The Effects of Organizational Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Learning and Academic Satisfaction of International Students in Taiwan

全文

(1)The Effects of Organizational Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Learning and Academic Satisfaction of International Students in Taiwan By Hildeberto Manuel Seca. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resources Development. Advisor: Cheng-Ping Shih, Ph.D.. Graduate institute of International Human Resource Development National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2016.

(2) ACKOWLEDGEMETS If it was fast or slow and hard or soft before I arrived to the moment of writing those words, all I can really say is that I really enjoy the ride in IHRD. Therefore, firstly, I would like to express my deepest gratitude, consideration and appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Cheng-Ping Shih, thank you for your exceptional support, cooperation, consideration and guidance during all this time. Secondly, thanks to committee members, Dr. Shih, Dr. Pai-Po Lee and Dr. Chih-Chien, Lai for the feedback, encouragement, guidance, cooperation and timely instructions for the thesis and your lecturers. I would also like to express my deep appreciation and gratitude to my parents (Helder Seca and Firmina Seca) and my sister (Catia Seca). In addition, my warmest thanks to Ms. Tracy Lee; extended to others faculties members of IHRD; Dr. Wei-Wen Chang; Dr. Chu-Chen Yeh, Dr. Huang and Dr. Yi-Chun Lin and staff members, friends (Altanchimeg, George Sambou, Tysha Ramos, Severina Alves, Gilberto Andrade, Edna Andrade Mbuso Gama, Helmer Neto, Aibo Tsai, Linda Lu and Amber Wang), classmates, specially (Alan Lin, Sam Hsu, Eduardo, Jimenez, Tatjana Tica, Chloe Tsai, Wendy, Fanny Fan, Wiseman, Gracia Maria and Aiko) and all others students, country mates and friends, thank you for taking good care of me, encouraging and being part of these two years of my research study. Besides, I would like to thank many of the undercover staff members from the office of international affairs and their students, whom involved in my research, helping me while I was struggling with data collection. Definitely, I will always remember the years I had in IHRD, NTNU and Taiwan. The hard work and smart work lesson in this place got me where I needed to go and I must remain humble in remembering the road on which I have travelled. Therefore, I loudly say thank you my dear all. “Always remember your focus determines your reality”.-George Lucas.

(3) The Effects of Organizational Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Learning and Academic Satisfaction of International Students in Taiwan by Hildeberto Manuel Seca A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Approved: ____________________________ Dr. Cheng-Ping, Shih Thesis Advisor ___________________________ Dr. Chih-Chien, Lai Committee Member ____________________________ Dr. Pai-Po, Lee Committee Member ____________________________ Dr. Chu-Chen, Yeh Director of the Graduate Program. Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June 02, 2016.

(4)

(5) ABSTRACT Globalization converted into an inevitable occasion that brings new effect in education area. Due to this new trend, higher education in Taiwan have turned to more internationalized with international students from all region of the world. Nevertheless, by pursuing their studies in the new country and new institution, those students will be facing new dilemma or academic satisfaction barrier such as organizational trust, knowledge sharing, and organizational learning. Thus, this study examined and analyzed the effect and relationship of organizational trust on knowledge sharing, organizational learning and academic satisfaction from the perceptive of international students studying in Taiwan. A quantitative study was implemented and statistical analysis was used to test the relationship of each variables. The study uses Partial Least Squares (PLS) and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), as a tool to analyze data collected, including the descriptive statistics, coefficient of determination (R2), path coefficients, t-value, bootstrapping, Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability results, average variance extracted (AVE), correlation, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual, Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio, Fornell-Larcker Criterion. The primary data for the study was collected from 225 international students studying in Taiwan. The empirical results of the study show the positive and strong significant relationship between organizational trust and knowledge sharing, organizational trust and organizational learning, organizational trust and academic satisfaction, knowledge sharing and organizational learning, organizational learning and academic satisfaction. Keywords: organizational trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning, academic satisfaction, international students in Taiwan. I.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT……………………………..………………………………………I TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………..……………...………....................II LIST OF TABLES…………………………..…………………........................IV LIST OF FIGURES……..………………………………..…............................VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 1 Problem statement ............................................................................................................. 2 Research Purposes ............................................................................................................. 3 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 3 Research Significances ...................................................................................................... 5 Definitions of Terms .......................................................................................................... 5 Delimitations and Limitations ........................................................................................... 7. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 8 Theoretical Background…………………………………………………………………..8 Organizational Trust.......................................................................................................... ..9 Knowledge Sharing .......................................................................................................... 14 Organizational Learning ................................................................................................... 18 Academic Satisfaction ..................................................................................... .…………22. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 28 Research Framework ........................................................................................................ 28 Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................................ 30 Research Procedure .......................................................................................................... 31 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 32 Measurement ................................................................................................................... 32 Construct Coding and Scales ........................................................................................... 34 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 39 II.

(7) Chapter IV STUDY ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS .......... 41 Pilot Test ........................................................................................................................... 41 Validity and Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................... 45 Sample Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 48 Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................... 51 Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................................ 55 Testing Measurement Model ........................................................................................... 57 PLS Comparisons on Participants Financial Sponsorship………………….………...…62 Discussions ....................................................................................................................... 78. Chapter V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... ..79 Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………...79 Research Implications ...................................................................................................... 82 Recommendations for Future Research............................................................................ 83. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 85 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE .................................... 100 APPENDIX B: PLS PILOT TEST RESULTS……………………………. 104 APPENDIX C: PLS MAIN STUDY TEST FIGURES………………........ 107. III.

(8) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Items Measuring Organizational Trust..………………………………..………….34 Table 3.2. Items Measuring Knowledge Sharing.…………………………………………….35 Table 3.3. Items Measuring Organizational Learning……………………………..………….36 Table 3.4. Items Measuring Academic Satisfaction.………………………………………….37 Table 3.5. Items Measuring Demographic Profile Data….………………………..………….38 Table 4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, R2, n=49...............…………………………..........….........41 Table 4.2. Path Coefficients for all Dimension Pilot Study n=49……………..……………...41 Table 4.3. PLS Loading Pilot Study n=49………………………………..……………….......42 Table 4.4. PLS Hypotheses Results Pilot Study n=49…………………….…………………..42 Table 4.5. Cronbach’s Alfa, CR, AVE, R2, N=225...............…………………….....…............45 Table 4.6. HTMT Ratio Results N=225……..……………………………….…….................46 Table 4.7. Fornell-Larcker Criterion Results N=225…………………………………………46 Table 4.8. PLS Loading Result (N=225)……………………………………………...............47 Table 4.9. Characteristics of Demographic Population……………………………………….48 Table 4.10. Organizational Trust by 5-point Likert Scale…………..………………...............51 Table 4.11. Knowledge Sharing by 5-point Likert Scale…………………………..................52 Table 4.12. Organizational Learning by 5-point Likert Scale………………………………...53 Table 4.13. Academic Satisfaction by 5-point Likert Scale………………………..................54 Table 4.14. Correlation Among all Constructs N=225…………………………………….….55 Table 4.15. Collinearity Statistic Among all Constructs N=225……………………………...55 Table 4.16. SRMR Common Factor Model N=225…………………………………………..55 Table 4.17. Correlation Analysis N=225……………………………………………………...56 Table 4.18. PLS Hypotheses Testing Results N=225………………………………………....57 Table 4.19. Top Most and Least Dominant Responses N=225…………………….................60 Table 4.20. Path Coefficients Results for all Dimension N=225……………………………..60 Table 4.21. Indirect Effects Results for all Dimension N=225…………………….................61 Table 4.22. Total Effects Results for all Dimension N=225………………………………......61 Table 4.23. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, AVE, R2, N=88...............……………………...............…62 IV.

(9) Table 4.24. PLS Hypotheses Testing Results N=88…………………………….…………….62 Table 4.25. Top Most and Least Dominant Responses N=88………………………………...65 Table 4.26. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, AVE, R2, N=39...............……………………..............….65 Table 4.27. PLS Hypotheses Testing Results N=39…………………………..……………....65 Table 4.28. Top Most and Least Dominant Responses N=39………………………………...69 Table 4.29. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, AVE, R2, N=63...............……………….…............….....69 Table 4.30. PLS Hypotheses Testing Results N=63…………………………………………..69 Table 4.31. Top Most and Least Dominant Responses N=63………………………………...73 Table 4.32. Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, AVE, R2, N=35...............…………………............……...73 Table 4.33. PLS Hypotheses Testing Results N=35…………………………………………..73 Table 4.34. Top Most and Least Dominant Responses N=35………………………………...77 Table 4.35. Summary Most and Least Dominant Responses ………………………………...77. V.

(10) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. The Model of organizational trust .........................................................................12 Figure 2.1.a. The model of organizational trust.......................................................................13 Figure 2.2. The model of knowledge sharing….......................................................................17 Figure 2.2.b. The model of knowledge sharing…....................................................................17 Figure 2.3. The model of organizational learning....................................................................21 Figure 2.4. The model of academic satisfaction….....…..........................................................27 Figure 3.1. OT-LASS model…………………………………………………………………29 Figure 3.2. Research process...…………………………………………………….………....31 Figure 4.1. The PLS structural model pilot study n=49……...……..….…………………….44 Figure 4.2. The PLS structural Model Main Study N=225…………...……………………...59 Figure 4.3. The PLS structural model study n=88………….……………………………….64 Figure 4.4. The PLS structural model study n=39…………………………….…………….68 Figure 4.5. The PLS structural model study n=63……………………………….………….72 Figure 4.6. The PLS structural model study n=35…………….…………………………….76 Figure B.1. Cronbach´s alpha pilot test………………………..………………………........104 Figure B.2. Composite reliability pilot test…...……………………………………….........104 Figure B.3. Path coefficients pilot test……………...…………………………………........104 Figure B.4. R square pilot test…………………………………………………………........105 Figure B.5. PLS analysis before bootstrapping pilot test..…………..………………...........105 Figure B.6. PLS analysis after bootstrapping pilot test..……...…..………………...............106 Figure C.1. PLS analysis before bootstrapping main study...……..………………………..107 Figure C.2. PLS analysis after bootstrapping main study..……...………………….............107 Figure C.3. Cronbach´s alpha main study….………………….…………………...….........108 Figure C.4. Composite reliability main study....………………………………………........108 Figure C.5. R square main study……………………………………………………………108 Figure C.6. AVE main study……...…...………………………………………………........109 Figure C.7. Path coefficients main study…………...…………………………………........109 Figure C.8. Total effects OT=KS main study…………...…………..………………….......109 Figure C.9. Total effects OT=OL main study…………...……………………………….....110 Figure C.10. Total effects OT=AS main study…………...…………………………….......110 Figure C.11. Total effects KS=OL main study…………..………………………………....111 Figure C.12. Total effects KS=AS main study…………...…………………………….......111 Figure C.13. Total effects OL=AS Main study…………...…………………………….......112 VI.

(11) Figure C.14. Indirect effects OT=KS main study…………...………………………….......112 Figure C.15. Indirect effects OT=OL main study…………...……………………………...113 Figure C.16. Indirect effects OT=AS main study…………...………………………….......113 Figure C.17. Indirect effects KS=OL main study…………...………………………….......113 Figure C.18. Indirect effects KS=AS main study…………...………………………….......114 Figure C.19. Indirect effects OL=AS main study…………...………………………….......114. VII.

(12) CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a vision of the research background, problem statement, the research purposes, the statements of research questions that surround the investigation for this study, the research significance, definitions of terms and delimitations and limitations. The definitions of key terms are also included to provide a complete focus of this entire research.. Background of the Study In today’s competitive world, globalization is an inevitable event that has influences not only the business world but also in the education field, by which the global interaction of markets and cultures grows. According to Chen (2009), globalization made the whole world become smaller, where people can move to foreigner nation and live in there, even when one comes from different background such tradition and culture. As it is known people from different background do not use the same approach to communicate and express themselves, therefore, this could be the start point for the gap in aspects as language, body language, conflict resolution (Gudykunst, 2005; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). It is also important to look at the education trend of international students in Taiwan, in order to understand how Taiwan is using its educational market and system to attract international students. According to a study by Chou, Roberts and Ching (2012), the number of international students studying in Taiwan shows the level of internationalization and international competitiveness of the nation’s education and this represents the nation’s power and capability to draw international students. Their study further mentioned that a large number of Taiwanese students are studying in the United States and Britain although the number of incoming international students who chose Taiwan as a host country was that substantial. As reported by Taiwan Ministry of Education (Taiwan MOE) (2007), statistics displayed that during a fiveyear interval from 2001 and 2005, an increase of 208 and 95 percent was observed for incoming international students of Central and South America, and of European nations respectively. The largest group of incoming foreign students are from Vietnam followed by Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and the United States. In addition, factors such as global recognition of Mandarin studies, the growing stature of Taiwan universities as excellent institutions, safe environment and the issuing of scholarships by Taiwan MOE are attributed to scholars. This study help to understand what are the nation that contributes with international students in Taiwan, and compare the educational background that most attracted international students. It is also 1.

(13) reported in by Taiwan MOE website statistics regarding the number of international students in Taiwan. According to the statistics from Taiwan MOE (2006), the number of international students were 26,488, but in the year 2011, the number increased to 55,463 international students. This represent an increase of 28,975 students compared to the year 2006. By observing the upward trend for international students in Taiwan, the study consists of 225 samples to examine. With a purpose of keeping national competitiveness and attract talents worldwide, more and more Taiwanese universities have been creating an international learning environment. However, by coming to a different environment, international students will face a dilemma of organizational trust among their peers and in management in the new university they enroll. Therefore, it is important to look at how the organizational trust will influence international students to share their knowledge and get the best learning from their universities, by evaluating and analyzing this effect on international students’ academic satisfaction basing on the service quality offered by the universities.. Problem Statement Nowadays, due to the high level of competition among people, classmates, coworkers, universities and organizations, it is becoming very difficult to observe trust between people from the same company or organization. In this regard, people will tend to hind information, data and any other tools that could put that in the best position for their own competitive advantage. By not having trust inside the organization and not sharing the knowledge between people will tend to decrease the performance and the competitive advantage of the organizational learning. Nevertheless, it is important for all those involved in the organization to learn and create new knowledge in order to maintain and improve the performance of all those in the organization, including the organization itself. From knowledge management theories, organizational satisfaction is one of the result of the service provided by the organization to those in which are enrolled. High level of satisfaction is the result of many factors such as organizational trust, knowledge sharing and organizational learning. In this regard, this study examined students from different financial support in their universities as they have different privileges and support. However, in order to obtain all this good results and to see organization successfully developing, they will need to ensure that they offer an excellent service quality in order to retain the students and generate academic satisfaction of international students. In higher education, the student is a short-duration customer that tend to stay with his/her institutional 2.

(14) choice for the duration of the degree program. According to Titus (2004), an institution‘s incapability to preserve its enrollment numbers impacts its graduation and retention rates in terms of the indicators of performance for higher education institutions. Strong customer orientation/student-centeredness will ensure strong retention numbers and nurture positive word of mouth that will bring more students.. Research Purposes The main purpose of this research is to develop an integrated model that explores the relations between organizational trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning, and academic satisfaction among the international students studying in Taiwan. Consequently, the objectives of this research are formulated as follows: 1.. To find out the effect of organizational trust on knowledge sharing.. 2.. To find out the effect of organizational trust on organizational learning.. 3.. To find out the effect of organizational trust on academic satisfaction.. 4.. To find out the effect of knowledge sharing on organizational learning.. 5.. To find out the effect of knowledge sharing on academic satisfaction.. 6.. To find out the effect of organizational learning on academic satisfaction.. 7.. To develop an integrated model to measure the effect of organizational trust on knowledge sharing, organizational trust on organizational learning, organizational trust on academic satisfaction, knowledge sharing on organizational learning, knowledge sharing on academic satisfaction and organizational learning on academic satisfaction by using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Smart PLS software.. Research Questions Sketched from the research purposes, the research questions are framed as follows bellow: 1.. How does organizational trust (with variables trust in peers, trust in management, openness and honest, reliability and identification) have effect on knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, inter-groups, knowledge donating, knowledge colleting) among the international students studying in Taiwan?. 2.. How does organizational trust (with variables trust in peers, trust in management, openness and honest, reliability and identification) have effect on organizational learning (with variables management commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation, knowledge transfer and integrate) among the international students studying in Taiwan? 3.

(15) 3.. How does organizational trust (with variables trust in peers, trust in management, openness and honest, reliability and identification) have effect on academic satisfaction (with variables responsiveness academic staff, assurance, academic feedback, empathy, tangibles, administrative service, academic program) among the international students studying in Taiwan?. 4.. How does knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, inter-groups, knowledge donating, knowledge colleting) have effect on organizational learning (with variables. management. commitment,. system. perspective,. openness. and. experimentation, knowledge transfer and integrate) among the international students studying in Taiwan? 5.. How does knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, inter-groups, knowledge donating, knowledge colleting) have effect on academic satisfaction (with variables responsiveness academic staff, assurance, academic feedback, empathy, tangibles, administrative service, academic program) among the international students studying in Taiwan?. 6.. How does organizational learning (with variables management commitment, system perspective, openness and experimentation, knowledge transfer and integrate) have effect on academic satisfaction (with variables responsiveness academic staff, assurance, academic feedback, empathy, tangibles, administrative service, academic program) among the international students studying in Taiwan?. 7.. What are the path parameter of organizational trust on knowledge sharing, organizational trust on organizational learning, organizational trust on academic satisfaction, knowledge sharing on organizational learning, knowledge sharing on academic satisfaction and organizational learning on academic satisfaction and the total effect of this integrated model?. 4.

(16) Research Significances This research is significant for both practitioners and researchers. This research will offer new perceptions and viewpoints of organizational trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning, and academic satisfaction. Therefore, the research will provide recommendations for institution and international student’s decision makers and practitioners to enhance their capabilities and abilities for making the best use of trust, knowledge sharing, and organizational learning in order to strive for the best effectiveness of quality service and consequently academic satisfaction. The results of conclusions provide new guidelines for upcoming research as well. This study will hold the interest of international students, teachers, universities and the government as one of the support reference and guidelines for international students. Furthermore, international students will become more aware of ways to in dealing with organizational trust， knowledge sharing, organizational learning and institution in providing good quality service to impact on academic satisfaction among international students studying in Taiwan.. Definitions of Terms In order to prevent conceptual misunderstanding of main terms between researcher and readers, this part provides the reader with the meanings of the main terms of this research. Organizational Trust Theoretical Definition: trust is the step to which one is prepared and willing to attribute good intentions to and have surety in the words and actions of some other person (Cook & Wall, 1980). Operational Definition: in this study, organizational trust will be analyzed and examined by of trust in peers (T_P) and trust in management (T_M) from Mooradian, Renzl, and Matzler (2006) and by openness and honest (O_H), reliability (RE), identification (IDE) from Shockley-Zalabak, Ellis, and Cesaria (2003). Which makes in total 18 items. Knowledge Sharing Theoretical Definition: knowledge sharing is defined as the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and response concerning a product or procedure (Cummings 2004). On another hand, it is defined as “the process of developing trans-specialist understanding through creation of overlapping knowledge fields” (Berggren, Bergek, Bengtsson, Hobday & Söderlund, 2011). Operational Definition: in this study, knowledge sharing will be analyzed and examined by intra-groups (I_G), and inter-groups (INTER_G), Cummings (2004) and knowledge 5.

(17) donating (K_D) and knowledge collecting (K_C), Van den Hooff and De Ridder (2003). Which makes in total 13 items. Organizational Learning Theoretical Definition: organizational learning is defined as the growth of new knowledge or visions by the people in that organization that practice similar experiences that have the potential to impact behavior (Huber, 1991). Operational Definition: in this study, knowledge sharing will be analyzed and examined by. management. commitment. (M_C),. system. perspective. (S_P),. openness. and. experimentation(O_E), knowledge transfer and integrate (KT_I), which are 15 items in total (Jerez-Gomez, Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera, 2005). Academic Satisfaction Theoretical Definition: student’s satisfaction is defined as “Students are prosperous in the learning experience and are satisfied with their experience” (Moore, 2009, p. 74). According to Sweeney and Ingram (2001), academic satisfaction, is the insight of happiness and success in the learning atmosphere by students, during the process of their studies. Operational Definition: in this study, academic satisfaction will be analyzed and examined by responsiveness academic staff (RAS), assurance (ASSU), academic feedback (A_F), empathy (EMPA), tangibles (TANG), administrative service (A_S), academic programs (A_P), which are 30 items in total (Ahmed and Masud, 2014).. 6.

(18) Delimitations and Limitations In order to make this research feasible and enable a more practicable research process, delimitations and limitations of this study are describe clearly. Delimitations 1.. The study is delimited to international students studying in the higher education in Taiwan.. 2.. The study is delimited to international students in different universities in Taiwan.. 3.. The study only explored the effect of organizational trust, knowledge sharing, organizational learning and academic satisfaction.. Limitations 1.. The study limited to finding and results that should not be generalize to another population.. 2.. The study limited to only factors such as organizational trust, knowledge sharing and organizational learning that could effect international students’ academic satisfaction; however, there are many factors that could be also take in consideration.. 3.. The study limited to time constrains and web based questionnaires.. 7.

(19) CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 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.. 8.

(20) 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,. 9.

(21) 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 10.

(22) 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. 11.

(23) 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).. Interpersonal Trust in Peers. Sharing Within Team. Interpersonal Trust in Management. Sharing Across Teams. Propensity to Trust. 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.. 12.

(24) 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 coworker, 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). Concern for Employees. Perceived Effectiveness. Openness and Honesty. Identification. Organizational Trust. Reliability. Competence. Job Satisfaction. Figure 2.1.a. The model of organizational trust. Adapted from “Measuring organizational trust: Cross-cultural survey and index,” by Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K., & Cesaria, R, 2003, Copyright © 2003 by IABC Research Foundation.. 13.

(25) 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. 14.

(26) 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 sharing can outcome in shared intellectual capital, an increasingly important resource.. 15.

(27) Additionally, Renzl, Matzler and Mader (2005), knowledge sharing is vital for organizations in order to be capable to develop skills and abilities, increase value, and preserve competitive advantages. Therefore, the capability of transmitting knowledge from one element to another rises institution performance. According to Jantunen (2005), considered that knowledge sharing as a strategic asset that supports the organization sustain its competitive ability in a complex global market. From the perceptive of Yang (2007), knowledge sharing is considered a key factor for any person or institution to prosper in a progressively demanding competitive environment. In addition, Cho, Li and Su (2007), stated that the higher the knowledge sharing, then greater it is positive influence on organizational performance. In study about the importance of knowledge sharing conducted by Jer Yuen and Shaheen Majid (2007), the result showed that students have recognize the significance of sharing knowledge with their peers to enrich their academic study. From the point of view of Renzl (2008), knowledge sharing within and among teams is very important to organizations, once it allows the team and the organization to generate skills, competencies, and retain their competitive advantage. According to Wang and Noe (2010), knowledge sharing is a fundamental organizational asset that offers a viable competitive advantage in a dynamic economy. In addition to that, the authors mentioned that knowledge sharing is associated to improve a team performance, innovation capabilities, firm performance and services quality. Nevertheless, Reychav and Weisberg (2010), mentioned that inability to share knowledge imply that values resulted from KM implementation may not be produced in the higher education institutions. From the study about Knowledge sharing degree among the undergraduate students in a private university conducted by Yaghi, Barakat, Alfawaer, Shkokani and Nassuora (2011), the results demonstrated that knowledge sharing among students was a vital learning activity that help both the sharer and receiver. According to Lin, Wu and Lu (2012), knowledge sharing is perceived as a social phenomenon associated to interpersonal relationships and social interactions.. 16.

(28) Model Adopted for the Research In order to test Knowledge sharing behaviors were measured by adopting Cummings’ (2004) scale and categorizing knowledge sharing into two types, namely within work groups, and among work groups. In Figure 2.2, here shows the knowledge sharing model, scaling 6 items based on a one to five (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Intra-Group Knowledge Sharing. Inter-Group Figure 2.2. The model of knowledge sharing. Adapted from “Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization,” by Cummings, J. N, 2004, Management Science, 50(3), 352-364. Copyright © 2004 by INFORMS Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS), Linthicum, Maryland, USA. In addition to that, the study also combined another model to measure knowledge sharing commitment for knowledge colleting and donating, use items of knowledge management scan tested and used in a number of organization Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004). According to Oldenkamp (2001), knowledge donating involves “communicating to others what one’s personal intellectual capital is” and knowledge collecting involves consulting colleagues in order to get them to share their intellectual capital”. In Figure 2.2.b, here shows the knowledge sharing model, scaling 7 items based on a one to five (from strongly disagree to strongly agree).. Knowledge Donating Knowledge Sharing Commitment Knowledge Colleting Figure 2.2.b. The model of knowledge sharing. Adapted from “Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing,” by Van den Hooff, B., & de Leeuw van Weenen, F, 2004, Knowledge and Process Management, 11(1), 13-24. Copyright © 2004 by Wiley InterScience.. 17.

(29) Organizational Learning Concept and Definition of Organizational Learning According to Wikipedia (2015), organizational learning is the procedure of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization progresses over time as it obtain experience, knowledge, skill. In addition to that, after going thru this new experience, the organization will be able to create new knowledge. Investigation on organizational learning has been going on for over 30 years now, and has recently seen exponential evolution (Cohen and Sproull, 1996; Crossan and Guatto, 1996; Easterby-Smith, 1997). From the perceptive of Gould (2009), organizational learning is the ability or practices within an organization to sustain or develop performance based on experience. For Fiol and Lyles (1985), organizational learning is the mechanism of enriching actions through better knowledge and understanding. According to Huber (1991), organizational learning is the organization that acquires knowledge through its processing of information and the variety of its possible behaviors and actions is changed. From the point of view of Levitt and March (1988), organizations are seen as learning by converting implications from history into practices that guide behavior and actions. Argris and Schon (1978), defined organizational learning as the ability of one organization to detect and correct the possible error or difficulties that may appear. On another side, Garvin (2000), defines organizational learning as when the organization changes it is own behavior and actions to reflect new knowledge and visions. According to Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell (1996), a learning organization is the organization that simplify the learning of all its teams, and which always alters itself. In addition to that, Nevis, DiBella, and Gould (1995), defined organizational learning as when they strive to make more chances for continuous worker learning, for example, through teamwork, empowerment, and broader job structures and design. Hong (2001), stated that organizational learning or achievement is the ability to control information. According to Chou (2003), organization learning is defined as the process in which knowledge is obtained and created to improve behavior and actions. For Van der Heijden (2004), organization learning is a type of experience, or the process to discover and generate new knowledge, together with the systematic infusion of the knowledge of organization effort. From the definition of Chang and Lee (2007), is when the learning organization covers individual, grouping and organizational learning with the immediate proceeding effort for organizational and individual learning. Beyond this activity, organizations can achieve their visions and goals. According to Senge (2006), defines organizational learning when the teams, members, department of the organization cooperate. 18.

(30) together in a diverse way the usual operation, but with common trust and additional aids to accomplish mutual goals and reach outstanding success. From the perceptive of Garratt (1995), defines organizational learning as the one that, the managers shall previously promote the learning ability of individuals and working teams. According to Yeung, Ulrich, Nason and Von Glinow (1999, p. 11), Organizational learning capability is "the capacity to generate and generalize ideas with impact across multiple organizational boundaries, through specific management initiatives and practices". From the perceptive of Dodgson (1993), organizational learning is the way companies build, supplement, and organize knowledge and routines around their activities and cultures, adjusting and developing organizational efficiency by improving the use of the broad skills of their workforces. For others author, organizational learning is related to knowledge management. Levitt and March (1988), stated that organizational learning is to make use of what they learned in the past, and their new routines to lead their new actions and behavior to improve the organization. According to Lyles and Easterby-Smith (2003), is the mechanism that an institution obtains, builds, processes and finally uses them in order to achieve better results to all those involved in the organizations. For the perspective of Dixon (1999), organizational learning is the process of revising and developing new knowledge for the company.. The Importance of Organizational Learning Senge (1990), states that learning organizations needs a new view of leadership, once the leaders are accountable for the learning process, clarify vision. Therefore, organizations need to reflect how it invests in the learning of its employees so that it is visualized as an asset and not an expenditure. According to the common experiences of members in the same organization, organization can develop its’ new knowledge and visions, and it has the potential to affect members’ behaviors and enhance the organizational capability (Huber, 1991; Slater and Narver, 1995). Learning have demonstrated to be an important factor in transforming organizations to be more flexible and quicker during the innovation procedure Brown and Eisenhardt (1995). As for Dill (1999), colleges and universities have been seen as a case of a type of institute that does not involve in organizational learning effectively. This is because learning is the fundamental work of these institutions, they are believed to lack the qualities needed for organizational learning. In addition to that, the author also stated that, for an entity to be a learning organization, it must obtain new ideas that lead to progresses in the way it does business. Additionally, Argote (1999), stated that institution that make the best use of their collective skill and knowledge are tended to more innovative, efficient and effective. For. 19.

(31) Chaston, Badger, Mangles and Sadler-Smith (2001), organizational learning is responsible for creating the great level of competencies, abilities in one institution. According to Calantone, Cavusgil and Zhao (2002), organizational learning will help people to find innovative methods of working and make it simple to embrace new technology, which can allows the organization to differentiate from their competitors. Organizational learning is viewed as an indispensable component for rising new products or services when the new technologies or industries show in the market. In this case, it is very important for organizations to maintain the learning process in the organizations to retain its’ competitive advantages Brockman and Morgan (2003). From the research of Farrell and Mavondo (2004), they have showed that organizational learning brings innovativeness. According to Pérez López, Manuel Montes Peón, and José Vázquez Ordás (2004), more and more organizations have been making their best to implement a culture which promotes communication among their members, experimentation and risk taking, and inspires employees to query fundamental principles and work patterns. Thus, following this process organization will reach a promising working atmosphere for the growth of their ability to learn. From the point of view of Gilaninia, Rankouh and Gildeh (2013), learn is the main and prerequisite issues of organization to make them to sustain their competitive advantages and remain in the market. However, in order to achieve this, organizations must be ready to frequently learn, deal with changes and to have the ability to adapt with conditions changes and challenges moderns.. 20.

(32) Model Adopted for the Research In order to evaluate organizational learning behaviors in the institution which the international students are studying in Taiwan, this research chooses to adopt Jerez-Gomez, Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera (2005). Its scale and categorizing in four parts. These parts are: (1) management commitment; (2) systems perspective; (3) openness & experimentation; and (4) transfer & integrate. According to Jerez-Gomez et al., (2005), “Managerial commitment” refers that managers recognize the relevance of learning for organizational success and they create a culture that reinforces the acquisition, creation, and transfer of knowledge as fundamental values. “System perspective” involves bringing the organization’s members together around a common identity and firm should have a clear view of the organization’s goals. “Openness and Experimentation refers as the extent of relationships with the external environment and a climate of openness that encourages the new ideas and points of views. “Knowledge transfer and integration” refers to the efficacy of absorptive capacity implying the lack of internal barriers that inhibit the transfer of best practices within the firm. Those factors are illustrated in the figure 2.3 of this section. In Figure 2.3, here shows the organizational learning capability model, scaling 15 items based on a one to five (from strongly disagree to strongly agree). Management Commitment. System Perspective Organizational Learning Openness & Experimentation Knowledge Transfer & Integrate Figure 2.3. The model of organizational learning. Adapted from “Organizational learning capability: a proposal of measurement,” by Jerez-Gómez, P., Céspedes-Lorente, J., ValleCabrera, R, 2005, Journal of Business Research 56(6), 485-494. Copyright © 2005 by Elsevier Inc.. 21.

(33) Academic Satisfaction Concept and Definition of Academic Satisfaction One of the earliest definition of customer satisfaction, raised by Howard and Sheth (1969), perceived customer satisfaction as a psychological state to estimate the fairness between what a consumer truly pays and gets. From the point of view of Tough (1982), student satisfaction states to the scholar’s insight or attitude concerning the learning events. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), costumer’s expectations is based on the hypothesis that when the hopes of customers are superior than their views of received delivery, service quality is considered lower. In this regard, the authors have developed a model called Service Quality Model (SERVQUAL), adjusted for use in an educational context. From the perceptive of this model, satisfaction was defined as “the extent of discrepancy between customers’ expectations or desires and their perceptions”. From the definition of Kotler and Clarke (1987), satisfaction is viewed as the desirable result of a task or job that satisfies a person esteem. For Tse and Wilton (1988), customer satisfaction is the customers’ reaction to evaluation of the alleged disagreement between prior expectancy and actual performance of the product as observed after its consumption. As to Zeithaml (1988), satisfaction is the subsequent result of an organization administrative as well as educational system’s comprehensible performance. For Rust, and Oliver (1993), understood satisfaction as the emotional assessment about how far away customers trust that the service consumption can cause optimistic feelings. Nevertheless, Oliver (1997), defined satisfaction as achievement of customer’s desires and prospects. In addition to that, the author stated that, customers are individuals who obtain a product or service. In this case, students would be considered as costumers once they are the individuals that receive the service provided by their academic institution. According to Giese and Cote (2000), customer satisfaction is perceived as positive or cognitive response within an individual self. Moreover, Kotler (2000), stated that customer satisfaction is an individual’s sensation of pleasure or displeasure occasioning from comparing a product’s perceived performance in relation to his involvement. For Elliott and Healy (2001), student satisfaction is a temporary attitude that outcomes from the assessment of their involvement with the education services rendered. According to Elliott and Shin (2002), the definition of student satisfaction is viewed as the willingness of a student’s particular evaluation of the numerous effects and involvements linked with education. Student satisfaction is being molded frequently by repetitive involvements in campus life. From the point of view of Carey, Cambiano and De Vore (2002), student satisfaction essentially covers. 22.