信任對於知識分享、客戶關係管理，及創新能力之影響

全文

(1)Measuring the Effect of Trust on Knowledge Sharing, Customer Relationship Management, and Innovation Capabilities. by. Yi-Shan Lee. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Cheng-Ping Shih, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan January, 2014.

(2) ACKOWLEDGEMETS It was a long way to go. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Tony Shih, thank you for supporting and reminding me. And thanks to committee members, Dr. Tony, Dr. Lee and Dr. Lai for guidance and timely instructions. I would also like to show my appreciation to my parents and family members, thank you for taking good care of me and encouraging me in these 26 years. Besides, I would like to thank April, the manager in Pan Asia, and Sanya for helping me while I was struggling with data collection. I will always keep in mind the memory we had in IHRD family. The friendship is one of the most valuable treasures I have. Thank you my friends. Life is hard, but I will try hard to be tough enough to survive.. I Struggle, Therefore I Am..

(3) ABSTRACT In the new epoch of knowledge economy, organizations have experienced ever-rising intense competition. Knowledge is the major determinant of organizational competitive advantage and sustained grow, while knowledge management plays a key role in enhancing the competitiveness of the organization. The purpose of this research is to explore the relations between trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities in human resource industry in Taiwan. A trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management and innovation capabilities (TKICC) Model developed by Shih and Lee, was measured by using Partial Least Squares (PLS) method. 128 samples were collected in Pan Asia Human Resources Management and Consulting Corporation for this study. The result showed that trust has a positive and significant impact on knowledge sharing; in which knowledge sharing also has a positive and significant impact on customer relationship, as well as innovation capabilities in Pan Asia. Both implications and recommendations were also proposed in order to make improvement in the future.. Keywords: trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, innovation capabilities, knowledge management. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………. I TABLE OF CONTENTS…….……………………………………………..... II LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………….……...... IV LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………….…….…… VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 6 Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................................... 8 Delimitations and Limitations.......................................................................................... 10. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 11 Trust ................................................................................................................................. 11 Knowledge Sharing .......................................................................................................... 13 Customer Relationship Management ............................................................................... 15 Innovation Capabilities .................................................................................................... 20. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 23 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................... 23 Research Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 24 Research Procedure .......................................................................................................... 25 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 26 Measurement Instrument ................................................................................................. 29 Construct Coding and Scales ........................................................................................... 31 Translation and Face Validity........................................................................................... 39 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 39 Data Analysis Methods .................................................................................................... 42 II.

(5) CHAPTER IV STATISTICS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................... 45 Sample Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 45 Descriptive Statistics Analysis ......................................................................................... 48 Discussion for Descriptive Statistics Analysis ................................................................. 57 Correlation Analysis......................................................................................................... 58 PLS Findings .................................................................................................................... 60 Research Instrument Validity and Reliabilities ................................................................ 60 Testing the Measurement Model ...................................................................................... 62 Comparisons of Categorized Departments ...................................................................... 66. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 77 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 77 Research Implications ...................................................................................................... 77 Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 81. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 82 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE ............................................ 89 APPENDIX B: PLS RESULTS .......................................................................... 98. III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Definition of Trust……………………………………………………………..12 Table 2.2. Definition of Knowledge Sharing…………………………………………..14 Table 2.3. Definition of Customer Relationship Management………………………....17 Table 2.4. Definition of Innovation Capabilities.………………………………………21 Table 3.1. Department Introduction…...………………………………………………. 27 Table 3.2. Items Measuring Trust ……...……………………………………………….31 Table 3.3. Items Measuring Knowledge Sharing.……………………………………….32 Table 3.4. Items Measuring Customer Relationship Management……..……………….33 Table 3.5. Items Measuring Innovation Capabilities…………………………………….36 Table 3.6. Coding System for Demographics Variables………………………………….37 Table 3.7. Pilot Cronbach’s Alpha Results for All the Constructs Using SPSS…………...39 Table 3.8. Pilot Cronbach’s Alpha Results for All the Variables Using SPSS…………...41 Table 4.1. Summary Distribution of Respondents Based on Demographic Variables…..46 Table 4.2. Trust via a 5-point Likert Scale……………………………………………….48 Table 4.3. Knowledge Sharing via a 5-point Likert Scale……………………………….50 Table 4.4. Customer Relationship Management via a 5-point Likert Scale……………...51 Table 4.5. Innovation Capabilities via a 5-point Likert Scale……………………………55 Table 4.6. Top Five Responses…………………………………………………………..57 Table 4.7. Bottom two Responses………………………………………………………..57 Table 4.8. Correlation among All the Constructs………………………………………….58 Table 4.9. Correlation among All the Variables…………………………………………...59 Table 5.1. Main Study Constructs’ Reliability Analysis…………………………………61 Table 5.2. PLS Outer Loadings…………………………………………………………..62 Table 5.3. PLS Internal Consistency and R2 in This Study………………………………..63 Table 5.4. PLS Path Analysis Results……………………………………………………..64 Table 5.5. Research Hypothesis Results…………………………………………………..64 Table 5.6. Group A Constructs’ Reliability Analysis……………………………………..67 Table 5.7. Group B Constructs’ Reliability Analysis……………………………………..68 Table 5.8. PLS Outer Loadings of the Group A…………………………………………...68 Table 5.9. PLS Outer Loadings of the Group B…………………………………………...69 Table 5.10. PLS Internal Consistency and R2 of the Group A…………………………….70 IV.

(7) Table 5.11. PLS Internal Consistency and R2 of the Group B…………………………….70 Table 5.12. Group A PLS Path Analysis Result…………………………………………..71 Table 5.13. Group A Research Hypothesis Results……………………………………….72 Table 5.14. Group B PLS Path Analysis Results………………………………………….72 Table 5.15. Group B Research Hypothesis Results………………………………………..73. V.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. The TKICC Model ………………………………………………………..….24 Figure 3.2. Research Procedure……………………………………………………….…25 Figure 5.1. TKICC Structural Path………………………………………………………..65 Figure 5.2. TKICC Model for Group A……………………………………………………74 Figure 5.3. TKICC Model for Group B……………………………………………………75. VI.

(9) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. Chapter Overview This chapter provides a clear and comprehensive understanding of the study. The study background, the research purposes, the research questions, the study’s significance, its delimitations and limitations, and definition of the key terms are addressed.. Background of the Study Knowledge is the major determinant of organizational competitive advantage and sustained grow, while knowledge management plays a key role in enhancing the competitiveness of the organization. It is to say that the main purpose of enterprise knowledge management is to assist organizations in accessing and reusing existing knowledge for improving their processes (O'Leary, 1998). Recently, knowledge management put more emphasis on socio-cognitive approaches, in order to motivate behavior that would help in promoting knowledge sharing in the organization (Chow & Chan, 2008). According to Renzl (2008), the importance of interpersonal trust in general and trust in management on knowledge sharing among many factors that may have influence on knowledge management. Besides, numerous researchers have explored the relationship between trust and knowledge management (J. H. Cheng, Yeh, & Tu, 2008; Chow & Chan, 2008; Fang & Chiu, 2010; Ho, Kuo, & Lin, 2012; Holste & Fields, 2010; Hsu & Chang, 2012; C. H. Lee, Huang, Barnes, & Kao, 2010; Luna-Reyes, Black, Cresswell, & Pardo, 2008; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006; Renzl, 2008; Staples & Webster, 2008; Usoro, Sharratt, Tsui, & Shekhar, 2007; W. L. Wu, Lin, Hsu, & Yeh, 2009; W. Y. Wu & Sukoco, 2010), and trusting relationships lead to greater 1.

(10) knowledge exchange (Doney & Cannon, 1997), since trust in relationship may enhance interpersonal knowledge sharing and learning by reducing fear of losing one’s value (Renzl, 2008).. Firms are shifting from being product-centric to customer-centric, making customers as a part of the organization (Jackie, 2000), since customers are the core concept of relationship management, on account of the purchasing of goods and services can provide firms income (L. Y. Cheng, Yang, & Teng, 2013). Customer relationship management (CRM) is about managing customer knowledge in order to better understand and serve the customers (Bose & Sugumaran, 2003). Fan and Ku (2010) indicated that from a strategic perspective, customer relationship management is not only providing an information technology solution and building the customer information database, more importantly, CRM is an organization process which enables an organization to measure its customer equity as well as manage customer relationships for the purpose of improving the organization’s profitability. Fan and Ku also asserted that there is an increasing focus on the issue of knowledge sharing and CRM. Besides, Ingram and Simons (2002) have researched into knowledge-enabled CRM, while Bose and Sugumaran (2003) have provided insight to the integration of knowledge management and CRM.. In the new epoch of knowledge economy, organizations have experienced ever-rising intense competition. According to Lisboa, Skarmeas, and Lages (2011), innovation is essential for the success, survival and renewal of organizations, especially in fast-paced or competitive markets, since focusing on firm innovation capabilities has positive influence on the process of translating innovative ideas into practice forth improving performance (Y. C. Wu, Lin, & Chen, 2013). In accordance with the existing research, innovation is highly dependent on knowledge management (Gurkov, 2011), and continuous effective management of knowledge 2.

(11) can promote organizational innovation and successes (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Moreover, positive knowledge sharing is considered as the most basic precondition for organizational innovation (Zack, 1999). Drucker (1993) also asserted that long-term competitive success requires an organization to generate knowledge as well as apply it in the form of innovation. Besides, Liao, Fei, and Chen (2007) highlight that knowledge is a key in achieving continuous innovation, as a result, we can claim that innovation and knowledge are highly related.. There are already existing researches related to knowledge management in various industries under different geographical context, however, there is no specific study under the context of human resource industry in Taiwan. The reasons for choosing Pan Asia Human Resources Consulting Company as the target case company are because it is not only the leading human resources companies with the most comprehensive departments covering all spheres of human resources management and development which can be rated as complete HR services in Taiwan, but also the first human resources company nationwide that obtained ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems Certification. Pan Asia is based in Taiwan, and has already become a multinational human resources organization. For the competitive advantages of Pan Asia, it considers trust as its core value of the company, and focusing on both innovation and customer service in response to the dynamic changes of the environment and different customers’ needs.. Besides, existing research has focused on modeling various factors under investigation as precursors or independent variables which may affect the knowledge sharing (J. H. Cheng et al., 2008), however, these models do not consider serial effect of trust on knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities. In this study, the researcher attempt to bridge the gap based on the existing relevant research, developing an integrated. 3.

(12) model, which incorporates the influence of trust on knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities.. 4.

(13) Purpose of the Study In the epoch of knowledge economy, knowledge has become the critical resources of economic growth, social development and growth of the enterprises. The rapid changes in technology and product market greatly influence firm operations, consequently, all firms must seek ways to maintain their competitive advantage and to enlarge their market share (Y. C. Wu et al., 2013).This research intends to expand on Taiwan’s knowledge management study, and to overcome the lack of research on assessing trust on knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities for human resource industry in Taiwan. The main purpose of the study is to build an integrated model to measure effect of trust on knowledge sharing, on customer relationship management, and on innovation capabilities by using Partial Least Squares (PLS) method.. 5.

(14) Research Questions Deriving from the research purposes, the research questions are formulated as follows: 1.. Does trust (with variables trust in peers, and trust in management) have effect on knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, and inter-groups)?. 2.. Does knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, and inter-groups) have effect on customer relationship management (with variables win-back management, production/service customization, customer information management, referrals management, expansion management, and termination management)?. 3.. Does knowledge sharing (with variables intra-groups, and inter-groups) have effect on innovation capabilities (with variables product innovation, process innovation, and management innovation)?. 4.. What are the path parameter of trust on knowledge sharing, knowledge sharing on customer relationship management, and knowledge sharing on innovation capabilities, and the total effect of this integrated model?. Significance of the Study Numerous studies focused on the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing (J. H. Cheng et al., 2008; Chow & Chan, 2008; Fang & Chiu, 2010; Ho et al., 2012; Holste & Fields, 2010; Hsu & Chang, 2012; Hsu, Ju, Yen, & Chang, 2007; C. H. Lee et al., 2010; Luna-Reyes et al., 2008; Mooradian et al., 2006; Renzl, 2008; Staples & Webster, 2008; Usoro et al., 2007; W. Y. Wu & Sukoco, 2010), while others have focused on the relationship between knowledge sharing and innovation capabilities (Liao et al., 2007; H.-F. Lin, 2007; Z. G. Liu & Cui, 2012; Zhu, Wang, & Lan, 2007). However, researchers and practitioners have not tried an integrative model that examined the relationships among trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities. 6.

(15) To fill the gap, this study develops an integrated research model (the TKICC Model) that links trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities together. The study examines the influence of trust (trust in peers, and trust in management), and knowledge sharing (intra-groups, and inter-groups) on customer relationship management (with variables win-back management, production/service customization, customer information management, referrals management, expansion management, and termination management), and innovation capabilities (product innovation, process innovation, and management innovation), and whether leads to superior innovation capability.. This exploratory empirical study is one of the preliminary studies to explore and assess the serial link of trust with knowledge management impact on human resource industry. Furthermore, recommendations will be provided to firm’s decision makers and practitioners to enhance their innovation capabilities. The results of findings may provide reference for future research as well.. 7.

(16) Definition of Key Terms The following section describes the definition of variables in this study: trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities.. Trust Trust is the quantified belief by a trustor with respect to the competence, honesty, security and dependability of a trustee within a specified context. Quantification reflects that a trustor can have various degrees of trust, which could be expressed as a numerical range or as a simple classification such as low, medium or high (O'Leary, 1998, p. 93).. Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing is defined as the provision or receipt of task information, know-how, and feedback regarding a product or procedure (Hansen, 1999). According to Cummings (2004), knowledge sharing behaviors are divided into intra-group knowledge sharing (exchange of general overviews, specific requirements, analytical techniques, progress reports, and results among members), and inter-group knowledge sharing (exchange of general overviews, specific requirements, analytical techniques, progress reports, and results with other division members, non-division members, or customers) .. Customer Relationship Management CRM is the building of a customer-oriented culture by which a strategy is created for acquiring, enhancing the profitability of, and retaining customers, that is enabled by an IT application; for achieving mutual benefits for both the organization and the customers (Rababah, Mohd, & Ibrahim, 2010). CRM processes are including win-back management, 8.

(17) production/ service customization, customer information management, referrals management, expansion management, and termination management (Ö ztaysi, Sezgin, & Ö zok, 2011).. Innovation Capabilities Samson (1991) classifies innovation into three categories: product innovation, process innovation, and managerial and systems innovation. According to Samson’s concept of innovation categories, Tsai, Huang, and Kao (2001) defines a firm’s innovation capability including product innovation, process innovation, and managerial innovation.. The definition of product innovation is that a company can provide differentiated or new products/ services in the market in order to obtain satisfaction from their customers. Therefore, product improvement and new product development which can satisfy customers is the foundation of product innovation. Besides, the definition of process innovation is a process that a company can offer a better manufacture or service process than current operation for the purpose of achieving better performance. Management innovation is defined as a capability which improves a company’s performance by implementing new managerial regulations, systems, and methods etc.. 9.

(18) Delimitations and Limitations Limiting the scope is necessary to facilitate a more manageable research process, and make the research more feasible.. Delimitations 1.. The study is delimited to Taiwan.. 2.. The study is delimited to human resource industry.. 3.. The study is delimited to language translation between Mandarin and English.. 4.. The study will explore the relationship among variables of trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities only.. Limitations 1.. The sample will only include employees of one firm in human resource industry in Taiwan. As a result, the generalization of the findings to another population might be limited.. 10.

(19) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter provides a review of the existing literature relevant to this study.. Trust As the foundation of interpersonal interactions, trust requires smooth interpersonal relations. The earliest study of trust began from psychologists studying on the impact of trust on interpersonal relationship. Trust between people is like coagulant, and it's the foundation of social cooperation. The concept of trust in management indicates employee faith in an organization’s goal attainment and organizational leaders and the belief that organizational action will be beneficial for employees. Levin and Cross (2004) refer to trust in management to analyze its effects on performance and the ability to focus employees’ attention on the tasks that need to be done to add value to their firm. Kramer (1999) distinguish between trust in management and trust in peers in their studies on interpersonal trust at work affecting the way in which one behaves towards others. Trust leads to increased overall knowledge exchange, and trust also makes knowledge exchanges less costly. Besides, trust can increase the likelihood which knowledge acquired from a colleague is sufficiently understood that people can put it to practice (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003; Levin & Cross, 2004). Interpersonal trust in the workplace has a strong and robust influence on various organizational phenomena including job satisfaction, stress, organizational commitment, productivity and as well as knowledge sharing (Kramer, 1999; Levin & Cross, 2004). Many researchers state that interpersonal trust, a key aspect of relationship capital, is important because it can strengthen organizational network density and thus lead to higher levels of knowledge sharing (Hsu & Chang, 2012).. 11.

(20) Definition of Trust Table 2.1 Definition of Trust Source. Definition. Schoorman, Mayer, and. The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of. Davis (2007, p. 347). another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.. Jensen and Connell. Trust as emerging when long-lasting relations among principals. (2006, p. 152). combine with good reputations.. Grandison and Sloman. Trust is the firm belief in the competence of an entity to act. (2003, p. 93). dependably, securely, and reliably within a specified context.. Fukuyama (1995, p.. The expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest. 127). and cooperative behavior, based on commonly shared norms on the part of the members of the community.. Mayer, Davis, and. The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of. Schoorman (1995, p.. another party based on the expectation that the other will perform. 713). a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.. 12.

(21) Knowledge Sharing Knowledge sharing is essential in modern organizations since successful knowledge sharing can result in shared intellectual capital, an increasingly important resource. Cummings (2004) defined knowledge sharing as “the provision or receipt of task information, know-how and feedback regarding a product or procedure.” H. F. Lin (2007) defined knowledge sharing as a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization. Li (2010) defined knowledge sharing as the activity in which participants are involved in the joint process of contributing, negotiating and utilizing knowledge. Li states that knowledge sharing is a joint process in nature because participants need to be engaged in the process if they really want to share knowledge. As a result, only when individual and group knowledge are translated into organizational knowledge can the organization begin to manage this resource effectively (Liao et al., 2007). With verbal communication about the task and the exchange of tangible artifacts, information about who knows what in the group, and the implicit coordination of expertise are included in knowledge sharing (Faraj & Sproull, 2000; Rulke & Galaskiewicz, 2000). In work groups, knowledge sharing means to provide task information to a client, or receive feedback on a project from their senior managers (Cummings, 2004).. 13.

(22) Definitions of Knowledge Sharing Knowledge is a broad, complex and abstract concept, when we see from different aspects, we will have different definitions.. Table 2.2. Definition of Knowledge Sharing Source. Definition. Y. Liu and Phillips. A kind of human social interaction behavior, and it's also a process of. (2011, p. 46). knowledge provider and knowledge sharer conducting knowledge and technology transfer.. Becerra-Fernandez. Knowledge sharing is defined as the process through which tacit or. and Sabherwal. explicit knowledge is communicated to other individuals.. (2010, p. 231). Aulawi, Sudirman,. Knowledge sharing is explained into tacit knowledge sharing. Suryadi, and. behavior and explicit knowledge sharing behavior.. Govindaraju (2009, p. 2240). Staples and. Knowledge sharing is an exchange where one party gives some. Webster (2008, p.. knowledge that she/ he has (explicit or tacit) to another party (a. 621). person or a repository). (continued). 14.

(23) Table 2.2. (continued) Source. Definition. Hislop (2002, p.. Knowledge is shared by the transferal of explicit and codified. 167). knowledge (in the form of text, a diagram or an electronic document) from an isolate sender to a separate receiver.. H.-F. Lin (2007, p.. A social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee. 319). knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization. Siakas and. Knowledge sharing is the process where individuals mutually. Georgiadou (2006,. exchange both tacit and explicit knowledge, and jointly create new. p. 4). knowledge.. Customer Relationship Management Nowadays, customer relationship management (CRM) has the potential for achieving success and firm’s growth in this environment of extensive competition and rapid technological development. Rababah, Mohd, and Ibrahim (2011) indicates that CRM not only enables organizations to know their customers better, but also build sustainable relationships with them. Customer relationship management (CRM) is originated from relationship marketing (RM), besides, CRM is replacing the traditional ‘four Ps’ of marketing – product, price, place and promotion (Hung, Hung, Tsai, & Jiang, 2010; I. L. Wu & Wu, 2005). Relationship marketing is particularly used to establish a long-term association, characterized by purposeful cooperation and mutual dependence on social, and structural, bonds as well (Mowen & Minor, 1998). The concept of CRM was first emerged in the information technology (IT) vendor 15.

(24) community and practitioner community in the mid-1990s (Boulding, Staelin, Ehret, & Johnston, 2005; Payne & Frow, 2005). The terms RM and CRM are often used interchangeably in the academic community (Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2001). Yet, CRM is more commonly used in the context of technology solutions and has been described as “information-enabled relationship marketing” (Lynette Ryals & Payne, 2001).. The main components of CRM are people, technology, and processes. CRM can be understood as a business philosophy, a business strategy, a business process, or a technological tool. As a business philosophy, L. Ryals and Knox (2001) defines CRM as a relationship orientation, customer retention and superior customer value created through process management. As a business strategy, Croteau and Li (2003) defines CRM as a customerfocused business strategy which focuses on increasing customer satisfaction and customer loyalty by providing a more responsive and customized services to each customer. As a business process, Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey (1999) defines CRM as a macro-level (i.e., highly aggregated) process which classifies numerous sub-processes, for example, prospect identification and customer knowledge creation. As a technology, Hsieh (2009) defines CRM as an enabling technology for firms to foster closer relationships with their customers. CRM coordinates marketing, selling, and service activities in both intra-organization and interorganization (Swift, 2001).. 16.

(25) Definition of Customer Relationship Management Table 2.3. Definition of Customer Relationship Management Source. Definition. L. Ryals and Knox. CRM is a relationship orientation, customer retention and superior. (2001, p. 535). customer value created through process management.. Zablah, Bellenger, and CRM refers to the idea that the most effective way to achieve Johnston (2004, p.. loyalty is by proactively seeking to build and maintain long term. 477). relationships with customers.. Kincaid (2003, p. 8). CRM is the strategic use of information, processes, technology, and people to manage the customer’s relationship with a company across the whole customer life cycle.. Croteau and Li (2003,. CRM is a customer-focused business strategy that aims to increase. p. 22). customer satisfaction and customer loyalty by offering a more responsive and customized services to each customer.. Parvatiyar and Sheth. CRM is a comprehensive strategy and process of acquiring,. (2001, p. 5). retaining, and partnering with selective customers to create superior value for the company and the customer. It involves the integration of marketing, sales, customer service, and the supply chain functions of the organization to achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness in delivering customer value. (continued) 17.

(26) Table 2.3. (continued) Source. Definition. Payne and Frow. CRM is a strategic approach that is concerned with creating. (2005, p. 169). improved shareholder value through the development of appropriate relationships with key customers and customer segments. CRM unites the potential of relationship marketing strategies and IT to create profitable, long-term relationships with customers and other key stakeholders. CRM provides enhanced opportunities to use data and information to both understand customers and to create value with them. This requires a crossfunctional integration of processes, people, operations, and marketing capabilities that is enabled through information, technology, and applications.. Huang and Wang. CRM is a customer-centered enterprise management mode, which. (2009, p. 737). discovers the customers’ value and satisfies their requirements to realize the interaction between enterprise management and customers.. Urbanskiene,. CRM is the complex of software and technologies, automating and. Žostautiene, and. performing business processes in the following areas: sales,. Chreptavičiene (2008,. marketing, service, and customer support. p. 52). Hsieh (2009, p. 416). CRM is an enabling technology for organizations to foster closer relationships with their customers. (continued) 18.

(27) Table 2.3. (continued) Source Hobby (1999, p. 28). Definition CRM is a management approach that enables organizations to identify, attract, and increase retention of profitable customers by managing relationships with them.. Glazer (1997, p. 67). CRM attempts to provide a strategic bridge between information technology and marketing strategies aimed at building long-term relationships and profitability. This requires “informationintensive strategies”.. Swift (2001, p. 34). CRM is an enterprise approach to understanding and influencing customer behavior through meaningful communication to improve customer acquisition, customer retention, customer loyalty, and customer profitability.. Bose (2002, p. 90). CRM is an enterprise-wide integration of technologies working together, such as data warehouse, web site, intranet/ extranet, phone support system accounting, sales, marketing, and production.. Tarokh and. CRM is a strategy used to learn more about customers' needs and. Ghahremanloo (2007,. behaviors in order to develop stronger relationships with them.. p. 48). 19.

(28) Innovation Capabilities Guan and Ma (2003) state that in today’s competitive and fast-changing business environment, a firm’s capability to innovate is likely to be a particularly crucial learning output because it is the key to gaining dynamic competitive advantage. Elmquist and Le Masson (2009) asserted that developing innovative products and services is a key challenge for many firms today and companies need to develop their innovation capabilities to stay competitive. Innovation capabilities provide unique competitive advantages because they help the firm improve its products, processes, production, problem- solving techniques and therefore operate successfully in global markets (Yi, Wang, & Kafouros, 2013). Many researchers considered innovation capability as a key for competition (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Innovation is often described in terms of changes in what a firm offers the world (product/service innovation) and the ways it creates and delivers those offerings (process innovation) (Sher & Yang, 2005). Innovation is a critical activity for companies and firms that do not innovate risk being eliminated from the market (Liao et al., 2007). Hurley and Hult (1998) suggested that firms with greater innovation capability will be more successful in responding to their environments and developing new knowledge about how to improve existing products and processes or create new ones. Besides, firms that have high innovative capability will be more successful to develop new capabilities that will cause response to environment, competitive advantage and high performance.. Based on Samson’s concept of innovation categories, Tasi et al. define a firm’s innovation capability as including product innovation, process innovation, and managerial innovation (Liao et al., 2007).Liao et al. (2007) also state that process innovation belongs to the area of technical innovation, besides, management innovation is a capability that improves a firm’s performance by implementing new managerial regulations, systems, and methods etc. 20.

(29) Definition of Innovation Capabilities Table 2.4. Definition of Innovation Capabilities Source Lall (1992, p. 172). Definition Innovation capabilities as the capacity and knowledge needed to effectively absorb, master, and improve the existing technologies and to create new ones.. Koc and Ceylan. Innovation capability is the ability of an organization to. (2007, p. 108). successfully adopt or implement new ideas, processes or products.. Zheng, Liu, and. Innovation capability is the ability to generate novel and useful. George (2010, p. 596). knowledge or products.. Adler and Shenhar. Innovation capability is defined as: (1) the capacity of developing. (1990, p. 28). new products satisfying market needs; (2) the capacity of applying appropriate process technologies to produce these new products; (3) the capacity of developing and adopting new product and processing technologies to satisfy the future needs; and (4) the capacity of responding to accidental technology activities and unexpected opportunities created by the competitors.. Kogut and Zander. A firm’s innovation capability is defined as its ability to mobilize. (1992, p. 385). the knowledge included its employees and combine it to create new knowledge resulting in product or process innovation.. (continued) 21.

(30) Table 2.4. (continued) Source. Lall (1992, p. 170). Definition. Innovation capabilities can be defined as the skills and knowledge needed effectively to absorb, master and improve existing technologies, products and to create new one.. Akman and Yilmaz. Innovation capability is defined as an important factor that facilitates. (2008, p. 74). an innovative organizational culture, characteristics of internal promoting activities and capabilities of understanding and responding appropriately to the external environment.. Tsai et al. (2001, p.. A firm’s innovation capability is defined as including product. 537). innovation, process innovation, and managerial innovation.. Teece and Pisano. Innovation capability is define here as an actor’s ability to sense the. (1998, p. 196). changes in the environment and exploit existing resources and competencies in order to create competitive advantage by innovation activities.. 22.

(31) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY. This chapter introduces the research design and methodology. The research framework and the hypotheses to be tested in this study are presented. Besides, the research procedure for the researcher to follow is included. Details of data collection, the measurement instrument, validity and reliability, and the methods of data analysis are also explained.. Conceptual Framework In order to conducting a valid and reliable study, the research framework for this study is constructed based on the background and purpose of the study described in chapter one, as well as literature review summarized in chapter two.. The TKICC Model (which stands for trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management and innovation capabilities) shown in figure 3.1 was developed based on the model of propensity to trust, interpersonal trust, and knowledge sharing of Mooradian et al. (2006), the model of knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability by Ho et al. (2012), and the model of customer focus, service process fit and customer relationship management profitability by Fan and Ku (2010).. 23.

(32) Knowledge Sharing. Trust H1. Innovation Capabilities H2. 1.. Trust in Peers. 1.. Intra-groups. 1.. Product Innovation. 2.. Trust in. 2.. Inter-groups. 2.. Process Innovation. 3.. Management Innovation. Management. H3 Customer Relationship Management 1.. Win-back Management. 2.. Production/Service Customization. 3.. Customer Information Management. 4.. Referrals Management. 5.. Expansion Management. 6.. Termination Management. Figure 3.1.The TKICC Model of this study.. Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses test the relationships among trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities. Based on the literature review and research questions, the following null-hypotheses are developed for the purpose of testing the results:. H1: Trust has no effect on knowledge sharing. H2: Knowledge sharing has no effect on customer relationship management. H3: Knowledge sharing has no effect on innovation capabilities. 24.

(33) Research Procedure An orderly research procedure has been clearly outlined for the purpose of making an obvious steps for this study. The research was conducted following this research process: Research Motivation. Review of Literature. Identify Research Questions and Hypothesis. Develop Theoretical Framework of the Study. Develop Research Method of the Study. Develop the Instrument. Translation and Expert Review of the Instrument. Conduct Pilot Study. Adjust Survey Instrument and Conduct Main Study. Data Analysis. Report Research Findings and Conclusions Figure 3.2. Research procedure. 25.

(34) Data Collection The target population of this study are employees of Pan Asia, a human resources management and consulting corporation in Taiwan. The respondents must be fully employed within human resources management and consulting corporation. This means that volunteers and part-time employees are not included in the sample population. Besides, the researcher use on-line questionnaire to do the investigation.. There are 284 full-time employees in Pan Asia. The instrument was first tested on a group of 37 employees who participated in a pilot study in the target company. After refining the instrument through reliability and validity procedures, the main study was conducted by distributing 142 questionnaires within Pan Asia. Out of the 142 questionnaires 128 were received. The response rate was 90 percent. Namely, the sample size of the main study was 128 people.. Brief Introduction to Pan Asia Pan Asia Human Resources Consulting Company was established in July, 1992. It is the first human resources company nationwide that obtained ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems Certification. By now, Pan Asia have already become multinational manpower resources organization serving as mediators for foreign laborers, mentors for short-time manpower dispatching, job bank, head-hunters for senior officers’ positions, and as service centers for executives’ business management educational programs. Pan Asia’s priorities are always taking in account their clients’ needs, being step ahead of their customers, and continuously providing the most comprehensive services.. 26.

(35) Pan Asia Human Resources Group is based in Taiwan, but operates also in mainland China, Philippines, and Thailand. Its group integrates eight institutions. By constant development and innovation, Pan Asia provides their customers with the most complete and effective services.. Departments of Pan Asia Table 3.1. Department Introduction Department Name. Introduction. Head-hunting. Pan Asia head-hunting department HiHunter was established in the. department. year 2000. After more than 10 years of consistent development, it has become a professional executive search firm for Taiwan and mainland China.. Dispatching Services Pan Asia manpower dispatching agencies provide customers with department. professional and customized dispatching services. The agencies are located in Taipei, Taoyuan, Xinzhu, Changhua, Taizhong, Jiayi, Tainan, Gaoxiong. This infrastructure allows the company to respond immediately to their customers' needs.. Education. Pan Asia International Education Center provides educational. department. courses that help companies to create the biggest value of their human resources. The center runs both short-term and long-term professional training courses and business management graduate degrees for corporate managers through the integration of worldclass universities, professors and professional lecturer groups. (continued). 27.

(36) Table 3.1. (continued) Department Name. Introduction. Foreign Workers. Foreign labor division was established in 1992, as the government. Services department. allowed foreign manpower to Taiwan. The purpose of this department is to introduce foreign workers to domestic enterprises. Pan Asia foreign workers department provide services such as planning, cost analysis and recommendations, agency assessment of the application procedures for the medium-term and high-quality workers, immigration-related procedures and testing, and even the introduction of foreign workers to work and life issues. This complete service allows customers not only to find effective solution for lack of manpower, but also to save costs on labor recruitment.. Corporate Training. Department of training division provides professional corporate. department. management consulting and training services. In the past few years, many cross-strait businesses profited from Pan Asia’s consulting guidance and internal training courses. Because of Pan Asia’s spirit of professionalism and enthusiasm, many of their previous customers return to seek their services again.. 28.

(37) Measurement Instrument In this study, a quantitative approach was implemented since the research intend to collect numerical data, and analysis the statistical relationship between each variable. The research instrument consists of self-reported survey questionnaire. And the function of the research instrument is to collect the required data and to test the established hypotheses. A cover letter is used to briefly introduce the study, as well as its purposes is clearly stated. The questions were grouped into five sections on the basis of their relevance and relationship. Simple instructions are provided at the beginning of the questionnaire and at each section. Most importantly, the questions are applicable and answerable by most participants.. All constructs in the questionnaire were adapted from pre-validated measures in existing related studies. The survey contains five parts: trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, innovation capabilities, and respondent profile. The measurements are described in the following:. 1.. Trust (5 items): Adopted from Mooradian et al. (2006), the variables of trust consist of trust in peers (TiP) and trust in management (TiM).. 2.. Knowledge sharing (4 items): The measurement of knowledge sharing were adopted by Cummings’ (2004) scale and categorizing knowledge sharing into two types: intra-groups knowledge sharing, and inter-groups knowledge sharing.. 3.. Customer relationship management (22 items): Adopted from Ö ztaysi et al. (2011), the variables of customer relationship management (CRM) consist of win-back management (WbM), production/ service customization (P/SC), customer information management (CIM), referrals management (RefM), expansion management (EM), and termination management (TM). 29.

(38) 4.. Innovation capabilities (15 items): Adopted fromLiao et al. (2007), the variables of innovation capabilities consist of product innovation (ProdI), process innovation (ProceI), and management innovation (MI). 5.. The respondent profile: This section was added as a fourth section in order to provide a descriptive analysis of the survey respondents. This section contained demographic information such as participants’ age, gender, educational background, tenure, department, and job position.. Participants were asked to fill out the survey based on their experiences of working in their organization. The survey were presented with five-point Likert-type scales from ‘strong disapproval’ (1) to ‘strong approval’ (5).. 30.

(39) Construct Coding and Scales The items used to measure the variables of this study are listed in Tables 3.2 to 3.6. Each item was coded for later use in the statistical analysis of the data. Dummy variables were created to code part IV of the measurement instrument pertaining to demographics. Table 3.2 Items Measuring Trust Construct. Code. Questionnaire Item. Trust in peers. TiP1. If I got into difficulties at work I know my colleagues would. (TiP; 3 items). try and help me out. TiP2. I can Trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.. TiP3. Most of my colleagues can be relied upon to do as they say they will do.. Trust in. TiM1. employees’ point of view.. management (TiM; 2 items). Management at my firm is sincere in its attempts to meet the. TiM2. I feel quite confident that the firm will always try to treat me fairly.. 31.

(40) Table 3.3 Items Measuring Knowledge Sharing Construct. Code. Questionnaire Items. Intra-groups. Intra1. I frequently share knowledge and information with my. (Intra; 2 items). work teammates. Intra2. I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with my teammates.. Inter-groups (Inter; Inter1. I frequently share knowledge with people even though he. 2 items). (or she) is not in my team. Inter2. I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with colleagues from other work teams.. 32.

(41) Table 3.4. Items Measuring Customer Relationship Management Construct. Code. Win-back. WbM1. management (WbM; 3 items). Questionnaire Items Our department has processes (or tools) to win-back valued lost customer.. WbM2. Our department has processes (or tools) to determine the value of lost customers.. WbM3. Our department has processes (or tools) to evaluate the cost of wining back the lost customers.. Production/ Service P/SC1. Our department has processes (or tools) to differentiate the. customization. customer acquiring efforts based on their value.. (P/SC; 3 items). P/SC2. Our department has processes (or tools) to provide customized product/service to customers based on their value.. P/SC3. Our department has processes (or tools) to manage expectations of high valued customers.. Customer. CIM1. Our department has processes (or tools) to get in. information. connection with potential customers using various channels. management (CIM;. (e.g., e-mail, customer service center, phone, FAX, face-to-. 6 items). face, etc.). CIM2. Our department has processes (or tools) to trace the status of our relationship with customers. (continued). 33.

(42) Table 3.4. (continued) Construct. Code. Questionnaire Items. Customer. CIM3. Our department has processes (or tools) to identify and. information management (CIM;. affect different potential customers segments. CIM4. Our department has processes (or tools) to identify nonprofitable customers.. 6 items) CIM5. Our department has processes (or tools) to evaluate the cost of retaining each customer.. CIM6. Our department has processes (or tools) to capture and integrate customer data from whole contact points (email, call-center, web site, FAX, face-to-face, etc.).. Referrals. RefM1. customers’ referrals.. management (RefM; 4 items). Our department has processes (or tools) to manage. RefM2. Our department has processes (or tools) to trace customer referrals.. RefM3. Our department has processes (or tools) to motivate customers’ referrals.. RefM4. Our department has processes (or tools) to reward our customers based on their referrals. (continued). 34.

(43) Table 3.4. (continued) Construct. Code. Questionnaire Items. Expansion. EM1. Our department has processes (or tools) to maintain up-sell. management (EM;. activities (providing higher level service, or more. 4 items). customized service) with customers. EM2. Our department has processes (or tools) to maintain crosssell activities (providing a variety of services) with customers.. EM3. Our department has processes (or tools) to increase the sales from potential customers with high value.. EM4. Our department has processes (or tools) to improve the relationship with potential customers with high value in order to provide cross-sell (providing a variety of services) and up-sell (providing higher level service, or more customized service) possibilities.. Termination. TM1. Our department has processes (or tools) to finalize the. management (TM;. relationship with non-profitable customer (e.g. the cost of. 2 items). maintaining customer relationships is too high to have profit). TM2. Our department has processes (or tools) to orientate the non-profitable customer to terminate their relationship with our company (e.g. delay in service).. 35.

(44) Table 3.5 Items Measuring Innovation Capabilities Construct. Code. Questionnaire Items. Product innovation. ProdI1. Our company often develops new services well accepted. (ProdI; 5 items). by the market. ProdI2. A great majority of our company’s profits are generated by the new services developed.. ProdI3. The new services developed by our company always arouse imitation from competitors.. ProdI4. Our company can often launch new services faster than our competitors.. ProdI5. Our company has better capability in R&D of new services than our competitors.. Process innovation. ProcI1. Our company often tries different operation procedures to hasten the realization of the company’s goals.. (ProceI; 5 items) ProcI2. Our company always acquires new skills or equipment to improve the manufacturing operation process.. ProcI3. Our company can develop more efficient manufacturing process or operation procedure.. ProcI4. Our company can flexibly provide products and services according to the demands of the customers.. ProcI5. The new manufacturing process or operation procedure employed by our company always arouses imitation from competitors. (continued) 36.

(45) Table 3.5. (continued) Construct. Code. Questionnaire Items. Management. MI1. Our company will change the division of work among. innovation. different departments according to the needs of market. (MI; 5 items). management. Our company’s department heads will adopt new leadership. MI2. approaches to lead all staff towards task completion. MI3. The new financial management system adopted by our company can effectively monitor the actual discrepancy between our performance and our goals.. MI4. Our company emphasizes innovative and creative capability when recruiting staff.. MI5. The new performance assessment method adopted by our company can enable department heads to gain a better picture of how far the staff has achieved the company goal.. Table 3.6. Coding System for Demographics Variables Variables. Code. Items. Age. 1. 20-25. 2. 26-30. 3. 31-35. 4. 36-40. 5. Above 40 (continued) 37.

(46) Table 3.6. (continued) Variables. Code. Gender. 1. Female. 2. Male. Educational. 1. High school. background. 2. Bachelor. 3. Master. 4. Doctor/ Ph. D. 1. 1 to 2 years. 2. 2 to 3 years. 3. 3 to 4 years. 4. 4 to 5 years. 5. More than 5 years. 1. Head-hunting. 2. Dispatching Services. 3. Education. 4. Foreign Workers Services. 5. Corporate Training. 6. Pan-Asia (headquarter). 1. Manager. 2. Administrative staff. 3. Consultant/ Marketing staff. 4. Assistant. Tenure. Department. Job Position. Items. 38.

(47) Translation and Face Validity The questionnaire was translated from English to Chinese by the researcher. The translation was then revised by two bilingual experts. And then, a backwards translation of the questionnaire was implemented to double check the original meaning of the items was not lost through the translation process. Beside, for the convenience of respondents, the instrument stated each question in both English and Chinese.. Validity and Reliability The validity and reliability is tested by internal consistency and stability. The Cronbach’s alpha is used for testing internal consistency. A common method for testing reliability is Cronbach’s assessment. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggest that the generally accepted lower limit for Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70.The research instrument construct validity was examine through factor analysis. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) will be chosen to test that the factors of each scale which are consist with studies.. Table 3.7. Pilot Cronbach’s Alpha Results for all the Constrcts using SPSS Number of items. Cronbach’s Alpha. Trust. 5. .867. Knowledge Sharing. 4. .864. Customer Relationship Management. 22. .957. Innovation Capabilities. 15. .949. Constructs. Note: n=37. 39.

(48) Through the reliability test using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) 20.0, the coefficient values of each construct show in Table 3.7. For trust (0.867), knowledge sharing (0.864), customer relationship management (0.957), and innovation capabilities (0.949). The Cronbach’s alpha of all the constructs in this study are higher than the acceptable level of 0.70 (Nunnally, 2010). As a result, the value indicates a high level of internal consistency and reliability.. Table 3.8. illustrates the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test coefficient value for each variable and detailed in this study. 0.897 for trust in peers of trust, and 0.846 for trust in management of trust. 0.790 for intra-groups of knowledge sharing, and 0.874 for inter-groups of knowledge sharing. 0.913 for win-back management of CRM, 0.832 for production/ service customization of CRM, 0.802 for customer information management of CRM, 0.870 for referrals management of CRM, 0.902 for expansion management of CRM, and 0.858 for termination management of CRM. 0.860 for product innovation of innovation capabilities, 0.893 for process innovation of innovation capabilities, and 0.874 for management innovation of innovation capabilities.. All the Cronbach’s alpha value of variables are higher than 0.70. Therefore, it can conclude that the scales for all the variables had a high level internal consistency as well as reliability.. 40.

(49) Table 3.8. Pilot Cronbach’s Alpha Results for all the Variables using SPSS Number of items. Cronbach’s Alpha. Trust in Peers. 3. .897. Trust in Management. 2. .846. Total. 5. .867. Constructs Trust. Variables. Knowledge. Intra-groups. 2. .790. Sharing. Inter-groups. 2. .874. 4. .864. Total Customer. Win-back management. 3. .913. Relationship. Production/ Service. 3. .832. Management. Customization 6. .802. Referrals Management. 4. .870. Expansion Management. 4. .902. Termination Management. 2. .858. 22. .957. Customer Information Management. Total Innovation. Product Innovation. 5. .860. Capabilities. Process innovation. 5. .893. Management Innovation. 5. .874. 15. .949. Total. 41.

(50) Data Analysis Methods Partial Least Squares (PLS) and multiple regression analysis are the two main data analysis methods in this study. PLS is used to analyze simultaneously the interrelationships among all the constructs. However, PLS is not able to evaluate each individual item’s impact on innovation capabilities. Therefore, multiple regression analysis is implemented to assess each item’s influence on the dependent variables. Partial Least Squares (PLS) and multiple regression analysis are complimentary to each other. The data for this research was analyzed using the software of SPSS 20.0 and Smart PLS. Before analysis, the data were coded using number sequence. The 46 trust, knowledge sharing, customer relationship management, and innovation capabilities questions were coded using a 5-point Likert scale.. Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling PLS is ideal in this study for the following reasons: 1. PLS can test the psychometric properties of the indices and provide better evidence for the existence of relationships (S.-Y. Lee, Kim, & Gupta, 2009). 2. The investigation of this model is exploratory in nature rather than confirmatory. 3. PLS has less stringent standards regarding sample size, distribution parameters, and levels of correlation between variables.. Bontis (1998) reports the benefits of using PLS for such studies: The objective in PLS is to maximize the explanation variance. Thus, R² (r-squared) and the significance of relationships among constructs are measures indicative of how well a model is performing. The conceptual core of PLS is an iterative combination of principal components analysis relating measures to constructs, and path analysis 42.

(51) permitting the construction of a system of constructs. The hypothesizing of relationships between measures and constructs, and constructs and other constructs is guided by theory. The estimation of the parameters representing the measurement and path relationships is accomplished using ordinary least squares (OLS) techniques. The first step in PLS is for the researcher to explicitly specify both the structural model and the construct-to-measures relationships in the measurement model. The exogenous constructs are consistent with the idea of independent variables (antecedents). Similarly, the endogenous constructs are consistent with the idea of dependent variables (consequents). The constructs can be specified as “formative” indicators or “reflective” indicators. Formative indicators imply a construct that is expressed as a function of the items (the items form or cause the construct). Reflective indicators imply a construct where the observable items are expressed as a function of the construct (the items reflect or are manifestations of the construct). One looks to theory to decide on which type of epistemic or construct-tomeasure relationship to specify. In this case, all constructs were “reflective” indicators. Once specified, the measurement and structural parameters are estimated using a process of PLS, simple and multiple regressions. The process continues until the differences in the component scores converge within certain criteria (p. 69).. Data analysis is performed according to a two-stage methodology (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) using Smart PLS. The first step in the data analysis was to establish the convergent and discriminant validity of constructs using the measurement model. The second step was to test the structural model.. 43.

(52) 44.

(53) CHAPTER IV. STATISTICS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. In this chapter, the overview of the descriptive statistics of this study is provided. In the first section, it shows the sample characteristics of the respondents under this study. And in the second section, the researcher shows descriptive statistics of the result which includes mean and standard deviation of every item.. Sample Characteristics The characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 4.1. It consist of respondents’ age, gender, educational background, tenure, department, and job position. The largest group of the respondents in this study was at the age between 26 to 30 years old (32 percent). And the second largest groups of the respondent were at the age between 20 to 25 years old, and above 40 years old. Besides, the response shows that the majority of the respondents in this study were female (77 percent) against male (23 percent).. Concerning the respondent’s educational background, up to 78% have bachelor degree, and 11% are high school graduate. Besides, 9% held master degree, while 2% had doctorate degree. Regarding their length of service, the result showed that the majority has been working more than five years (34 percent). While there are 31% of the respondent have worked one to two years. About the department they are in, the majority is from the department of Dispatching Services (44 percent). There are 17% from the department of Foreign Workers Service, 16% from Pan-Asia (headquarter), 15% from the department of Education, 6% from Headhunting, and only 2% from the department of Corporate Training. 45.

(54) Regarding their job position, the majority is administrative staff in the organization. 22% of the respondents are consultant/ marketing staff, 18% are managers, and 15% are assistants.. Table 4.1. Summary Distribution of Respondents Based on Demographic Variables Variables Age. Entries. Percentage. 20-25. 25. 20%. 26-30. 41. 32%. 31-35. 17. 13%. 36-40. 19. 15%. Above 40. 26. 20%. Female. 99. 77%. Male. 29. 23%. Educational. High school. 15. 11%. background. College graduate. 100. 78%. 11. 9%. 2. 2%. 1 to 2 years. 40. 31%. 2 to 3 years. 20. 16%. 3 to 4 years. 18. 14%. 4 to 5 years. 7. 5%. 43. 34%. Gender. Masters Doctorate Tenure. More than 5 years. (continued). 46.

(55) Table 4.1. (continued) Variables Department. Entries Head-hunting. 8. 6%. Dispatching Services. 56. 44%. Education. 19. 15%. Foreign Workers Services. 22. 17%. 2. 2%. Pan-Asia (headquarter). 21. 16%. Manager. 23. 18%. Administrative staff. 57. 45%. Consultant/ Marketing staff. 28. 22%. Assistant. 20. 15%. Corporate Training. Job Position. Percentage. Note: N=128. 47.

(56) Descriptive Statistics Analysis In this section, a summary of the responses to the questions relates to the variable in this research is provided. It consist of each construct’s min., max., mean and standard deviation which indicate how well the mean represents the data. A 5-point Likert scale was used. The respondent are asked to express their opinions ranging from “strongly disagree=1” to “strongly agree=5”. Besides, the averages of each variable are higher than the midpoint (3) of the 5-point Likert scale. It can conclude that the respondents showed some degree of agreement, because their answer mostly ranged from neutral to agree.. Trust In table 4.2, the respondents showed the highest agreement on TiP2, which states that “I can trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it”. And the second highest was TiP1 noted that “If I got into difficulties at work I know my colleagues would try and help me out”. However, the respondents showed the lowest agreement on TiM2, which indicated that the employee feel quite confident that the firm will always try to treat them fairly.. Table 4.2 Trust via a 5-point Likert Scale Survey Questions. Min.. Max.. Mean. SD. TiP1. 1. 5. 4.17. .700. 1. 5. 4.18. .692. If I got into difficulties at work I know my colleagues would try and help me out.. TiP2. I can Trust the people I work with to lend me a hand if I needed it.. (continued). 48.

(57) Table 4.2. (continued) Survey Questions. Min.. Max.. Mean. SD. TiP3. 1. 5. 4.09. .715. 1. 5. 3.91. .747. 1. 5. 3.75. .851. Most of my colleagues can be relied upon to do as they say they will do.. TiM1 Management at my firm is sincere in its attempts to meet the employees’ point of view. TiM2 I feel quite confident that the firm will always try to treat me fairly. Note: N=128; SD= Standard Deviation. Knowledge Sharing (KS) Regarding knowledge sharing, table 4.3 showed the respondents had the highest agreement on both Intra1 and Intra2, which indicate that the employees frequently share knowledge and information with their work teammates, and they usually involve themselves in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with their teammates. However, the lowest score noted that the employees usually involve themselves in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with colleagues from other work teams.. 49.

(58) Table 4.3 Knowledge Sharing via a 5-point Likert Scale Survey Questions. Min.. Max.. Mean. SD. Intra1 I frequently share knowledge and information. 1. 5. 4.09. .732. 1. 5. 4.09. .743. 1. 5. 3.79. .800. 1. 5. 3.76. .849. with my work teammates. Intra2 I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with my teammates. Inter1 I frequently share knowledge with people even though he (or she) is not in my team. Inter2 I usually involve myself in discussions of various topics rather than specific topics with colleagues from other work teams. Note: N=128; SD= Standard Deviation. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) In the construct of customer relationship management exposed in table 4.4, the respondents had the highest agreement on CIM1, which indicated that their department has processes (or tools) to get in connection with potential customers using various channels (e.g., e-mail, customer service center, phone, FAX, face-to-face, etc.). However, the respondents showed the lowest agreement on WbM3 that noted that their department has processes (or tools) to evaluate the cost of wining back the lost customers.. 50.

(59) Table 4.4 Customer Relationship Management via a 5-point Likert Scale Survey Questions. Min.. Max.. Mean. SD. WbM1 Our department has processes (or tools) to. 1. 5. 3.52. .784. 1. 5. 3.49. .813. 1. 5. 3.41. .846. 1. 5. 3.57. .781. 1. 5. 3.76. .729. 1. 5. 3.67. .744. 1. 5. 3.92. .809. win-back valued lost customer. WbM2 Our department has processes (or tools) to determine the value of lost customers. WbM3 Our department has processes (or tools) to evaluate the cost of wining back the lost customers. P/SC1. Our department has processes (or tools) to differentiate the customer acquiring efforts based on their value.. P/SC2. Our department has processes (or tools) to provide customized product/service to customers based on their value.. P/SC3. Our department has processes (or tools) to manage expectations of high valued customers.. CIM1. Our department has processes (or tools) to get in connection with potential customers using various channels (e.g., e-mail, customer service center, phone, FAX, face-to-face, etc.).. (continued). 51.