This chapter offers an overview of the descriptive statistics of the research data.
The results of the PLS findings are presented, which includes the Cronbach’s Alpha, validity and reliability tests, and hypotheses results.
Descriptive Statistics
Table 4.1 provides a description of the participant´s characteristics, which include age, gender, education and sponsoring. The largest group of respondent was between the ages of 36-40 corresponding to a total of 29% of the respondents. Following this was the group age above 41 with a percentage of 19%, following it was the group of 26-30, followed by the group of 31-to 35 with a 16% and finally the group of 21 to 25, this can be explained because at this age, most people are still studying in university and not part of the workforce.
Regarding to the gender of the respondents there was not a significant difference between the gender being 55% male and the other 45% female.
In relation to the level of education, the majority of the respondents had a bachelor´s degree education accounting to 69% of the participants, this can be caused due to age constraints, since the biggest group of respondents is about 35 years old, it is possible that at the time they graduated, a master was not considered necessary to find a job and now that they have a stable job it is not their priority to pursue a higher education; followed by 30% of employees who possessed a Master’s degree, 1% of the employees only had a high school education and from all the valid answers collected, there were no employees who possessed a PhD level 0%.
Regarding the tenure of the respondents the biggest group of employees had been working for the company had more than 13 years with a total of 37%, followed by 1 to 3 years with 32%, then 10 to ten years had a 13%, and following very closely was 4 to 6 years with 12%, and finally the smallest percentage of respondents located themselves between 7 and 9 years working for the organization with 6%. As we can observe from this results, the majority of employees in this organization are either very tenured with more than 13 years, or have recently started working, locating themselves in 1 to 3 percent, it is also worth noting that the closer to mid tenure we got, the less employees we find, with both categories around it with 12% and 13%, this could reflect an incident around 7 years ago in which the company might have halt the hiring or the new employees, or it could also mean that the company has not being able to retain the their employees. This would be a hypothesis worth observing in the future, to validate if in a couple of years from now, the company will be able to retain its new workforce, or if on the other case the new hire employees will start decreasing towards to the center reaching levels below 10% tenure. If this becomes a pattern, the organization must conduct efforts to prevent this trend from repeating again in again and affecting their growth and development
Table 4.1.
Demographic Distribution of Respondents
Items Entries Percentage
Age 21-25 14 7%
26-30 41 21%
31-35 31 16%
36-40 57 29%
41+ 50 27%
Gender Male 107 55%
Female 86 45%
Educational Level High School Diploma 3 1%
Bachelor Degree 133 69%
Master Degree 51 30%
PhD 0 0%
Tenure 1-3 62 32%
4-6 23 12%
7-9 10 6%
10-12 26 13%
13+ 72 37%
Descriptive Statistics Analysis
In the following section we observe a summary of the responses to the questions
that were included in the questionnaire and applied to the participants. Each table show the mean and standard deviation of every item question. All the variables were measured with a 5 point Likert scale. The participants were instructed to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each of the statements with anchors ranging from 1 (Totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Findings: Organizational Trust.
Table 4.2 shows that regarding organizational trust, the employees showed a high level of agreement on item T_P1, which stated “I frequently share knowledge and information with my co-workers” with a mean of 4.25. The second highest item in this section was item TP_2, which stated that “I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with my co-workers”, with a mean of 4.18.
From this we can conclude that the aspect that employees are most satisfied with was trust in peers. The lowest score was for item T_M3 which stated “Our working staff (managers, technicians, administrative, etc.) would be quite prepared to gain advantage by deceiving their co-workers”, with a mean of 2.55. It is also worth noting that the section Trust in managers had the lowest scores of agreement, the item T_M1 which stated “Management at my company is sincere in its attempts to meet the employee’s point of view” with a mean of 3.32 and item TM_2 which stated “I feel quite confident that the company will always try to treat me fairly” with a mean of 3.36 were also among the lowest items regarding trust in the organization.
Table 4.2.
Organizational Trust; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 193)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
T_P1 If I got into difficulties at my company I know my co-workers would try and help me.
4.25 .54
T_P2 I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.
4.18 .59
T_P3 Most of my co-workers can be relied upon to do as they say they will do.
3.88 .67
T_M1 Management at my company is sincere in its attempts to meet the employee’s point of view.
3.32 0.86
T_M2 I feel quite confident that the company will always try to treat me fairly.
3.36 0.79
T_M3 Our working staff (managers, technicians, administrative, etc.) would be quite prepared to gain advantage by deceiving their co-workers.
2.55 0.92
O_H1 I can get enough evaluation of my working abilities. 3.58 0.69
O_H2 I can have opinions to the decisions which are relevant
Table 4.2. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
RE_1 My supervisor does what he or she says. 3.53 0.81
RE_2 Top managers keep their commitments to employees. 3.54 0.81
RE_3
IDE_1
IDE_2 IDE_3
My supervisor behaves in a consistent manner.
I feel connected to my peers.
I feel connected to my supervisors.
My value is similar to my co-worker’s values.
3.53
Note. N= 193, SD= Standard Deviation.
Findings: Knowledge Sharing.
Table 4.3 shows that with respect to knowledge sharing the employees showed a high level of agreement on item K_C1 “I share information I have with co-workers when they ask for it” with a mean of 4.16 and K_C2 which stated “I share my skills with co-workers when they ask for it” with a mean of 4.15. The lowest item is INTER_G3 which stated “I spend a considerate amount of time conducting knowledge sharing activities with other co-worker teams in the company” with a mean of 3.08.
Table 4.3.
Knowledge Sharing; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 193)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
I_G1 I frequently share knowledge and information with my co-workers.
3.94 .66
I_G2 I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with my co-workers.
3.89 .70
I_G3 I usually spend a lot of time conducting knowledge sharing activities within my co-workers.
3.53 .73
INTER_G1 I frequently share knowledge with co-workers even though he (or she) is not in my team.
3.49 0.79
INTER_G2 I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with co-workers from other co-worker’s teams.
3.35 0.81
INTER_G3 I spend a considerate amount of time conducting knowledge sharing activities with other co-worker teams in the company.
Table 4.3. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
K_D3 Knowledge sharing among co-workers is considered normal in my company.
3.61 0.70
K_C1 I share information I have with co-workers when they ask for it.
4.16 0.54
K_C2 I share my skills with co-workers when they ask for it. 4.15 0.52
K_C3 Co-workers in my company share knowledge with me when I ask them to.
3.98 0.61
K_C4 Co-workers in my company share their skills with me when I ask them to.
3.96 0.55
Note. N= 193, SD= Standard Deviation.
Findings: Knowledge Creation.
Table 4.4 shows that with respect to knowledge creation, the employees showed the highest level of agreement on item KC_C2 which states “My Company emphasizes creating manuals and documents on products and services”, with a mean of 3.73, followed by item KC_I1 which states “My Company emphasizes forming teams, conducting experiments, and sharing results with the entire department” with a mean of 3.70. The lowest item is KC_E3 which states “My Company emphasizes the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept creation” with a mean of 3.26.
Table 4.4.
Knowledge Creation; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 193)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
KC_S1 My company emphasizes sharing experience with other employees.
3.67 .77
KC_S2 My company emphasizes finding new strategies and working opportunities by wandering inside the department.
3.54 .75
KC_S3 My company emphasizes creating a working environment that allows peers to understand the technicalities of the
KC_E2 My company emphasizes creative and essential dialogues. 3.37 0.79
KC_E3 My company emphasizes the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept creation.
3.26 0.73
KC_C1 My company emphasizes planning strategies by using published literature, computer simulation and forecasting.
3.35 0.90
KC_C2 My company emphasizes creating manuals and documents on products and services.
3.73 0.81
(continued)
Table 4.4. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
KC_I1 My company emphasizes forming teams, conducting experiments, and sharing results with the entire
KC_I3 My company emphasizes bench-marking and test marketing.
3.50 0.77
Note. N= 193, SD= Standard Deviation.
Findings: Innovation.
Table 4.5 shows that with respect to innovation, the employees showed the highest level of agreement on item PI2 which states “My company gets a higher success rate in launching new products and new services.”, with a mean of 3.57, followed by item OI3 which states “My company continues to import new way of management and knowledge to keep flexibility” with a mean of 3.54. The lowest item is OI4 which states
“Employees highly accept the new way of innovational management.” with a mean of 3.30.
Table 4.5.
Innovation; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 193)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PI1 My company enhances work efficiency because of company’s process innovation.
3.48 .76
PI2 My company gets a higher success rate in launching new products and new services
3.57 .75
(continued)
Table 4.5. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PI3 My company has clear and specific process of innovation development.
3.42 .80
PI4 My company encourages using process innovation to understand the information of customers, suppliers and competitors.
3.41 0.81
TI1 My company gets a higher profit because company’s technical innovation.
3.53 0.83
TI2 My company gets a good reputation because company’s technical innovation.
OI1 My company improves internal communication efficiency because company’s organizational innovation.
3.39 0.77
OI2 My company emphasizes searching for and sharing new values and thoughts.
3.42 0.81
OI3 My company continues to import new way of management and knowledge to keep flexibility.
3.54 0.74
(continued)
Table 4.5. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
OI4 Employees highly accept the new way of innovational competitors, company and alliance partners keep commitments to each other.”, with a mean of 3.74, followed by item PP1 which states “Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s relationship with key alliance partners is strong.” with a mean of 3.73. The lowest item is MP4 which states “Comparing to our company’s competitors, the products of company’s brand is popular.” with a mean of 3.16.
Table 4.6.
Business Performance; Likert Scales, Mean, and SD (N= 193)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PP1 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s relationship with key alliance partners is strong.
3.73 .67
PP2 Comparing to our company’s competitors, our company’s alliances are stable.
3.72 .62
PP3 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company has an ability to sustain relationships regardless of changes in senior people.
3.70 .63
(continued)
Table 4.6. (continued)
Survey Questionnaires Mean SD
PP4 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company and alliance partners keep commitments to each other.
3.74 0.63
MP1 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s market development is good.
3.50 0.71
MP2 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s market share is high.
3.31 0.80
MP3 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s sales growth is satisfying.
3.31 0.77
MP4 Comparing to our company’s competitors, the products of company’s brand is popular.
3.16 0.72
FP1 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s profitability is satisfying.
3.28 0.78
FP2 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s return on investment is good.
3.26 0.77
FP3 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s Cost control is good.
3.33 0.76
FP4 Comparing to our company’s competitors, company’s Cash flow from operations is satisfying.
3.38 0.72
Note. N= 193, SD= Standard Deviation.
Discussion for Descriptive Statistics Analysis
After the descriptive statistics, we can make a few conclusions about organizational trust, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, innovation and business performance. The results show that employees have a high level of trust amongst them and usually talk to each other about different topics. However, we can also observe that the managers need to make efforts to earn the trust of their employees because currently is at a very low level. From the knowledge sharing perspective, the employees spend considerable efforts in sharing knowledge with their peers and consider that they also share knowledge in return with them to, however, they think that this is something that happens mostly within departments and there is not such a great communication between them and the employees of different units. Regarding knowledge creation, the employees believe that the company spends the necessary resources in creating manual and documents and experimenting and sharing the results with the whole department.
Regarding innovation, the employees believe that the company does a good job when launching new products, but they don’t think that the employees accept innovative management methods, this could be explained because of the lack of trust that they have towards managers in generals. And finally regarding business performance, the employees believe that the company enjoys of a strong relation with their partners but they also believe that the company’s brand is not as popular as it should be.
Correlation Analysis
In order to examine the degree of relationship between the variables in this study, Pearson coefficient correlation was conducted. The following table 4.7 shows the correlation values of the variables. The results of the correlation analysis show that the correlation between knowledge creation and innovation in Taiwanese high technology companies is very strong with correlation values ranging from 0.36 to 0.63 and that also innovation is strongly correlated to business performance with values ranging from 0.37 to 0.50. However, trust and knowledge creation show the weakest correlation with correlation values ranging from 0.02 to 0.39.
Table 4.7.
Correlation Analysis
#Variable T_P T_M O_H RE IDE I_G INTER K_D K_C KC_S KC_E KC_C KC_I PI TI OI PP MP FP
1 T_P 1
2 T_M .427 1
3 O_H .282 .429 1
4 RE .389 .565 .502 1
5 IDE .384 .314 .405 .437 1
6 I_G .225 .163 .362 .199 .372 1
7 Inter .195 .100 .196 .167 .357 .452 1
8 K_D .372 .286 .365 .378 .426 .458 .337 1
9 K_C .382 .218 .318 .293 .312 .327 .196 .333 1
10 KC_S .332 .440 .363 .475 .364 .300 .253 .455 .266 1
11 KC_E .246 .355 .350 .380 .309 .333 .252 .385 .217 .684 1
12 KC_C .020 .252 .219 .291 .196 .187 .125 .227 .171 .496 .543 1
13 KC_I .166 .288 .423 .309 .204 .142 .133 .345 .311 .538 .570 .683 1
14 PI .146 .307 .266 .187 .146 .055 .033 .299 .121 .363 .444 .506 .630 1
15 TI .096 .212 .212 .177 .193 .033 .017 .134 .111 .306 .472 .425 .412 .672 1
16 OI .133 .258 .241 .292 .195 .172 .073 .322 .223 .441 .469 .531 .564 .619 .592 1
17 PP .206 .211 .200 .296 .330 .207 .170 .364 .352 .416 .320 .357 .355 .370 .422 .423 1
18 MP .095 .143 .188 .183 .122 .118 .150 .263 .170 .282 .290 .426 .423 .502 .435 .445 .431 1
19 FP .181 .203 .217 .212 .096 .031 .027 .221 .145 .227 .284 .391 .404 .506 .462 .443 .479 .445 1
Note: 1 T_P = Trust in Peers; 2 T_M = Trust in Management; 3 O_H = Openness and Honesty; 4 RE = Reliability; 5 IDE
= Identification; 6 I_G = Intra-Groups; 7 Inter_G= Inter-Groups; 8 K_D= Knowledge Donating; 9 K_C= Knowledge Collecting; 10 KC_ S= Socialization; 11 KC_E = Externalization; 12 KC_C = Combination; 13 KC_I = Internalization; 14 PI = Process Innovation; 15 TI = Technological Innovation; 16 OI = Organizational Innovation; 17 PP = Partnership Performance; 18 MP= Market Performance; 19 = Financial Performance
To assess the measurement model, this study uses Cronbach’s Alpha’s approach from Smart PLS. Table 4.8 indicates that the values of Cronbach’s Alpha of all five constructs are higher than .70 (organizational trust, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, innovation and business performance).
Table 4.8.
PLS Cronbach's Alpha, Internal Consistency and R2 in this Study
Constructs Number of
Organizational Trust 15 0.773 0.870
Knowledge Sharing 13 0.839 0.903 0.350
Business Performance 12 0.784 0.849 0.408
The evaluation of the statistical significance of the path coefficients and the loadings was made through bootstrapping method in Smart PLS. For this study, of the seven paths (organizational trust to knowledge sharing, organizational trust to knowledge creation, knowledge creation to knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing to innovation, knowledge creation to innovation, knowledge creation to business performance and organizational trust to business performance) six proved to be significant, with the exception of knowledge sharing to innovation. The results also showed that the explanatory power of R2 for knowledge sharing is 35%, for knowledge creation is 26%, for innovation is 40% and for business performance is 40%. Table 4.9 shows that organizational trust has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing (β-path=.45, t-value=15.49). Therefore, null hypotheses one is rejected. Organizational trust has a positive and significant effect on knowledge creation (β-path=.51, t-value=15.49).
Therefore, null hypotheses two is rejected. Knowledge creation has a positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing (β-path=.21, t-value=15.49). Therefore, null hypotheses three is rejected. Knowledge sharing doesn’t have a positive and significant effect on innovation
(β-positive and significant effect on innovation (β-path=.65, t-value=12.52). Therefore, null hypotheses five is rejected. Innovation has a positive and significant effect on business performance (β-path=.58, t-value=12.52). Therefore, null hypotheses six is rejected.
Organizational trust has a positive and significant effect on business performance (β-path=.12, t-value=12.52). Therefore, null hypotheses seven is rejected. From these results we conclude that six out of the seven null hypotheses are rejected as shown on the table below.
Table 4.9.
PLS Path Analysis Results (Standard β Coefficients and Adjusted T-Values)
Path Hº β-path T-value Sig. Direction Result
Figure 4.1 shows the results of the OK-OB structural path. The results were obtained using Smart PLS software and show that the five variables of the model have an effect on each other.
“Figure 4.1 OK-OB Structural Path” shows that from the business performance dimension, trust in peers has a positive parameter (.64) and t-ratio (12.11); trust in management has a positive parameter (.73) and ratio (16.32); openness and honesty has a positive parameter (.74) and t-ratio (18.84); reliability has a positive parameter (.80) and t-t-ratio (22.81), identification has a positive parameter (.70) and t-ratio (14.47) with all being significant at 1%. From these dimensions, the most significant is reliability, which means that the reliability between the employees is the dimension that has most influence in organizational trust.
From the knowledge sharing perspective, the results show that each dimension has a positive parameter and t-ratio; intra-groups (parameter=.74, t-ratio=12.57); inter-groups (parameter=.60, t-ratio=7.18); knowledge donating (parameter=.83, t-ratio=30.02); knowledge collecting (parameter=.68, t-ratio= 15.15); all being significant at 1%. It is also important to note
From the knowledge creation perspective, results show that socialization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.83, t-ratio=29.84); externalization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.85, t-ratio=29.39); combination has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.80, t-ratio=30.25); and internalization has a positive parameter and t-ratio (parameter=.83, t-ratio =36.37), all of the above being significant at 1%. It is also important to note that externalization is what influences knowledge creation the most.
From the innovation perspective, the results show that process innovation has a positive parameter (.88) and ratio (36.61); technological innovation has a positive parameter (.86) and t-ratio (33.41); organizational innovation has a positive parameter (.85) and t-t-ratio (36.610); which are all significant at 1%. Process innovation is a slightly more significant factor for commitment.
From the business performance, the results show that partnership performance has a positive parameter (.75) and t-ratio (24.65); continuance commitment has a positive parameter (.85) and t-ratio (30.74); financial performance has a positive parameter (.87) and t-ratio (39.82);
which are all significant at 1%. Financial performance is a slightly more significant factor for business performance.
0.450***(5.607) 0.515***(8.579)
Figure 4.1. OK-OB structural path via Smart PLS Trust in Peers 0.646***(12.113) Trust in Management 0.735***(16.324) Openness and Honesty 0.744***(18.846) Internalization 0.838***(36.377) Knowledge Sharing R2 0.350
organizational trust has a direct positive, significant effect on knowledge sharing (.45), knowledge creation (.51) and business performance (0.12). Organizational trust also has an indirect effect on innovation (.31). Knowledge creation is shown to have a direct effect on knowledge sharing (.21) and innovation (0.26), but it also has an indirect effect on business performance (.37) and . Knowledge sharing has a direct effect on innovation (-0.03) and also an indirect effect on business performance (-0.01) and finally we can observe that innovation has a direct and positive effect on business performance (0.58).
Table 4.10.
Summary of Model Direct and Indirect Effects
Path Equation Influence
OT KS Direct 0.450
OT KC Direct 0.515
KC KS Direct 0.218
KC I Direct 0.265
KS I Direct -0.033
I BP Direct 0.585
O T BP Direct 0.128
OT I Indirect 0.318
KS BP Indirect -0.019
KC BP Indirect 0.378
PLS Findings Summary
The results on 4.11 show that organizational trust has a significant positive effect on knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and business performance of the Taiwan IT industry company where the study was applied. From the results we can observe that 6 out of the 7 hypothesis were rejected. The following table summarized the research results.
Table 4.11.
Research Hypotheses Results
Research Hypotheses Results
H1 Organizational trust has no effect on knowledge sharing. Rejected H2 Organizational trust has no effect on knowledge creation. Rejected H3 Knowledge creation has no effect on knowledge sharing. Rejected H4 Knowledge sharing has no effect on innovation. Accepted H5 Knowledge creation has no effect on innovation. Rejected H6 Knowledge creation has no effect on business performance. Rejected H7 Organizational trust has no effect on business performance. Rejected
H1 Organizational trust has no effect on knowledge sharing. Rejected H2 Organizational trust has no effect on knowledge creation. Rejected H3 Knowledge creation has no effect on knowledge sharing. Rejected H4 Knowledge sharing has no effect on innovation. Accepted H5 Knowledge creation has no effect on innovation. Rejected H6 Knowledge creation has no effect on business performance. Rejected H7 Organizational trust has no effect on business performance. Rejected