In this chapter, sample characteristics will be presented initially. In addition, it also presents descriptive statistics of the result which consists of the mean and standard deviation of every item in this study.
Sample Characteristics
A total of 350 questionnaires were distributed online and by hard copy, while 196 questionnaires were collected and validated, leading the overall response rate as 56%. The survey was completed confidentially and anonymously by employees in either ICT or FinTech industries in Taiwan. The characteristics of the respondents are provided in Table 4.1, which is divided into categories of gender, age, highest level of education completed, working experience in present company, and working industry.
Considering of gender, the percentage of respondents of male and female is close, each of the gender accounts for around 50%, showing the survey fairer in view of workforce in Taiwan. In addition, there is higher percentage for people whose age is among 31 to 40 years old (43.4%), following by 20-30 years old (26.0%), 41-50 years old (22.5%), and above 60 years old (1.0%); most of the participants attained a bachelor degree (62.8%), and population of master degree is not low (28.1%), which might represent the distribution of age and education of employees in ICT industry and FinTech industry (especially banking and service industries). In terms of working experience in present company, it is considered that the standard of six months includes the time period of three-month probation period to go through and another three months to fully understand his or her work, which formed the selections of range from half an year to over 10 years. Employment service over 10 years was the larger part of the responses in this survey (28.1%), followed by 1-3 years (21.9%), 3-6 years (17.9%), 6-10 years (17.3%), and half to 1 year (14.8%) respectively. Last but not least,
this study focused mainly on ICT industry (68.4%), with a comparison of FinTech industry (31.6%).
Table 4.1.
Sample Characteristics Based on Demographic Variables (N=196)
Variable Entries Percentage
Gender Male 86 43.9%
Female 110 56.1%
Age 20-30 years old 51 26.0%
31-40 years old 85 43.4%
41-50 years old 44 22.5%
51-60 14 7.1%
Above 60 2 1.0%
Education Senior High 16 8.2%
Bachelor 123 62.8%
Master 55 28.1%
Ph. D. 2 1.0%
Experience Half to 1 year 29 14.8%
(In present company) 1-3 years 43 21.9%
3-6 years 35 17.9%
6-10 years 34 17.3%
Over 10 years 55 28.1%
Working Industry ICT Industry 134 68.4%
FinTech Industry 62 31.6%
After a brief description of sample characteristics, descriptive statistics of the questionnaire items are proceeded to be presented in order to identify how the participants responded to the questions under study.
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The following section offers a summary of the responses gathered for further research.
The tables reflect perceptions of mean and standard deviation of each item in the
questionnaire, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5) by 5-point Likert scale measurement. However, only those items that were not dropped from analysis would be further elaborated.
Transformational Leadership
Table 4.2 represents the mean and standard deviation of transformational leadership. It was measured by a 20-item scale, while two of them from inspirational motivation (TFL-IM1) and idealized influence attributes (TFL-IIA2) individually were dropped in pilot study. In regard to the construct of transformational leadership, the respondents showed high
agreement in TFL-IC3 (M=3.64), which corresponds to “My direct supervisor considers an individual as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others”, indicating that the participants tend to choose “agree” in regard to this item. The lowest score is one of the dropped items TFL-IIA2 (M=3.05) that claims “My direct supervisor goes beyond
self-interest for the good of the group”, and the second lowest score is TFL-IM3 (M=3.07) representing “My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the future” that the respondents answered fairly “neutral” on this item. The standard deviation of TFL-IC1 (SD=1.08) and TFL-IIA2 (SD=1.08) obtain the highest score, explaining that situation might be rather different in different industries or companies. The result implies that some of the supervisors of the employees might give them fully respect independently, but they might not possess enough concepts of common good or abundant vision in this competitive global world.
Table 4.2.
Transformational Leadership - Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
TFL-IC1 My direct supervisor spends time teaching and coaching me. 3.22 1.08 TFL-IC2 My direct supervisor treats others as an individual rather than
just as a member of a group.
3.56 .98 TFL-IC3 My direct supervisor considers an individual as having
different needs, abilities and aspirations from others.
3.64 .93 TFL-IC4 My direct supervisor helps others to develop their strengths. 3.40 1.04
Average of Mean 3.45
TFL-IS1 My direct supervisor re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate.
3.46 .92 TFL-IS2 My direct supervisor seeks differing perspectives when
solving problems.
3.59 .88 TFL-IS3 My direct supervisor gets others to look at problems from
many different angles.
3.38 .89 TFL-IS4 My direct supervisor suggests new ways of looking at how to
complete assignments.
3.46 .92
Average of Mean 3.47
TFL-IM1* My direct supervisor talks optimistically about the future. 3.49 .98 TFL-IM2 My direct supervisor talks enthusiastically about what needs
to be accomplished.
3.47 .88 TFL-IM3 My direct supervisor articulates a compelling vision of the
future.
3.07 1.07 TFL-IM4 My direct supervisor expresses confidence that goals will be
achieved.
3.54 .79
Average of Mean 3.39
TFL-IIA1 My direct supervisor instills pride in me for being associated with him/her.
3.30 1.04 TFL-IIA2* My direct supervisor goes beyond self-interest for the good of
the group.
3.05 1.08 TFL-IIA3 My direct supervisor acts in ways that builds her/his respect. 3.28 1.00 TFL-IIA4 My direct supervisor displays a sense of power and
confidence.
3.57 .96
Average of Mean 3.30
(Continued)
Table 4.2. (Continued)
TFL-IIB1 My direct supervisor talks about his/her most important values and beliefs. TFL-IIB4 My direct supervisor emphasizes the importance of having a
collective sense of mission.
3.60 .90
Average of Mean 3.53
Note. *Items were dropped in main study.
TFL-IC= Transformational Leadership-Individualized Consideration; TFL-IS=
Transformational Leadership-Intellectual Stimulation; TFL-IM= Transformational Leadership-Inspirational Motivation; TFL-IIA= Transformational Leadership Idealized-Influence Attributes; TFL-IIB= Transformational Leadership-Idealized Influence Behaviors
Trust
Trust was measured by an 18-item scale, including competence, openness and honesty, concern for employee, reliability, and identification. Table 4.3 depicts the perception of trust by its mean and standard deviation.
In relation of trust, T-OH3 (M=3.68) desccribing “When something is wrong, I am not afraid to tell my supervisor” has the highest mean, and T-ID1 (M=3.67) describing “I feel connected to my peers” stands in the second place. These indicate that most employees have fair or good relationships with their present supervisors and colleagues. By contrast, T-OH1 representing “Employees can get enough evaluation of their working abilities”, has the lowest mean (M=3.01) and highest standard deviation (SD=1.04), showing the evaluation of
competence or performance in Taiwan industries inclines to be unreliable for employees.
Table 4.3.
Trust - Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
T-C1 I am satisfied to the abilities of company’s employees. 3.50 .81 T-C2 I am satisfied to company’s operational efficiency. 3.14 .99 T-C3 I am satisfied to company’s qualities and services of products. 3.48 .93 T-C4 I am satisfied to company’s competence of achieving its’ T-CE3 Top managers listen to the issues what employees care. 3.21 .95
Average of Mean 3.34
T-R1 My superior does what he or she said. 3.27 .98
T-R2 Top managers keep their commitments to employees. 3.24 .97 T-R3 My superior keeps commitments to team members. 3.40 .89 T-R4 My supervisor behaves in a consistent manner form day to
T-ID3 My value is similar to my colleagues’ values. 3.32 .91 T-ID4 My value is similar to my supervisor’ values. 3.26 .96
Average of Mean 3.36
Note. T-C= Trust-Competence; T-OH= Trust-Openness and Honesty; T-CE= Trust-Concern for Employee; T-R= Trust-Reliability; T-ID= Trust-Identification
Organizational Culture
In terms of OC-HC5, Table 4.4 explains the highest mean of 3.77 with the content of
“Our company emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important”, while OC-AC3 (“The management style in our company is characterized by individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness”) and OC-AC2 (“The leadership in our company is generally considered to exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking”) have the lowest score of 3.00. Companies in Taiwan tend to pay attention to the stability and efficiency. OC-CC6 showing “Our company defines success on the basis of the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people” to respondents with a higher mean of 3.37 in this construct attains the highest standard deviation (SD=1.10), explaining that the majority has rather different opinion for this item.
Table 4.4.
Organizational Culture - Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
OC-CC1 Our company is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves.
3.17 .96 OC-CC2 The leadership in our company is generally considered to
exemplify mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.
3.19 .96 OC-CC3 The management style in our company is characterized by
teamwork, consensus, and participation.
3.36 .96 OC-CC4 The glue that holds our company together is loyalty and
mutual trust. Commitment to this company runs high.
3.38 .96 OC-CC5 Our company emphasizes human development. High trust,
openness, and participation persist.
3.36 .99 OC-CC6 Our company defines success on the basis of the development
of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people.
3.37 1.10
Average of Mean 3.30
(Continued)
Table 4.4. (Continued)
OC-AC1 Our company is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place.
People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
3.04 .94 OC-AC2 The leadership in our company is generally considered to
exemplify entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking.
3.00 1.03 OC-AC3 The management style in our company is characterized by
individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
3.00 .97 OC-AC4 The glue that holds our company together is commitment to
innovation and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.
3.30 .94
OC-AC5 Our company emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.
3.28 .99
OC-AC6 Our company defines success on the basis of having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
3.38 1.00
Average of Mean 3.16
OC-MC1 Our company is very results-oriented. A major concern is with getting the job done. People are very competitive and achievement-oriented.
3.51 .86
OC-MC2 The leadership in our company is generally considered to exemplify a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.
3.39 .92 OC-MC3 The management style in our company is characterized by
hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
3.37 .95
OC-MC4 The glue that holds our company together is the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment.
3.49 .86 OC-MC5 Our company emphasizes competitive actions and
achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the market place are dominant.
3.48 .85
OC-MC6 Our company defines success on the basis of winning in the market place and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key.
3.66 .85
Average of Mean 3.48
(Continued)
Table 4.4. (Continued) OC-HC1
*
Our company is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.
3.42 .90 OC-HC2 The leadership in our company is generally considered to
exemplify coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.
3.30 .93
OC-HC3 The management style in our company is characterized by security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.
3.40 .88
OC-HC4 The glue that holds our company together is formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running company is important.
3.60 .89
OC-HC5 Our company emphasizes permanence and stability.
Efficiency, control, and smooth operations are important.
3.77 .89 OC-HC6 Our company defines success on the basis of efficiency.
Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling, and low-cost production are critical.
3.74 .84
Average of Mean 3.54
Note. *Items were dropped in main study.
OC-CC= Organizational Culture-Clan Culture; OC-AC= Organizational Culture-Adhocracy Culture; OC-MC= Organizational Culture-Market Culture; OC-HC= Organizational Culture-Hierarchy Culture
Knowledge Sharing
Table 4.5 provides an overview of mean and standard deviation of knowledge sharing.
Considering the mean of knowledge sharing, the highest and lowest in this consruct are separated obviously. “I really wanted to share knowledge with my coworkers” by KS-M1 (M=4.07) portraits the motivation of employees, while KS-M7 (M=2.53, SD=1.07) showing
“I will receive additional points for promotion in return for my knowledge sharing” might indicate the different situations Taiwan industries encounter nowadays, and KS-M5 (SD=1.19) obtains the lowest standard deviation, which is dropped in the main study. In fact, mean of items KS-M5 (M=2.64, SD=1.19), KS-M6 (M=2.93, SD=1.11), KS-M7 (M=2.53, SD=1.07) inquiring the circumstance of encouraging people to share knowledge are relatively lower,
and standard deviation are higher than other items.
Table 4.5.
Knowledge Sharing - Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
KS-M1 I really wanted to share knowledge with my coworkers. 4.07 .74 KS-M2 I am motivated to share what I know with my coworkers. 3.79 .86 KS-M3 My knowledge sharing results in enhancing expertise and
providing opportunities for recognition.
3.70 .87 KS-M4 My knowledge sharing among individuals is based on trust. 4.03 .69 KS-M5* My company specifically rewards knowledge sharing with
monetary incentives.
2.64 1.19 KS-M6 My company recognizes knowledge sharing through
non-monetary rewards (e.g. recognition, appreciation).
2.93 1.11 KS-M7 I will receive additional points for promotion in return for my
knowledge sharing.
2.53 1.07
Average of Mean 3.38
KS-O1 Our company provides training programs, structured work teams, colloquia, etc. to facilitate the knowledge sharing.
3.39 1.10 KS-O2 Our company’s infrastructure enables employees to access the
shared knowledge effectively.
3.43 1.06
Average of Mean 3.41
KS-A1 I have the ability to transfer knowledge to my coworker. 3.68 .87 KS-A2 I have the means to share knowledge with my coworker. 3.66 .84
Average of Mean 3.67
Note. *Items were dropped in main study.
KS-M= Knowledge Sharing-Motivation; KS-O= Knowledge Sharing-Opportunity; KS-A=
Knowledge Sharing-Ability
Innovation
According to Table 4.6, the perception of innovation is shown by 12 items, which includes process innovation, technical innovation, and organizational innovation, to understand opinions from the respondents in this study.
I-OI2 (M=3.51, SD=.87) representing “Company cross-cultural communications ability is good for keeping ahead of market” has the highest score of mean and the lowest standard deviation in this construct. I-OI1 (M=3.12) describing “Company improves internal communication efficiency because of company’s organizational innovation” has the lowest mean, however, the scores of mean in this construct are fairly close to each other, thus the result is able to be inferred that most of the people chose “neutral” as their response. I-TI2 (M=3.27, SD=1.03) inquiring “Company gets a good reputation because of company’s technical innovation” has the highest standard deviation, describing the possible answer is between “disagree” to “agree”, which might because the respondents are from both ICT and FinTech industries to lead to this result.
Table 4.6.
Innovation - Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
I-PI1 Company enhances work efficiency because of company’s process innovation. I-PI4 Company encourages using process innovation to understand
the information of customers, suppliers and competitors.
3.42 .99
Average of Mean 3.35
(Continued)
Table 4.6. (Continued)
I-TI1 Company gets a higher profit because of company’s technical innovation.
3.24 1.00 I-TI2 Company gets a good reputation because of company’s
technical innovation.
3.27 1.03 I-TI3 Company can make its’ service to customers faster because of
company’s technical innovation.
I-OI1 Company improves internal communication efficiency because of company’s organizational innovation.
3.12 .97 I-OI2 Company cross-cultural communications ability is good for
keeping ahead of market.
3.51 .87 I-OI3 Company continues to import new way of management and
knowledge to keep flexibility.
Note. I-PI= Innovation-Process Innovation; I-TI= Innovation-Technical Innovation; I-OI=
Innovation-Organizational Innovation
Organizational Performance
In regard to organizational performance, nine items characterizing innovativeness, financial performance, and customer satisfaction are measured in this construct. Table 4.7 portraits the observation of organizational performance from mean and standard deviation.
OP-FP1 (M=3.81, SD=.86) representing “Company has a financial flexibility” and OP-FP2 (M=3.80, SD=.92) inquiring “Company is eager to reduce any unnecessary operational costs”
illustrating that in the respondents opinion, companies are likely to endeavor to reduce the cost no matter how the financial flexibility is at the present time. OP-FP3 showing “Company can easily get resources acquisition” has the lowest mean of 3.32, indicating the response of
“neutral” regarding this item. Nevertheless, the standard deviation of this construct ranges
from .79 to .92, proving this construct achieves more approval for same perception.
Table 4.7.
Organizational Performance- Mean and Standard Deviation
Code Items Mean SD
OP-IN1 Company always has new services development. 3.70 .88
OP-IN2 Company has a high productivity. 3.70 .91
OP-IN3 Company gives many opportunities for employees’
innovativeness.
3.65 .91
Average of Mean 3.68
OP-FP1 Company has a financial flexibility. 3.81 .86
OP-FP2 Company is eager to reduce any unnecessary operational costs.
3.80 .92 OP-FP3 Company can easily get resources acquisition. 3.32 .88
Average of Mean 3.64
OP-CS1 Company has a high customer satisfaction. 3.51 .80
OP-CS2 Company has a high service quality. 3.60 .81
OP-CS3 Company provides a prompt response to customers’
requirements.
3.59 .79
Average of Mean 3.57
Note. OP-IN= Organizational Performance-Innovativeness; OP-FP= Organizational Performance-Financial Performance; OP-CS= Organizational Performance-Customer Satisfaction.