Hypotheses Testing

The regression analysis was applied to the moderation model. As mentioned in chapter 3, the statistical testing of research model in panel A, B and C hypothesis was conducted. The research also conducted the calculation of variable inflation factor (VIF) for each of the independent variables in the regression models. The results show that the VIF of independent variable in all regression models is from 1.059 to 3.861.

According to Hair (2006), the VIF which is less than to 10 can be acceptable. Thus, there is no problem of multicollinearity for independent variables.

5.4.1. Characteristics of knowledge source and degree of knowledge transfer Table 13 shows although the result indicate that knowledge characteristics positively impact on degree of knowledge transfer but the result was not statistically significant (R²= .004, F = .743, p> .05). The results did not support the hypothesis H1.

And as the same as knowledge characteristics variable, knowledge expatriate variable which were measured by items such as the comprehension of host country culture, Vietnamese speaking ability, experience of training/transfer knowledge , willingness to train/transfer knowledge is not significant associated with degree of knowledge transfer. The result fails to support hypothesis H2 (see Table 13).

67

Table 13

Result of characteristics of knowledge source, parent firms- subsidiaries relationship, characteristics of knowledge recipient and degree of knowledge transfer

R² Adj. R² SE F df1 df2 Sig. F Durbin-W atson Knowledge

Characters .004 -.002 5.283 .743 1 170 .390 1.798 Knowledge

Expatriate .012 .007 5.262 2.146 1 170 .145 1.807 Subsidiary

Dependence .054 .049 5.149 9.787 1 170 .002 1.866 Communication

Environment .015 .010 5.254 2.650 1 170 .105 1.800 Knowledge

Absorptive Capacity

.027 .021 5.224 4.670 1 170 .032 1.834

Learning capacity .066 .061 5.116 12.093 1 170 .001 1.858 Note. Independent variable: Degree of Knowledge transfer

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001

5.4.2. Parent firms- subsidiaries relationship and degree of knowledge transfer The value Durbin-Watson 1.856, between 1.5 and 2.5, and the Adj. R² = .049, F

= 9.787, p < .05 shows that the predictability of subsidiary dependence from parent firms for all type knowledge which parent firms often transfer to their subsidiary was significant. The result supports hypothesis H3 (see Table 13).

In contrast of the subsidiary dependence, the result in Table 13 suggest that communication environment variable which is measured by the difference of

language, difference of political, social, economic system, difference of organization culture and frequency of connection between parent firms and subsidiary as

significantly associated with the degree of knowledge transfer with Adj.R²= .010, F=

68

2.650, p> .05. This result show that the hypothesis H4 was not supported.

5.4.3. Characteristics of knowledge recipients and degree of knowledge transfer The statistical results presented in Table 13 suggest that both knowledge

absorptive capacity of employee and subsidiary’s learning capacity strongly and positively affects the degree of knowledge transfer. The value of Durbin- Watson = 1.843, between 1.5 and 2.5, the Adj. R²= .021 show that 2.1% of variance in degree of knowledge transfer can be predicted from variables employees’ understanding and assimilating of parent firms’ knowledge and employees’ learning and applying of parent firms’ knowledge combined. The F= 4.670 and is statistically significant with p< .05 indicate that knowledge absorptive capacity significantly influences the degree of knowledge. On the other hand, the result also shows that the learning capacity attributes is significant (Adj. R²= .061, F= 5.116 and p< .001) and suggest that the learning capacity is positively associated with the degree of knowledge transfer. This result supports the hypothesis H5 and H6.

5.4.4. Middle manager’s role

The results presented in Table 14, 15, and 16 suggest that there are significant relationships among the three independent variables (i.e., the characteristics of knowledge source, the characteristics of knowledge recipient, and the parent

firms-subsidiaries relationship), and the mediating variable (i.e., the middle managers).

The middle managers positively relate to the characteristics of knowledge source as the role as translator (Adj. R²= .272, F =64.891, p< .001), to the characteristics of knowledge recipients as the role as facilitator (Adj. R²= .237, F=27.519, p< .001), to the parent firms-subsidiaries relationship as the role as communication enhancer

69

(Adj.R²= .281, F= 34.393, p< .001).

Table 14

Result of characteristics of knowledge source and middle manager as translator

Variable R² Adj. R² SE F df1 df2 Sig. F Note. Independent variable: middle manager as translator

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001

Table 15

Result of parent firms-subsidiaries relationship and middle manager as communication enhancer Note. Independent variable: middle manager as communication enhancer

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001

Table 16

Result of characteristics of knowledge recipients and middle manager as facilitator

Variable R² Adj.

Note. Independent variable: middle manager as facilitator

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001

70

5.4.5. Middle managers and degree of knowledge transfer

The result presented in Table 17 suggests that both three roles of middle

managers have positive impact on the degree of knowledge transfer as translator (Adj.

R²= .103, F =19.589, p< .001), as facilitator (Adj. R²= .058, F= 3.367, p< .001 and as communication enhancer (Adj. R²= .025, F =4.255, p< .05). Comparing with the role as communication enhancer and knowledge transfer facilitator, the effect of the role as translator is significantly higher.

Table 17

Result of middle managers’ roles and degree of knowledge transfer

Variable R² Adj.

R^{2 SE F df1 df2 Sig. F}

Durbin-Wa tson Translator .103 .098 5.014 19.589 1 170 .000 1.956

Facilitator .058 .053 5.139 10.502 1 170 .001 1.857 Communication

Enhancer .025 .020 5.227 4.425 1 170 .037 1.883 Note. Independent variable: degree of knowledge transfer

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001

71

Table 18

Summary of simple regression

Variables

Degree of Knowledge

transfer Middle Manager's Role Adj.

72

5.4.6. Characteristics of knowledge source, recipients, parent firms-subsidiaries relationship and middle manager’s role and degree of knowledge transfer

The statistical result in Table 19 present the significant relationship between the characteristics of knowledge source and the degree of knowledge transfer with the intervention of middle manager as translator (Adj.R²= .098, F= 10.341, p< .001).

However, they affect indirectly and significantly the degree of knowledge transfer . The result shows that the parent firms- subsidiaries relationship through the middle manager as communication enhancer significant influenced on the degree of knowledge transfer (Adj. R²= .023, F =3.017, p< .05) (see Table 19). The effect of middle manager also presented in the relation with characteristics of knowledge recipients and degree of knowledge transfer. The results suggest that the intervention of managers as facilitator combining with the absorptive and learning capacity

contribute significantly to degree of knowledge transfer with Adj. R²= .065, F= 6.904, p< .001 (see Table 19). These results present a support to the hypothesis H7, H8, and H9.

Table 19

Result of characteristics of knowledge source, middle manager and degree of knowledge transfer

R² Adj.

source, Middle manager as translator

.109 .098 5.013 10.341 2 169 .000 1.965

Parent firms - subsidiaries relationship, communication enhancer

.035 .023 4.208 3.017 2 169 .000 1.904

Characteristics of Knowledge

Recipients, Facilitator .076 .065 5.106 6.904 2 169 .001 1.886 Note. Independent variable: degree of knowledge transfer

73

* p< .05 **p< .01 ***p< .001 Table 20

Summary of hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Contents Result

H1

The lower the complexity and the tacitness of knowledge of parent firms, the higher the degrees of

knowledge transfer to subsidiaries is expected Not supported

H2

The higher of experience of expatriate, the higher degree of knowledge transfer to subsidiaries is

expected Not supported

H3

The better the communication between on between knowledge transmitters and recipients, the higher the degree of knowledge transfer to the subsidiary is expected.

Not supported

H4 The more dependence of subsidiary on parent firms,

the higher degree of knowledge can be expected Supported H5 The more the employee’s absorptive capacity

increase, the higher the degree of knowledge transfer Supported H6 The more the building learning capacity, the higher

the degree of knowledge transfer is expected Supported

H7

The more the subsidiary adopts middle manager as translator, which affects characteristics of knowledge source, the higher degree of knowledge transfer to the subsidiary is expected

Supported

H8

The more the subsidiary adopts middle manager as communication enhancer, which affects relationship between parent firm and subsidiary, the higher degree of knowledge transfer to the subsidiary is expected

Supported

H9

The more the subsidiary adopts middle manager as facilitator, which affects characteristics of knowledge recipient, the higher degree of knowledge transfer to the subsidiary is expected

Supported

74