大陸台商企業員工跨文化知識分享之研究

全文

(1)CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. In the past 10 years, the concept of knowledge management (KM) and in particular, the aspects of information technology, intellectual capital, and people management, has received wide attention from academics and practitioners. There has lately been an increased focus on people management. Bollinger and Smith (2001) propose that human behavior is the key to success or failure of KM strategies, as KM involves an emphasis on organizational culture, teamwork, and the promotion of learning and the sharing of skills, experience and knowledge. Culture, according to Schein (1986), is ultimately about the control of behavior; therefore, controlling processes are concerned with setting the norms of behavior, values and beliefs that the leaders wish to encourage in their subordinates. Because of the difficulties involved in cross-national data collection, past tests of cultural influences on have often examined two or three countries at a time. In such comparisons, cultural dimensions may be confounded, such that all countries high on collectivism are also high on power distance (Hofstede, 2001, p. 217). Not surprisingly, much of this literature explores corporate applications of knowledge management including: different conceptions of organizational and personal knowledge (Hansen, Nohria,& Tierney, 1999), strategies for managing knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; von Krogh, 1998), and case studies of the impact of knowledge management on organizational success (Kreiner, 2002; Morey & Frangioso, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Weick & Roberts, 1993). It is obvious that nowadays knowledge indeed has played an important role in nowadays. Many a contemporary culture-related theory includes the concept of high- versus low-context culture, which traces its roots to the work of Hall (1976). The concept of high versus low context has been shown to be quite useful, especially for cross-cultural. 1.

(2) communication studies (Gudykunst & Nishida, 1986; Okabe, 1983), and conflict-resolution studies (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987). Though few cross-cultural marketing studies have directly dealt with the high- versus low-context concept, many have drawn upon aspects of the concept, such as face saving and group orientation (Tse, Lee, Vertinsky, & Wehrung, 1988; Vanhonacker, 1988), and cross-cultural negotiations (Graham, Kim, Lin, & Robinson, 1988). Most of the past studies have tended to simply categorize subject cultures as either high- or low-context cultures solely based on Hall’s descriptions and attribute observed differences; however, the cultures this study is going to discover are both high-context cultures – Taiwan and Mainland China. Therefore, the study starts from a very similar base and tries to unearth much deeper issues of different culture background.. Background of the Study. The globalization of the economy is forcing many enterprises to change in order to survive. To compete in these global markets, many manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) need to develop new business strategies and employ new technologies. However, manufacturing SMEs usually have poor human and financial resources (Welsh & White, 1981; Bridge et al., 1998) and are therefore likely to be less prepared and less able to change. A better understanding of the ways in which SMEs adopt and implement new technologies, like information technology (IT), is necessary because previous research in the area is limited and a significant percentage is out of date due to the rapidly changing economics of using IT, and the resulting increased adoption by smaller enterprises. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) exert a strong influence on the economics of all countries, particularly in the fast-changing and increasingly competitive global market (Aharoni, 1994; Drilhon & Estime, 1993). They have been a major engine of economic growth and technological progress (Mulhern, 1995; Thornburg, 1993). Carrier (1994) said 2.

(3) that SMEs are often more fertile than larger firms in terms of innovation. In today's business environment, competitive advantage increasingly requires the open sharing of knowledge by organizational members. Indeed, Drucker, Dyson, Handy, Saffo and Senge (1997) have identified harnessing the intelligence and spirit of people at all levels of an organization to continually build and share knowledge as a top priority for firms wishing to succeed in today's competitive environment.. The Current Situation of Taiwanese SMEs In the latest record announced by Taiwan Medium and Small Business Administration (2007), there are 12,440,000 SMEs in 2006 and an increase of 1.47% from 2005. SMEs constitute 97.77% of all enterprises and employ 7,751,000 workforces (76.66% of total workforce). In manufacturing industry, manufacturing SMEs employ the highest workforce of 2,105,000 and those employees constitute 27.16% of all SMEs. The success of Taiwanese SMEs has been well acknowledged (Hannon, 1996; Hiebert, 1991; Huang, 1990; Kao & Lee, 1991; Liu, Liu & Wu, 1995). They have played a vital role in promoting rapid growth during Taiwan’s economic transition (Hannon, 1996; Liu, Liu & Wu, 1995). The scale, scope, organization, and management of SMEs have changed over time in response to evolving markets, technologies, and economic conditions.. The Operating Environment for Taiwanese Company in Mainland China The literature identified those ways, in which the environment for Chinese SMEs is changing, with the pace of this change dependent both on political forces and on the responses of managers. Even though policy has shifted in favor of a market-oriented business economy, it could not be assumed that this would translate quickly into management action on the ground. As one commentator has argued: Economic change does not occur overnight in China, nor is its acceptance by managers 3.

(4) in state enterprises either instantaneous or wholehearted. Some managers are indifferent, some hostile, many frankly apprehensive at the strange new environment which is being created (Livingstone, 1987).. In knowledge management, knowledge sharing seems to exert the greatest influence on effective implementation of other knowledge activities (Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). As Polanyi (1962) put it, "We can know more than we can tell (p. 4)." Knowledge that can be expressed in words and numbers only represents the tip of the iceberg of the entire body of possible knowledge. That is to say, the only way to exchange knowledge is to "share." Leveraging knowledge is only possible when people can share the knowledge that they have and build on the knowledge of others. Knowledge sharing is basically the act of making knowledge available to others within the organization. Sharing implies a conscious act by an individual who participates in the knowledge exchange even though there is no compulsion to do so. Although there is much written about why managing knowledge is important to organizations, there is considerably less on the how – the processes that are used to identify, capture, use, and especially, share knowledge within organizations. In other words, knowledge sharing is critical to knowledge creation, organizational learning, and performance achievement (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Therefore, the lack of knowledge sharing has become a major barrier to the effective management of knowledge in organizations. In practice, sharing requires circulation of knowledge that is always presented as the central operator in its constitutive role (Caraça & Carrilho, 1996), so knowledge sharing also raises issues that are relevant to the competitiveness of the company at present, whereas other aspects of knowledge management to a higher degree address the future competitiveness of the company. 4.

(5) Meanwhile, managers increasingly realize that organizations possess rich resources of non-exploited knowledge in the form of know-how, best practices, and specific knowledge. Making this body of personal knowledge available to others is a central activity in the knowledge-creating company (Nonaka, 1994). Consequently, these issues become even more crucial in China-based Taiwanese company; indeed, cross-cultural knowledge sharing results very much from the evolution of a relationship of trust between local (Chinese) and allochthonous (Taiwanese) employees.. 5.

(6) Statement of the Problem. Market globalization has led growing numbers of firms to compete in areas around the world that are quite distant from their traditional strongholds, both geographically and culturally. Originally, Taiwanese companies have increasingly invested in China due to low labor cost in Mainland China and the emerging division of labor across the Taiwan Straits. However, talented people in Mainland China are gradually springing up; in the other words, it is maybe easier to communicate between Taiwanese and Chinese; actually, due to different culture background from Chinese and Taiwanese, there is still a gap when sharing knowledge with each other. Therefore, through this study, the researcher would like to figure out the following phenomena: 1. Is there any difference when Taiwanese and Chinese employees share knowledge between formal and informal channels? 2. Do Taiwanese and Chinese employees have any difference when sharing knowledge with their coworker with different position level? 3. Do they meet difficulties when sharing knowledge with each other especially resulted from different power distance?. 6.

(7) Significance of the Study. Although there are a bulk of studies investigating the relationships between cultural values and management styles (Tayeb, 1995; Jackson, 2001; Shaheena, 2003), there are only a limited number of studies aimed at exploring the relationships between socio-cultural structure and entrepreneurship. In many researches, Taiwan and China are categorized as the same area, Asia. For example, Kim, Pan and Park’s study (1998) conceives China and Taiwan are belonged to high-context culture. However, more research still considers China and Taiwan as difference cultural units (Ho, 2003; Mok, 2003; Saxenian, 2002). From the researcher's stand, this study is considered to contribute to cross-cultural knowledge sharing in the following ways. First, sharing of complex knowledge becomes a perplexing but essential task for developing organizational knowledge; accordingly, organizational knowledge and its sharing has become a topic of great interest and produced a vast and diverse body of research (Argyris, 1999; Berman, Down, & Hill, 2002; McEvily & Chakravarthy, 2002; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Tsang, 2002). Although individual knowledge is an important organizational resource, it is the collaborative knowledge in an organization that determines its sustainable competitiveness (Hoops & Postrel, 1999). Second, there is little literature that examines cross-cultural knowledge sharing in Taiwanese companies. While researches on cross-cultural knowledge sharing have been conducted in China (Jolly, 2002), and in North America with Japanese expatriates (Ford & Chan, 2003), significant differences have been identified between Chinese and Japanese national cultures (e.g.: Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Triandis, 1995). In research on cultures comparison, there is also little addressed on Taiwanese culture like Taiwanese executive practice knowledge management (Kao, Kao, & Mazzuchi, 2006), but lots on China, for instance, comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American (Kim, Pan & Park, 1998), 7.

(8) cross-cultural study of corporate Web presence in the United States and China (Tain, 2004), the comparison on leadership between China and Australia (Casimir & Li, 2005), different managerial values in the United States and China (Chinta & Capar, 2007), business culture differences between Japan and China (Li & Putterill, 2007). Third, when employees from different cultural backgrounds (especially different power distance level here) share knowledge with each other, they might encounter some difficulties during communicating. In this study, they are also discussed from participants’ points of view to comprehend the real situation in practice. Finally, this study would like to address a brief description of challenges in knowledge sharing between Chinese and Taiwanese employees in a China-based Taiwanese company that can be utilized, for example, as a part of pre-departure training for Taiwanese managers.. 8.

(9) Purpose of the Study. This study tries to make clear understandings of the role of power distance on knowledge sharing in China-based Taiwanese company and give an example like how to share knowledge successfully in a cross-cultural setting. Very little research has been conducted on this topic and the researcher aims to actively contribute to the understanding of multiculturalism as an important factor in multinational business management. Consequently, this study will examine how power distance affects knowledge sharing. And the purposes of this study are as follows: 1. To comprehend if there is any difference when Taiwanese and Chinese employees share knowledge by formal and informal channel. 2. To identify if there the cultural differences between Taiwanese and Chinese employees. 3. To understand the role of power distance in knowledge sharing when employees share knowledge. 4. To discover barriers or difficulties between Taiwanese and Chinese employees during knowledge sharing. By the end of this study, the researcher will locate how power distance affects the differences among Taiwanese and Chinese employees and hope to create a framework for clear understanding about their knowledge sharing styles.. 9.

(10) Question of the Study. Based on a literature review, some major questions were derived to address the inadequacies regarding the role of power distance index. Therefore, the following are the some detailed research questions formulated for this study to identify and describe how power distance influences knowledge sharing between Taiwanese and Chinese employees: 1. Is there any difference when employees share knowledge by formal and informal channel? 2. Is there any cultural difference between employees in Taiwan and in Mainland China? 3. How do Taiwanese and Chinese employees with different position level share knowledge? 4. Do Taiwanese and Chinese employees meet difficulties or barriers when sharing knowledge? In this study, Taiwanese and Chinese people respectively play different cultural roles. The former is regarded as the representative of large power distance; the latter is considered as the one of small power distance. In order to answer the above mentioned questions, this study will interview ten interviewees (including five Chinese and five Taiwanese employees) in a Taiwanese manufacturing company which established factory in Mainland China to discover the knowledge sharing issues operating in their company.. 10.

(11) Proposition. In terms of investigating the knowledge sharing behaviors in the case company, this study proposes four propositions, as follows:. P1:. Employees will have different knowledge sharing intention when using formal or informal channel.. P2:. If there is cultural difference between Taiwan and Mainland China, it will influence employee’s knowledge sharing intention.. P3:. Employees in Mainland China have larger power distance than in Taiwan.. P4:. Employee’s knowledge sharing intention is influenced by power distance.. According to these propositions, this study will comprehend if there is any difference when Taiwanese and Chinese employees share knowledge in formal and informal situations, identify the cultural differences, especially power distance, in knowledge sharing between Taiwanese and Chinese employees, and discover barriers or difficulties between Taiwanese and Chinese employees during knowledge sharing.. 11.

(12) Overview of the Study. The coming parts of this research are arranged as the follows: Chapter Two: Review of Literature This section provides a review of the extant literature on knowledge sharing, focusing particularly on studies that are relevant to the findings that have emerged from this research. In this review, this study summarizes several important studies of knowledge sharing and provides a common analytical basis from cultural perspective, especially in power distance. Chapter Three: Research Method This section provides a detailed explanation of the research framework and the research methods this research uses. These research methods include: (a) analysis of archival information from questionnaire before interview (b) on-site observation and semi-structured interviews, and (c) iterant data analysis. Chapter Four: Finding and Discussion This section provides a descriptive elaboration of the overall results of this study and relates the findings emerging from this research with the extant literature. Here, this study discusses the findings about the issues between power distance and knowledge sharing; interventions in knowledge sharing, such as knowledge sharing under formal and informal situations, knowledge sharing influenced by cultural issues between Taiwan and Mainland China; and other related issues in knowledge sharing. Chapter Five: Conclusion and Reflection This section concludes the results and provides suggestion to the case company as well as the suggestion to future study.. 12.

(13) Definition of Term. Knowledge The definition of knowledge from Kogut and Zander (1993) is that incorporated both the relatively tacit “know-how”, defined as "the accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one to do something smoothly and efficiently" (Kogut & Zander, 1993); and, information or “know-what”. For the purpose of the study, knowledge is defined as expertise, and skills acquired by an employee through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing is the act of making knowledge available to others within the organization. Knowledge sharing between individuals is the process by which knowledge held by an individual is converted into a form that can be understood, absorbed, and used by other individuals (Ipe, 2003). In this study, knowledge sharing refers to a “two-way, mutual knowledge transfer” and an assimilation of ideas advocating.. Power Distance According to Hofstede (2001), power distance can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. McKinnon, Wu and Chow also proposed that power distance refers to the degree to which members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power in institutions and organizations (2000).. SMEs SMEs is the abbreviation of small and medium sized enterprises. SMEs are companies 13.

(14) whose headcount or turnover falls below certain limits. There are different definitions of SMEs in different countries. In Taiwan, in manufacturing industry, if the regular workforce is below 200 people, it can be called SME. However, SMEs can also be defined by the capital of the companies. According to the definition of Ministry of Economic Affairs of Taiwan, in the case of manufacturing, construction, mining industries, its paid-in capital should be less than NT 80 million dollars or the number of permanent employees should be fewer than 200 people. In the other industries, its turnover of the previous year should be less than NT 100 million dollars or the number of permanent employees should be fewer than 50 people. In this study, the case company is correspondent with the rule that the number of permanent employees less than 200 in Taiwan; however, its size in Mainland China is more 1000 employees.. Manufacturing Industry Manufacturing is the use of tools and labor to make things for use or sale. The term may refer to a vast range of human activity, from handicraft to high tech, but is most commonly applied to industrial production, in which raw materials are transformed into finished goods on a large scale. Manufacturing industry includes: chemical industry, construction, electronics, engineering, energy industry, food and beverage (e.g.: brewing industry, food processing), industrial design, metalworking (e.g.: machinist, machine tools, free machining), plastics, telecommunications, textile manufacturing (e.g.: clothing industry), and transportation (e.g.: automobile manufacturing, tire manufacturing). The case company belongs to metalworking and mainly produces all kinds of motors.. 14.

(15) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW The conceptual framework for this study outlines four issues, which are key ideas to the examination of the propositions: first, the literature on knowledge and knowledge which includes nature of knowledge and the distinction between knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. They are reviewed as the most basic ideas of this chapter. What follow are the cross-cultural researches and those primarily on power distance. Finally, the last section, points out relevant important viewpoints of leadership.. Knowledge Sharing. This study integrates the definition of knowledge used by Kogut and Zander (1993) that incorporated both the relatively tacit “know-how”, defined as "the accumulated practical skill or expertise that allows one to do something smoothly and efficiently" (Kogut & Zander, 1993), and information or “know-what”, which accommodates more articulable dimensions of knowledge, into the own definition of this study. Davenport and Prusak (1998) defined knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (p.5).. Nature of Knowledge Some researchers do not separate between knowledge, information, and data. However, knowledge is not the same as data or information, although it uses as both. For instance, Kogut and Zander (1992) did not make a distinction between knowledge and information, even though they thought that information refers to a form of knowledge. On the other hand, Stenmark (2001) assumed that all knowledge is tacit while information is something that can 15.

(16) be articulated and made tangible. He also added that knowledge and information have an effect on one another. Nonaka (1994) argued also that knowledge and information are similar in some aspects, but different in others. Furthermore, he asserted that knowledge can be tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is subconsciously understood and applied, difficult to articulate, and developed from direct experiences and actions. It is usually shared through highly interactive conversation, storytelling, and shared experiences. In contrast, explicit knowledge can be more precisely and formally articulate, more easily codified, documented, transferred, or shared. Therefore, explicit knowledge plays an increasingly important role in organizations and is considered to be the most crucial factor in building the competitive advantage of an organization (Romer, 1995). Sabri (2005) demonstrated a figure (Figure 2.1) to explain the relationships between knowledge, information and data.. Knowledge Information Data. Figure 2.1. Knowledge components Source: Sabri, 2005. In this study, explicit knowledge can be seen as a type of information because it cannot be successfully utilized without the input of individual tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge here can be defined as an individual’s specific skill base or experience, judgment or an awareness of subjects or situations. Therefore, the focus of this study will be how the tacit knowledge be shared in organizations, and whether organizations have any model or process to realize them. It does not mean to discriminate tacit and explicit knowledge, but mainly regards tacit 16.

(17) knowledge as a manifestation of knowledge sharing; also, the main idea is a very important sector, namely multicultural knowledge sharing.. Knowledge Sharing About the differences between knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer, Wang, Ashleigh and Meyer (2006) identified knowledge transfer plays a significant role within the broader concept of knowledge management. It enables individuals to enhance working skills and capability and facilitates teams to develop a team knowledge base; on the other hand, in practice the sharing of knowledge not only involves what knowledge is shared but also how knowledge is shared (Appleyard, 1996; Eppler & Sukowski, 2000; Inkpen & Dinur, 1998; Rulke & Galaskiewicz, 2000). Bartol and Srivastava (2002) define knowledge sharing as the action in which employees diffuse relevant information to others across the organization. In this study, knowledge transfer is considered as a “one-way” communication between two speakers; in addition, knowledge sharing refers to a “two-way, mutual” knowledge transfer and an assimilation of ideas advocating. Therefore, knowledge sharing is particularly relevant to this study; since it captures the process of disseminating knowledge from one individual or group to another within the organization. Knowledge sharing assists in organizational learning; in its absence, the gap between individual and organizational knowledge widens. Knowledge sharing is one of the most challenging processes for a knowledge-based enterprise due to employees’ possible reluctance to share what they know. Furthermore, knowledge sharing may also be the most susceptible to effects of cross cultural differences within a company. Knowledge sharing – the root of knowledge creation in organizations (Nonaka, 1994; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001) – is important for individuals and firms for several reasons. First, knowledge sharing moves tacit knowledge that resides with individuals to an organizational level where it is converted into economic and competitive value for the 17.

(18) organization (Hendriks, 1999; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Second, knowledge sharing promotes widespread learning as well as minimizes the likelihood of wasting resources to solve the same problem repeatedly (Pulakos, Dorsey, & Borman, 2003). Third, an organization secures the diffusion of best practices through knowledge sharing (Husted & Michailova, 2002). Fourth, knowledge sharing has been linked to job satisfaction and motivation due to increased social interaction and overlapping cognition (Peltokorpi, 2004). Finally, knowledge sharing contributes to cross-cultural effectiveness and global operations through enhanced interaction (Hutchings & Michailova, 2004).. Knowledge Sharing Activities Consultations with several individuals in knowledge sharing field revealed three major categories of knowledge sharing activities as key components in knowledge transfer. Knowledge sharing activities are activities that organizations use to communicate with employees. The presence of knowledge sharing activities may increase the opportunity for knowledge throughout the organizations. They include technology assisted communication, meeting and training and development. A search of dealing with knowledge transfer agreed with these three knowledge sharing activities. 1. Technology assisted communication. Technology assisted communication includes, but is not limited to, data banks, electronic mail, videoconferencing, teleconferencing, intranets, and other modes of communication. In recent years, our society has made enormous advances in technology assisted communication, and this new era has allowed organizations to increase effectiveness and efficiency of information flow in terms of both speed and accuracy (Bakos & Treacy, 1986; Neiderman, Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1991). Also, the integration of advanced technology may contribute to an increase in knowledge transfer across organizational boundaries by improving coordination within the organization which, in turn, will improve 18.

(19) internal effectiveness and organizational performance (Bakos & Treacy, 1986; Johnston & Vitale, 1988; Neiderman, Brancheau & Wetherbe, 1991). Since technology assisted communication can have a significant impact on transferred knowledge, management needs to take responsibility for fostering information systems with the potential of providing additional organizational success (Bakos & Treacy, 1986; Johnston & Vitale, 1988). One problem that may impede organizational success is oftentimes management assumes that because information systems are in place, knowledge is being transferred. However, many organizations find themselves trapped amid too much information with no genuine knowledge transfer (Pascarella, 1997). 2. Meetings. Organizations may also implement various types of meetings designed to promote socialization to share values and goals in order to increase knowledge transfer (Hakanson, 1995; Simmonds, Dawley, Ritchie & Anthony, 2001). Support for meetings as a knowledge sharing activity comes from the field of social psychology. Social psychology’s most elementary issue concerns the mere presence of others. Some early research in this area found that performance improved when others participated (Larsson, 1956), while other research shows that the participation of others can hurt one’s performance (Klopfer, 1958). The social-facilitation effect reconciles these findings (Zajone, 1965). This theory proposes that within a discussion, the effect of participants on an individual will bring out that individual’s most dominant response, whether it is a correct or an incorrect response. Ultimately, regardless of the initial view points, the group discussion will reveal both the positive and negative results. Although these meetings were initially designed to transfer or share knowledge, they became ritualistic and ineffective. Organizational members failed to voice their opinions because they were under the false impression that they were supposed to agree with the discussion and not offer a conflicting opinion.. 19.

(20) 3. Training and development. Training and development is a planned, continuous effort by management to improve employee competency levels and organizational performance (Mondy, Noe & Premeaux, 1999). Training provides learners with the knowledge and skills needed for their present jobs, whereas development has a more long-term focus (Fitzgerald, 1992). Development prepares employees to adapt to environmental changes that affect the organization over time. If organizations want employees to be learners and transfer knowledge, then organizations must equip employees with the tools to transfer knowledge. In other words, the employees must be trained (Narasimlla, 2000; Simmonds, Dawley, Ritchie & Anthony, 2001). Not only do these training and development programs allow individuals to learn from leading experts, but they also provide the opportunity for individuals to come together to learn from one another, which will expand mental models and promote better decision-making (Gnyawali, Stewart, & Grant, 1997). Organizations which design systems that provide flexibility in emphasizing the right mode of learning in a particular context are likely to learn more effectively than organizations that have rigid systems and emphasize only one mode of learning (Gnyawali, Stewart & Grant, 1997). Through the above review, knowledge sharing activities can be considered happening in formal situation at workplace; therefore, in pre-interview questionnaire, activities related to Technology assisted communication, meeting and training and development are categorized as formal activities of knowledge sharing in companies.. 20.

(21) Relevant Cross-cultural Issues The challenge facing companies wishing to gain a competitive advantage is to create a culture and environment in which knowledge sharing will thrive. Without an appropriate culture, knowledge sharing is at best very difficult, and most likely will not occur (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Gold, Malhotra & Segars, 2001). Prior to 1980, organizational culture was considered by many to be independent of national culture. However, Hofstede (1980) argued that an organization’s culture is nested within a national culture. Therefore, national culture should influence human resource practices and organizational behavior more. For instance, although American companies and Japanese companies are discovering and instituting innovative and successful methods of knowledge creation and management, American and Japanese cultures are very different in terms of underlying beliefs and foci (Hofstede, 1980). In order for knowledge transfer to occur, several factors are critical: trust, common language, culture and beliefs (Ford & Chan, 2002). Therefore, it is important to understand how knowledge exists and is managed within organizations that combine these cultures. Moreover, studies investigating the effectiveness of knowledge transfer between international alliance partners have found that cultural differences impact information flows, knowledge management processes, and knowledge transfer. Simonin (1999) concluded that the cultural distance between firms increases the difficulty of performing these processes successfully. It is obvious that previous research suggests that national culture and cross-cultural distance may influence knowledge processes. Therefore this should be further examined. 1. Relationship / quanxi. From a culture viewpoint, there is difference about relationship between in English and in Chinese. In Chinese, relationship is pounced as “quanxi”. For binding millions of Chinese people and organizations, quanxi touches every aspect of the Chinese social life including 21.

(22) business life. A Chinese without quanxi is virtually socially isolated. The term quanxi carries multiple meanings in the Chinese languages with all definitions referring to a type of interpersonal relationship (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). The word, quanxi, can be torn down to two characters: “quan” and “xi”. Originally defined as door, guan can be metaphorically thought of, as inside of the door you are one of us, yet outside you are not recognized, and xi is associated with the concept of relationships either creating or maintaining relationships (Luo, 1997). Quanxi can be considered as the relationship itself or the act of drawing upon the relationship. Referring to the relationship, quanxi is the special, unofficial, relationship between two persons, which binds the two thought the exchange of favors rather than expressions of friendship; the two are consciously committed to each other (Chen, 1995). There are several important components of quanxi (Luo, 1997). First, quanxi is reciprocal. An individual who falls to recognize the rule of equity by declining to return a favor for a favor loses face and is viewed as untrustworthy. More often than that, the exchange favors the person of lesser status or the weaker individual in the relationship. Another component is that quanxi is intangible. Quanxi is based on unwritten rules reciprocity and equity with the long term commitment leads to loss of face. Next, quanxi is transferable. The other component of quanxi is that it is utilitarian not emotional. Sympathy and sentiment are not the basis for the relationship, rather the exchange of favor between two persons. Lastly, quanxi is essentially personal. Quanxi does not exist between organizations but rather between individual in organization. Relationships are personal but can be brought to an organization, yet when the individual leaves the organization his quanxi follows (Abdallah, 2002). A Chinese individual’s focal experience is the self in relation to others, in contrast to the Western view of the independent self as a self contained entity. Working from a relationship or independent paradigm, a person will put greater significance upon social 22.

(23) relations (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002).. 23.

(24) Cultural Issues between Taiwan and Mainland China. Culture is a very broad term that can refer to professional culture, an organization’s culture, and a national culture. Thus far, the focus of the literature for knowledge sharing has been on organizational culture. However, national culture is the primary focus of this research and due to only one case firm so that this research can omit this variable, organizational culture. National culture is defined as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 25). The collective programming is based on values – “a broad tendency to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 19). In other words, members of a culture will have similar sets of preferences built in to how they view the world. This was a widely accepted definition of culture prior to Hofstede’s work; however, without doubt, his taxonomy has influenced our thinking. Hofstede (1984), in his study of employees in the subsidiaries of IBM, identified four cultural dimensions: power distance, collectivism versus individualism, masculinity versus femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. These dimensions have become the building blocks of many cross-cultural studies. Scholars have applied them to the research in organizational communication (e.g., Chow, Harrison, MacKinnon, & Wu, 2002; Rowlinson, 2001), advertising (e.g., Moss & Vinten, 2001; Pornpitakpan & Francis, 2001), information industry production (e.g., Walsham, 2002), public relations (e.g., Taylor, 2000; Wu, Taylor, & Chen, 2001), and patterns of internet use (e.g., Johnston & Johal, 1999; Stewart, Shields, & Sen, 1998). Also, these cultural dimensions have been applied to the cross-cultural research of organizational web pages (e.g., Marcus & Gould, 2000; Zahir, Dobing, & Hunter, 2002).. 24.

(25) Table 2.1. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Cultural dimension. Issues. Power distance (PDI). How inequalities are viewed and handled in the culture (i.e., strong hierarchical relationships versus egalitarian relationships). Individualism/collectivism (I/C). How individuals view themselves (e.g., are they an individual striving for individual goals or a part of a collective group, where group harmony is important?). Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) Masculinity/femininity. How accepting of uncertainty is the culture How the culture values competitiveness/assertiveness (i.e., masculine traits) and cooperation/nurturing (i.e., feminine traits).. In the past, there have always been interactions between Taiwan and Mainland China; however, there is some cultural differences discovered. Many scholars (Hofstede, 1988; Huang, 1994; Zheng, 1995) found labors in Mainland China have more desire of stability, fear to change, and pursuit of better lives than those in Taiwan. In other words, though Taiwan and Mainland China originate from the same cultural background, through time passing by, those cultural characteristics are developed into different lineaments. According to Shao’s study (1993), there are three differences between Taiwan and Mainland China. The first is the regional difference. Taiwan has been developing its economy for forty years, and the development has led Taiwan rapidly to enter modern society. Traditional culture has begun to be diverse. That is to say, it is dissimilar regions that Taiwan and Mainland China have different lifestyle. Therefore, regional difference gradually reveals. The second is level of modernization. Taiwan has already become developed area; however, in Mainland China, most areas are still in the process of developing. So the unequal levels of modernization resulted in distinct value and behavior. The third is different political and economic policy. In Taiwan, people already got used to democratic status; in contrast, totalitarian dictatorship is still the main rein of government in Mainland China although the 25.

(26) market is already open. Videlicet, these two areas have adverse degree of freedom. Under this kind of political and economic atmosphere, culture which is regarded as establishment of spiritual civilization, deservedly, have faraway differences. In addition, Lu (1996) points out that the employee in Mainland China puts higher attention on their work than the employee in Taiwan, and they cherish their jobs. As to need of safety, Taiwan employees ask for job diversity, high welfare, low pressure and have more concerns about family and promotion. Also, Wen’s study (1988) shows that due to Single Child Policy in Mainland China, the population census tells, there is 19.15% male illiteracy and 45.23% female illiteracy which construct 31.87% of population above twelve. After the above review, it is clear that Taiwan and Mainland China have apparent distinctions. Taiwan, originally, put emphasis on reward and physical life, but as time goes by, it is influenced by western culture and economic development. It became to concern selfaccomplishment and inner compensation. On the contrary, Mainland China thought that peace and concord is important; however, the idea is changing to pursue fortune and material life. Most of the above review is discovered by domestic scholars from a job value perspective. For this study, except discussing the differences between Taiwan and Mainland China, the main point of view is to discover if they have different knowledge sharing styles by evaluating power distance index.. Power Distance Originally, the main focus of this study is to discover if there is any difference between Taiwanese and Chinese cultures when sharing knowledge. After identifying the national culture dimensions, the researcher found many previous cultural studies addressed most on power distance index when comparing Taiwan and China cultures (Hofstede, 1991, 2001; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). 26.

(27) Moreover, the integrated chart is found in the Cullen and Parboteeah’s study (2005, p.60; refer to Table 2.2), it is clear that the largest cultural difference between Taiwan and Mainland China is their power distance indexes. Therefore, the power distance relevant studies are discussed in the next section of literature review.. Table 2.2. Percentage ranks for Hofstede’s cultural dimensions for Far Eastern countries (100 = highest; 50 = middle) Cultural Group / Country. Power Distance. Uncertainty Individualism Masculinity Avoidance. Long-term Orientation. Far Eastern: China Hong Kong Singapore Taiwan. 89 73 77 46. 44 8 2 53. 39 32 26 19. 54 67 49 41. 100 96 69 92. Source: Cullen & Parboteeah, 2005, p.60.. “Power” here refers to hierarchical social relations, and no human society is without hierarchical organization – even supposedly egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies have hierarchies based on age and gender. Thus, “power” and “society” refer to the same thing – hierarchically organized relations between individual and groups (Brown, 2004). According to Hofstede (2001), power distance can be defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (p.28).” McKinnon, Wu and Chow also proposed that power distance refers to the degree to which members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power in institutions and organizations (2000). Power distance (PD) and individualism/collectivism (I/C). People in small power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed. 27.

(28) relatively equally, people should have equal rights, and status should be diminished. People in large-power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed unequally, accept hierarchical relations, and reward and sanction based on rank and status. Power distance and individualism/collectivism (I/C) are related in many societies. Specifically, collectivistic cultures tend also to be large power distance cultures and individualistic cultures tend also to be small power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1991). In Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, akai, and Wilcox’s study (2001), they pointed out power distance also has an individual-level component; similarly to the arguments with self-construal, cultures are categorized as large and small power distance, but individuals do not necessarily follow all cultural values. Thus some individuals in large-power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed evenly, while some individuals in small-power distance cultures believe that power should be distributed unevenly. Power distance (PD) and injustice/inequity. In addition, lots of researchers focus on the relationship between power distance and organizational justice. Also, when organizational justice is not regarded as fairness, the problem “inequity” will generate from employees’ minds. For instance, Hofstede (2001) found that power distance was negatively correlated with injustice. Large power distance cultures like Japan, for example, are not troubled by unjust terms (Kublin, 1987). In large power distance cultures, where inequality and injustice are taken for granted, direct communication would not seem to be a response to perceived injustice; unlike Americans (small power distance), whose experience of participating in direct communication against perceived injustice gives rise to satisfying feelings of solidarity and mutual validation (Martin & Varney, 2003; Merkin, 2006). On the other hand, individuals from large power distance cultures, receive more social support for conformity and acceptance of injustice (Basabe, Paez, Valencia, Gonzalez, Rime, 28.

(29) & Diener, 2002) and aim to preserve existing structures. For example, they maintain taller organizational structures than their lower power distance counterparts (Hofstede, 2001). This is because in large power distance cultures, the hierarchical structure to which people belong preserves their face. Face is preserved because when roles are structured and formalized, associated behaviors are prescribed and acted out without surprises arising. If people accept the world as unjust, they are less likely to experience anger over relationships reflecting inequality and/or injustice. In fact, findings show that people from collective large power distance cultures experience less intense emotions than people from individualistic small power distance cultures (Markus, Kitayama, & Heimain, 1996; Scherer, 1988). Power distance (PD) and facework. Previous studies indicate that the concept of face is used across cultures, however, the meanings and usages are different depending on the culture (Gao, 1998; Morisaki & Gudykunst,. 1994;. Ting-Toomey,. 1988).. The. concept. is. briefly. described. the. conceptualizations of face for the four national cultures in the current study. Chinese face consists of two types: lien (or lian) and mien-tzu (or mianzi) (Chang & Holt, 1994; Gao, 1998; Hu, 1944). Lien refers to the moral character of an individual while mien-tzu refers to the social status achieved through success in life. Face is an important concept in Japan and also has two types, mentsu and taimen (Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). Mentsu is similar to the concept of mien-tzu in Chinese culture while taimen refers to the appearance one presents to others. The concept of face originated in Chinese culture. Goffman (1955) was one of the first Western writers to examine face and his definition of face was influenced by the Chinese concept of face (e.g., Hu, 1944). He conceptualized face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself/herself by the line others assume he/she has taken during a participant contact” (p. 213). Goffman (1959) explained that face can be lost, saved, and protected and that when people fail to present an image of self competently, they take 29.

(30) counteractions (facework) to the face-threat. He used a theatrical metaphor to describe the performances of individuals presenting various aspects of the self. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) proposed cultural-level differences of power distance. However, prior research indicates on politeness theory offers some indication about the effect of power distance on face concerns and facework. Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed that the more power individuals have, the less polite they are. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) linked power distance to horizontal and vertical facework. People from individualistic small power distance cultures believe in individual freedom of expression (Matsumoto, 1989) and emphasize clarity because it indicates integrity (Fry, 1991); they value equal power distributions across different social roles (Ting-Toomey, 2005), and they assume that equals can communicate directly with each other. Furthermore, they say what is on their minds, even if it risks damaging the relationship (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1995). For example, Olekalns (1999) describes low power distance Australians as egalitarian individualists who care about honesty, truth, and transparency, and who, therefore, tend to be direct and blunt in their speech acts, favor argument, and can be confrontational if necessary, none of which need be damaging to the relationship. Hofstede (2001) points out that people from small power distance cultures tend to be verbally direct and clear. In small power distance cultures, they do not mind creating face-threatening conflicts while expressing themselves for the sake of clarity. Such independent attitudes can be face-threatening; however, to people from large power distance cultures who believe that any intervention that challenges authority or that threatens with the need to open up and confront conflict is not appropriate (Westwood, Tang, & Kirkbride, 1992). Unlike individuals from small power distance cultures who believe power should be used only when it is legitimate, culture members possessing large power distance grant authority and social inequality (Hofstede, 1980). Hofstede (2001) also explained that together with seeing power as a basic 30.

(31) societal fact, individuals from large power distance cultures stress coercive or referent power. Thus, people from large power distance cultures accept coercive autocratic power, obediently following orders more than individuals from small power distance cultures (Mann, 1980). This is because power is a basic fact of society and its legitimacy is irrelevant in large power distance cultures (Hofstede, 2001; Merkin, 2006). Consequently, in large power distance cultures, defiance of autocratic power is face-threatening. Cultures high in power distance tend to stress conformity and submissiveness and be more authoritarian societies (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, when it is necessary for people from large power distance cultures to interact with others, they engage in obedient, peaceful, cooperative communication strategies that compromise or collaborate with others (Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991). Cooperative strategies are soothing, extra-considerate communications employed to show deference, reverence, and respect in an effort to smooth over potentially face-threatening events. One manner in which obedience might be expressed is via deferential or acquiescent cooperative communication strategies. It is widely known that a preference for obedient, conforming, and cooperative communication is also related to collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Hofstede scores for collectivism and power distance have predictive validity in relation to social behavior (Smith et al., 1998). Given Hofstede’s description of the preference of large power distance cultures for cooperative interactions and large power distance positive correlation with collectivism, it is reasonable that individuals from large power distance cultures would also prefer using cooperative facework strategies to smooth over difficult face-threatening situations (Merkin, 2006). Besides, the overt expression of emotion (particularly the emotional demonstration of aggressiveness and anger) is viewed as generally inappropriate (Merkin, 2006). For example, Japanese and Koreans (large power distance) show more concern for politeness and use less confrontational communication styles than small power distance Americans (Steil & Hillman, 31.

(32) 1993). Furthermore, in large power distance Japan, confrontation often leads to a loss of face (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Therefore, it appears to be less likely for people from large power distance cultures to express themselves directly.. 32.

(33) Leadership versus Knowledge Sharing. Two important authorities on leadership are Bass (1985) and Burns (1978). Burns (1978) distinguishes between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leaders motivate followers through exchange; for example, accomplishing work in exchange for rewards or preferences. Transformational leaders pay great attention to interacting with followers to create organizational collectivity. They attempt to understand followers’ needs and stimulate followers to achieve goals. Such leaders are rather flexible in working towards the desired outcomes; change will take place when it is needed. Bass (1985) focuses on the relationship between superiors and subordinates. He considers that leaders carry out both transactional and transformational leadership, but in different combinations. Satisfaction of employees’ needs and wants by transactional leaders involves existing rewards, while transformational leaders tailor or create new stimuli to satisfy staff needs. Transactional leaders adapt to existing organizational culture while transformational leaders adapt the culture to the external environment. Based partly on the models of Burns and Bass, Quinn (1988) outlined his Competing Values Framework. The framework comprises four models or quadrants created by competing values on two dimensions: an “internal–external” dimension and a “flexibility-control” dimension. The open system model emphasizes the external-flexibility quadrant, whereas the internal process model emphasizes the internal- control quadrant. The rational goal model focuses on the external-control quadrant and the human relations model focuses on the internal-flexibility quadrant. The competing value framework can be extensively used in the discipline of leadership (Quinn & McGrath, 1985). Leadership roles are classified into eight types. That is, managers in organizations play monitor, coordinator, director, producer, innovator, broker, facilitator, and mentor roles. 33.

(34) In the internal process model, managers play two roles: monitors and coordinators. Managers as monitors govern subordinates in accordance with company rules and individual reviews. Managers as coordinators are trusting and comply with existing organizational structures and systems. They usually simplify routines and build up good relationships with other parties, leading to enhancement of employees’ efforts. These two roles ensure that managers are responsible to and accountable for assigned tasks. In the rational goal model, managers play two roles: producers and directors. Managers as producers emphasize employee productivity and achievement of goals and assignments. Managers as directors usually clarify roles and future directions for subordinates through establishing plans, structures and instructions, defining problems and seeking practical solutions. In the open system model, leaders are seen as idealistic and play innovator and broker roles. Innovators investigate the external environment and absorb collected information and knowledge as rapidly as possible. Managers as brokers focus on retention of external legitimacy and collection of external resources. To achieve these aims, they strengthen connections with external entities. Effective leaders play facilitator and mentor roles in the human relations model, aiming to foster social interactions. Facilitators emphasize group harmony and consensus and invigorate interpersonal relationships to minimize conflicts and involve employee participation in problem-solving and enlarging organizational resources. Managers as mentors assist subordinates to develop job-related competencies with empathy and consideration. Leaders in a team play an important role in nurturing a healthy work atmosphere for their subordinates (e.g. Grandori & Kogut, 2002; Hendriks, 1999). The traditional view of management is that organizational members act as instruments of their superiors (Roth, 2003). However, this perspective is no longer seen to secure long-term success and managers are 34.

(35) increasingly required to stimulate subordinates to voluntarily transfer talent and experience into organizational assets. This involves leadership rather than management, and facilitating and coaching roles must receive more attention (Roth, 2003). The studies of Chourides, Longbottom and Murphy (2003) and Goh (2002) show that a coaching leadership role can positively facilitate knowledge sharing. Mentoring programs enable senior members to assist juniors. Seniors need to be motivated to share knowledge and experience with juniors and newcomers (von Krogh, 1998). The eight leadership roles described by Cameron and Quinn (1999) are expected to support knowledge sharing to different degrees. In particular, mentoring and facilitating roles seem most consistent with the types of organizational culture considered effective for knowledge sharing in the studies described earlier.. 35.

(36) 36.

(37) CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD. This study is synergistic, focusing on “understanding the patterns of relationships and theories which apply when people with different power distance index interact within a work-setting”. Due to this sensitive topic, the study will use qualitative research methods for unexplored field and social phenomenon. Qualitative research methods can be used to explore substantive areas about which little is known or about which much is known to gain novel understandings (Stern, 1980); also, they are used in research that is designed to provide an in-depth description of a specific program, practice or setting (Mertens, 1998). Case study research is defined as a research that provides a detailed account and analysis of one or more cases. Case study can be used to address exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). Yin (2003) indicated that the case study is the method of choice when the phenomenon under study is not readily distinguishable from its context. According to Stake (2000), there are three different kinds of case studies: 1. Intrinsic case study: the researcher's primary interest is in understanding a specific case. It is the type used in this study. Beside, although it can be seen as a small step toward grand generalization, it is not undertaken primarily because the case represents other cases, but because this case itself is of interest. Originally, the researcher tried to get in contact with different industries for broader study; however, there was no response from practical field. Finally,. through. the. introduction. of. an. acquaintance,. the. research. found. a. motor-manufacturing company, which established in 1976, and they supported the whole interview with full efforts. Therefore, this study turns to use intrinsic case study for deeper comprehension.. 37.

(38) 2. Instrumental case study: the researcher is interested in understanding something other than the particular case. It plays a supportive role and facilitates the comprehension of something else. 3. Collective case study: a researcher may jointly study a number of cases in order to investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition. The collective case study is also called the multiple-case design. The reason here this study chooses qualitative research method as the research method is according to the following three peculiar needs of this study: 1. Since the purpose of this research is to understand how employees with different power distance level share knowledge within China-based Taiwanese company, there is little prior research which provides similar viewpoint or relevant aspect. 2. Due to studying styles in sharing knowledge, it is difficult to use quantitative measure for the desired outcome of this research. 3. The purpose to choose qualitative methods is because prior quantitative studies are lack in data from real persons’ perspectives and to add deeper viewpoints for assisting quantitative studies. Consequently, the research methods are introduced in the following, such as the framework of this research, the criteria of sampling, and the ways and processes how data is collected and analyzed.. 38.

(39) Framework of the Study. The framework of this study is based on research purposes and questions. Research data is obtained from the only one China-based Taiwanese company in Guangzhou. There are four different types of workers that are interviewed. These are Chinese and Taiwanese managers and employees. Information is collected from interviews to identify if there is any knowledge sharing difference between Taiwanese and Chinese employees. In order to find out whether different situation would influence different knowledge sharing behavior is one of the purposes, the researcher divides knowledge sharing situation into formal and informal ones to figure if participants have different attitude and behavior towards knowledge sharing under different situation. Further, one of the purposes is to discover if power distance would influence knowledge sharing from participant’s perspective, through the interaction between Taiwanese and Chinese employees, their knowledge sharing styles are uncovered. The research framework is presented as Figure 3.1, and knowledge sharing behavior among the four multi-types interviewees have to be discovered.. 39.

(40) Interventions Formal/ informal channel. Cultural difference. Taiwanese employees. P1. P2. Power distance. P3 P4 Chinese employees. Knowledge sharing barriers Other issues direction of influencing direction of knowledge sharing. Figure 3.1. Research framework. 40.

(41) Participant. According to literature review, it is clear that Taiwanese people and people in Mainland China might have different knowledge sharing styles. Such inclinations toward knowledge sharing are related to their culture backgrounds. By collecting the knowledge sharing facts from managers and employees with two-way contrast along with knowledge sharing difficulties they have encountered, some suggestions are provided to other Taiwanese companies that are ready to enter China market and that already established factory in Mainland China for reference. This overall data gathering strategy, which is discussed in more detail below, enabled this research to gather a rich and broad base of qualitative data to use as foundation for analysis. This study is aimed to get a deeper understanding of the power distance of sharing knowledge; also, it has collected the characteristics of Taiwanese and Chinese people that will affect knowledge sharing. Through the analysis of such content and interviews, the researcher is able to examine how these characteristics affect China-based Taiwanese companies. This company is invested by full Taiwanese investment and there are two factories in Mainland China. This background is well qualified with this study. Their products are widely used in home appliances, auto parts, personal care products, motorized toys and electric tools and are mainly marketed in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Japan, Germany, South East Asia and the United States. This company is featured with high running torque, durability and minimal mechanical noise. In 1997 and 2002, it was honored with the ISO-9002 and ISO-9001 certificates respectively. Within the case firm, the researcher will adopt ten employees including three Taiwanese and three Chinese as candidate participants of this study. Each of the main interviewees will be qualified as the following: 1. Each interviewee must have worked in the case company for at least 2 years. 41.

(42) 2. Each main interviewee must be a mid-level manager who has at least two supervisors and subordinates. 3. Due to need of research, each main interviewee must provide four colleagues, including a pair of supervisors and a pair of subordinates. Any pair of colleagues must contain one Taiwanese and one Chinese. Additionally, for triangulation, the researcher also interviews each of their Taiwanese and Chinese supervisors and subordinates. According to their main interviewee’s region, all interviewees can be sorted into two charts as below:. A1a, A2a, A3a. A1b, A2b. Taiwanese Supervisor. Chinese Supervisor. Taiwanese mid-level manager A1c, A2c, A3c U. U. Taiwanese Subordinate. Chinese Subordinate. A1d, A2d. A1e, A2e. Figure 3.2.(a) Two groups interviewees’ relationship chart -Taiwanese mid-level manager as the main interviewee. B1a, B2a. B1b, B2b. Taiwanese Supervisor. Chinese Supervisor. Chinese mid-level manager U. U. Taiwanese Subordinate. B1c, B2c, B3c. Chinese Subordinate. B1d, B2d. B1e, B2e. Figure 3.2.(b) Two groups interviewees’ relationship chart -Chinese mid-level manager as the main interviewee 42.

(43) First of all, all interviewees are categorized as the “interviewee relationship chart.” In group A, the positions of Taiwanese supervisors are all named by “1a” “2a” “3a”… in orders; the positions of Chinese supervisors are all named by “1b” “2b” “3b”… in orders. In addition, the positions of Taiwanese mid-level managers are all named by “1c” “2c” “3c”… in orders. Finally, the positions of Taiwanese and Chinese employees are separately named by “d” and “e”. To illustrate, in group B, all the code names of positions are the same as which in group A. Second, in group A and B, they are assorted by team for triangulation and reference, for example, 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e belongs to the same team for each group. Finally, their regions: Taiwan (T) and Mainland China (C), gender: male (M) and female (F), and title of job: high-level managers (H), mid-level managers (M), basic-level managers (B), and employees (E) are noted. The interviewee demographic information by region and gender is illustrated in Table 3.1. Furthermore, by referring to the position and level of case company (Figure 3.3), Table 3.2 represents the interviewee demographic information by region and title. Finally, Table 3.3 shows the detailed profile of interviewees for clear reference.. Table 3.1. Interviewee demographic information – Interviewee’s background. Interviewee’s Background. Gender (M/F). Total. Taiwan. 3/5. 8. Mainland China. 10/5. 15. Total. 13/10. 23. 43.

(44) Strategic planning level: President, Vice-president, Auditorial Manager, Consultant. High-Level Managers. Mid-level Managers. Tactic level: Manager, Director, Section Manager, Assistant Manager. Basic-level Managers. Management level: first-line manager Inc.: Team Leader, Engineer. Employees. Actual performer: Assistant, Employee. Figure 3.3. Position level and title of case company. Table 3.2. Interviewee demographic information –Position level and interviewee’s background Position level High-level Mid-level Basic-level Employee Total. Interviewee’s background Taiwan. Mainland China. 4 3 1 2 10. 1 5 4 3 23. 44. Total 5 8 5 5 23.

(45) Table 3.3. Detailed profile of interviewees Interviewee. Background (T/C). Gender (M/F). Position level (H,M,B,E). Position title. Group A 1a 2a 3a. T T T. M M M. H H H. 1b. C. M. H. 2b 1c 2c 3c 1d 2d 1e 2e. C T T T T T C C. M M F M F F F F. M M M M B E E E. Vice-president President Vice-president Audit manager/ Consultant Director Director Manager Director Team Leader Assistant Assistant Employee. Group B 1a 2a 1b 2b 1c 2c 3c 1d 2d 1e 2e. T T C C C C C T T C C. M F M M M M F M F M F. H M M M M M M M E B E. Vice-president Manager Director Vice-director Section Manager Section Manager Section Manager Assistant Manager Assistant Engineer Assistant. * Background (T/C): T=Taiwan, C=Mainland China; Gender (M/F): M=male, F=female; Position (H, M, B, E): H=high-level manager, M=mid-level manager, B=basic-level manager, E=employee.. 45.

(46) Procedure and Validity. The procedures of this research are divided into eight parts. First of all, the researcher identifies the interesting topic and reviews relevant literature for deeper understanding of the topic. Second, based on the literature, the research points emerge and the interview questions are conducted. The following is the expert review of interview questions, and once the interview questions and research points are confirmed, the researcher begins to administrate interviews. After all interviews completed, the researcher analyzes data: gives codes to the field notes and manuscripts drawn from observation and interview. When finding something worthwhile for deeper analysis, the researcher uses e-mail interview to re-contact interviewees and get their support. Next, those findings are looked over by participants as member checks. Finally, the procedures are completed by gaining conceptual findings from plentiful data. The complete research flow chart is illustrated in Figure 3.4.. 46.

(47) Identifying research topic. Reviewing relevant literature. Conducting interview question. Interviewing. Analyzing data. 1. Clarifying 2. Finding new issues. Y. N Checking by participants. Gaining conceptual findings. Figure 3.4. Research flow chart. 47.

(48) Credibility Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified credibility as the criterion in qualitative research that parallels internal validity in quantitative research. In qualitative research, the credibility test asks if there is a correspondence between the way the respondents actually perceive social conception and the way the researcher portrays the viewpoints of respondents. In this study, two stages are involved in credibility: the data collection and analysis. For example, In this study, two stages are involved in credibility: the data collection and analysis. The researcher interviews 23 people including three Taiwanese and Chinese middle manager, his/her Taiwanese and Chinese supervisors, and his/her Taiwanese and Chinese subordinates to make triangulation and have an overall comprehension. Also, progressive subjectivity is respected by continual referring to the literature and document, and by proceeding with the researcher’s construction. Finally, the most important criteria in establishing credibility, in order to verify with the respondents the constructions that are developing as a result of collected and analyzed, the researcher use member checks, to share the research draft to the members for comment. It can assist the researcher to clarify members’ perspectives and to represent their points of view accurately. Transferability Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified transferability as the qualitative parallels to external validity in quantitative research. In qualitative research, the transferability refers to “thick description and multiple cases” (Mertens, 1998, p.183). In this study, the researcher use extensive and careful description of the time, place, context, and culture to show the transferability. Dependability Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified dependability as the qualitative parallels to reliability. In qualitative research, the reliability test can be conducted to prove the quality and appropriateness of the inquiry process. For the whole design and procedures of this study, 48.

(49) they are reviewed by expert of cross-cultural field, and the interview guidelines are revised from Hofstede’s study of employees in the subsidiaries of IBM (1984), and examined by expert committee as well. Therefore, the quality of this study is believed above the average. Conformability Guba and Lincoln (1989) identified conformability as the qualitative parallels to objectivity. Objectivity means the influence of the researcher’s judgment is minimized, so it can be said that conformability means the data and their interpretation are reasonable and authentic analysis. In this study, the logical framework can be seen from the design and data analysis in detail. The data is collected from six pairs of interviewees and reflected exhaustive potential and credible phenomenon for the researcher’s further analysis. The researcher made three-time coding in this research. The first time coding was conducted right after manuscripts completed, the second time coding was implemented after one week of the first time, and finally the third time coding was executed within one month. The second time coding result has 95% consistence with the first time. Two weeks later, the third time coding result still has 98% consistence with the second time. Besides, by using repeating coding and theoretical category, the subjective viewpoint is brought down to the minimal influence.. 49.

(50) Data Collection. Due to three major components of qualitative research – data, procedures, and written and verbal reports, the core method of data collection was based on a semi-structured interview instrument developed through documents review. The general purpose of documents review is to gain clear understanding of current state of knowledge, and to explain the theoretical underpinning of the study.. Questionnaire before Interview The purpose of questionnaire before interview is to introduce the research and to get more comprehension about the formal and informal situations from employee’s perspective. Most of the interviewees have worked in this company for more than five years, and only two employees (A1b and B1e) have just worked in this company for two years. In questionnaire, one of the questions is that the researcher according to literature review lists some formal knowledge sharing channels for interviewees to check the best channel (multiple-choices) for them to share knowledge. The first one “meeting” is the most popular choice of all (11 votes); the second is “training” and “intranet (e.g.: email, database…).”. Table 3.4. The most effective formal knowledge sharing channel The most effective channels. Votes. Meeting. 11. Training Intranet Phone call Others. 7 7 4 0. There is also one question related to their informal knowledge sharing channels in 50.

(51) private (which can be more than one) in questionnaire. Interviewees mentioned most is “to have activities together after work”, and the following are “to forward private mail to colleges”, and “to have conversation during lunchtime.” Based on their answers, the researcher has deeper discussion with interviewees about “meeting” and “to have meal together after work” to get more information and comparison between formal and informal knowledge sharing.. Table 3.5. Informal knowledge sharing channels Informal knowledge sharing channels. Checks. to have activities together after work. 15. to forward private mail to colleges to have conversation during lunchtime to go out with colleagues on holidays others. 10 7 2 0. Interviews Interview method was preferred in this project to achieve our objective of exploring various factors influencing knowledge culture in organizations. As such the area of investigation is new and vague. It was necessary, therefore, to use exploratory research techniques to learn about the dilemmas faced by managers and employees with respect to sharing their knowledge. Such techniques are adequate when the meaning, the definition or the model are yet to be researched, and should allow us to get a deeper understanding of the issues on culture of sharing knowledge. In addition, the researcher uses short rest time, including intervals of interview, lunchtime and dinner, to observe the active interaction between supervisors and subordinates and write down the observation notes in order to prove the interview data. As to the interview method, this research uses individual interview format to understand each participant’s perspective toward knowledge-sharing within their companies. 51.