Conclusions of Descriptive Statistics
Based on the descriptive statistics the following conclusions were drawn:
Key Success Factors of KM
The obvious factors on key success factors of KM. Organization takes learning as means of improve performance and basic core value (K4) with a mean response of 3.75. This means organizations need to tell employee that learning can help them improve performance. The other factor is organization core knowledge almost exists on individual employee, and employee’s experience as well as knowledge is important for organization’s competitiveness (K8) with a mean response of 3.70. This means organization’s core knowledge is exists on different employee, so organization need to give them different training with different knowledge and help them to integrate knowledge into KM system.
Trust
The obvious factor on trust is our organization members are generally trustworthy (T1) with means of 3.60. This means employee need to trust each other when they execute KM. So that they can ensure the process of KM can go on smoothly.
Authentic Leadership
The obvious factor on trust is managers support subordinate make decision by their value (A1) with means of 3.56. This means when subordinate make any decision manager can give opinions for them and help them to complete the task by their core value.
Resource Integration
The obvious factor on trust is (Our organization) can improve performance and customer’s satisfaction (R3) with means of 3.62. This means through integrate necessary resource organization can improve their performance and fulfill customer’s satisfaction at the same time.
78
KM Process Effectiveness
The obvious factor on KM process effectiveness is (Our organization) hold training program to disseminate knowledge (P11) with means of 3.81. This means when organization executing KM, holding training program is very important means to disseminate knowledge. The other obvious factor is organization encourage employee apply new knowledge into the work (P14) with means of 3.74. This means company encourage employee to apply new knowledge into their work, therefore holding training program is useful for employee to transfer learning into work.
Knowledge Sharing
The obvious factor on trust is organization use on the job training to sharing the knowledge (S2) with means of 3.62. This means on the job training is very useful to spread knowledge with others. Through on the job training, mentor can share their knowledge to mentee so that individual’s knowledge can share to each other and save in organization’s KM system.
Knowledge Compatibility
The obvious factor on trust is organization using KMS was consensus about organizational specific objectives (C3) with means of 3.70. This means members of organization all know that using KMS is very useful to complete specific task and it’s really helpful.
Therefore, using KMS to complete objectives is consensus.
Conclusions of Multiple Regression Results
This study adopted multiple regression analysis (backward elimination) to evaluate the impact the knowledge management system influence on commercial banks’ performance (market leadership and financial performance) and reached five six conclusions.
Firstly, most of the questions are proved to have positive influence on commercial bank’s performance. Several positive and significant questions are listed below. For the independent variables whose counts are not that frequent
79
Market Leadership
First, for the leadership dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 10.484) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is resource integration (AF4 with t-value 5.715).
also have positive influence on the market leadership. But, authentic leadership (AF3 with parameter -.067, t-value -1.038) this means when organization execute KM, must focus on authentic leadership if supervisor and subordinate cannot trust each other KM program may be failed. See Table 4.10
Second, for the practice dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 5.650) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is resource integration (AF4 with t-value 1.996) also has positive influence on the market leadership. Besides, KM process effectiveness also has positive influence (AF5 with t-value 4.228). See Table 4.11.
Third, for the culture dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is knowledge compatibility (AF7 with t-value 6.923) also has positive influence on the market leadership. See Table 4.12
Fourth, for the KMS dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 8.462) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is KM process effectiveness (AF5 with t-value 2.797) also has positive influence on the market leadership. Besides, knowledge compatibility (AF7 with t-value 3.580) also has positive influence on the market leadership. However, authentic leadership (AF3 with t-value -1.352) with negative influence on market leadership;
knowledge sharing (AF6 with parameter -0.001. t-value -0.18) also has negative influence on market leadership. This means when organization begin to execute knowledge management, they should put more effort on authentic leadership and improve knowledge sharing system. See Table 4.13
Financial Performance
First, for the leadership dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 11.018) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of
80
commercial banks. The other important factor is resource integration (AF4 with t-value 5.280) also has positive influence on the market leadership. But, authentic leadership (AF3 with parameter -.044, t-value -.076) this means when organization execute KM, must focus on authentic leadership if supervisor and subordinate cannot trust each other KM program may be failed. See Table 4.14
Second, for the practice dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 6.332) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is resource integration (AF4 with t-value 2.334) also has positive influence on the market leadership. Besides, KM process effectiveness also has positive influence (AF5 with t-value 5.280). See Table 4.15.
Third, for the culture dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 8.924) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is knowledge compatibility (AF7 with t-value 7.148) also has positive influence on the market leadership. See Table 4.16
Fourth, for the KMS dimension, the results indicated that key success factors (AF1 with t-value 5.414) is the most important factor that a positive influence on the market leadership of commercial banks. The other important factor is KM process effectiveness (AF5 with t-value 2.797) also has positive influence on the market leadership. Besides, knowledge compatibility (AF7 with t-value 3.580) also has positive influence on the market leadership. However, authentic leadership (AF3 with t-value -1.352) with negative influence on market leadership;
knowledge sharing (AF6 with t-value -0.18) also has negative influence on market leadership.
This means when organization begin to execute knowledge management, they should put more effort on authentic leadership and improve knowledge sharing system.
Conclusions on PLS Results
The data analysis method used in this paper is Partial Least Squares (PLS). PLS is used to analyze simultaneously the interrelationships among all the constructs.
First, for the leadership dimension, the results indicated that key success factors of KM (parameter 0.872, t-value 10.484), trust (parameter 0.832, t-value 4.424), authentic leadership (parameter 0.820, t-value 3.115) and resource integration (parameter 0.851, t-value 22.656) has positive influence on organizational performance (market leadership with parameter 0.952,
t-81
value 17.122; financial performance with parameter 0.955 , t-value 13.937) . This means leadership dimension have positive effect on organizational performance including market leadership and financial performance.
Second, for the practice dimension, the results indicated that key success factors of KM (parameter 0.852, t-value 7.403), resource integration (parameter 0.867, t-value 13.845), KM process effectiveness (parameter 0.891, t-value 14.281) and knowledge sharing (parameter 0.826, t-value 9.592) has positive influence on organizational performance (market leadership with parameter 0.954, t-value 18.402; financial performance with parameter 0.953 , t-value 21.910) . This means practice dimension have positive effect on organizational performance including market leadership and financial performance.
Third, for the culture dimension, the results indicated that key success factors of KM (parameter 0.859, t-value 5.988), trust (parameter 0.796, t-value 5.465), knowledge sharing (parameter 0.823, t-value 8.126) and knowledge compatibility (parameter 0.857, t-value 12.315) has positive influence on organizational performance (market leadership with parameter 0.952, t-value 32.967; financial performance with parameter 0.954, t-t-value 8.272). This means leadership dimension have positive effect on organizational performance including market leadership and financial performance.
From this result, we can know that knowledge system influence is a group which including leadership, practice and culture. They influence others in a same time. Researcher thinks that this model is better to use PLS method instead of OLS method. Only use PLS method we can know their relationship with each other.
Recommendations for Company
From PLS and OLD findings, we can infer that KMS is really important for company to execute knowledge management then raise their performance. Among KMS dimensions, the most important dimension is KM process effectiveness. If company can ensure the process of KM goes stable, then it will generate positive effectiveness. Besides, resource integration and knowledge compatibility are also important. Before execute knowledge management, the supervisor should integrate and allocate resource including both internal and external. At the same time, supervisor should let employee know that company use KM system is for them to complete specific task and that is consensus for every employee. However, the company should
82
improve authentic leadership and trust. From the finding, we can know that most employee can’t trust their supervisor. They think supervisor is not worthy to trust, and supervisor can’t support them when they are need supervisor’s help. Another part is that employee thinks their supervisor is not authentic, employee think supervisor can’t support and encourage them to complete specific task. Therefore, if organization wants to improve their performance they need to focus on supervisor’s authentic leadership and make good relationship between employee and supervisor to trust each other.
Recommendations for Future Research
The contribution of the study lies in assessing the relationship among knowledge management systems and their influence on organizational performance (financial performance and market leadership) of commercial banks in Taiwan. However, different research participants, different research questions and methods may produce varying patterns of engagement that may add or deviate from the results of this study.
Although the many researches on knowledge management, there is very little research focusing on the commercial banks. As a result if researchers interested in pursuing even stronger understanding of knowledge management system in Taiwan may want to investigate different industry, use other methods, or discuss different issues.
83
REFERENCES
Aaker, D., & Day, G. (1986). Marketing Research. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Alvi, M., & Leinder, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management system: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge is organizations: An
integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 71-582.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951-968.
Beckett, A. J., Wainwright, C.E., & Bance, D. (2000). Knowledge management: Strategy or software? Management Decision, 38 (9), 601-606.
Bennett, J., & O’Brine, M. J. (1994). The buildings blocks of the learning organization training.
Training, 31(6), 41-44.
Bettinger, C. (1989). The effects of organizational change on employee psychological attachment:
An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(2), 126-147.
Bhatt, G. D. (2000). Organization knowledge in the knowledge development cycle. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 15-26.
Bock, G. (2001). Determinants of the Individual’s Knowledge Sharing Behavior in the Organization: The Theory of Reasoned Action Perspective (Doctoral dissertation, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology).
Bonora, E. A., & Revang, O. (1991). A strategic framework for analyze professional service firms development strategies for sustained performance. Strategic Management Society Inter Organizational Conference. Toronto, Canada.
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models.
Management Decisions, 36(2), 63-76.
Bontis, N., Crossan, M., & Hulland, J. (2002). Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39(4), 437-469.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. NY: Haper & Row.
Breman, H., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 439-462.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: SAGE.
Cabrita, M. D. R., & Bontis, N. (2008). Intellectual capitals and business performance in the Portuguese banking industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 43(3), 212-237.
Cameron, K. S. (1985). Culture congruence strength and type: Relationship to effective. Beyond Rational Management, 5(1), 142-143.
Chan, L., & Sultan, F. (2000). The adoption of new technology: The case of object-oriented computing in software companies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(1), 106-126.
Chatman, J., & Jehn, K. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 522-553.
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An Integrative Theory of Leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
84
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities:
An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1872-1888.
Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2002). Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation process. Expert System with Applications, 23(3), 173-187.
Choi, B. (2002). Knowledge management enablers, processes and organizational performance:
An integration and empirical examination (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Korea.
Choi, B., & Jong, A. M. (2006). An examination of KM strategies and the organizational performance of the firm: Based on the event study methodology. Proceeding of the International Conference on Knowledge Management in Asia Pacific.
Covey, S. (1992). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Curado, C. (2008). Perception of knowledge management and intellectual capital in the banking industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 12(3), 141-115.
Dampour, F., & Wischenvsky, D. J. (2006). Research on innovations: Distinguishing innovative generating from innovation adopting organizations. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, 23(4), 269-291.
Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organization manage what they know. Boston: The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Daft, R., & Marcic, D. (2001). Understanding management. USA: Harcourt College.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate culture: The rite and rituals of corporate life.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge management. Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
De long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4), 113-127.
Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 5-22.
Elenkov, D. S. (2002). Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian companies. Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 467-480.
Fred, F. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation: How your company's culture can make or break your business. London: Harper Business.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.
Gordon, G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 29(6), 783-798.
Grant, R. (1996). Prospering in a dynamically-competitive environment: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387.
Grey, R. J., & Gelfond, P. A. (1990). The people side of productivity: Responding to changing employee values. National Productivity Review, 9, 301-312.
85
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 461-473.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black,W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey:Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206.
Harem, T., & Krogh, G. V., & Roos, J. (1996). Knowledge- based strategic change. London:
SAGE Publications.
Harish, S., Barton, A. W., & Nirmalya, K. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 39-52.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity handbook of positive psychology. London: Oxford University.
Hedrinks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 6(2), 91-100.
Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(2), 243-269.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy and outcome expectation.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 153-169.
Hulpic, V., Pouloudi, A., & Rzevski, G. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to knowledge management: Hard, soft, and abstract issues. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(2), 90-102.
Huang, L. S. (2006). Transformational leadership has effect on organizational performance: the organizational culture as an intermediary variable (Unpublished master's thesis). National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Javidon, M. (1998). Core competencies: What does it mean in practice? Long Range Planning, 13(1), 60-71.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balance scorecard-measures that drive performance.
Harvard Business Review, 71-79.
Karahanna, E., Agarwal, R., & Angst, C. M. (2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility belief in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 791-804.
Kono, T. (1990). Corporate culture and long-range planning. Long Range Planning, 23(4), 9-19.
Laurie, J. (1997). Harnessing the power intellectual capital. Training and Development, 43, 37-40.
Leonard, B. D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lin, D. C. (2003). Knowledge management. Taipei: Best-Wise.
Locke, E. A. (1991). Problems with goal-setting research in sports and their solutions. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 311-316.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
86
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust
measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
Miller, D., & Shamise, J. (1996). The resourced based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood film studio from 1936-1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519-543.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information System Research, 2(3), 192-222.
Narayana, V. K., & Nath, R. (1993). Organization theory: A strategic approach. Boston:
Homewood.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
O'Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673-690.
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2000). Leadership style, organizational culture and performance:
Empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resources Management, 11(4), 766-788.
O’Reilly, M., Wathey, D., & Gelber, M. (2000). Effective mechanism to environmental performance evaluation. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 1(3), 267-275.
Pace, R.W., Regan, L., Miller, P., & Dunn, L. (1998). Natural growth goals and short-term training: A boomerang effect. International Journal of Training and Development, 2(2), 128-140.
Reimann, B. C., & Weiner, Y. (1988). Corporate culture: Avoiding the elitist trap. Business Horizons, 31(2), 36-44.
Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. San Francisco: Jossey-bass.
Robbins, S. P. (1996). Essentials of organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12(4), 429-43.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Ruekert, R. W., Walker, O. C., & Roering, K. J. (1985). The organization of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing, 49, 13-25.
Scarborough, H. (2003). Knowledge management, HRM and the innovation process.
International Journal of Manpower, 24(5), 501-516.
Schein, E. H. (1985). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 13-28.
Schulz, M. (2001).The uncertain relevance of newness: Organization learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1997). Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 15(6), 11-12.
Seeto, D. H. (1998). Determine management’s position. Taipei: Common Wealth.
Siehl, C., & Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance? CA:
Jossey-Bass.
87
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What's your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395-417.
Stambaugh, D. M. (1995). Creating the learning organization - an essential ingredient for attaining customer loyalty. CPCU Journal, 48(1), 35-49.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of the literature. New York: Free Press.
Tan, M. (1994). Establishing mutual understanding in systems design: An empirical study.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(4), 159-182.
Teece, D. P., & Schuen, A. (1998). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The tr ansformational leader. New York: John Wiley.
Tiwana, A. (2002). The knowledge management toolkit: Orchestrating IT, strategy, and knowledge platforms. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Van der Spek, R., & Spijkervet, A. (1997). Knowledge management: Dealing intelligently with knowledge, knowledge management and its integrative elements. New York: CRC Press.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and Development Journal, 37(2) , 29-36.
Walumba, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory - based measure. Management Department Faculty Publications, 34(1), 89-126.
Wang, X. (2001). Dimensions and current status of project management culture. Project Management Journal, 32(4), 4-17.
Wiig, K., Hoog, R., & Spek, R. (1997). Supporting knowledge management: A selection of methods and techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 15-27.
Wiig, K., Hoog, R., & Spek, R. (1997). Supporting knowledge management: A selection of methods and techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 15-27.