LITERATURE REVIEW - The Effects of Organizational Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Le

This chapter provides a review of relevant existing literatures to deliver a theoretical foundation for the conceptual model of this research. Theories concerning, organizational trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning and academic satisfaction are stated.

Theoretical Background

Based on Debowski (2005), knowledge management theories were used to build the OT-LASS model in this study. From the theories, Debowski mentioned, that knowledge management is the process of identifying, capturing, organizing and disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organizations long-term performance. Subsequently, organizations that embraces to a strong commitment to embracing good knowledge practices is well placed to effectively integrate knowledge management. Moreover, this practice emphasis on creating a culture of collaboration which enriches the organizations knowledge base. Yet, as cited by Debowski from the perceptive of Kouzes and Posner (2006) collaboration is regard as the most important competency that organizations should develop. As for Tschannen-Moran (2001), collaboration relies on trust. Therefore, trust can lead to encourage good corporate interaction and collaborations. Meanwhile, lack of trust can decrease performance and organizations commitment significantly. Consistently, a solid team orientation needs to be cultivated to inspire knowledge sharing, particularly in relation to building trust. As suggested, the interaction with among people in a determined organization needs to be built on trust and honest and open sharing. In addition to that, Debowski suggested that in order to process the knowledge management theory, trust must be viewed as an significant component of this relationships building, as members will disengage if they feel vulnerable or challenged by the values being espoused. Similar to, Debowski stated that, the level of trust in the organization will influence the success of knowledge management. Besides, as cited by Debowski (2005), from the perspective of Husted and Michailova (2002), organizations which show a disinclination to share, problems in adopting others knowledge, and negative response to those who seek to learn and adapt need to recognize that their key challenge is to build a knowledge sharing culture across that community.

Organizational Trust Concept and Definition of Organizational Trust

According to Wikipedia (2015), the concept and definition of trust is usually associated to the situation when the trustor is willing to rely on the actions of the trustee. From the point of view of Lewis and Weigert (1985) trust is the process in which involves risk by taking action on the confident hope that all individuals involved in the action will act capably and loyally.

As for Luhmann, Burns, and Poggi (1979) defined trust as the way to demonstrate that everything is correctly in the right path inside one institution. For instance, Culbert, and McDonough (1985) defined trust as a person’s willingness to adopt a vision of the system as one that would eventually defend them and valorize their assistances to the institution.

According to Morreale and Shockley-Zalabak (2010), organizational trust is the credence that an institute in its communication and behaviors is capable, open and truthful, concerned, consistent, and worthy of identification with its goals, norms, and morals. For the authors, there are five drivers dimensions that maintain the organizational trust acceptable (competence, openness and honesty, concern for employees/stakeholders, reliability, and identification.

According to Möllering, Bachmann and Hee (2004) trust symbolize truthfulness and devotion, but the idea of trust is possibly as old as the earliest forms of human association. For Deutsch (1958) trust is considered as interpersonal idea that include doubt to the degree that trust refers to expectations with regard to a wanted occasion. Larzelere and Huston (1980) stated that trust only exists to the degree that an individual believes another individuals to be generous and truthful. According to Cummings and Bromiley (1996), organizational trust is the faith that an institution will carry through on its duties and responsibilities. Lewicki and Bunker (1995), define trust as optimistic hopes about another’s reasons with respect to oneself in circumstances involving risk. Additionally, Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995), stated that trust is the willingness to be defenseless to the actions of another individual based on the belief that the other individual will make a specific action significant to the trustor, regardless of the aptitude to monitor or control that other individual. According to McAllister (1995), the degree to which an individual is assured in and willing to act regarding the words, actions, and choices of another individual. Ng and Chua (2006) stated that trust refer to a person’s sureness in the kindness of others individuals and the belief that others will act in helpful manner. According to Mishra (1996), organizational trust is the institution’s willingness, regarding its culture and communication behaviors in interactions and dealings, to be correctly vulnerable based on the belief that another person, group, or institution is capable, open and honest, concerned,

consistent, and identified with common goals, norms, and values. Ellis, and Shockley-Zalabak (1999) defined trust as people or individual that identify themselves with the institution goals, morns, values and beliefs. In addition, it was also cited that trust is “The expectancy…

regarding a certain ethical behavior – which represents moral decisions and analytical actions based on moral principles” (Hosmer, 1995, p. 399). From the perceptive of (Robinson, 1996), it is the expectancy, that individuals’ supposition or belief that a further action shall be gainful, satisfactory or at least shall not have negative penalties for another individual. As for Luhman (1988), trust is consider as the general belief of an individual on other individuals and of individuals in the social organization they are involved in. Barber (1983), described trust as kit of learned or established social beliefs which individuals have on each other, on institutions, even as on the ethical norms and rules relevant in the environment that they interact with.

According to Hardin (1991), people will trust me, if they know that my interest is to accomplish their hopes. Which means that their trust is quite relate to my interest. In addition to this, Hardin (2002), individuals can trust somebody at a certain period and in certain conditions if they view that individual is reliable. Doney, Cannon and Mullen (1998) defined trust as a readiness to trust on another person and to take action in situations where such action makes one exposed to the other person. On another side, Bhattacharya, Devinney and Pillutla (1998), defined trust as an expectancy of optimistic (or non-negative) results that an individual can obtain from the predictable action of another individual in an interaction considered by doubt. For Matthai (1989), defined trust as the workers’ spirits of sureness that, when confronted with an undefined or dangerous condition, the organization’s words and actions are reliable, and are intended to be useful. As stated by Giffin (1967), trust is the confidence upon the occurrence of an occasion, or the behavior of an individual in order to attain a wanted but unreliable objective in an unsafe condition. According to Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis and Winograd (2000), defined organizational trust as the “expectations individuals have about networks of organizational relationships and behaviors” (p. 37). In the perception of Smith and Barclay (1997), trust is relate to individual acknowledgements about other people’s intents and reasons underlying their actions. According to Sztompka (1999), defines trust as the belief that other individuals, or groups or institutions in which we contact, cooperate, collaborate will tend to behave in a proper ways to our happiness. As stated by Six (2007), interpersonal trust is an emotional state containing the aim to take susceptibility to the behavior of another person, relying the belief that the other person will execute a certain behavior that is significant to you.

From the perceptive of Cook and Wall (1980), trust is the faith that trustor have on the intentions and in the ability of others people. Rotter (1967), pointed that trust is an expectation

detained by one person or group of words, promises, spoken or written declarations of another person or team. According to Anderson and Narus (1990), trust is the extent to which group member believes that all those involves in the group will cooperate well with each other.

The importance of Organizational Trust

According to Goffman (1963), trust is considered as a vital or main role in preserving social developments. In addition to that, Barney and Hansen (1994), has mentioned that several research confirmed that an organization’s capability to build trusting relationships is a progressively significant source of competitive advantage. Additionally, Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone (1998), stated that organizations that care for internal and external climates of trust earn benefits in the marketplace. According to the findings of Shockley-Zalabak et al., (2000), organizations that had greater levels of trust, demonstrated to be more prosperous and advanced than those with inferior levels of trust. In this research, they have suggested, that service quality were expressively related organizational trust. On another side, Cruise-O'Brien (2001), stated that organizational trust is an important factor, that rise creativity and critical thinking at the employee level. According to Ellis and Shockley‐Zalabak (2001), trust as a significant role in building relationship in the workplace or in the environment in which the individuals are. With trust, individuals are able to create interpersonal relations, teamwork and support in the work place. For Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Cesaria (2003), trust is important, because it can lead to profits, innovation, successful international business, organizational survival and a diversity of essential worker opinions and behaviors. According to Gillis (2003), when trust exist within an institution, levels of job satisfaction and output has demonstrated to be higher between employees while team-building has demonstrated to be more successfully. Nevertheless, Currall and Epstein (2003), mentioned that it is almost irreversible for organizations, individuals to recuperate trust once it has been lost. Consequently, Petrovs (2005), stated that organizational trust must be found, through the actions and words of management and leadership, and this process must be sustained on a daily basis activities and actions. As a result, Mayer and Gavin (2005), considered trust as important issue to any organizational performance.

According to Lee and Stajkovic (2005), founded that by having trust in a specific team member can originate an excellent cooperation among teams. From the perceptive Covey (2006), organizational trust frequently is related to increase financial performance and the success of organizational goals. As for Zeffane (2006), if the trust does not exist individuals are not able to cooperate and achieve the overall goals of an organization. According to Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li and Jia (2008), building employees trust in any organization, is a desire of all the

organization. Nevertheless, the most difficult part is to improve and preserve this trust among individuals that remaining as the biggest challenge for organizations. According to Starnes, Truhon and McCarthy (2010), organizations with great ranks of cultural trust tend to produce great quality products and services at inferior cost, once they are able to recruit and maintain extremely inspired employees. As stated by Shockley-Zalabak, Morreale and Hackman (2010), trust is critical to institution quality in the 21st century. According to Vineburgh (2010), the existence of trust is essential to all kinds of institutions, including colleges and universities.

According to Durkheim (2014), mentioned that system trust assists interpersonal trust. In this case, one could anticipate that people would lose trust in people with a result in a loss of trust in institution.

Model Adopted for the Research

In order to measure organizational trust among the intuition in which international students are studying, I adopted the measured used by Mooradian, Renzl and Matzler (2006).

Interpersonal Trust at Work Scale (comprising three items for trust in management and three items for trust in peers). The difference between trust in peers and management considers the studying environment. According to Mooradian, , Renzl and Matzler (2006), trust is seeing as readiness to ascribe good intents to others can refer to either peers/colleagues or management.

Trust in management and trust in peers was measured by using Cook et al. (1980) interpersonal trust at work scale. Trust in peers that refer to faith in intentions of peers and trust in management refer to faith in intentions of management. In Figure 2.1, here shows the propensity to trust model, scaling 6 items based on a one to five (from strongly disagree to strongly agree).

Propensity to Trust

Interpersonal Trust in Peers

Interpersonal Trust in Management

Sharing Within Team

Sharing Across Teams

Figure 2.1. The model of organizational trust. Adapted from “Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing,” by Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K, 2006, Management Learning, 37(4), 523-540. Copyright © 2006 by Sage Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi.

In addition to that, the study also combined the measure for organizational trust, Shockley-Zalabak at al. (2003) built a trust model to study the importance of organizational trust and provide a tool to measure trust in organizations. This research adopts its’ measurable way. The model was composed of five dimensions but in this research, I adopted three dimensions: (1) openness and honesty, including sincere communication, (2) reliability, including the consistent words and actions, and (3) identification that means how organizational members manage their thoughts to organizations. According Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2003), the dimension “openness and honesty are the words used when people are asked what contributes to organizational trust. This dimension involves not only the amount and accuracy of information that is shared, but also how sincerely and appropriate it is communicated.” The second dimension “reliability is determined by whether or not a co-worker, team, supplier, or organization acts consistently and dependably. In other words, can we count on them to do what they say.” The third dimension “identification measures the extent to which we hold common goals, norms, values, and beliefs associated with our organization’s culture. This dimension indicates how connected we feel to management and to co-workers.”

In Figure 2.1.a, shows the organizational trust model, scaling 12 items based on a one to five (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Trust is the positive expectations that others’ actions or behaviors were based on people’s experiences, roles, interdependencies and relationships Shockley-Zalabak et al. (2003).

Figure 2.1.a. The model of organizational trust. Adapted from “Measuring organizational trust:

Concern for Employees

Openness and Honesty

Identification

Reliability

Competence

Organizational Trust

Perceived Effectiveness

Job Satisfaction

Knowledge Sharing Concept and Definition of Knowledge Sharing

According to Wikipedia (2015), knowledge sharing is an activity over which knowledge (specifically, information, skills, or expertise) are exchanged between individuals, friends, families, communities or organizations. From the perspective of Wang and Noe (2010), knowledge sharing means that workers contribute to knowledge application, innovation and eventually the competitive advantage of the institution. Cummings (2004: 352) defined knowledge sharing as “the provision of receipt of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure”. As for Ryu, Ho and Han (2003), knowledge sharing is the distribution of data from one person who shared his or her learnt knowledge to other members of an institution. In this regard, knowledge sharing is view as a transferrable item from the mind of person who hold it to those who required it. In addition to that, they also state that knowledge sharing is the action of one person that spread the knowledge and the information that they have gained among their peers within their organization. From the perceptive of Van Den Hooff, Elving, Meeuwsen and Dumoulin (2003), knowledge sharing is the process that involves the reciprocal trade of knowledge among people, which embrace both the receiver and the sender. In addition to that, they also mentioned that the receiver and the sender could jointly create new knowledge. Additionally, For Van den Hooff, and de Leeuw van Weenen (2004), knowledge sharing is the process through which people jointly share knowledge and together create new knowledge. According to Ardichvili, Page and Wentling (2003), knowledge sharing involves of mutually the supply of new information and the demand for new information. In this case knowledge is divided in knowledge donating (exchanging with other individual about our personal intellectual capital is) and (knowledge collecting, consulting peers in order to make them to exchange their intellectual capital with us).

Additionally, Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2004), identiﬁed a two-dimension of knowledge sharing mechanism that contains of knowledge donating and knowledge collecting. From the perceptive of Liebowitz (2001), declared that knowledge sharing works as a key to influence exchange of knowledge and it is scheming in the societies to differentiate their competitive advantage, aptitude or intellectual prosperity. For Darr and Kurtzberg (2000), knowledge sharing is a procedure that individuals obtain different data by learning others experience.

According to Ghadirian, Ayub, Silong, Bakar and Zadeh (2014), knowledge sharing is a challenging mission that takes time and effort and requires scholars to be determined and enthusiastic to cooperate with each other. Knowledge sharing is a factor of knowledge

management and vital aspect in the organizational world. Serious step in knowledge achievement is knowledge sharing. On the another side, Van den Hooff et al. (2004), state that knowledge sharing is a mechanism that includes colleting, organizing and communicating knowledge from one to another individual. According to Chin Wei, Siong Choy, Geok Chew, and Yee Yen (2012), knowledge sharing refers to the propagation or exchange of explicit or tacit knowledge, ideas, experiences or even skills from one person to another person, student or group of students. However, in order to achieve this, it is necessary to student or group of students to cooperate with each other through either face-to-face or online. According to Lin (2007), knowledge sharing is defined as a social contact culture, including the exchange of member knowledge, experiences, and skills over the entire sector or organization. To Clark and Brennan (1991), knowledge sharing states to sharing common knowledge, principles and expectations. According to Gibbert and Krause (2002), knowledge sharing refer to the willingness of individuals in a team to exchange with others individual the knowledge or information, which they obtained or developed. From the perceptive of Hansen (1999), knowledge sharing is the process that includes the process of knowledge seeking, knowledge transfer, and knowledge adoption.

The Importance of Knowledge Sharing

According to Nelson (1993), when knowledge sharing is successfully delivered among individuals in the organization, can result in organizations mastering and getting into practice of everything that seems new to them to achieve the goal of the organization. For Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge sharing is a requirement for transforming overall ideas and concepts into products and services. According to Spender (1996), knowledge sharing is critical for organizations in order to be able to generate skills and abilities, growth value, and keep competitive advantages. From the perspective of Argote, Ingram, Levine, and Moreland (2000), when the institutions is able to transfer the knowledge among the individuals in the organization from one to another, it can contribute to the organizational performance and effectiveness. As for Van Den Hooff, Elving, Meeuwsen and Dumoulin (2003), has stated that an increase in knowledge sharing can be lead to a great impact in an organization performance. In addition, Reid (2003), stated that knowledge sharing is a great advantage to both individuals and teams.

For van den Hooff et al. (2004), knowledge sharing will become superior when it is shared between students. According to Van den Hooff and de Leeuw van Weenen (2004), knowledge sharing is a significant procedure in contemporary organizations, as effective knowledge

在文檔中 The Effects of Organizational Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Learning and Academic Satisfaction of International Students in Taiwan (頁 19-39)