The last chapter will be divided into three parts. First, research conclusions are elaborated. Second, recommendations for practitioners and industries in Taiwan were proposed. Third, recommendations for future research are provided.
Research Conclusion
On facing the global recession nowadays, informatization and industrialization have been emphasized to reduce the unnecessary wastage and product defect rate, which was started by the concept of Internet of Things, Industry 4.0 and Bank 3.0. Therefore, to survive in this competitive and innovation oriented society, a successful leadership should deal with the challenge and has an effect on other elements when enhancing its importance by organizations.
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of transformational leadership, trust, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, innovation and organizational performance.
A model (LTCKIP Model) by Cheng-Ping Shih, Ph. D and Hsiu-Wen Fan has integrated the variables into one framework and provided a combination describing the effect of transformational leadership on trust, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, innovation and organizational performance. The main advantage in the current study over earlier studies is that the researcher demonstrated a more inclusive picture regarding the relationship of an effective leadership on trust, culture, knowledge sharing, innovation, and performance in an organization or industry, which is the main purpose of every business enterprise to exceed the competition and deliver constant and superior returns to the stakeholders.
Discussing the model with an overview study and separated ones into ICT and FinTech industries to evaluate different situations in Taiwan, 196 questionnaires were collected from ICT industry and FinTech industry with 134 and 62 questionnaires respectively, and the data
was analyzed by SPSS 22 and SmartPLS 3.0. The high validity and reliability values have suggested that LTCKIP model is an adequate framework to measure the six variables understudy. According to the research questions, the consequences of analyses in this study are concluded.
First, results of this study indicated that transformational leaders positively contributed to the achievement of trust in the model. Concerning transformational leadership, employees care more about how much supervisors respect them, and they tend to be neutral when being asked about the common good or abundant future vision of their supervisors. Additionally, the highlight value in idealized stimulation in four PLS analysis (pilot, main study, ICT industry, FinTech industry) indicates the importance for leaders to play as role model. That is to say, the attitude of solving problems as being supervisors affects working aspects of employees in leadership. Leaders who performed transformational leadership can enhance perceptions of organizational culture as well. With a proper leadership, the culture in an organization brings about exceeding influence of team work and performance which enables business to grow.
Second, trust has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing and innovation.
In regard to trust, respondents of this study are inclined to agree with their connection with supervisors and colleagues, but might not be satisfied with the evaluation system of working abilities in some of the industries. With respect to dominant factors within trust, reliability, namely, the partiality to believe in supervisors’ decisions is more important in main study and ICT industry, while FinTech industry tend to pay attention to identification, that is, by similar values and connection to supervisors and colleagues in an organization.
Third, the more organizational culture is displayed, the more encouraging the behavior of knowledge sharing and innovation will be. When it comes to organizational culture, respondents agree more about permanence and stability in their company rather than risk taking and innovation. Although opportunities provided by organizations to share knowledge
is regarded important and fairly high in mean and significance in main study, both ICT and FinTech industries emphasize motivation as more important. Additionally, organizational innovation is more concerned in main study and FinTech industry, while ICT industry considers more about process innovation within innovation construct. That is to say, the desire to share knowledge positively is more essential in Taiwan industry; and various industries put more attention on different dominant factors of innovation.
Fourth, the more behaviors of knowledge sharing and innovation are, the more organizational performance will be achieved within the business unit. Considering knowledge sharing in Taiwan industries, individual motivation to share knowledge positively stands for the main reason, while rewards and compliments are not popular in all industries. In relation of innovation, cross-cultural communication is being noticed at present, but companies might not be able to have the ability to train their employees internally for this competence yet, thus it is possible for them to be likely to search for talented people instead. At the mention of organizational performance, most respondents have close perceptions in this construct, which employees believe that they are working in companies with financial flexibility and are eager to reduce any unnecessary operational costs. Both main study and ICT industry put efforts on customer satisfaction that affects the performance of organizations directly, in contrast, FinTech industry emphasizes the importance of financial performance, showing the distinguishing feature of FinTech industry.
Another purpose that aims to utilize and enhance transformational leadership and the other characteristics, for instance, innovation, is explained in recommendations for ICT and FinTech industries in the next article.
Recommendations for Taiwan ICT and FinTech Industries
Confronting the highly competitive society in global world, the significance of Internet of Things should not be underestimated. The development of combining industrialization and informatization enhances the competitiveness of ICT industries, and the concepts of FinTech have been huge challenges for Taiwan to adapt to the data-based world updating big data rapidly.
From the Partial Least Square analysis, all of the hypotheses are showing significance.
For practitioners, especially ICT industry, this research provides empirical evidence of the interrelationships among transformational leadership with positive influence on organizational performance, indicating that industries should lay emphasis on appealing organizations to enhance their attention to successful leadership in order to lead to enormous performance. Moreover, both ICT and FinTech industries should focus on the behavior of knowledge sharing, which represents the main idea of Internet of Things as well, since the result can be more enhanced according to the research results of former studies (Argote &
Ingram, 2000; Cummings, 2004; Gardner, Gino & Staats, 2012; Hansen, 2002) as evidence.
Considering Taiwan industries separately, for ICT industry, trust should be paid more attention to change people’s attitude towards sharing knowledge and innovative ideas, thus being able to exceed the quality of products and services; that is to say, although inventing new process and being willing to share knowledge are important to employees, they should also be more rely on their leaders and colleagues for better team work.
As for FinTech industry, identification of similar values should be emphasized to change people’s aspects of sharing knowledge and innovative concepts, and motivation of sharing knowledge should be enhanced in order to improve better communication, cooperation and performance in organizations.
Recommendations for Further Research
Several recommendations are proposed for further studies. First, since the study was conducted only in Taiwan industries, the LTCKIP model and questionnaires can be reanalyzed in another country or across countries.
Second, the study endeavored to investigate the situation in different industries in Taiwan and emphasized the difference between ICT and FinTech industries. Nevertheless, the study can be narrowed down to one specific industry or a company to present more reliable results.
Third, since the Chronbach’s Alpha of knowledge sharing is a little lower than standard, it is better to make it higher though it was accepted in present study. More samples collected for further study is suggested to be provided and improve the reliability of results.
Last but not least, the current study applied quantitative approach with PLS statistical method to test the framework. It is encouraged to employ qualitative study as a further approach in order to get in-depth information when observing leadership in an organization.
Different positions separated and different statistic tools for quantitative approach are also recommended in further study.
REFERENCES
Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: strategies, implementation and profits. USA:
Oxford University Press.
Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029-1037.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations.
Organization studies, 22(2), 337-365.
Bachmann, R., & Inkpen, A. C. (2011). Understanding institutional-based trust building processes in inter-organizational relationships. Organization Studies, 32(2), 281-301.
Bacon, D. R., Sauer, P. L., & Young, M. (1995). Composite reliability in structural equations modeling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 394-406.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of management review, 11(3), 656-665.
Bartee, R. T., Grandjean, B. D., & Bieber, S. L. (2004). Confirming the reliability of a theory-driven survey instrument. American Journal of Health Studies, 19(3), 175-179.
Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. London: Lawrence.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.
Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C.D. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizational research:
some implications for a theory of work performance. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 560–569.
Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:
Based on the competing values framework (revised ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295-336.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.
Currall, S. C., & Inkpen, A. C. (2002). A multilevel approach to trust in joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 479-495.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45-65.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational life. Reading/Т. Deal, A. Kennedy.–Mass: Addison-Wesley, 2, 98-103.
Dennis, A. R. (1996). Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Research, 27(4), 532-550.
Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. (2004). Organizational culture, market orientation, innovativeness, and firm performance: an international research odyssey. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 3-22.
Ellis, K., & Shockley‐ Zalabak, P. (2001). Trust in top management and immediate supervisor:
The relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness, and information receiving. Communication Quarterly, 49(4), 382-398.
Emden, Z., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2005). Learning from experience in international alliances: antecedents and firm performance implications. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 883-892.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 569-589.
Essmann, H. E. (2009). Toward innovation capability maturity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Friel, C. M. (2010). Note on factor analysis. Retrieved from http://www.bama.ua.edu/~
jcsenkbeil/gy523/Factor%20Analysis.pdf
Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams:
Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 998-1022.
Gibbert, M., & Krause, H. (2002). Practice exchange in a best practice marketplace. In Davenport, T. H., & Probst, G. J. (Eds.), Knowledge management case book: Siemens best practices (pp. 89-105). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gharehbaghi, K., & McManus, K. (2003). Effective construction management. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 3(1), 54-55.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization science, 7(4), 375-387.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151. DOI: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Information Science, 27(3), 139-146.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization science, 13(3), 232-248.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial marketing management, 33(5), 429-438.
Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic management journal, 22(9), 899-906.
Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 337-359.
Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of business research, 64(4), 408-417.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust:
Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1306.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009).
Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public administration review, 69(6), 1087-1096.
Katz, B. (2007). The Integration of Project Management Processes with a Methodology to Manage a Radical Innovation Project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Kennedy, P. (1989). Non-nested hypothesis tests: A diagrammatic exposition. Australian Economic Papers, 28(52), 160-165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8454.1989.tb00466.x.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Khalaf. G., Manson, K., & Shukur, G. (2013). Modified ridge regression estimators.
Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 42(8), 1476-1487. DOI:
10.1080/03610926.2011.593285.
King, B. (2012). Bank 3.0: Why Banking Is No Longer Somewhere You Go But Something You Do. New York: Wiley.
Latham, J. R. (2008). Building bridges between researchers and practitioners: A collaborative approach to research in performance excellence. Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 8.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of management information systems, 20(1), 179-228.
Limsila, K., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Performance and leadership outcome correlates of leadership styles and subordinate commitment. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 15(2), 164-184.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.
Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of world business, 45(4), 357-366.
Liu, Y., & Phillips, J. S. (2011). Examining the antecedents of knowledge sharing in facilitating team innovativeness from a multilevel perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 31(1), 44-52.
Majchrzak, A., Cooper, L. P., & Neece, O. E. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management science, 50(2), 174-188.
Mann, P. S. (1995). Introductory statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 81-101.
Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). UK: Pearson Education, Inc.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palvia, P. (2009). The role of trust in e-commerce relational exchange: A unified model. Information & management, 46(4), 213-220.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper and Row.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 609-623.
Pinjani, P., & Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Information & Management, 50(4), 144-153.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Porter, M. E. (2011). Competitive advantage of nations: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1998). Managing professional intellect: making the most of the best. The strategic Management of Intellectual capital, 7, 87-100.
Riaz, A. & Hussain Haider, M (2010). Role of transformational and transactional leadership with job satisfaction and career satisfaction. Business and Economic Horizons, (01), 29-38.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of management review, 23(3), 393-404.
Rowold, J. (2005). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the German translation. Mind Garden. Retrieved from
http://www.mindgarden.com/documents/MLQGermanPsychometric.pdf
Rüßmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., & Harnisch, M.
(2015, April). Industry 4.0: The Future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing Industries. bcg.perspectives. Retrieved from
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/engineered_products_project_busin ess_industry_40_future_productivity_growth_manufacturing_industries/
Sawhney, M., & Prandelli, E. (2000). Managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets. California management review, 42(4), 24-54.
Sher, P. J., & Yang, P. Y. (2005). The effects of innovative capabilities and R&D clustering on firm performance: the evidence of Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Technovation, 25(1), 33-43.
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2003). Measuring organizational trust:
Cross-cultural survey and index. IABC Research Foundation. (Available from International Association of Business Communications http://store. yahoo.
com/iabcstore/measortrus).
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., & Balasubramanian, S. (2008). How motivation, opportunity, and ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of Operations Management, 26(3), 426-445.
Skinner, C. (2014). Digital Bank: Strategies to launch or become a digital bank. Singapore:
Marshall Cavendish International (Asia).
Sohail, M. S., & Daud, S. (2009). Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions:
Perspectives from Malaysia. Vine, 39(2), 125-142.
Thompson, Victor A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.
Tichy, N. (1983) Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics.
New York: Wiley.
Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. C., & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: organization renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. Managing strategic innovation and change, 34(3), 3-23.
Urabe, K., Child, J., & Kagono, T. (1988). Innovation and management: International comparisons. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: a literature review. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), 309-338.
Williams, F., & Monge, P. (2001). Reasoning with Statistics: How to read quantitative research. 5th Edition. USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Wu, F. Y., & Shiu, C. (2009). The Relationship between leadership styles and foreign English teachers job satisfaction in adult English cram schools: Evidences in Taiwan. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(2), 75-82.
Yang, C. C., Marlow, P. B., & Lu, C. S. (2009). Knowledge management enablers in liner shipping. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(6), 893-903.
Yu, S. H., Kim, Y. G., & Kim, M. Y. (2007). Do we know what really drives KM performance? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(6), 39-53.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The leadership quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (2000). International expansion by new venture firms: International diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning, and performance. Academy of Management journal, 43(5), 925-950.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations. New York:
Wiley.
APPENDIX A: REASEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
親愛的職場前輩，您好：
感謝您願意參與此研究，我是臺師大國際人力資源發展研究所的學生，這個 問卷主要以收集、調查產業的領導、信任、組織文化、知識分享、創新以及組織 績效之現況為目的。
如您所知，現在大數據及物聯網的觀念愈發普及，為了在這時代生存、發展，
知識共享與創造價值毫無疑問是現代組織提升自身競爭力的必要條件。面臨當今 全球產業結構改變，資通訊及工業 4.0、金融科技與金融 3.0 緊密結合，如何在
知識共享與創造價值毫無疑問是現代組織提升自身競爭力的必要條件。面臨當今 全球產業結構改變，資通訊及工業 4.0、金融科技與金融 3.0 緊密結合，如何在