There are three sections in this chapter. In the first section, it presents sample characteristics of the respondents of this study. In the second section, it presents descriptive statistics of the result which show the mean and standard deviation of each item. In the third section, it presents the result of validity and reliability test from pilot test which is as well as PLS analysis.
Sample Characteristics
This study was conducted by distributing 80 paper questionnaires to the employees of the H Multinational Corporation. A total of 70 questionnaires were gathered and validated, it presents the response rate of 90%.
The sample characteristics from the respondents are given in Table 4.1, which is divided into categories of gender, age, working experience and educational background. By inspection of table 4.1 in terms of gender, there are higher percentages of male respondents (62%), female respondents are 38%. Respondent whose age were between 36-40 years old are higher percentages in the study (35%), which followed by respondents whose age were above 40 (27%), then respondents within 31-35 years old (23%), below them are respondents within 26-30 years old (15%). Most of respondents’ working experiences are higher than 3 but less than 6 (42%), followed by respondents whose worked higher than 6 but less than 10 (23%), then working experience less than 1 year (19%), below them are higher than 1 but less than 3 (14%), and only 2% of respondents who worked more than 10 years. 70% of respondents have bachelor’s degree, 29% of respondents have master degree, only 1% of respondents have high school degree.
34 Table 4.1
Sample Characteristics Based on Demographic Variables (N=70)
Variable Entries Percentage
Gender Male 44 62%
Female 26 38%
Age 26-30 years old 11 15%
31-35 years old 16 23%
36-40 years old 24 35%
Above 41 19 27%
Working experience
Less than 1 13 19%
Higher than 1 but Less than 3 10 14%
Higher than 3 but Less than 6 29 42%
Higher than 6 but Less than 10 16 23%
Above 10 2 2%
Education High school 1 1%
Bachelor’s Degree 49 70%
Master’s Degree 20 29%
35
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
After a brief analysis of sample characteristics, this section will provide a summary of the responses gathered for the research. The table will show both mean and standard deviation of every item. Items that were not dropped from analysis would be further elaborated.
SPSS Finding: Trust
Table 4.2 shows in the trust section, respondents showed the high agreement with O&H3 (M=4.23) which represented that respondents agreed that they don’t afraid to tell their supervisors when they met troubles. This indicated that H Multinational Corporation has an excellent culture to encourage employees that don’t be afraid asking for help. The second highest score Comp4 which represented “I am satisfied to company’s qualities and services of products (M= 4.16)”. Besides, the lowest score Comp2 (M= 3.57) which meant “I am satisfied to company’s operational efficiency”. This indicated that employees thought their product and service are great, but they have some problem in operational efficiency. The second lowest score is Reli3 (M= 3.66) which showed employees don’t think their top managers keeps commitments to them.
Table54.2
Trust by Likert Scales, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N =70)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
Comp1 Comp2 Comp3 Comp4
I am satisfied to the abilities of company’s employees.
I am satisfied to company’s operational efficiency.
I am satisfied to company’s qualities and services of products.
I am satisfied to company’s competence of achieving its’ goals.
3.87
Employees can get enough evaluation of their working abilities.
Employees can have opinions to the decisions which is relevant to their jobs.
When something is wrong, I don’t afraid to tell my supervisor.
When I don’t agree with my supervisor’s opinions, I don’t feel uncomfortable.
36 Table 4.2 (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
Conc1 Conc2
Conc3*
Conc4
My supervisor listens to me
Top management is sincere to communicate with their employees.
My supervisor care my personal life.。
Top managers listens to the issues what employees care.
4.09
My superior does what he or she said.
Top managers keep their commitments to employees.
My superior keeps commitments to team members.
My supervisor behaves in a consistent manner form day to day.
3.76
I feel connected to my peers.
I feel connected to my supervisor.
My value is similar to my colleagues’ values.
My value is similar to my supervisor’ values.
3.79 Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. Conc= Concern for Employee. Reil= Reliability.
Iden= Identification.
37
SPSS Finding: Organizational Learning
Table 4.3 shows that concerning organizational learning, the respondents showed the high agreement with KTI1 (M= 4.06), which showed that respondents agreed that teamwork is a usual method in company. The second highest were both MC1 and MC2 (M= 3.91), it pointed out employees’ learning ability is most important for the H Multinational Corporation. The lowest scores O&E1 (M= 3.54) indicated that employees don’t think company promote innovative ideas. Moreover, the second lowest item SP3 (M= 3.57) showed that respondents don’t think every business unit in H Multinational Corporation has a tight working relationship.
Table64.3
Organizational Learning by Likert Scales, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N =70)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
MC1
Innovative ideas that work are rewarded in company.
Top managers look favorably on carrying out changes in any
All employees have generalized knowledge regarding company’s objectives.
All parts that make up this company (departments, sections, work teams, and individuals) are well aware of how they contribute to achieving the overall objectives.
All parts that make up this company (departments, sections, work teams, and individuals) are interconnected, working together in a coordinated fashion.
3.81
Company promotes experimentation and innovation to improve the work processes.
Company follows up what other companies in the sector are doing, adopting those practices and techniques it believes to be useful and interesting.
3.54 3.61
0.846 0.839
Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. MC= Management commitment. SP= System perspective. O&E= Openness and experimentation.
38 Table 4.3 (continued)
O&E3
O&E4
Experiences and ideas provided by external sources (advisors, customers, training firms, etc.) are considered a useful tool for this company’s learning.
Part of company’s culture is that employees can express their opinions and suggestions regarding the procedures and methods in place for carrying out tasks.
3.70
Teamwork is the usual way to work in company.
Errors and failures are always discussed and analyzed in company’s every levels.
Employees have the chance to express new ideas, programs, and activities that might be of use to the company.
Company has tools (manuals, databases, files, organizational routines, etc.) that allow what has been learned in past situations to remain valid, although the employees are no longer the same.
4.06
Note. O&E= Openness and experimentation. KTI= Knowledge transfer and integrate.
SPSS Finding: Successful factors toward innovation
Table 4.4 in the dimension of successful factors toward innovation variables showed agreement concerning the aspects of factors toward innovation. The highest item MRF3 (M= 4.17) showed that the market threats are come from global competitors, comply with general idea of Multinational Corporation. Second highest MRF2 (M= 4.11) showed high agreement of “company’s products can satisfy market demands in time.” Nevertheless, the lowest item DRF2 (M= 3.21) and second lowest item DRF1 (M= 3.31) showed that respondents don’t think demographic factors can help company have better innovative talents and innovative abilities.
39 Table74.4
Successful factors towards innovation by Likert Scales, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N
=70)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
DRF1 DRF2
DRF3
Company’s location contributes to recruiting potential innovative employees.
Company’s location which is near the same market competitors plays an important role on encouraging employees’ innovative idea.
Departments’ arrangement of places plays an important role on encouraging colleagues’ innovative idea.
The reward system of company is fair.
R&D department is the main source of innovation.
Top managers have specific visions to the business development of company.
Compares to other department, our R&D department should recruit more employees.
Project management in company is flexible.
Project quality in company fits to clients’ demands.
Company takes full consideration of project management’s cost control.
Employees are willing to obtain new information.
Functions of the job content conform to employees’
self-expectations.
Employees’ expertise can highly use in their work content.
Company clearly understands how to fully utilize employee ability.
Company is able to keep track of the global target market.
Company’s products can satisfy market demands in time.
Company market threats are come from global competitors.
Company market research and response strategies can fully predict market opportunities. Note. *items are dropped in further analysis. DRF= Demographics-related factors.ORF=
Organization-related factors. PRF=Project--related factors. HRF= Human-related factors.
MRF= Market-related factors.
40
SPSS Finding: Innovation
Table 4.5 showed that concerning innovation, the respondents showed the high agreement with TI2 (M= 3.97) and TI1 (M= 3.87) which showed H Multinational Corporation gets better revenue and customer’s reputation from its’ technological innovation, this finding matched the idea that most powerful weapon of ICT industry is technological innovation. However, the lowest score PI1 (M= 3.41) indicated respondents don’t think company’s process innovation can help company become more effective. Besides, second lowest item PI2 showed that process innovation didn’t make company success.
Table84.5
Innovation by Likert Scales, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N =70)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PI1 PI2 PI3 PI4
Company enhances work efficiency because company’s process innovation.
Company gets a higher success rate in launching new products and new services.
Company has clear and specific process of innovation development.
Company encourages to use process innovation to understand the information of customers, suppliers and competitors.
3.41
Company gets a higher profit because company’s technical innovation.
Company gets a good reputation because company’s technical innovation.
Company can fast its’ service to customers because company’s technical innovation.
Company gets a higher sales performance because company’s technical innovation.
Company improves internal communication efficiency because company’s organizational innovation.
Company cross-cultural communications ability is good for keeping ahead of market. Note. PI = Process innovation. TI = Technological innovation. OI = Organizational innovation.
41
SPSS Finding: Business Performance
Table 4.6 in dimension of business performance variables showed agreement concerning the aspects of performance. The highest item PP1 (M= 3.80) and the second highest item PP2 (M=3.73) showed that H Multinational Corporation can collaborate with its’ alliance partners with stable performances. It’s no surprised that Multinational Corporation can have good and stable relationship with alliance partners. However, the lowest item MP1 (M= 3.03) showed that H Multinational Corporation do not have a good development in the market. It complied with the general idea that H Multinational Corporation just arrived Taiwan market. The second lowest item is MP2 (M= 3.17) represents that comparing to company’s competitors, company’s market share is not high.
Table94.6
Business performance by Likert Scales, Mean, and Standard Deviation (N =70)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4
Comparing to company’s competitors, strength of company’s relationship with key alliance partners.
Comparing to company’s competitors, stability of your alliances.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company has an ability to sustain relationships regardless of changes in senior people.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company and alliance partners keep commitments to each other.
3.80
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s market development is good.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s market share is high.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s Sales growth is satisfying.
Comparing to company’s competitors, the products of company’s brand is popular.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s profitability is satisfying.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s return on investment is good.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s Cost control is good.
Comparing to company’s competitors, company’s Cash flow from operations is satisfying. Note. PP = Partnership Performance. MP = Market Performance. FP= Financial Performance.
42
Pilot Study
Pilot study was conducted before gathering whole sample for the main study. In order to test whether the instrument is valid and the measurement is useful to the main study, pilot study was conducted. Thirty-seven samples were collected to undergo the pilot study. There are four parts will be provided, which are validity test of the pilot study, the reliability test.
Then according to above two results, the dropped items from the questionnaire were
identified. Finally, the pilot data were analyzed by using PLS and the result presented for this study.
Validity Test KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Before conducting the factor analysis, the study needed to test KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity first. Table 4.7 shows the results of both tests before dropping items. Based on table 4.7, all constructs are above acceptable value .70, which means all of constructs are acceptable. In table 4.7, it also shows the results of Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity before dropping items. The results pointed out that all of data can be used for further analysis, as the p-values of all constructs are less than .001.
Before dropping items, reliability test had been tested. The pilot test had undergone two EFA factor analysis, first time before dropping items where items were being re-considered for the evaluation. Then after dropping several items, the pilot again KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Table 4.8 shows that KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity values after dropping items. After dropping items, the KMO value of trust rises up, from .778 to .779. In organizational learning, the KMO value rises from .816 to .827. After After dropping items, the KMO value of SFTI becomes higher, it rises from .766 to .793. The innovation dimension and business performance dimension didn’t undergo with any change.
43 Table104.7
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-Before dropping items)
Constructs Number of Items KMO Variance Explained Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
T 20 .778 44.540% 503.499***
OL 15 .816 52.934% 399.954***
SFTI 19 .766 47.529% 519.246***
I 12 .814 68.858% 474.671***
BP 12 .777 48.911% 353.018***
Note. *** p < .001. T= Trust; OL=Organizational learning; SFTI= Successful factors towards innovation; I= Innovation; BP= Business Performance
Table114.8
KMO and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Values (Pilot Test-After dropping items)
Constructs Number of
Items KMO Variance
Explained
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
T 18 .779 46.954% 460.845***
OL 14 .827 53.923% 371.045***
SFTI 18 .793 47.140% 470.552***
I 12 .814 68.858% 474.671***
BP 12 .777 48.911% 353.018***
Note. *** p < .001. T= Trust; OL=Organizational learning; SFTI= Successful factors towards innovation; I= Innovation; BP= Business Performance
Factor Loadings EFA
In order to validate the instrument which was used in this study, the Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted. If the factor loading is below 0.4, it means the item do not belong to the factor, then the items should be dropped for further analysis. Table 4.9 shows the factor loadings. The result is provided after dropping the items.
44 Table124.9
EFA: Factor Loadings (Pilot Test, N=37)
Items Loading Items Loading Items Loading Items Loadin
g Items Loading
Comp1 .511 MC1 .766 DRF1 .796 PI1 .791 PP1 .909
Comp2 .630 MC2 .840 DRF2 .827 PI2 .782 PP2 .941
Comp3 .581 MC3 .835 DRF3 .610 PI3 .769 PP3 .861
Comp4 .689 MC4* dropped ORF1* dropped PI4 .705 PP4 .904
O&H1 .803 SP1 .599. ORF2 .746 TI1 .843 MP1 .808
O&H2 .836 SP2 845 ORF3 .503 TI2 .889 MP2 .798
O&H3 .669 SP3 .646 ORF4 .919 TI3 .730 MP3 .586
O&H4* dropped O&E1 .771 PRF1 .600 TI4 .771 MP4 .600
Conc1 .697 O&E2 .845 PRF2 .816 OI1 .815 FP1 .855
Conc2 .727 O&E3 .797 PRF3 .612 OI2 .772 FP2 .801
Conc3* dropped O&E4 .680 PRF4 .586 OI3 .784 FP3 .801
Conc4 .781 KTI1 .813 HRF1 .757 OI4 .763 FP4 .786
Reil1 .830 KTI2 .579 HRF2 .821
Reli2 .742 KTI3 .594 HRF3 .693
Reli3 .774 KTI4 .500 HRF4 .659
Reli4 .563 MRF1 .723
Iden1 .539 MRF2 .701
Iden2 .622 MRF3 .850
Iden3 .852 MRF4 .787
Idne4 .791
Note. Items < .40 will be dropped from further analysis.
Comp= Competence. O&H= Openness and Honesty. Conc= Concern for Employee. Reil=
Reliability. Iden= Identification. MC= Management commitment. SP= System perspective.
O&E= Openness and experimentation. KTI= Knowledge transfer and integrate. DRF=
Demographics-related factors. ORF= Organization-related factors. PRF= Project-related factors. HRF= Human-related factors. MRF= Market-related factors. PI = Process innovation.
TI = Technological innovation. OI = Organizational innovation. PP = Partnership Performance. MP = Market Performance. FP= Financial Performance.
* items are dropped as to improve the reliability values.
45
Reliability Test
After conducted the validity test, the study conducted reliability test to test the consistency of the variables in the instrument and also to refine the scales. Table 4.10 provides a result of reliability test and shows the change before and after dropping the items.
The value of trust construct still keeps the same after dropping two items. Organizational learning becomes lower (.933 to .930); beside, successful factors towards innovation also has sane situation (.935 to .925); however, the Cronbach’s Alpha of these two constructs are still above .70. The constructs of innovation dimension and business performance dimension have values above .70. The result shows that all the items fulfilled the requirement of reliability test.
Table134.10
Reliability Test (Pilot Test, N=37)
Constructs Variables
Before dropping Items After dropping Items No. of
Reil= Reliability. Iden= Identification. MC= Management commitment. SP= System perspective. O&E= Openness and experimentation. KTI= Knowledge transfer and integrate.
46
Note. DRF= Demographics-related factors. ORF= Organization-related factors. PRF=
Project-related factors. HRF= Human-related factors. MRF= Market-related factors. PI = Process innovation. TI = Technological innovation. OI = Organizational innovation. PP = Partnership Performance. MP = Market Performance. FP= Financial Performance.
47 Table144.11
Reasons for Dropping Items No. Items
Dropped Reasons 1 O&H4
Construct does not have same factor loading as other constructs therefore do not meet requirement and to improve KMO value trust from .778 to .779.
2 Conc3
Construct does not have same factor loading as other constructs therefore do not meet requirement and to improve KMO value trust from .778 to .779.
3 MC4
Construct does not have same factor loading as other constructs therefore do not meet requirement and to improve KMO value organizational learning from .816 to .827.
4 ORF1
Construct does not have same factor loading as other constructs therefore do not meet requirement and to improve KMO value successful factors towards innovation from .766 to .93
Note. O&H= Openness and Honesty. Conc= Concern for Employee. MC= Management commitment. DRF= Demographics-related factors. ORF= Organization-related factors.
48
PLS Result for Pilot Study
Path analysis was conducted in order to obtain required values. In this study, in order to examine the t-value and therefore testing the significance of path coefficient, it used bootstrapping to get the 40 resample from the original pilot study data. Table 4.12 showed the result of the PLS testing of the pilot test. The result indicated that trust has no effect to innovation, thus null hypotheses 1 was accepted. However, trust has a positive and significant influence on organizational learning (β = .826, t = 12.776, p < .001), so null hypotheses 2 was rejected. Organizational learning has a positive and significant influence on innovation (β
= .717, t = 5.120, p < .001), thus null hypotheses 3 was rejected. According to the above content, even though trust has no a direct influence on innovation, but it has an indirect influence on innovation. Successful factors towards innovation has no effect to innovation, thus the null hypotheses 4 was accepted. The table also pointed out that innovation has a positive and significant relationship with business performance (β = .691, t = 8.651, p < .001), thus the null hypotheses 5 was rejected.
In the Table 4.12 also implied that trust has very high path coefficient in the TSLIP model (β = .826). It showed that trust are the key factor for the organizational learning, innovation, and business performance.
Moreover, from figure 4.1, the PLS result also showed that the structural model of this pilot study can explain 68%, 75% and 48%, of the variance in trust, organizational learning, innovation, and business performance respectively.
In the trust dimension, the dominant factor is concern for employee, it followed by openness and honesty, reliability, competence, and identification.
In the organizational dimension, the dominant factor is knowledge transfer and integrate.
It followed by openness and experimentation, system perspective, and management commitment.
In the successful factors toward innovation variable, the dominant factor is human-related factors. It followed by organization-related factors, project-related factors, market-related factors, a demographics-related factors.
In the innovation variable, the dominant factor is organizational innovation. It followed by process innovation, technologic innovation.
In the business performance dimension, the dominant factor is financial performance. It followed by market performance, partnership performance.
49 Table 04.12
PLS Hypotheses Testing Results (Main Study N=37)
Path Hypothesis β-path Adj. t-value Sig. Direction Null Hypotheses
T I H1 .018 0.156 + Accepted
T OL H2 .826 12.776 *** + Rejected
OL I H3 .717 5.120 *** + Rejected
SFTI I H4 .180 1.117 + Accepted
I BP H5 .691 8.651 *** + Rejected
Note. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .001. T= Trust; OL=Organizational learning; SFTI=
Successful factors towards innovation; I= Innovation; BP= Business Performance
Table154.13
PLS Loadings (Pilot Test, N= 37)
Items Loading Items Loading Items Loading Items Loading Items Loading
Comp .802 MC .642 DRF .582 PI .925 PP .643
O&H .859 SP1 .743 ORF .732 TI .867 MP .697
Conc .889 O&E .866 PRF .696 OI .931 FP .767
Reil .820 KTI .879 HRF .859
Reil .820 KTI .879 HRF .859