Sample data collected was empirically analyzed by applying SPSS 22.0 and SmartPLS 3.0. In addition, this chapter contains three main sections of findings: main study, ICT-industry, and FinTech industry. It explains correlation analysis, provides reliability and validity analysis results for main study; also the assessment of the path coefficients of structural model, and regression analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) for the comparison of the three sections by SmartPLS.
Correlations Analysis
Pearson coefficient correlation as demonstrated in Table 5.1 was performed to examine the direction and the strength of linear relationship between variables. According to the result, transformational leadership, trust, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, innovation, and organizational performance are significantly correlated. The result also indicates that the relationships between measurements are positively related to their dimensions.
According to Kennedy (1989) to test hypothesis, correlation analysis is also used to test whether multicollinearity problem exists in the model, and the correlation value needs to be below .75 or else it is considered as problematic. The correlation table by SmartPLS was settled by maximum iterations of 300, showing that there is no value greater than .75, so that it can be assumed that multicollinearity seldom exists in the model. The data has been confirmed by factor analysis, therefore data can be used and the value of regression can be accepted, given that multicollinearity does not reduce the predictive power or reliability of a model as a whole, which only affects the calculations regarding individual predictors (Khalaf, Manson, & Shukur, 2013).
Table 5.1.
Correlation Analysis by PLS Algorithm (Main Study, N=196)
TFL-IS TFL-IM TFL-IIB TFL-IIA TFL-IC T-R T-OH T-ID T-CE T-C OP-IN OP-FP OP-CS OC-MC OC-HC OC-CC OC-AC KS-O KS-M KS-A I-TI I-PI I-OI TFL-IS 1.000
TFL-IM .689 1.000 TFL-IIB .655 .675 1.000 TFL-IIA .713 .689 .674 1.000 TFL-IC .642 .567 .592 .605 1.000 T-R .602 .607 .559 .689 .630 1.000 T-OH .430 .390 .388 .403 .467 .522 1.000 T-ID .645 .670 .628 .667 .640 .685 .545 1.000 T-CE .568 .464 .474 .518 .526 .690 .582 .593 1.000 T-C .353 .335 .335 .260 .383 .440 .499 .454 .464 1.000 OP-IN .343 .280 .296 .290 .326 .416 .212 .360 .353 .531 1.000 OP-FP .310 .218 .277 .261 .369 .276 .292 .301 .192 .475 .511 1.000 OP-CS .382 .390 .408 .293 .396 .481 .413 .425 .387 .582 .533 .512 1.000
(Continued)
Table 5.1. (Continued)
TFL-IS TFL-IM TFL-IIB TFL-IIA TFL-IC T-R T-OH T-ID T-CE T-C OP-IN OP-FP OP-CS OC-MC OC-HC OC-CC OC-AC KS-O KS-M KS-A I-TI I-PI I-OI OC-MC .388 .308 .327 .345 .362 .317 .325 .288 .282 .501 .533 .480 .501 1.000
OC-HC .378 .252 .302 .319 .323 .323 .300 .335 .297 .553 .596 .566 .568 .651 1.000 OC-CC .496 .463 .473 .397 .509 .555 .585 .574 .566 .647 .461 .380 .554 .551 .530 1.000 OC-AC .428 .431 .411 .387 .468 .523 .521 .542 .538 .665 .481 .462 .561 .593 .557 .691 1.000 KS-O .335 .293 .279 .236 .353 .394 .451 .404 .383 .588 .531 .505 .447 .414 .512 .560 .602 1.000 KS-M .343 .335 .321 .206 .384 .306 .461 .428 .266 .446 .337 .346 .411 .387 .379 .405 .411 .382 1.000 KS-A .095 .094 .133 .047 .093 .040 .158 .052 .010 .164 .194 .373 .231 .274 .250 .083 .158 .254 .372 1.000 I-TI .332 .324 .272 .228 .379 .345 .385 .404 .359 .532 .543 .500 .526 .539 .511 .539 .631 .565 .461 .216 1.000 I-PI .422 .397 .359 .306 .422 .400 .429 .466 .420 .595 .597 .463 .578 .528 .513 .559 .655 .613 .551 .246 .746 1.000 I-OI .389 .389 .350 .278 .402 .419 .474 .465 .413 .621 .617 .516 .578 .481 .538 .596 .666 .653 .555 .237 .707 .737 1.000
Validity and Reliability Analysis
The progress of reliability and validity analysis for the entire sample (n=196) are the same as the pilot study. In regard to validation test, KMO and Bartlett’s test for Sphericity values are examined, which values above .70 indicate that factor analysis is appropriate. For Bartlett’s test for Sphericity, the smaller p-value attained, the less likely that correlation between variables happened by chance. Table 5.2 explains the results of KMO and Bartlett’s test for Sphericity which provides the minimum requirements to conduct factor analysis.
Table 5.2.
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Main Study, N=196)
Constructs Number of
Items KMO Variance
Explained
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
TFL 18 .897 76.32% 701.641***
T 18 .850 69.57% 558.794***
OC 23 .780 75.73% 480.080***
KS 10 .619 59.76% 90.291***
I 12 .760 85.45% 406.535***
OP 9 .714 72.38% 191.423***
Note. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS= Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Considering reliability test, Cronbach’s Alpha was performed in Table 5.3, which each value should be higher than .70. Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 presents knowledge sharing showing not too low than standard, the results in pilot study own high level of internal consistency and reliability, and loadings below .4 were previously deleted, thus the results can still be accepted.
Table 5.3.
Reliability Test (Main Study, N=196)
Constructs Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Transformational Leadership 18 .921
Trust 18 .890
Organizational Culture 23 .892
Knowledge Sharing 10 .621
Innovation 12 .912
Organizational Performance 9 .803
Partial Least Square (PLS) Analysis
The SmartPLS model is analyzed and interpreted into two stages: the assessment of reliability and validity of the measurement model, and the assessment of the path coefficients of structural model of the main study. Based on pilot study and results of main study, the second and third section present consequences of ICT and FinTech industry for comparison and further investigation.
Validity and Reliability
In order to observe convergent validity, composite reliability and average variance extracted were examined. Considering composite reliability, a minimum value of .70 is recommended, showing composite reliability values exceed the threshold value, as can be seen in Table 5.4.
Average variance extracted (AVE) determines the variance obtained by the indicators that are relevant to the measurement error, and a value of .50 to be exceeded is suggested by Hair et al (2011), which every AVE value has passed in this study.
Table 5.4.
Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis by PLS (Main Study, N=196)
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Table 5.5.
PLS Loadings (Main Study, N=196)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings
Note. 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; T-C= Trust-Competence; T-OH= Trust-Openness and Honesty; T-CE=
Trust-Concern for Employee; T-R= Trust-Reliability; T-ID= Trust-Identification; OC-CC=
Organizational Culture-Clan Culture; OC-AC= Organizational Culture-Adhocracy Culture;
OC-MC= Organizational Culture-Market Culture; OC-HC= Organizational
Culture-Hierarchy Culture; KS-M= Knowledge Sharing-Motivation; KS-O= Knowledge Constructs Number of
Sharing-Opportunity; KS-A= Knowledge Sharing-Ability; I-PI= Innovation-Process Innovation; I-TI= Innovation-Technical Innovation; I-OI= Innovation-Organizational Innovation; OP-IN= Organizational Performance-Innovativeness; OP-FP= Organizational Performance-Financial Performance; OP-CS= Organizational Performance-Customer Satisfaction.
Individual item reliabilities are calculated by examining the loadings in Table 5.5.
Loadings above .4 will be remained according to Kerlinger (1986), and since items with loadings below .4 were dropped after pilot study, all of the loadings are greater than the threshold value in main study.
Testing Measurement Model
The structural equation modeling was measured by calculating path coefficients by using Partial Least Square (PLS) tools. Path coefficients and their respective t-values were examined to reach the effects between variables, and Hair et al (2011) indicated that individual path coefficients in the PLS structural model can be interpreted as the standardized beta coefficient in ordinary regressions. Moreover, bootstrapping procedure in PLS can be applied to determine each value of the path coefficients significance for the proposed model.
A bootstrapping procedure using 20 random resampling of the original data was applied to evaluate the t-value which represents the significance of path coefficients.
The results of the multivariate test of the structural model are presented in Table 5.6 and a more organized structure of these results is presented in Figure 5.1. The structural model as whole explains 57%, 31%, 45%, 58%, and 56% of the variance in trust, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, innovation, and organizational performance respectively, refers to Table 5.6. The results show moderate percentage of variance in which all the independent variables enable to explain the dependent variables. In other words, as for R2 relevance, transformational leadership can explain 57% of trust and 31% of organizational culture; trust and organizational culture can explain 45% of knowledge sharing and both can explain 58%
of innovation as well; 56% of organizational performance can be explained by knowledge sharing and innovation, which the entire numbers can be considered as competent to perceive the relevance in the model.
The result of PLS testing in Table 5.6 also proves that all path coefficients for variables are significant. Giving an overview of the magnitude and direction of effects, the results were considered as meaningful on the basis of guidelines provided by Chin (1998) consequently.
Considering that path coefficients and t-value in the entire hypotheses, the results showed that there is a positive significant effect between transformational leadership and trust (ß= .753, t=
23.033, p< .001), thus null hypothesis 1 is rejected; transformational leadership also has positive effect on organizational culture (ß= .555, t=11.717, p< .001), proving that null hypothesis 2 is rejected; trust shows positive effect on knowledge sharing (ß= .241, t=2.748, p< .001), therefore null hypothesis 3 is rejected; trust presents positive effect on innovation (ß= .187, t=2.638, p< .001), verifying null hypothesis 4 is rejected; organizational culture performs positive effect on knowledge sharing (ß= .481, t=5.411, p< .001), indicating null hypothesis 5 is rejected; organizational culture proves that there is positive effect on innovation (ß= .618, t=7.847, p< .001), hence null hypothesis 6 is rejected; knowledge sharing has positive effect on organizational performance (ß= .220, t=2.337, p< .01), presenting that null hypothesis 7 is rejected; and innovation also has positive effect on organizational performance (ß= .574, t=6.212, p< .001), explaining that null hypothesis 8 is rejected. The results confirm all of them have positive statistically significant influences that are competent to reject the entire null hypotheses, which is shown in Table 5.7 that summarizes the research results.
Table 5.6.
PLS Path Analysis Results (Main Study, N=196)
Note. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Table 5.7.
Research Hypotheses Results
Null Hypotheses Outcome
H1 Transformational Leadership (TFL) has no effect on Trust (T). Rejected H2 Transformational Leadership (TFL) has no effect on Organizational Culture
(OC).
Rejected H3 Trust (T) has no effect on Knowledge Sharing (KS). Rejected
H4 Trust (T) has no effect on Innovation (I). Rejected
H5 Organizational Culture (OC) has no effect on Knowledge Sharing (KS). Rejected H6 Organizational Culture (OC) has no effect on Innovation (I). Rejected H7 Knowledge Sharing (KS) has no effect on Organizational Performance (OP). Rejected H8 Innovation (I) has no effect on Organizational Performance (OP). Rejected
Path Hypothesis β-path Adj.
t-value Sig. Direction Null Hypotheses
TFL T H1 .753 23.033 *** + Rejected
TFL OC H2 .555 11.717 *** + Rejected
T KS H3 .241 2.748 *** + Rejected
T I H4 .187 2.638 *** + Rejected
OC KS H5 .481 5.411 *** + Rejected
OC I H6 .618 7.847 *** + Rejected
KS OP H7 .220 2.337 ** + Rejected
I OP H8 .574 6.212 *** + Rejected
.574*** (6.212) H8
Figure 3 PLS structural model (pilot study, N=41).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Concern for Employee (CE) .824***
(35.243)
Process Innovation (PI) .914*** (59.236) Technical Innovation (TI) .899*** (53.232) Organizational Innovation (OI) .903*** (65.296) Organizational Culture (OC)
R2 = 31%
Clan Culture (CC) .841*** (35.480) Adhocracy Culture (AC) .867*** (47.023) Market Culture (MC) .823*** (18.924) Hierarchy Culture (HC) .806*** (19.354) H1
Figure 5.1. PLS Structural Model (Main study, N=196).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Figure 5.1 demonstrated the results for the structural model, which each dimensions are pointed out to affect one another. Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 present more details to explain the direct and indirect effects as well as the total effect by SmartPLS. Transformational leadership indirectly effects knowledge sharing (.753*.241+.555*.481= .448) and innovation (.753*.187+.555*.618= .484) fairly; trust and organizational culture both has indirect effect on organizational performance, and Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 explains that organizational culture has a more powerful effect (.481*.220+.618*.574= .460); furthermore, there is positive effect of transformational leadership on organizational performance applied indirectly by .376.
Table 5.8.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects by PLS (Main Study, N=196)
Path Equation Influence
TFL T Direct .753
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Table 5.9.
Total Effects According to Research Framework by PLS (Main Study, N=196)
TFL T OP OC KS I
TFL 1.000 .753 .376 .555 .448 .484
T 1.000 .160 .241 .187
OP 1.000
OC .460 1.000 .481 .618
KS .220 1.000
I .574 1.000
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Comparison Study among Main Study, ICT and FinTech Industries
To compare PLS results from pilot study and main study, there are some notable points between the results. Within each variable, the dominant factors between two investigations are different except transformational leadership obtaining the same factor of intellectual stimulation. Therefore, it is important to analyze further to give a whole understanding of the structural model in this study.
It may be explained by the amount of data from different industries and main characteristics collected that cause the phenomenon. Therefore, a more detailed study is completed by separating the data into “ICT industry” and “FinTech industry”; a total of 196 questionnaires from the main study are divided into two parts: 134 (68.4%) questionnaires from ICT industry and 62 (31.6%) from FinTech industry. The data are being analyzed again by PLS method afterwards.
Study of ICT Industry
Table 5.10 shows the result for the PLS loadings, which all of the factors in the dimensions are higher than the suggested threshold of .4 after items dropped in pilot study as in main study. Table 5.11 and Figure 5.2 present the results for PLS path analysis in ICT
Industry. Although the data leads to different amount of results, it still shows that each construct does have a positive and highly significant relationship with another.
Table 5.10.
PLS Loadings (ICT Industry, N=134)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings
TFL-IC .803 OC-CC .837 I-PI .897
TFL-IS .863 OC-AC .838 I-TI .883
TFL-IM .849 OC-MC .804 I-OI .878
TFL-IIA .860 OC-HC .761
TFL-IIB .831 OP-IN .798
KS-M .821 OP-FP .753
T-C .686 KS-O .835 OP-CS .806
T-OH .767 KS-A .565
T-CE .811
T-R .845
T-ID .818
Note. 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; T-C= Trust-Competence; T-OH= Trust-Openness and Honesty; T-CE=
Trust-Concern for Employee; T-R= Trust-Reliability; T-ID= Trust-Identification; OC-CC=
Organizational Culture-Clan Culture; OC-AC= Organizational Culture-Adhocracy Culture;
OC-MC= Organizational Culture-Market Culture; OC-HC= Organizational
Culture-Hierarchy Culture; KS-M= Knowledge Sharing-Motivation; KS-O= Knowledge Sharing-Opportunity; KS-A= Knowledge Sharing-Ability; I-PI= Innovation-Process Innovation; I-TI= Innovation-Technical Innovation; I-OI= Innovation-Organizational Innovation; OP-IN= Organizational Performance-Innovativeness; OP-FP= Organizational Performance-Financial Performance; OP-CS= Organizational Performance-Customer Satisfaction.
Table 5.11.
PLS Path Analysis Result (ICT Industry, N=134)
Note. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Comparing the main study and ICT industry, the significance of knowledge sharing affects organizational performance rises, whereas trust slightly dropped its significance on knowledge sharing and innovation. This indicates that people working in ICT industry agree more about knowledge sharing leading to organizational performance, in contrast, have less perception of the importance in relation of trust affecting knowledge sharing and innovation.
According to Figure 5.2, transformational leadership attains the dominant factor as intellectual stimulation; considering trust, reliability is the most important dominant factor; in terms of organizational culture, adhocracy culture shows its importance as the dominant factor; and customer satisfaction proves its value of dominant factor within organizational performance; all the above show the same as the results in main study. However, knowledge sharing in ICT industry indicates that motivation is more important than opportunity, and process innovation is more valuable than organizational innovation within innovation nowadays.
Path Hypothesis β-path Adj.
t-value Sig. Direction Null Hypotheses
TFL T H1 .755 17.764 *** + Rejected
TFL OC H2 .535 6.332 *** + Rejected
T KS H3 .214 2.219 ** + Rejected
T I H4 .191 2.056 ** + Rejected
OC KS H5 .475 6.100 *** + Rejected
OC I H6 .609 6.970 *** + Rejected
KS OP H7 .340 4.542 *** + Rejected
I OP H8 .470 5.072 *** + Rejected
.475***
(6.100)
.470*** (5.072) H8
Figure 3 PLS structural model (pilot study, N=41).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Concern for Employee (CE) .811***
(23.120)
Process Innovation (PI) .914*** (48.533) Technical Innovation (TI) .899*** (40.829) Organizational Innovation (OI) .903*** (31.410) Organizational Culture (OC)
R2 = 29%
Clan Culture (CC) .837*** (27.265) Adhocracy Culture (AC) .838*** (43.124) Market Culture (MC) .804*** (15.304) Hierarchy Culture (HC) .761*** (13.591)
.340** (4.542)
Figure 5.2. PLS Structural Model (ICT Industry, N=134).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Table 5.12.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects by PLS (ICT Industry, N=134)
Path Equation Influence
TFL T Direct .755
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Table 5.13.
Total Effects According to Research Framework by PLS (ICT Industry, N=134)
TFL T OP OC KS I
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Direct and indirect effects by PLS shown in Table 5.12 and completely in Table 5.13 presents likely the same as in main study.
Study of FinTech Industry
Table 5.14 performs the result for the PLS loadings, which all of the factors in the dimensions are higher than .4 after items dropped in pilot study as in main study. Table 5.15 and Figure 5.3 present the results for PLS path analysis in ICT Industry. Knowledge sharing has a similar significance on organizational performance with main study but lower than ICT industry. Comparing to ICT industry, the significance of trust affecting knowledge sharing and innovation are slightly lower as well. Nevertheless, the results still indicate that each construct has a positive and highly significant relationship with another.
Table 5.14.
PLS Loadings (FinTech Industry, N=62)
Items Loadings Items Loadings Items Loadings
TFL-IC .817 OC-CC .838 I-PI .938
Note. 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; T-C= Trust-Competence; T-OH= Trust-Openness and Honesty; T-CE=
Trust-Concern for Employee; T-R= Trust-Reliability; T-ID= Trust-Identification; OC-CC=
Organizational Culture-Clan Culture; OC-AC= Organizational Culture-Adhocracy Culture;
OC-MC= Organizational Culture-Market Culture; OC-HC= Organizational
Culture-Hierarchy Culture; KS-M= Knowledge Sharing-Motivation; KS-O= Knowledge Sharing-Opportunity; KS-A= Knowledge Sharing-Ability; I-PI= Innovation-Process
Innovation; I-TI= Innovation-Technical Innovation; I-OI= Innovation-Organizational Innovation; OP-IN= Organizational Performance-Innovativeness; OP-FP= Organizational Performance-Financial Performance; OP-CS= Organizational Performance-Customer Satisfaction.
Table 5.15.
PLS Path Analysis Result (FinTech Industry, N=62)
Note. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
In relation of different dominant factors of each dimension comparing to main study, identification is more important than reliability in trust; motivation is more vital than opportunity in knowledge sharing; within organizational performance, financial performance is the dominant factor rather than customer satisfaction according to Figure 5.3. Table 5.14 and Table 5.15 presents likely the same as in main study, and shows higher indirect effect of transformational leadership on organizational performance (.410) than main study and ICT industry.
Path Hypothesis β-path Adj.
t-value Sig. Direction Null Hypotheses
TFL T H1 .757 9.367 *** + Rejected
TFL OC H2 .585 4.740 *** + Rejected
T KS H3 .280 1.700 * + Rejected
T I H4 .157 1.652 * + Rejected
OC KS H5 .489 3.733 *** + Rejected
OC I H6 .657 8.081 *** + Rejected
KS OP H7 .187 2.023 ** + Rejected
I OP H8 .630 7.294 *** + Rejected
.489***
Concern for Employee (CE) .843***
(23.423)
Process Innovation (PI) .938*** (33.979) Technical Innovation (TI) .925*** (47.931) Organizational Innovation (OI) .937*** (52.281) Organizational Culture (OC)
R2 = 34%
Clan Culture (CC) .838*** (18.844) Adhocracy Culture (AC) .905*** (31.309) Market Culture (MC) .831*** (11.166) Hierarchy Culture (HC) .870*** (21.479)
.280*
Figure 5.3. PLS Structural Model (Non-ICT Industry, N=62).
Note: * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001 .585***
(4.740)
Table 5.16.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects by PLS (FinTech Industry, N=62)
Path Equation Influence
TFL T Direct .757
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Table 5.17.
Total Effects According to Research Framework by PLS (FinTech Industry, N=62)
TFL T OP OC KS I
Note. TFL= Transformational Leadership; T= Trust; OC= Organizational Culture; KS=
Knowledge Sharing; I= Innovation; OP= Organizational Performance.
Discussion of PLS Findings
The results obtained and presented above several perceptions for this study. First of all, there is a positive and highly significant relationship between each dimension, and the highest path coefficient in the model is between transformational leadership and trust (ß= .753). The dominance of this path in the overall model implies that transformational leadership is the key construct of trust, organizational culture, knowledge sharing, innovation, and organizational performance. According to the result, transformational leadership will make a positive contribution to the other constructs, indicating that the better organizations are led by supervisors, the better teamwork and performance it will show.
Second, in regard to the dominant factor of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation keeps leading as the dominant factor in the three studies above. Idealized influence attributes remains in the second place in both ICT and FinTech industries. This suggests that leading subordinates to do problem solving from different aspects and personal characteristics influence the perception of respondents in both industries.
Third, considering dominant factors of trust, reliability shows its value in main study and ICT industry, while identification is more important in FinTech industry. The trust of believing in supervisors seems more essential to influence employees’ working attitude in ICT industry, but FinTech industry prefer more connection in the organization and same value to colleagues and supervisors.
Fourth, in relation of organizational culture, adhocracy culture is the most noticeable factor of all, pointing out that organization in Taiwan nowadays emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship, innovation, uniqueness and taking risks no matter which industry it is.
Fifth, apart from main study implying the dominant factor to be opportunity provided by organization that influences people, both ICT and FinTech industries assumed that motivation is more important for them to share knowledge.
organizational innovation is more important within innovation construct, ICT industry claims process innovation has a more essential effect. Being in a competitive society nowadays, ICT industry focuses more on adjusting its process while doing innovative development rather than only technical part to win more than other competitors. FinTech industries, on the different aspect, tend to import new ways of management and knowledge, also pay attention to the competence of communication to keep flexibility.
organizational innovation is more important within innovation construct, ICT industry claims process innovation has a more essential effect. Being in a competitive society nowadays, ICT industry focuses more on adjusting its process while doing innovative development rather than only technical part to win more than other competitors. FinTech industries, on the different aspect, tend to import new ways of management and knowledge, also pay attention to the competence of communication to keep flexibility.