CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Measuring the Effect of Trust, Organizational Learning on Taiw

The last chapter will be divided into three parts. In the beginning, the research conclusions were provided. Thus, recommendations for ICT industry were proposed, which is followed by recommendations for future research were provided.

Research Conclusions

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationships between trust, organizational learning, innovation, successful factors towards innovation, and business performance in the ICT industry. The research gathered employees in the H Multinational Corporation and total 70 questionnaires were analyse with PLS method. A TSLIP model has been established to offer insights for the various variables and their relationships. The result showed that there is causal effect between independent variables and dependent variables. From this, some implications are concluded as follows.

First, literatures stated that trust can help innovation to develop (Hurley & Hult, 1998;

Landry, Amara, and Lamari, 2002; Panayides & Venus Lun, 2009). Although trust doesn’t have any impact on innovation, the results of this study showed that trust has a significant and positive impact on organizational learning, and organizational learning has a significant and positive impact on innovation. Therefore, in this study, it found that trust indeed helped innovation, however, trust didn’t help innovation in a direct way. In fact, trust helped innovation in an indirect way. Within the PLS findings, the trust become the key factor that affects organizational learning, innovation, and business performance. This implies that the more trust an organization has, it can lead to the higher performance of the organization. In other words, this study suggests that organizations should put their resources to the most important factor, which is trust in order to work more effectively and achieve the goals. In terms of trust dimension, concerning the employee has the highest point. This research confirmed the literature findings that trust helped members in organization would leave their traditional comfort zones and accept their new roles and responsibility (Fawcett, Magnan, &

Williams, 2004). This implied that the meaning of trust has shifted to concern the employees.

It’s acceptable that managers’ attentions and cares helped organizational employees to be more active and more responsible.

Second, organizational learning has a positive and significant impact on innovation. The study supported that organizational learning is an important issue for organizations to keep its’

competitive advantages and it can making organizations to be more flexible and faster in the

innovation process (Brockman & Morgan, 2003; Dodgson, 1993b; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995b). Within the PLS finding, it found that openness and experimentation played an important role in organizational learning. It suggested that organizations should give more authorities to their employees to have more flexible space and time to learn. Besides, it also suggested that managers should be open-mind to their employees. Besides, employees can be more productive and more willing to learn something new. Therefore, the H Multinational Corporation focus their efforts on making organizations have a culture with openness and experimentation.

Third, successful factors towards innovation has a positive and significant impact on innovation. This study also intends to further develop the innovation model by integrating the concept of successful factors to become more innovative. It relates to the knowledge management literature. Within successful factor towards innovation, human-related factors have the highest point. This also means that the ICT industry more focus on recruit potential talent and train those potential talent. This may suit the concept that human is the most important to technology industry; therefore, it’s important for the companies to hire the right talent. Besides, it’s also essential for companies to consider how to do the knowledge management in order to make employees to transfer their knowledge and integrate their knowledge easily and fast.

Fourth, innovation has a positive and significant impact on business performance.

The study intends to explore the relations between innovation and organizational performance. It supported previous literature by Tushman, Anderson, & O’Reilly (1997) that innovation is important for organizations to increase economic growth. It also supported previous literature by Damanpour & Gopalakrishnan (2001) that organization can help the organizations produce better products or make better service. In the innovation, organizational innovation played an important role. This implied that in the ICT industry, the way organization doing the communication and redesign the organizational culture and structure.

The result findings showed that the study accepted that there are causal effects between independent variables and dependent variables. It indicated that indeed trust can help innovation which can improve organizational performance. By having strong innovation, the H Multinational Corporate can have better business performance, therefore help the organization to be more competitive, and the organization can become the top one in the ICT market of Taiwan.

Research Recommendations

The findings can help the organization to form the best strategies to enhance their innovation by emphasizing the strong points and improve the weak points. The ICT industry needs to focus on providing adequate resource for trust. Some suggestions are proposed as below.

In regards to trust factor, the ICT industry needs to focus more on concerning for employees. The ICT industry may help to enable the organizations to have a culture which managers can concern their employees. Concerning for employees is necessary for employees to leave their comfortable zone and willing to be more responsible for their work. Therefore, managers should not only pay attention on their task, but also pay attention on employees.

In regards to organizational leaning factor, the ICT industry needs to focus more on openness and experiment. When ICT industry is trying to build their organizational culture, it’s important to make employees feel more freedom. When the company is full of the culture of tolerance, the employees may feel flexible and happy to learn something new. The ICT may give their employees more authorities. The training system of ICT industry should consider to match employees’ leisure time. Besides, the content of training system should meet employees’ needs and the content should be easy to learn. As a result, the employees may be more active to learn new skills and help organizations to be more competitive.

In regards to successful factors towards innovation, the ICT industry needs to focus on human-related factors. The company should focus on the recruitment and training. It’s important for the companies to considerate what kind of talent they really need, and what kind of talent can get promote. Besides, it’s essential for companies to think about how to expand their talent-pole and attract the talent to join the companies by the appropriate vision.

Therefore, the ICT industry should focus on its’ strategy to attract talent and stay talent in order to be more competitive.

In regards to innovation, the ICT industry needs to focus on organizational innovation.

Even though organizational innovation is the most important factor in the innovation dimension, process innovation and technology innovation are also important factors in this research. Therefore, this research suggested that the ICT industry should put enough attention to three kinds of innovation.

In regards to business performance, it is important for the ICT industry to focus on the partnership performance. Partnership performance includes the how employees work with its’

alliances and keep the commitments to each other. Collaboration is necessary nowadays. It’s

important to put the right person in the right position, therefore, each company should understand how to develop its’ own competitive advantage, and how to use its’ own competitive advantage to win in the market. For the H Multinational Corporation, they should know how to keep their core technology and outsource the unimportant part to their alliances.

Recommendations for Future Research

Some recommendations were provided for further studies. First, since this study only conducted in one Taiwan ICT industry, therefore, the TSLIP model and the questionnaires can be replicated to another company not only bound to ICT industry but can also be performed for other organizations, and also to another country.

Second, the result of this study showed R² of the business performance variable was only 43%. The possible reason why this variable is so low may be there are other variables beside innovation that affect business performance as whole, probably such as management, the advertisements and so on. Therefore, it is suggested for future studies to extend the model in order to improve the value of business performance.

Third, this study adopted quantitative approach with PLS statistical method to test the framework. In the further study, it is encouraged to employ qualitative study in order to get in-depth information in regards of teamwork. If quantitative approach is chosen still, it is encouraged to try new statistical procedures by using different tool.

Reference

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.

Afuah, A. (2003). Innovation management: Strategies, implementation and profits (2nd ed.).

Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.

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.

Arthur, J. B., & Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve:

Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159-1170.

Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation: delving into the organization's black box. Journal of Market-focused Management, 5(1), 5-23.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R. M. (2003). The role of existing knowledge in new product innovativeness and performance. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 385-419.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995a). Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.

Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995b). Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.

Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560.

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., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (2001). The dynamics of the adoption of product and process innovations in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 45-65.

Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555-590.

Darroch, J., & McNaughton, R. (2002). Examining the link between knowledge management practices and types of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3(3), 210-222.

Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101-115.

Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. The Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37-52.

Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge Management. Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Limited.

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.

Dodgson, M. (1993a). Learning, trust, and technological collaboration. Human Relations, 46(1), 77-95.

Dodgson, M. (1993b). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394.

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, 58(7), 883-892.

Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., & Williams, A.J. (2004). Supply chain: Trust is within your grasp. Supply Chain Management Review, 8(2), 20-26.

Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 668.

Friel, C. M. (2010). Note on factor analysis. Retrieved from http://www.bama.ua.edu/~

jcsenkbeil/gy523/Factor%20Analysis.pdf

Gloet, M., & Terziovski, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between knowledge management practices and innovation performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(5), 402-409.

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152.

Hair, J. F., Tatham, R., & Anderson, R. E. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Academic

Internet Publ. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ZWrWAAAACAAJ.

Hertzog, C., von Oertzen, T., Ghisletta, P., & Lindenberger, U. (2008). Evaluating the power of latent growth curve models to detect individual differences in change. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(4), 541-563.

Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1084-1119.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.

Howard, G. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self ‐ reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 399-404.

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.

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.

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.

Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54.

Jerez-Gomez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2005). Organizational learning capability: A proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 715-725.

Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-417.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research (3rd edition.). New York, NY:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston,

Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251-1288.

Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2002). Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent?. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 681-701.

Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.

Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332.

Madhavan, R., & Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge:

new product development as knowledge management. The Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 1-12.

Mann, P. S. (1995). Introductory statistics (2nd Edition.). USA: John Wiley & Sons.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Meeus, M. T., Oerlemans, L. A., & Hage, J. (2001). Sectoral patterns of interactive learning:

an empirical exploration of a case in a Dutch region. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(3), 407-431.

Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (2003). Organizational strategy, structure, and process.

California , USA: Stanford University Press.

Mone, M. A., McKinley, W., & Barker, V. L. (1998). Organizational decline and innovation:

A contingency framework. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 115-132.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1)81-101.

Neill, J. (2007). Qualitative versus quantitative research: Key points in a classic debate.

Retrieved from www.wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch.

Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

(7th Edition.). UK: Pearson Education, Inc.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2^nd Edition.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Oxley, J. E., & Sampson, R. C. (2004). The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8‐9), 723-749.

Panayides, P. M., & Venus Lun, Y. H. (2009). The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1), 35-46.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation.Boston (MA), 235-256.

Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220.

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.

Shih, C. P., & Gutierrez, J. (2011). Measuring the process innovation competenc of casa pella company in nicaragua (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.

Shih, C. P., & Tseng, D. L. (2009). An econometrics approach to evaluate the successful factors on innovation competency on Microsoft Taiwan-innovation in organization.

(Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.

Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R. (2003). Measuring organizational trust:

Cross-cultural survey and index. IABC Research Foundation. Retrieved from http:

//store. yahoo. com/iabcstore/measortrus.

Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Innovation orientation outcomes: The good and the bad. Journal of Business Research, 59(10), 1133-1141.

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self‐report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385-392.

Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450-463.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.

Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533

Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.

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. Retrieved from

http://www.uccs.edu/~mberanek/buad661/R-1.pdf

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.

Vrakking, W. J. (1990). The innovative organization. Long Range Planning, 23(2), 94-102.

Williams, F., & Monge, P. R. (2001). Reasoning With Statistics: How to Read Quantitative Research (5th Edition). New York, NY: Harcourt College Publishers.

Youndt, M. A., Subramaniam, M., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Intellectual Capital Profiles: An Examination of Investments and Returns. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 335-361.

Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141-159.

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, NY: R.E. Krieger Publishing Company.

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH)

Measuring the Effect of Trust, Organizational Learning on Taiwan ICT Company’s Innovation and Business Performance

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for participating this study, I am a graduate student major in International Human Resource Development at the National Taiwan Normal University. This questionnaire will be used to collect data and to analyze

organizational trust, organizational learning, innovation, and business performance for Taiwanese Technologic Industry.

Nowadays, the world turns into a knowledge-based economy. There’s no doubt that resource and competency are essential elements for organizations to develop its’

competitive advantages in order to survive. The innovation plays an important role in developing organizations’ competitive advantages. The innovation becomes a popular issue for global company. In order to investigate the innovation issue, this study wants to use questionnaire to understand the present situation of your company to increase the competitive advantages of your company.

The questionnaire should take you 8-15 minutes to complete. After reviewing each item, please answer it according to your perceptions. Please do not use your name or other recognizable marks to ensure anonymity. It is very important that you respond to each statement. Only then can we include your opinion in the final analysis.

Please feel free to contact me at tasi33.tw@gmail.com, if you have any questions or comments. Or you can contact me by call 0921066703. Thank you very much for your participation!

National Taiwan Normal University Graduate Institute of International Human Resources and Development

Supervising Professor: Dr. Shih-Cheng-ping Graduate Student: Yi-Ping Louis Tsai

73 Part One: Basic Information

1. Gender:

□ Male

□ Female

2. Age:

□ 22-25

□ 26-30

□ 31-35

□ 36-40

□ Above 41

3. Working experiences of the company:

□ Less than 1

□ Higher than 1 but Less than 3

□ Higher than 3 but Less than 6

□ Higher than 6 but Less than 10

□ Higher than 10

4. Educational level:

□ Junior high school diploma

□ High school diploma

□ Bachelor’s degree

□ Master’s degree

□ Ph.D

74 Part Two: Trust

Each section is classified into five levels, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1. I am satisfied to the abilities of company’s employees. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I am satisfied to company’s operational efficiency. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am satisfied to company’s qualities and services of products. 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am satisfied to company’s competence of achieving its’ goals. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Employees can get enough evaluation of their working abilities. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Employees can have opinions to the decisions which is relevant to

在文檔中 Measuring the Effect of Trust, Organizational Learning on Taiwan ICT Company's Innovation and Business Performance (頁 71-98)