Based on the data collected and analyzed, there are three main topics being induced:
the issues between power distance and knowledge sharing; interventions in knowledge sharing, such as knowledge sharing under formal and informal situations, knowledge sharing influenced by cultural issues between Taiwan and Mainland China; and other related issues in knowledge sharing.
Each of these topics is worth detailed explanation and discussion for further comprehension; therefore, the findings are first separately described and concluded by an integrated point of view.
Power Distance and Knowledge Sharing
In this section, the issues between power distance and knowledge sharing are discussed and the following discussion is divided into three parts: sources of power, factors of power distance, and common thoughts of two regions. “Sources of power” deeply probe into the kinds of power in Taiwanese and Chinese’s minds, “factors of power distance” would like to discover the factors which influence power distance between Taiwanese/Chinese managers/employees. Finally, “the common thoughts of two regions” make mention of some comparisons between these two regions. The categories and codes are shown as Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Power distance and knowledge sharing
Theme Category Code
Power distance Sources of power Capability
Authority
Wealth
Salary
Status
Factors of power distance Inequity
Individualism
Facework
Factors about larger power distance of Chinese
Common thoughts of two regions Quanxi
Leadership
Sources of Power
From interviews, the researcher finds although interviewees do not understand what power distance is, they are still conscious of matters related to power. The researcher, therefore, concludes those concepts into “sources of power.” First, the most frequently mentioned is “capability.” A2b expresses,
I hope my subordinates respect me because not only I’m his supervisor but also admire the methods of dealing with matters, for instance, the help and support I give you in usual. I believe that if you sincerely sympathize with my ways attending to matter, I truly obtain your esteem and power, not just because I have the authority.
As mentioned before, Chinese managers think that wealth and salary bring the power to Taiwanese supervisors, so Taiwanese supervisors feel that they are more predominant than Chinese ones. In addition, “status” is also mentioned a lot. For instance, the president (A2a) and one of vice-president (A1a) are the founder’s son, so all Chinese employees value their status highly and they will show more respect when share knowledge with these two supervisors.
Factors of Power Distance
Social order is maintained by differentiated role relationships between persons. A Chinese individual’s focal experience is the self in relation to others, in contrast to the Western view of the independent self as a self contained entity. Working from a relationship or independent paradigm, a person will put greater significance upon social relations (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002).
Lots of researchers focus on the relationship between power distance and organizational justice. Also, when organizational justice is not regarded as fairness, the problem “inequity” will generate from employees’ minds (Hofstede, 2001).
Individualism.
Power distance and individualism/collectivism (I/C) are related in many societies (Hofstede, 1991), as A3a especially puts emphasis on “individualism.”
For example, in implementing, Chinese are more individual-oriented. Taiwanese are more capable to cooperate with others and have more coordination. However, Chinese value self-interest highly, so I use different knowledge sharing methods towards them. … Concerning the same matter, we will consider different level of acceptance of Taiwanese and Chinese, and use different content or attitude to communicate with them. … Chinese managers take a rejection attitude towards changes. Therefore, when we are going to take action to new regulations, we must solve their questions and make them admire you. For instance, your methods must be better than his. Yet, sometimes we will directly give orders to them.
He clearly points out that he thinks Chinese are more individual-oriented than Taiwanese.
Additionally, B2a also brings up the same idea that,
Since they (Chinese) care more about the rights and interests of themselves, I feel they don’t have good coordination with each other in working. On the other hand, the communication between one department and another department, just like different cultures, is not very well. It can be said as a competitive situation among departments.
Although some research finds individuals from large power distance cultures, receive
more social support for conformity and acceptance of injustice (Basabe, Paez, Valencia, Gonzalez, Rime, & Diener, 2002; Martin & Varney, 2003; Merkin, 2006)), the research findings are not corresponsive with the previous study. Instead, Chinese managers complain a lot about inequality and injustice in salary policy during interview. It shows, as time goes by, for Chinese people inequality and injustice is no longer taken for granted. It also can be seen in the research of Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, akai, and Wilcox’s (2001).
The research points out power distance also has an individual-level component; similarly to the arguments with self-construal. Cultures are categorized as large and small power distance, but individuals do not necessarily follow all cultural values. Thus, there would be an inference that some individuals in large power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed evenly, while some individuals in small power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed unevenly.
Facework.
Since the concept of face originated in Chinese culture (Goffman, 1955) He also explained that face can be lost, saved, and protected. When people fail to present an image of self competently, they take counteractions (facework) to the face-threat. Ting-Toomey (1988) proposed that in large power distance, confrontation often leads to a loss of face. Therefore, it appears to be less likely for people from large power distance cultures to express themselves directly, exactly as A3a and A2b mentions that “it’s not inappropriate to discuss the matter that he involved before his face.”
As A2b mentions that “we are Taiwanese-venture enterprise, so we respect more about Taiwanese managers’ opinions”, the company policy is indeed to aim to preserve existing structures and status of Taiwanese managers. This is also because in large power distance cultures, the hierarchical structure to which people belong preserves their face.
Hence, most of interviewees (A1a, A1b, B1b, B3c, B1d, and B2e) agree that “face is preserved and roles are necessary to be structured and formalized. (Markus, Kitayama, &
Heimain, 1996; Scherer, 1988)”
Factors about larger power distance of Chinese.
From Taiwanese perspectives, they think higher level manager has more power and coercion towards Chinese. For instance, A2c expresses that,
If higher level manager, like me, asks for some data, employees will give you what you want very quickly; however, if the manager is team leader or lower, they will not reply so soon. I think it’s their attitude towards position level; in other wards, the higher position the more power.
B2a is also in favor of A2c and take an example that,
Sometimes I try to talk with them (Chinese) with a much relaxing manner of speaking; however, they are still very serious; compared with Taiwanese employees, Taiwanese seem more relaxing when sharing knowledge with me.
When mentioning people in which region care more about position level, A1c addresses that,
They take a very serious attitude towards position levels and titles, when comparing with Taiwanese.
Level and distance are not quite obvious in Taiwan. For instance, the manner we treat our supervisor may be like friends. However, the degree of caring about level is probably larger than salary.
Thus it can be seen that, in many aspects, Chinese hold larger power distance than Taiwanese from Taiwanese’s perspective.
Furthermore, by a stance of Chinese, they contrarily raise an idea about “leadership.”
They explain that in their life-long education, they have been told that the leader should be very strong and powerful, and people should hold in awe towards the leader. That is to say, all the time they have been used to have this kind of leader and fostered an idea that “leaders are more superior to us, so we should venerate them.” That explains why when talking about leadership style, almost all Chinese managers (A1b, A2b, B1b, B2b, B1c and B2c) place emphasis on “educating subordinates.”
To deduce, the high power distance between managers and Chinese employees is because of the concept of “paternalistic” leadership, so subordinates completely follow and rely on leaders, show their respect to leaders but are also scared by them.
Common Thoughts of Two Regions
The most frequently mentioned word is “relationship” in interviewing about power distance, not only from the perspectives of the same level Taiwanese but also the same level Chinese. Even when Taiwanese supervisors face a familiar subordinate who has worked here for many years, they treat him more strictly than an unfamiliar one; the reason is just because they have deeper “relationship” with familiar subordinates. Thus, Taiwanese supervisors pay much more attention to those whom are regarded more important in their working environment.
From a culture viewpoint, there is difference about relationship between in English and Chinese as reviewed in the literature review. In Chinese culture, quanxi can be considered as the relationship itself or the act of drawing upon the relationship. Referring to the relationship, quanxi is the special, unofficial, relationship between two persons, which binds the two thought the exchange of favors rather than expressions of friendship; the two are consciously committed to each other (Chen, 1995). Due to the reciprocation of quanxi (Luo, 1997), how a person treats a Chinese will be reflected, and that is Chinese culture. Those examples could be seen in many aspects (Abdallah, 2002). For instance, A1c often treat his subordinates to a meal after work, so his subordinates have good impression to him and are more willing to work harder than others. Besides, quanxi also shows in personal aspect. For example, A3a indicates Chinese workers always introduce their relatives or hometown friends to work in the same company; in contrast, it is rarely seen from Taiwanese.
On the other hand, the second frequent mentioned is “leadership.” As mentioned before, most Chinese managers mention their education about leadership is “autocratic” leadership, so they already get used to a “strong and powerful” leader. Some Chinese managers think indeed Chinese workers need to be “managed” and “controlled.” For the common view of Taiwanese and Chinese managers, they both think the most important thing of leadership
style is to make subordinates admire managers, and this kind of relationship could make thing go smoothly in work.
Apart from authority with positions, interviewees both two regions think “capability” is the most important source of power. To ground on the above findings and discussion, employees approve of knowledge sharing behaviors of affecting by power distance. Certainly, power distance results in some problems in the case firm. Furthermore, due to the same origin of Chinese culture, people in Taiwan and in Mainland China hold some similar ideas, such us
“quanxi” and leadership.
Intervention in knowledge sharing
Knowledge Sharing under Formal and Informal Situation
The first issues being discussed is the issue about knowledge sharing under formal and informal situations by the interview data. Formal knowledge sharing here means people in the organization share knowledge with each other with the rule and arrangement by organizations, such as meeting, training, and mutual sharing by technology assisted communication. Unlike informal situation, formal knowledge sharing are more serious, good in sanction, and more confidential. The following are the findings and discussion of formal and informal knowledge sharing situation. Table 4.2 shows detailed findings which contain categories and codes.
Table 4.2. Knowledge sharing under formal and informal situation
technology assisted communication
Formal knowledge
sharing situation functions of meeting
no meeting experience during school days
to have meal after work
to forward private mail to colleges to have conversation during lunchtime
to go out with colleagues on holidays
table topic
more direct than formal situation more insistent than formal situation confidential
more peremptory than formal situation
interpersonal relationship
face / facework
transmit through the third person Difference manner of speaking
attitude context
Formal Knowledge Sharing Channels.
All of the most effective formal knowledge sharing channels indicated by the interviewees are fit in with the classification of knowledge sharing activities in literature:
technology assisted communication, meeting and training and development (Bakos & Treacy, 1986; Johnston & Vitale, 1988; Larsson, 1956; Neiderman, Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1991).
One of the most effective formal knowledge sharing channels is “meeting”, including general company meeting, division meeting and weekly meeting. The division meeting is held by divisions occasionally used to communicate with first-line managers or employees to understand the working circumstances and the on-site problems. Their weekly meetings are held three times in a week and meeting members include all Taiwanese and Chinese middle-level supervisors to the top management (tactic level and above). The functions are to announce rules, discuss critical events and distribute resource to divisions. Each division should not only report their performance but also the critical events during meetings. One thing out of the ordinary is they don’t have any meeting which is held only by Taiwanese or Chinese. According to the researcher investigation of other Taiwanese companies in Mainland China, there are some meetings held only by Taiwanese top management and they discuss the objectives, make decisions, and solve critical issues or events; however, this case company is an exception among Taiwanese company in Mainland China.
As to the “training” that interviewees mention, they think they learn more when conducting training course related to their job needs develop their careers, instead of just working without gain ground. Training provides learners with the knowledge and skills needed for their present jobs, whereas development has a more long-term focus (Fitzgerald, 1992). Development prepares employees to adapt to environmental changes that affect the organization over time. If organizations want employees to be learners and transfer knowledge, then organizations must equip employees with the tools to transfer knowledge (Narasimha, 2000; Simmonds, Dawley, Ritchie & Anthony, 2001).
Additionally, many interviewees, especially employees (A1d, A2d, A1e, A2e, B2d, B2e) in Mainland China, point out that technology assisted communication provides good effect to their knowledge sharing results. They use technology, such as MSN, SKYPE, fax, and mail, to share knowledge with each other; specifically SKYPE and phone call. The tones of voice from a phone call convey important information that does not come across in mail (Robbins
& Judge, 2006). B1e considers instant messaging and mail as fast and inexpensive means to sharing knowledge and communicating with each other in organization; further, he suggests case company put emphases on utilizing them.
As Johnston and Vitale (1988) mentioned, they think the integration of advanced technology make knowledge transfer easier across organizational boundaries and it can increase and improve coordination within the organization. Bakos and Treacy (1986) also think training will improve internal effectiveness and organizational performance.
It is worth mentioning that they frequently interchange formal information by MSN and mails to transmit some reports and results of meeting, shipping documents and “contact sheet.” It is a formal sheet, peculiar to the case company. The function is to prove that bilateral, of the two sides, employees have such agreement or the guarantee.
Formal Knowledge Sharing Situation.
Although there are some activities belong to formal knowledge sharing situation, the interviewees considers “meeting” as the most using method to share knowledge; accordingly, since “meeting” is the most frequently mentioned in interview data, the researcher obtains the richest information about meeting in this section.
During a meeting, A3a expresses a special situation when members include Chinese managers,
Meeting in Chinese is very interesting. When in a meeting, you may hear two Chinese or above speak at the same time. For example, one person is presenting, but another is also expressing his opinion. The content of what he is saying is not to comment the presenting person, but other idea of him! I feel very noisy at that time. Since I often am the host of a meeting, I always try to curb them; however, this
phenomenon existed until last year. Before everyone’s face, I even asked a question that “didn’t you have class meeting experience during elementary school?” Surprisingly, their answer is absolutely “no!”
For this reason, some of the Taiwanese managers (A3a, A1c, A3c, B1a) prefer private discussion rather than public one, meeting. A3a particularly points out that public occasion couldn’t be used to detailed account of ideas and they usually lack time to discuss; however, private and face-to-face knowledge sharing provides the nonverbal cues and abundant in information (Robbins & Judge, 2006). In addition, because of Chinese’s sense of rejection, Taiwanese supervisors need to spend more patience to prove their accuracy in data and elucidate complete in thoughts.
In the case of attitude toward meeting, “job ethics” becomes an outstanding difference between Taiwanese and Chinese. They conclude the following behavior into “job ethics.” For instance, A1c thinks if he didn’t require Chinese subordinates to prepare for next meeting, they will attend meeting without prepare anything; on the contrary, Taiwanese will automatically prepare documents using in meeting by themselves without reminders from superiors. Also, A3c points out that this situation is caused by their low pay, so he can understand their concept about not doing other things out of their work duty.
Some of managers (A3c & B2b) think meeting is time-consuming, so they will find other person to replace him. B2b further puts a finger on that the function of meeting should be problem-solving; yet A3c thinks the functions of meeting in this company are to “quarrel”
and to “arbitrate.” In other words, to “quarrel” means with regard to “interest”, each division leader fights and debates for their division, even self interest. When the condition becomes complicated and needs someone more powerful to judge or mediate, it is called “arbitrate.”
B2b, B1c, and B2c have a collective idea that “formal affairs need to go through by formal communication.” Therefore, they consider meeting is very essential to company operation.
Informal Knowledge Sharing Situation.
The informal knowledge sharing opportunity is also common in both local companies
and China-based Taiwanese companies. Most of managers in two regions have meal after work with subordinates and employees, and they agree that it facilitates their management.
Among them, some (A1a, A3a, B1a, A2b, B2b) indicates that some Chinese employees convey information through a third person since it is improper to discuss in public or formally.
Consistent with Schall (1983), two forms of rules, thematic and tactical rules, constitute the knowledge sharing process: tactical rules “prescribe specific behaviors that are subsumed under a more general thematic rule” (Schall, 1983, p. 562), and thematic rules are more general representations of appropriate behaviors (Schall, 1983). Tactical rules seem to refer to this kind behavior, pass some message by the third person to be a “cushion” between information sender and receiver (Van de Ven, 1992; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).
One Chinese manager (A2b) mentions that he manages by walking around and intentionally building good relationship with the first-line managers to know the on-site situation and problems, so the most used informal communication is direct communication at the work place. Since almost all Chinese workers are from different provinces, case company
One Chinese manager (A2b) mentions that he manages by walking around and intentionally building good relationship with the first-line managers to know the on-site situation and problems, so the most used informal communication is direct communication at the work place. Since almost all Chinese workers are from different provinces, case company