members are motivated to work (Zhang & Jiang 2015). If academic libraries are to recognise the centrality of staff knowledge, it is critical that rewards, which include recognition, reassignments, promotions, training and pay, need to be streamlined in library policies. There appears to be a discrepancy between the reward and amount of staff effort expended while executing tasks and duties. It seems staff members are motivated to share knowledge and operate efficiently if they are rewarded accordingly.

It was against this background that this study investigated the connection between reward and knowledge creation in selected academic libraries in Uganda. The following research questions guided the study:

The aim of this research was to find out the nexus between reward culture and knowledge creation in selected academic libraries in Uganda. There were two objectives that structured the study, namely, the extent to which non-financial rewards influence knowledge creation and whether financial rewards influence knowledge creation in academic libraries. A post-positivist research paradigm guided the study. The philosophical assumption of this research was that a social phenomenon is complex and may be better understood by looking at it using multiple methods in the tradition of Campbell and Fiske (1959). A quantitative methodology using a survey approach, which triangulated research methods, was used for the study. Instruments for collecting data were validated through pretesting. The instruments were formulated and tested using subject specialists from Makerere University and a sample of librarians from two universities. Care was taken to ensure that only the questions that addressed the objectives were asked. The triangulation of methods also enhanced the validity of the data.

The population of the study consisted of three selected academic libraries that met the inclusion criteria. These were purposively selected out of 27 academic libraries that are fully registered with the Consortium of Uganda University Libraries (CUUL) (2018), which is the regulatory body in charge of the operations of all university libraries. To be selected, a university had to be in the CUUL register and should have existed for more than 30 years owing to the fact that the first private university in Uganda was established in 1988 (Uganda National Council for Higher Education 2017). When selecting libraries for the survey, a major concern was the amount of time the institution had existed because the assumption was that the older the institution, the older its culture and probability of its library having a more refined way of doing things. The inclusion criteria for the sample of the study are one of the limitations of this study. Only three libraries qualified to be included in the study. This has implications for the generalisability of the findings.

To be eligible to participate in the study, all the 80 staff members, including senior and junior staff, surveyed across the three selected libraries were supposed to have a library and information science qualification. Data were collected from lower-level staff through a self-administered questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the heads of libraries of the three institutions selected. They were considered to be key respondents because of their participation in management and policy issues within their respective libraries.

Data from institutional documents such as annual reports, human resource manuals and policies, strategic plans, budgets, ministerial documents and library procedures and guidelines were triangulated with data from the questionnaires and interviews in order to enhance credibility and improve interpretation as suggested by Fusch, Fusch and Ness (2018). Data were then analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. To analyse the quantitative data, SPSS 18.0 software was used to generate percentages, and Microsoft Excel was used to generate graphs. Thematic coding was used for qualitative data analysis.

The study was conducted after obtaining ethical clearance from the University of South Africa’s Research Ethics Review Committee (Reference number: 2017_ENKLwanga_49921509_001).

Respondents comprised library staff from three universities in Uganda. Of the total 80 respondents, 70 completed the questionnaire, constituting a response rate of 87.5%. All the targeted three heads of libraries were interviewed. Data from the questionnaire and interviews were triangulated with data from documents such as departmental files, human resource manuals, strategic plans of 2013–2018/2019 and annual reports of 2015–2017. The process of knowledge creation in these universities is evident from the day-to-day activities that were carried out. The major findings of the study are presented according to the themes of the research questions.

This study investigated the connection between reward culture and knowledge creation in selected academic libraries in Uganda. It adds to the existing understanding of some of the motivational factors in knowledge creation. The results support Vroom’s expectancy theory in explaining the expectation of both non-financial and financial rewards in varying degrees. Although these are multiple case studies whose results may not be generalised to many contexts, the study illuminates the influence of the reward system on knowledge creation. The key finding of the study was that academic libraries’ policies on knowledge creation did not come out clearly on whether there were financial or non-financial rewards attached to knowledge creation.

Other key findings were as follows: Firstly, the research showed that reward policies were available in all the three universities; however, the point of departure is that there are no specific rewards linked to knowledge creation. This could mean that policies were not designed with knowledge management practices in mind. Interview informants proposed that in future such policies should be designed with these practices in mind so as to come up with a detailed, well-informed policy. Secondly, although financial reward culture was reported to be present, staff preferred promotions and recognition to money as these promised better benefits. What became apparent was the need and reliance on psychological satisfaction as a reward, which was largely appreciated by the staff surveyed.

The study revealed that non-financial rewards positively influenced knowledge creation. Owing to the ambiguity of the reward policies in relation to knowledge creation, a financial reward did not seem to be a major factor for knowledge creation. The reward policies were not clear on how much one would be paid to create knowledge. Because of this, staff members were not willing to base their actions on monetary rewards.

Considering the findings, the following recommendations are made:

The limited results from the questionnaire, documents and interview on the various knowledge creation strategies and non-financial rewards linked to them suggest a need for academic libraries to carefully embark on a fact-finding investigation regarding their reward culture and knowledge creation. The sample used in the study was small; hence, the researchers recommend that a baseline survey should be carried out to collect the views of staff in many libraries pertaining to the reward culture in their individual institutions. Then the data should be collated to determine which rewards are important for library staff at different levels of seniority.