以階層線性模式分析個人與組織因素對學習行為之效果：以組織因素為調節角色

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學科技應用與人力資源發展學系博士論文. Using HLM to Analyze Effects of Individual and Organizational Factors on Learning Behavior: Organizational Factors as Moderators 以階層線性模式分析個人與組織因素對學習行為之效果：以組織因素為調節角色. 研究生：蔡孟珊指導教授：張基成博士. 中華民國一○一年七月.

(2)

(3) 謝. 誌. 我要先感謝我的指導教授張基成教授，老師給我在學術上有許多指導與鼓勵，讓我在學術這條路上得以持續的堅持下去，也讓我學習到要如何嚴謹的進行學術研究。此外；老師給予我在生活上的時間與空間都有很大的彈性，老師交代工作後，並不會催促我盡快完成，反而要我慢慢的做，以求學術品質提升，並且從來不會強迫我要研究某一個特定領域，而是讓我可以依照自己的研究興趣發展，因此讓我在投稿上也有很大的發揮空間。即使我後來搬回高雄，老師也持續的關心我的研究進度與生活，因此我非常感激老師。論文計畫與論文學位考試有幸受到余鑑教授、蕭錫錡教授、曾國鴻教授、羅希哲教授、邱文彬教授的指導，令我獲益良多。老師們不吝於指導，讓我可以了解自己論文的不足之處，且老師們也都給予我許多建議，使我的論文方向與內容可以更加完善。因此在此也要感謝辛苦的口試委員老師。博士班就讀期間，修過許多老師開設的課程，在修課期間，老師們教導我許多知識，而這些知識對於我的研究發展都有很大的助益，因此我也要感謝在我就學期間所有教導過我的老師們。另外，在我的博士論文及投稿的問卷發放時遇到了瓶頸，也因為有許多親朋好友的協助，四處幫我收集問卷，才得以讓我的論文可以順利完成。所以在此也要感謝他們在百忙之中抽空幫我發放及回收問卷。最後我也要感謝我的父母與家人，他們總是在我背後全力支持我，也讓我在沉重的學業壓力下，有個溫暖的避風港，感謝他們為我付出，讓我可以順利完成博士班的修業課程與論文。. i.

(4) ii.

(5) Using HLM to Analyze Effects of Individual and Organizational Factors on Learning Behavior: Organizational Factors as Moderators Author: Tsai, Meng-Shan Adviser: Chang, Chi-Cheng. ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to explore the direct effects of individual and organizational factors on learning behavior, and discussed that organizational factors were the moderators between individual factors and learning behavior in Taiwanese technology industry. To complete this study, 19 hypotheses were proposed. Individual factors included need for cognition (NFC), openness, and emotion; organizational factors included interpersonal relationship, social relationship, organizational collaborative culture, and organizational climate; learning behavior included knowledge sharing and exploratory organizational learning. This multilevel study of 194 workers from 43 technology companies demonstrated that both individual- and organization-level factors associated with learning behavior. The results showed that NFC, emotion, organizational collaborative culture and organizational climate significantly and positively influenced learning behavior. Interpersonal relationship, social relationship, and organizational climate negatively moderated the relationship between NFC and learning behavior, however, organizational collaborative culture positively moderate this relationship. Nevertheless, only interpersonal relationship significantly and positively moderated the effect of emotion on learning behavior. Keywords: need for cognition (NFC), openness, emotion, interpersonal relationship, social relationship, organizational collaborative culture, organizational climate, learning behavior iii.

(6) iv.

(7) 以階層線性模式分析個人與組織因素對學習行為之效果：以組織因素為調節角色研究生：蔡孟珊指導教授：張基成博士. 中文摘要本研究之目的是要探討台灣科技業的個人及組織因素對學習行為之直接效果，並討論組織因素是否會在個人與學習行為的關係中扮演調節角色。為了要完成此研究，本研究提出了 19 個研究假設。而個人因素包含了認知需求(NFC)、開放性，與情感；組織因素包含了人際關係、社會關係、組織的合作文化，以及組織氣候。本研究以階層線性模式作為研究方法，調查了來自 43 個科技業公司的 194 個科技業工作者，以探討個人和組織因素與學習行為之關係。研究結果指出認知需求、情感、組織合作文化與組織氣候皆對於學習行為有顯著的正向效果。人際關係、社會關係及組織氣候在認知需求與學習行為的關係中扮演負向的調節角色，但是組織合作文化則扮演正向的調節角色。在情感與學習行為的關係中，只有人際關係具有正向的調節效果。. 關鍵字：認知需求(NFC)、開放性、情感、人際關係、社會關係、組織合作文化、組織氣候、學習行為. v.

(8) vi.

(9) CONTENTS 謝. 誌....................................................................................................... i. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................iii 中文摘要...................................................................................................... v CONTENTS ............................................................................................... vii TABLES ...................................................................................................... ix FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research background and motivation............................................... 1 1.2 Research purposes and questions...................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Literature Review and Hypotheses ............................................... 7 2.1 Literature review.............................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Learning behavior................................................................... 7 2.1.2 Individual level....................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Organizational level.............................................................. 11 2.2 Research hypotheses ...................................................................... 16 2.2.1 The relationship between individual level factors and learning behavior................................................................................. 16 2.2.2 The relationship between organizational level factors and learning behavior................................................................... 19 2.2.3 The correlation between individual level factors and organizational level factors .................................................... 25 2.3 Theoretical Foundation .................................................................. 31 Chapter 3 Research Methods ...................................................................... 35 3.1 Research variables and framework ................................................. 35 3.2 Research procedure ........................................................................ 36 3.3 Sampling population and method ................................................... 37 3.4 Instruments .................................................................................... 38 3.4.1 Learning behavior................................................................. 38 3.4.2 Individual level..................................................................... 39 3.4.3 Organizational level.............................................................. 40 3.5 Reliability and validity of instruments............................................ 42 3.5.1 Reliability............................................................................. 43 3.5.2 Validity ................................................................................. 43 3.5.3 CR, AVE............................................................................... 44 3.6 Data collection and analysis method .............................................. 44 3.6.1 Data collection...................................................................... 44 vii.

(10) 3.6.2 Data analysis method ............................................................45 Chapter 4 Research Results and Discussions...............................................47 4.1 Research Results.............................................................................47 4.1.1 Profile of respondents ...........................................................47 4.1.2 Descriptive statistics .............................................................47 4.1.3 Hypotheses testing ................................................................48 4.2 Discussions.....................................................................................56 4.2.4 Moderating effects ................................................................59 4.2.5 Managerial implications........................................................63 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Suggestions ......................................................67 5.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................67 5.1.1 Result summary ....................................................................67 5.1.2 Research limitations..............................................................69 5.2 Suggestions.....................................................................................69 5.2.1 The implications for technology companies and workers ......69 5.2.2 Future research directions .....................................................70 References...................................................................................................71. viii.

(11) TABLES Table 3-1 Research variables, number of items, and sources....................... 42 Table 3-2 Reliabilities of all variables......................................................... 43 Table 3-3 The values of CR and AVE.......................................................... 44 Table 4-1 Profile of respondents ................................................................. 48 Table 4-2 Descriptive statistics: Means, SD, and correlations ..................... 47 Table 4-3 Regression analysis..................................................................... 48 Table 4-4 Null model .................................................................................. 50 Table 4-5 Random-coefficient regression model......................................... 51 Table 4-6 Intercepts and slopes -as-outcomes model................................... 54 Table 4-7 Hierarchical linear modeling results............................................ 55 Table 5-1 Summary of hypotheses testing results........................................ 68. ix.

(12) x.

(13) FIGURES Fig. 2-1 The exploratory organizational learning model................................ 8 Fig. 2-2 The research framework of knowledge sharing ............................. 34 Fig. 3-1 Research framework...................................................................... 36 Fig. 3-2 Research procedure ....................................................................... 37 Fig. 4-1 Research results model .................................................................. 58 Fig. 4-2 Interpersonal relationship moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior ...................................................................................... 59 Fig. 4-3 Social relationship moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior ...................................................................................... 60 Fig. 4-4 Collaborative culture moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior ...................................................................................... 61 Fig. 4-5 Organizational climate moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior ...................................................................................... 62 Fig. 4-6 Interpersonal relationship moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior ........................................................................ 62. xi.

(14) xii.

(15) Chapter 1 Introduction. 1.1 Research background and motivation Knowledge is a critical factor and enhances an organization’s capability to implement effective actions. Further, the main concept of knowledge management is to get the most out of knowledge resources. On the other hand, organizational learning theory focuses on using earlier experiences to future actions. Moreover, organizational learning occurs when new knowledge is generated (Sabherwal & Sabherwal, 2005). Based on this perspective, knowledge is related to learning. When knowledge is shared, it facilitates an organization to perform effective actions and incorporates different perspectives. However, knowledge is not shared, knowledge exists in different organizational department, and this is an obstacle for organizational innovation (Bartunek, Trullen, Immediato, & Schneider, 2007). Therefore, knowledge sharing is important for an organization. Organizational learning is an important issue for organizational adaption, survival, and performance. Moreover, organizational learning can create new knowledge to build new skills and capabilities, and then leads to competitive advantage (Zahra, 2012). Additionally, organizational learning is capable of improving organization in theories and practices (Robey, Boudreau, & Rose, 2000). Treating organizational learning as a process, and an organization increases the knowledge generated by individuals in an organized approach and transforms the knowledge into the knowledge system of an organization (García-Morales, Jiménez-Barrionuevo, & Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, 2012). Knowledge sharing and organizational learning were very highly correlated at the significant level. Knowledge sharing made individual 1.

(16) learning to flow through a whole organization, then became organizational learning (Yang, 2010). Yang (2010) explored the correlation between knowledge sharing and organizational learning, and the correlation was 0.659. Moreover, Yang (2010) used knowledge sharing to predict organizational learning, and the result showed that knowledge sharing positively influenced organizational learning, and the coefficient was 0.58, and this result was significant. Additionally, knowledge sharing at individual level was important for an organization. Because knowledge sharing improves learning among employees and make them resolve problems similar to situations encountered by others (Law & Ngai, 2008). Siadaty, Jovanović, Gašević, Jeremić, and Holocher-Ertl (2010) considered successful knowledge sharing in an organization relied on three elements: individual, organizational, and technical facets. As reported above, this study integrated knowledge sharing and exploratory organizational learning and created a new variable ─ learning behavior. Individual meant that motivation of employees to capture, disseminate, and apply existing and novel knowledge. Organizational referred organizational structure which improved transparent knowledge flows. Technology was the software solutions, and facilitated knowledge discovery, use, re-use, combination, and re-combination. This study investigated the Taiwanese technology industry. The technology companies were knowledge-intense and provided an appropriate environment for knowledge management (Yang, 2005). Furthermore, innovation was very important for technology companies, because they had to learn and use new ideas, skills, and knowledge to perform their works. However,. Liu’s (2011) study indicated that a company’s experience could. cause the better innovation results. What’s more, several studies (Ho, 2011; Santamaría, Nieto, & Barge-Gil, 2009) have explained that the relationship 2.

(17) between innovative issues and technology industry. So, experience and innovation were important for technology companies. In order to discuss the learning situations in technology industry, this study did not focus on organizational learning instead of exploratory organizational learning. Because exploratory organizational learning emphasized experience (de Freitas & Neumann, 2009) and the technology industry focused on experience, this study desired to discuss it. Regarding the individual level factors, openness to experience has examined in one previous study, and in which described that openness was task-based, and opened individuals attempt to find new approaches to complete a task. Moreover, an individual had high openness, who was close to new experience (Cheng, 2011). Several studies discussed the relationship between emotion and working in Taiwan, such as Liang (2012), Tsai (2001). Individuals have high need for cognition (NFC) could solve complicated problems; moreover, NFC played an important role for collaborative learning (Curşeu, 2011). Therefore, this study considered that NFC could influence learning behavior, and NFC could be used to solve complex problems, this concept was fit the core of exploratory organizational learning. For the organizational characteristics factors, several Taiwanese studies (Lin, 2010) have described the issue about interpersonal relationship or interpersonal interactions, so this issue was important in theoretical and practical field in Taiwan. Social relationship also has discussed in Taiwanese study, such as Liu (2010) used it to explain the sharing of online information. In Taiwanese studies, organizational culture was a key issue, such as Shih and Huang (2010), Lai and Lee (2007). Organizational climate was an important issue for Taiwanese studies, because many studies have used it to discuss, and it was demonstrated that could positive influence knowledge sharing (Chen, Chuang, & Chen, 2012). The study by Yang (2010) explored 3.

(18) the significant correlation between knowledge sharing and organizational learning, and knowledge sharing influenced organizational learning. As reported above, these issues were critical elements in Taiwanese theoretical and practical fields. Thus, the issues of this study have determined. This study designed two levels: individual characteristics level and organizational environment levels. Individual level included NFC, openness, and emotion; organizational level included interpersonal relationship, social relationship, organizational collaborative culture, and organizational climate. The researcher considered that the two facets influenced learning behavior. Therefore, this study used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to examine that two levels influenced learning behavior, and organizational environment factors moderated the relationship between individual characteristics factors on learning behavior.. 1.2 Research purposes and questions Although the relationship existing between knowledge sharing and organizational learning had been studied, this study desired to examine other elements which factors influenced learning behavior (i.e. knowledge sharing and exploratory organizational learning). Because the concept of organizational learning was a process of individual and shared idea and action in an organizational context (Rashman, Withers, & Hartley, 2009), and knowledge sharing can improve competitive advantages via sharing benefits with other units within organization, knowledge sharing resides at individual and organizational level (Law & Ngai, 2008; Lin, 2008a). This study assumed that individual characteristics and organizational environment factors influenced learning behavior. According to the concept of social cognitive theory (SCT) which 4.

(19) described an important perception in depth for learning behavior, and explained the reasons why individuals have certain behaviors. Additionally, the past studies based on SCT have emphasized on individual factors, but not explored environmental factors and moderating effects in social cognitive process (Tsai, Lin, Chiu, & Joe, 2009). Thus, this study desired to employ hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to fill this gap. The purpose of this study was to develop and examine a multilevel framework where learning behavior was tested as a joint function of individual level factors and organizational environment factors. On the basis of the research purposes, this study put forth some research questions as follows: (1) Did individual level factors influence learning behavior (i.e. knowledge sharing, exploratory organizational learning)? (2) Did organizational level factors influence learning behavior? (3) Did organizational level factors mediate the individual level factors on learning behavior?. 5.

(20) 6.

(21) Chapter 2 Literature Review and Hypotheses. 2.1 Literature review 2.1.1 Learning behavior Learning behavior contained exploratory organizational learning and knowledge sharing. Exploratory organizational learning combined the concepts of organizational learning and Kolb’s experience learning; knowledge sharing learning things from others. Therefore, this study treated both issues as learning behavior. 2.1.1.1 Exploratory organizational learning “Exploration” means the learning important concepts through observation, cooperative activities, communication, learning, and the interaction with the society. Besides, “exploration” can find new and different information and knowledge, and a company is able to beyond its. experience,. experimentation. and. produce. variations. in. organizational activities (de Freitas & Neumann, 2009; Tsai & Huang, 2008). Exploratory organizational learning is a path-breaking learning behavior, and this learning way acquires new knowledge from external sources, or creates novel knowledge by oneself or collective efforts (Li, 2010; Liao, Fei, & Liu, 2008). Exploratory organizational learning was considered as the situations from simple task to complex problem solving. In this condition, learners are active explorers who show their own knowledge or experience (Effken & Kadar, 2001; Rick & Lamberty, 2005). Exploratory organizational learning was a learning behavior to search novel or different information and knowledge, and people could 7.

(22) use this approach to create new organizational activities. However, individuals had to utilize the skills of observation, cooperative activities, communication, learning, and the interaction with others. The model of exploratory organizational learning came from Kolb’s experience learning cycle. Kolb’s experience learning included four phases: concrete experience, observation and reflection, forming abstract, as well as testing in new situations. The model of exploratory organizational learning covered five phases: experience, exploration, reflection, forming abstract concepts, and testing in different situation (de Freitas & Neumann, 2009). The model shows as following Fig. 2-1. Experience (abstract- livedvirtual). Testing in different situations (abstract, lived, virtual). Exploration (include observation, activity, learning, interactions). Forming abstract concepts. Reflection (meta-reflectio n). Fig. 2-1 The exploratory organizational learning model Source: de Freitas and Neumann (2009). 2.1.1.2 Knowledge sharing Wang and Noe (2010) indicated that the beginning point of knowledge management was knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing was an important approach in a knowledge-centered activity, and employees could facilitate knowledge application, innovation, and created the competitive advantage of an organization. Knowledge sharing exists between employees, and inter-team or intra-team, which allows the organizations to deploy and use knowledge-based resources. 8.

(23) Knowledge sharing is defined as the conditions of task information and techniques to help others, and solve problems, develop new thoughts, and implement policies or procedures. Furthermore, knowledge sharing includes written correspondence and face-to-face communication. Additionally, knowledge sharing occurs among individuals that help to create knowledge (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Following the definition of exploratory organizational learning and knowledge sharing, the researcher integrates both and uses a new term ─ learning behavior ─ to represent them. Exploratory organizational learning and knowledge sharing were used to solve problems, thus both were important learning behaviors for workers. 2.1.2 Individual level Individual level factors in this study included need for cognition (NFC), openness to experience, and emotion. These factors belonged to individual characteristics, and people had difference of the three issues. 2.1.2.1 Need for cognition Need for cognition (NFC) is a kind of individual difference, which means that the tendency of an individual enjoys and participates in an effortful cognitive activity. (Haug et al., 2010; Petty, DeMarree, Briñol, Horcajo, & Strathman, 2008). Bertrams and Dickhäuser (2010) showed NFC could reflect a stable characteristic regarding the degree to which one person enjoys and engages in cognitive efforts. NFC was important for an individual, because it determined how much he/she typically applied to process information. Based on this conceptualization, NFC was considered as one-dimension trait; individual difference in NFC was viewed as a bipolar continuum from low to high. Therefore, an individual with high-NFC and tends to exert more effort on difficult cognitive tasks, and considers more deeply about persuasive message. In addition, high-NFC individual appears a greater assimilative 9.

(24) influence on judgment and behavior than low-NFC one (Petty et al., 2008). What’s more, NFC was a cognitive motivation, but not an intellectual capacity. People have difference in NFC correspond to behavioral difference in how people deal with cognitive tasks (Reinhard & Dickhäuser, 2009). 2.1.2.2 Openness Openness is one dimension of Big Five personality traits, the characteristics of openness to experience includes imaginative, cultured, experience seeking, and curious (Darviri & Woods, 2006). The extent of openness is widely, which includes multiplicity of interests, acceptability of new ideas, flexibility of thoughts, inventiveness, and the tendency to create idealistic ideas and goals (Bozionelos, 2004). Additionally, the traits of openness includes wide interest, be imaginative, intelligent, original, insightful, and curious, interpersonal and organizational deviance (O’Neill & Hastings, 2011). Many researchers have discussed Big Five personality traits in their studies. In Taher, Chen, & Yao’s (2011) study, they investigated the correlation between personality traits and learning behavior from 208 MBA students. Learning behavior divides into deep and surface, and the two styles cover motivation and strategy. The results showed that the significant correlations existed between openness to experience and deep motivation and deep strategy, and the correlation coefficients were 0.679 and 0.683, respectively. However, the significant correlation did not exist between openness to experience and surface motivation and surface strategy. Elanain (2010) cited the view of Bing and Lounsbury, and proposed the concept was that openness was more likely to be job-related for individual working in an organizational environment, and openness to new learning and experience were important for job performance. 10.

(25) 2.1.2.3 Emotion stability Emotion not only referred to individual, embodied responses to external factors, but also included political and could be utilized to sustain the status quo. Moreover, emotion was able to be a powerful force for positive social change and was able to be developed to challenge the status quo (Wilkinson, 2009). McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2005) cited the viewpoint of Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer, which indicated emotions were the mental states, and cognitive appraisals of events or individual thoughts caused emotion. Additionally, the researchers of previous studies have discussed emotions and leaders or managers simultaneously. For example, McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2005) explored the leadership styles relates to emotion, and they used optimism and frustration to measure emotion. NFC and emotion were associated with SCT. SCT consisted of individual, environment, and behavior. Thus, NFC and emotion belonged to individual factors, which corresponded behavior difference and status quo, respectively. Moreover, openness was related to experience. which. was. an. importance. issue. for. exploratory. organizational learning and knowledge sharing. The both topics were behavior in SCT. 2.1.3 Organizational level Organizational level factors included interpersonal relationship, social relationship, organizational collaborative culture, and organizational climate. The four topics were the organizational environment factors and belong the concept of the environment in SCT. 2.1.3.1 Interpersonal relationship The interpersonal relationship at the workplace contained many 11.

(26) issues, such as conflict, communication, cooperation, and motivation (Strohmeier, 1992). Additionally, poor interpersonal relationship was able to cause stressor in the organization, and this condition occurred between coworkers, managers, customers, and sellers (Gunbayi, 2009). Interpersonal relationship was not only establishing in physical space, but also existing in virtual or online community (Clarke, 2009). Feld (1997) described that the previous studies about interpersonal relationship generally paid attention to pairwise relationships, and search strengths in the feelings and interactions between individuals. Strong interpersonal relationship could share their experiences with and influence from other people. Kaše,. Paauwe,. and. Zupan. (2009). divided. interpersonal. relationship into three styles, which were structural relation, affective relation, and cognitive relation. Structural relation was a basic part of the pattern of interactions with an organization’s social network. Furthermore, structural relation frequently means the intensity of face-to-face interaction between coworkers, and this interaction can facilitate. knowledge. transfer.. Affective. relation. contains. benevolence-based and competence-based trust, and the two kinds of trust are viewed as a critical important role in interpersonal knowledge transfer. Cognitive relation can be defined as combining the knowledge and capabilities from knowing other people, overlapping knowledge and related absorptive capacity of others, as well as sharing goals and language. Kaše et al. (2009) investigated information technology, web-based services, telecommunications, and professional service industries. The result showed the correlation matrix which presented the significant correlations between knowledge sharing and the three interpersonal relations. Moreover, they made use of regression analysis to predict knowledge sourcing and knowledge sharing, and both results 12.

(27) showed significant. 2.1.3.2 Social relationship Social relationship could be considered as one study of social network; social network analysis was to discuss the social relationship among a group of actors (Yuan & Fei, 2010). In addition, the functions of trust should be put into social relationship, and the foundations of trust have to be social (Ammeter, Douglas, Ferris, & Goka, 2004). Social relationship can be defined as a feeling of an individual connects to other people, and an individual considers that he/she belongs to a group. Therefore, when the researcher measured social relationship, they focused on the feeling of being of one group and obtaining social support (Bauer & Mulder, 2006). Due, Holstein, Lund, Modvig, and Avlund (1999) introduced the function of social relationship included social support, social anchorage, and relational strain. Additionally, they proposed the concept of the previous studies which have presented the relationship between social relations and age and gender differences. Furthermore, Christensen, Stein, and Means-Christensen (2003) applied a social relations model to explain social anxiety and interpersonal perception, and the content was that using this model to discuss interpersonal perceptions of people with and without high social anxiety following the social interactions. Therefore, social relationship involved with individual interactions and connections 2.1.3.3 Collaboration Researchers treated collaboration as a phenomenon included structure for and process of ways in which organizations and communities work together to solve common problems and propose new ideas. In the viewpoint of structure, collaboration emphasized on communicative behavior, and for process, focused on the process of 13.

(28) communication, as well as environmental and contextual factors (Keyton, Ford, & Smith, 2008). Collaboration could be divided into systems. collaboration. and. strategic. collaboration.. Systems. collaboration means supply chain partners effort to make their communication systems compatible with each other and ready for forecasting and planning. Moreover, systems collaboration was a system-based common platform and to share information. Strategic collaboration refers to supply chain partners actually implement planning on business activities with a shared goal to jointly improve the long-term well-being of each other (Kim & Lee, 2010). Several researches of collaboration have discussed about inter-firm or inter-organization collaboration issue, such as Kim and Lee (2010), Löfström (2010). For the opinion of firms, they collaborated with other companies and could facilitate innovation. (Un, Cuervo-Cazurra, & Asakawa, 2010). Furthermore, collaboration was a strategic and shared important infrastructures or highly sensitive information. There was one important thing for collaboration, which was choice of the partners. Collaboration refers to two or more individuals work together, so they have to understand each other and build a trustful relationship (Audy, Lehoux, D'Amours, & Rönnqvist, 2011). Therefore, individuals or organizations work together had to transfer and exchange different information and knowledge, and then create win-win. 2.1.3.4 Organizational climate Organizational climate has a long history in social sciences study. Climate initially was developed to help interprets important viewpoints of psychological environments of people (Dickson, Smith, Grojean, & Ehrhart, 2001). Organizational climate can be defined as the common practices, shared beliefs, and value systems which are followed by an organization (Chen & Huang, 2007). What’s more, organizational 14.

(29) climate was a multidimensional construct, and it contained individual evaluations of work environment. The evaluations included general dimensions of environment (e.g. leadership, role, and communication) or specific dimensions (e.g. the climate for safety or customer service) (Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000). As reported above, organizational climate was the issue at organizational level and has one concept the same as potency, and which was the shared beliefs of members. Organizational climate is thought to exert a strong influence on individual motivation to perform work outcomes. What’s more, organizational climate was evidenced to affect knowledge and skills through activities or training (Neal et al., 2000). Organizational climate played an important role for shaping behaviors of employees and impacting upon knowledge management of employees’ perception (Chen & Huang, 2007). Generally, the issues of organizational climate include the perceiving and feeling of the organizational members (Nystrom, Ramamurthy, & Wilson, 2002). But, organizational climate is a significant construct at organizational level, rather than the individual’s idiosyncratic descriptions of organizational features. The climate of organization is what people inside the organization say it is, and not what people outside the organization say or think it is (Dickson et al., 2001). When the organization develops climate, there are three sources: (1) common disclosure of organizational members to the same objective structural features; (2) attraction, selection, as well as attrition of organizational members, and contributing to a homogeneous set of members,. and. (3). social. interaction. results. in. shared. understandings/meanings among organizational members (Dickson et al., 2001). Although organizational climate belonged to the issue at organizational level, it could shape and affect the behaviors and perception of employees. 15.

(30) The relationship in an organization not only referred to interpersonal relationship, the social network was very important, so social relationship was contained. Because the industries in Taiwan confronted many challenges, organizations encouraged workers work together and provided an appropriate environment for them to work. Therefore, organizational culture and climate were critical factors for members of organizations.. 2.2 Research hypotheses 2.2.1 The relationship between individual level factors and learning behavior This part included three hypotheses which proposed the relationships between the three individual variables and learning behavior. 2.2.1.1 The relationship between NFC and learning behavior 1. Cognition vs. exploratory organizational learning When people design group support system, organization learning is supported by distributed cognition and shared understanding. This system is able to acquire different ways and explains because of different departments of the organization (Robey et al., 2000). Although organizational learning occurs by people, the wrong concept refers to that an organization is the accumulative outcome by organizational members, and an organization does not have any functions. In spite of an organization can not think, but an organization has cognitive system and memory. Additionally, when organizational learning occurs by individuals, then the individual cognitions are collected. With all the cognition was rooted in a group, it existed in individual members of a group (Jones, 1995). Judging from the above statement, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between need for cognition (NFC) and 16.

(31) exploratory organizational learning. 2. Cognition vs. knowledge sharing The researchers of one study described that trust affected knowledge sharing. However, trust can be classified into two groups: affect-based and cognition-based. Based on the result of the study, both groups positively influenced knowledge sharing (Wang & Noe, 2010). Knowledge engineering and management were viewed as the process of individual and social cognitive mechanisms, which through the organization acquires and created novel knowledge to facilitate knowledge sharing among the members (Muthusamy & Palanisamy, 2004). Therefore, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between NFC and knowledge sharing. H1. NFC positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.1.2 The relationship between openness and learning behavior 1. Openness vs. exploratory organizational learning Hult,. Hurley,. Giunipero,. and. Nichols. (2000). used. participativeness and reflectiveness to measure openness. The result showed that organizational learning was positively associated with openness. Additionally, Jerez-Gómez, Céspedes-Lorente, and Valle-Cabrera, (2005) described four dimensions which belonged to the capability of organizational learning, and openness was one of them. Therefore, openness was related to organizational learning, and the researcher inferred that openness was related to exploratory organizational learning. 2. Openness vs. knowledge sharing Matzler, Renzl, Müller, Herting, and Mooradian (2008) discussed the relationship between agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness of Big Five personality traits and knowledge sharing. 17.

(32) Matzler et al. (2008) used partial least squares (PLS) to perform the research, and the result presented that the significant correlation existed between the three personality traits and knowledge sharing. However,. Matzler. and. Mueller. (2011). considered. that. conscientiousness and openness did not directly influence knowledge sharing. The relationship between conscientiousness and knowledge sharing, learning orientation was the mediator; the relationship between openness and knowledge sharing, performance orientation was the role of mediator. Moreover, both results are significant. So, the researcher believed that the correlation existed between knowledge sharing and openness. H2. Openness positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.1.3 The relationship between emotion and learning behavior 1. Emotion vs. exploratory organizational learning Emotional. commitment. was. derived. from. affective. predisposition, and it was used to maintain relationship. This is a factor of existing emotional bond, and people show the good intention to their partners. Nevertheless, the creation of this emotion comes from the value of other organizations’ identification. However, trust and emotional commitment of customers to businesses are influenced by learning orientation of businesses. While the business has learning culture, the customers are easier to generate trust and emotional commitment to the business. Besides, organizational learning influenced the degree about trust and emotional. commitment. (Santos-Vijande,. Sanzo-Pérez,. Álvarez-González, & Vázquez-Casielles, 2005). As reported above, which focused on learning within business and organizational emotional commitment. Hence, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between individual emotion and exploratory 18.

(33) organizational learning. 2. Emotion vs. knowledge sharing With regard to an individual trait, enhancing the knowledge sharing of international joint venture (IJV) is a behavior of emotional intelligence, and this trait is described as the capabilities, competencies, and skills, which are able to influence individuals to satisfy the needs of environment. For IJV, emotional intelligence is a prerequisite to share knowledge effectively (Magnini, 2008). What’s more, another study indicated that knowledge sharing belonged to a kind of appearance of emotion and reaction of behavior. Hence, individuals do not sharing knowledge in an organization, and then they feel anxious and emotional unstable, and this is a reflection about “emotional arousal” (Tsai & Cheng, 2010). Therefore, the researcher supposed that the correlation existed between knowledge sharing and emotion. H3. Emotion positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.2 The relationship between organizational level factors and learning behavior 2.2.2.1 The relationship between interpersonal relationship and learning behavior 1. Interpersonal relationship vs. exploratory organizational learning The viewpoints of social construction were developed in the early 1990s, and its concepts were opposite to cognitive perspective. Furthermore, it treated organizational learning as inter-subjective, inter-group, or interpersonal adjustment process in a specific social-culture context. Social construction perspective emphasized learning orientation, and focused on interpersonal adjustment process and social dynamics, and this should be collectively achieved by organizational members. Through the development and 19.

(34) institutionalization situated learning and social practice, social construction perspective permitted the researchers to investigate that how the power and culture affected the learning in the organization (Hong,. Snell,. &. Easterby-Smith,. 2006).. The. concept. of. organizational learning focused on providing managers the appropriate technology and interpersonal skills, and it belonged to the psychological level (Trim & Lee, 2007). Argyris and Schon considered that organizational learning theory had to take account of the essentials at the higher level in an organization, and the mutual contact between actions and interactions. Moreover, the interactions with individuals or interpersonal relationship was involved with organizational learning (Beeby & Booth, 2000). As studies above, the correlation existed between organizational learning and interpersonal relationship. Thus, this study inferred that the correlation existed between exploratory organizational learning and interpersonal relationship. 2. Interpersonal relationship vs. knowledge sharing The learners participate, involve and show social interaction can result in knowledge sharing. For participation and social interaction, both are the facilitators of knowledge acquisition, and then promote learning. Based on the perception of the need to belong theory, it employs attachment motivation and relationship commitment to explain the participation and interaction in a learning process. Additionally, the need to belong theory referred to the need which formed and maintained the most basic interpersonal relationship. The attachment motivation is the forming of interpersonal relationship; relationship commitment belongs to the maintaining of interpersonal relationship. The research result showed that both attachment motivation and relationship commitment positively 20.

(35) influenced the behaviors of online knowledge sharing (Ma & Yuen, 2011). In another study, its result demonstrated that when the interpersonal relationship is stronger, and the moral responsibilities and common interests were promoting, and then facilitated knowledge sharing (Tseng & Kuo, 2010). As reported above, the researcher considered that the correlation existed between interpersonal relationship and knowledge sharing. H4. Interpersonal relationship positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.2.2 The relationship between social relationship and learning behavior 1. Social relationship vs. exploratory organizational learning Organizational learning is a process and it occurs in daily work practice. In addition, organizational learning can be achieved and facilitated, and exists in the complicated network of social relationship and interaction (Hong et al., 2006). The business relationship is viewed as social relationship, and people can implement various activities in relation to the business, and adjust them in this relationship. The true implication of this adjustment is to understand the exchangeable events in the relationship, and adapt to the problems in programs, and make the organization to rise (Mandják & Szántó, 2010). Following the above literature, which discussed the correlation between organizational learning and social relationship, and then the researcher supposed that the correlation existed between exploratory organizational learning and social relationship. 2. Social relationship vs. knowledge sharing The communities of practice are to share concepts, problems, 21.

(36) and. issues. through. between/among. the. individuals,. social. relationship. which. these. interactions. can. exists improve. individual’s knowledge and experience. Furthermore, online communities positively facilitate knowledge sharing within the organization (Jahnke, 2010). Moreover, the social relationship among organizational members can help individuals to sharing their tacit knowledge, and affects the subsequent behaviors (Chen & Huang, 2007). Therefore, the researchers inferred that the relationship existed between social relationship and knowledge sharing. H5. Social relationship positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.2.3 The relationship between collaborative culture and learning behavior 1. Collaboration vs. exploratory organizational learning Steensma (1996) tested the relationship between the capabilities of organizational learning and inner organizational collaboration, and aimed to acquire technology capabilities. Then, it advocated that the closely correlation existed among technological attribution, collaborative approach, and organizational learning. Additionally, organizational learning was the moderator between collaboration and the development of core capability. For organizational learning, CEO should encourage continuity, commitment, capabilities, contribution,. collaboration,. and. perception. (García-Morales,. Lloréns-Montes, & Verdú-Jover, 2007). Based on the above studies, which proposed the correlation between organizational learning and collaboration, therefore, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between collaboration and exploratory organizational learning. 22.

(37) 2. Collaboration vs. knowledge sharing Seonghee and Boryung (2008) discussed the correlation between collaboration and sharing material, and the result showed that the correlation existed, the correlation coefficient was 0.420, p < 0.01. Furthermore, the research environment was the academic institution; however, the statistical result showed that collaboration was not the critical factor for knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing made people acquire relevant tacit or explicit knowledge. One research demonstrated that when people used the collaborative ways, which was similar to social network analysis, so the knowledge sharing was supported. Besides, this assisted people to find relevant content, and knowledgeable collaborators were more likely to share their knowledge (Yang & Chen, 2008). According to the above literatures, the research inferred that the correlation existed between organizational collaborative culture and knowledge sharing. H6. Organizational collaborative culture positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.2.4 The relationship between organizational climate and learning behavior 1. Organizational climate vs. exploratory organizational learning Because organizational climate provided support and facilitated interpersonal communication, it was considered as the related factors about organizational learning (Chen & Huang, 2007). Nevertheless, managers should select learning structure, control learning events, and response the goals of business, then create climate to shape the behaviors of employees. What’s more, climate influences the occurrence of the behaviors through limitation of the behaviors of organizational members, or reward or punish certain behavior to achieve it (Davis & Mentzer, 2007). Organizational 23.

(38) climate is not only the result of organizational learning, but also facilitate learning process while supportive organizational climates exists in an organization. One study indicated that the highly correlation. existed. between. organizational. learning. and. organizational climate (Pham & Swierczek, 2006). Above literature have discussed that the correlation existed between organizational learning and organizational climate, and the researcher supposed that the correlation existed between organizational climate and exploratory organizational learning. 2. Organizational climate vs. knowledge sharing Organizational climate is an important factor to shape the behaviors of employees, and it influences employees’ perceptions for knowledge sharing. In addition, the social interaction among employees is affected by organizational climate. When innovation abilities and collaborative climate are stringer, employees accept and desire to establish interactive network to share and collect knowledge. One study divided organizational climate into innovation and collaborative climate, and the research result presented that the significant positively correlation existed between knowledge sharing and innovation climate, and between knowledge sharing and collaborative climate (Chen & Huang, 2007). However, several potential factors were proved to influence the behavior about knowledge sharing. With regard to organizational climate, organizational climate was considered to create positive influence for on subjective norm of knowledge sharing. From the view of participants, setting up the culture of knowledge sharing is one of the important issues about designing the program of knowledge management, so the managers have to offer this kind of climate for knowledge sharing. Additionally, one research result showed that 24.

(39) organizational climate influenced the subjective norm of knowledge sharing indeed (Tohidinia & Mosakhani, 2010). Thus, the correlation existed between organizational climate and knowledge sharing, and this study put forth the following hypothesis. H7. Organizational climate positively influences learning behavior. 2.2.3 The correlation between individual level factors and organizational level factors 2.2.3.1 Cognition vs. interpersonal relationship When individuals possess similar interests and cognition, this is able to assist the development of interpersonal relationship. Moreover, once employees possess similar job responsibilities, the similar cognition are produced, then the friendship in the workplace are formed. The friendship in the workplace was considered as interpersonal relationship at times. The reason was that the friendship in the workplace was able to eliminate the stress in the workplace, increase work opportunities, help employees and managers to carry out the tasks, and assist to implement organizational changing (Berman, West, & Richter, 2002; Lin, 2010). In the study of Handley (1982), the researcher used Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to measure the correlation between the different cognition of supervisors and trainees and interpersonal relationship, and the correlations existed among them. Therefore, the correlation existed between cognition and interpersonal relationship. H8. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior. 2.2.3.2 Openness vs. interpersonal relationship Few studies have so far been made at the direct relationship between Big-Five personality traits and interpersonal relationship. However, Taylor, Kluemper, and Mossholder (2010) examined the 25.

(40) relationship between Big-Five personality traits and interpersonal citizenship behavior, and they considered that Big-Five personality traits were related to helping-related behavior in interaction. Therefore, the study by Taylor et al.’s (2010), three traits were significantly positive correlation to interpersonal citizenship behavior, and openness is one of the traits. Thus, the researcher considered the correlation existed between openness and interpersonal relationship. H9. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior. 2.2.3.3 Emotion vs. interpersonal relationship Different forms of interpersonal contact produces different types of emotion, and encourage people to create various emotional creativity (Parkinson, 2008). In an organization, interpersonal relationship was the source of stress. When the interpersonal relationship in an organization was poor, and the stress increased. Once the collaboration across departments was implemented, the employees disseminated the attitudes about emotion and impatience, and the communication is failure. On the contrary, if the relationship and communication were well with peers, subordinates, and supervisors; it could facilitate the individual and organizational goals to achieve, and which was an important element for organizational life. As reported above, the interpersonal relationship ought to avoid influence on emotion; it should carry out according to the system of rule. In this way, the stress from formal and informal relationships can be prevented (Gunbayi, 2009). Based on the above literature, the researcher inferred the correlation between emotion and interpersonal relationship. H10. Interpersonal relationship positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior. 2.2.3.4 Cognition vs. social relationship 26.

(41) Cognition is not limited by the direct social influence, and it comes from individual social relationship network, the members of a team, and personal identity (Smith, 2008). To realize the viewpoints of social influence, the principles of individual cognition, and social behaviors, the framework model of social relationship needed to be predicted. Panzarasa and Jennings (2002) integrated social and individual cognitive process, and indicated which could reflect the social structure and social interactions. Therefore, the researcher considered that the correlation existed between cognition and social relationship. H11. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of NFC and on learning behavior. 2.2.3.5 Openness vs. social relationship Sturaro, Denisse, van Aken, and Asendorpf (2008) divided social relationship into two types to discuss, and the two types can be classified into the support and conflict of father, mother and friend. Sturaro et al. (2008) took advantage of cross-lagged path coefficient to analyze the correlations existing among support and conflict of father, mother, and friend, and to openness. Nevertheless, the results presented that all the correlation coefficients of the above relationships were not significant. In another research, the researchers explored the correlation between Big Five and social relationship, and the result demonstrated that the correlation did not exist between them (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 1998). However, the participants of both studies were below 23 years. The samples in this study did not limit the age; what’s more, Asendorpf and Wilpers (1998) cited one study and described that openness to experience was associated with the openness of peers in one’s network. On the basis of the above statements, this study suggested that the correlation existed between openness and social relationship. 27.

(42) H12. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior. 2.2.3.6 Emotion vs. social relationship Emotion can be viewed as the relation alignment, but emotion does not only explain the response for events, but also can be used to evaluate social and real world. Emotion referred to a particular feeling and attitude for social, matter, or abstract objects (Parkinson, 2008). Moreover, social relationship was the most important element to incite emotion; namely, social relationship generated emotion. Furthermore, power and status were considered as the dimensions of social relationship, and discussed the relationship between the two dimensions and emotion. In addition, a lot of human emotions were the results of the reality, anticipation, imagination, or recall of social relationship (Kemper, 1991). As reported above, this study inferred that the correlation existed between emotion and social relationship. H13. Social relationship positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior. 2.2.3.7 Cognition vs. organizational collaborative culture Collaboration and meaning analysis process(C-MAP) involved with three facets, which were the conscious externalization of knowledge to support knowledge transfer, the development of novel knowledge, and the development of cognitive congruence in problem solving teams. What’s more, the cognitive process contained in C-MAP may be viewed as macrocognitive processes (Rentsch, Mello, & Delise, 2010). Macrocognition referred to the cognitive process and occurred within collaborative groups (Handley & Heacox, 2010). As stated earlier, this study suggested that the correlation existed between cognition and organizational collaborative culture. H14. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of NFC on 28.

(43) learning behavior. 2.2.3.8 Openness vs. organizational collaborative culture Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) described thought they proposed that the teamwork was explained by “Big Five,” and supporting and coordinating mechanism were needed to combine with the value of each of the five factors. Additionally, one study examined the correlation between openness to experience and team-oriented proactivity, and the result showed the correlation was significant, and openness to experience positive influenced team-oriented proactivity. Furthermore, team-oriented proactivity focused on ‘make things better’ within a team, and stressed to help other people in a better approach (Hirschfeld, Jordan, Thomas, & Feild, 2008). This viewpoint implied the concept of collaboration within a team. On the basis of the above studies, the researcher inferred that the correlation existed between openness to experience and organizational collaborative culture. H15. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior. 2.2.3.9 Emotion vs. organizational collaborative culture Eteläpelto and Lahti (2008) discussed the obstacle which affected creative collaboration, and they considered that the most serious barrier influenced creative collaboration was the relationship between emotional atmosphere and power in a team. While the emotion in a team appeared to the negative mood, the employees did not coordinate each other. Additionally, once the employees of a team could collaborate, and their emotions felt safe. If the team could collaborate over a long period of time, and the trust made the confidence for people, they helped each other; moreover, the partners established emotions. Effective manage emotion was a very critical factor with respect to research environment of collaboration. But, emotion not only 29.

(44) influenced knowledge application in the collaborative environment, but also affected cognitive procedure about acquiring new information (Beesley, 2005). Thus, the correlation existed between emotion and organizational collaborative culture. H16. Collaborative culture positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior. 2.2.3.10 Cognition vs. organizational climate Organizational climate could attempt to realize the sharing cognition between the workplace and organizational results. For example, the climate and culture had been proven to influence accidental events, absence, and customer service (Stetzer, Morgeson, & Anderson, 1997). In the study by Tsai and Cheng (2010) tested that the effect about organizational climate to the cognitive model of knowledge sharing. However, the result presented that the effect was not significant about organizational climate to cognition of individual knowledge sharing behavior. Therefore, the above results were inconsistent. Hence, the researcher considered that the correlation between cognition and organizational climate was needed to be re-studied. H17. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of NFC on learning behavior. 2.2.3.11 Openness vs. organizational climate O’Neill and Xiao (2010) divided organizational climate into three kinds: effort, organization focuses on quality, and the pressure to achieve goals and targets. O’Neill and Xiao (2010) proposed that the correlation between the three types of organizational climates and the openness of Big Five; however, the correlations were not significant between the three kinds of organizational climate and openness. But, Teng (2008) considered Big Five as the predictor of organizational 30.

(45) climate. The result showed that the correlation was not significant between Big Five and organizational climate. The studies by O’Neill and Xiao (2010) and Teng (2008) investigated hotel department managers and hospitality students, respectively. Nevertheless, the participants of this study were staff of technology industry. This study suggested that the workers in different industries have different personality traits. Hence, this study suggested the correlation exists between openness and organizational climate. H18. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of openness on learning behavior. 2.2.3.12 Emotion vs. organizational climate Håkonsson, Obel, and Burton (2008) stated that in the short run, organizational climate could be considered as the effective emotional inertia to maintain the fit of a system, but this concept was needed the support by the leadership style. What’s more, Akgün, Keskin, and Byrne (2009) considered that organizational climate was a broad class of an organization, and it was the concept of the organizational context for individuals’ actions. In addition, they explained organizational climate was the combination of individual emotions, and emotions focused on a work context for individuals. Against this background, the researcher considered that the correlation existed in the relationship between emotion and organizational climate. H19. Organizational climate positively moderates the effect of emotion on learning behavior.. 2.3 Theoretical Foundation Social cognitive theory (SCT) is a reciprocal determinism and 3-way interaction between behavior, personal, and environment factors (Young, 31.

(46) Lipowski, & Cline, 2005). Personal factor often focuses on human psychosocial function, individual physiological and emotional states and their cognition; human psychosocial function is based on the interaction between behavior, cognitive, individual factors, and environment events (Joët, Usher, & Bressoux, 2011; Young et al., 2005; Zikic & Saks, 2009). SCT was also used to examine self, personality, and interpersonal relation (Andersen & Chen, 2002). Additionally, SCT describes that behavior is partially caused and controlled by the influences of social network and individual cognition (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006). Thus, SCT can be used to discuss that social relationship and individual NFC with others in an organization. Bandura considered that when persons cannot share their knowledge, and then their behavior cannot be performed, especially when knowledge sharing is a voluntary (Chiu et al., 2006). SCT was described individual, and then extended to organizational level (Revilla, Acosta, & Sarkis, 2005). Hence, individual level represented personal facet in SCT; organizational level, environment, and learning behavior was behavior in this study. Moreover, the environmental factors were selected following the framework of Wang and Noe (2010), this framework was shown in Fig. 2-1. In this framework, environmental factors included organizational context, interpersonal and team characteristics, and cultural characteristics (Wang & Noe, 2010). Because the study by Wang and Noe (2010) indicated that environmental factors included interpersonal and social networks, the researcher considered that the variables include interpersonal and social relationships. In addition, environmental factors included team/group development and characteristics, organizational culture and climate (Wang & Noe, 2010), the researcher considered organizational collaborative culture and organizational climate can be contained to organizational level. Therefore, this study used interpersonal relationship, social relationship, 32.

(47) organizational collaborative culture, and organizational climate as the elements of organizational level. The researcher used Big Five personality characteristics as the variable of personality, and found the concept of openness to experience was similar to knowledge sharing, because knowledge sharing was a process and obtained experience from someone else (Lin, Wu, & Lu, 2012). What’s more, Karataş-Özkan and Murphy (2010) described that organizational learning depends on the development of knowledge and experience, so knowledge sharing and organizational learning emphasized on experience and this study used openness to experience as the variable of personality. Karataş-Özkan and Murphy (2010) stated that emotion is the fore of organizational development and organizational learning. According to Yang’s (2010) perspective, knowledge sharing influenced individual learning, so knowledge sharing belonged to individual level. As state earlier, the researcher used openness and emotion as the elements of individual level. As reported above, the research variables of this study were decided.. 33.

(48) Fig. 2-2 The research framework of knowledge sharing Source: Wang and Noe (2010). 34.

(49) Chapter 3 Research Methods 3.1 Research variables and framework This study used knowledge sharing framework (Fig. 1-1) and SCT to determine the study variables. García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes, and Verdú-Jover (2007) considered individual learning is the prior element for organizational learning. In order to achieve individual learning, the first thing was to facilitate the personal development. According to the above concept, this study set individual level was at the first level in HLM, because individual was a part of an organization, and this is “nested.” Thus, organizational level was at second level. As stated earlier, this study included two levels. Individual and organizational factors were the independent variable at level 1 and 2, respectively; learning behavior (i.e. exploratory organizational learning and knowledge sharing) was the dependent variable. Moreover, organizational level factors were not only independent variables, but also the moderators between the relationship individual level and learning behavior. Fig. 3-1 is the research framework of this study. In this framework, two levels exist in it. The first level is individual level, and which is independent variable and predict learning behavior. Then, level 2 is organizational level, which played dependent variable and moderator. This study employed four elements at the second level to predict learning behavior, and examined the moderating effects between individual level and learning behavior.. 35.

(50) Organizational factors Social relationship. Collaborative culture. Interpersonal relationship. Organizational climate. H4-H7 Individual factors. H8-H19. Needs for cognition Openness. Learning behavior H1-H3. Emotion. Explorative organizational learning Knowledge sharing. Fig. 3-1 Research framework. 3.2 Research procedure The research procedure shows in Fig. 3-2. The first step in this procedure was to confirm the topics of this paper, and then provided the research purposes. This study showed the research questions according to the purposes of this study. After implementing these steps, this study began to collect the related literatures, and attempted to get them together. Next step was to offer the research hypotheses, and then used statistical techniques (HLM) to test these hypotheses. According to the results of the tests, research results were proposed. Then, compared the results with purposes, and indentified both of them match or not. If match, the research provide conclusions. If not, the research has to test the hypothesis again. 36.

(51) Confirm topics of this paper. Define the research purposes. Show the research questions. Collect the related literatures Match or not Provide research hypothesis. Not match. Test research hypothesis. Present the research results Match. Provide conclusion Fig. 3-2 Research procedure. 3.3 Sampling population and method This study investigated Taiwanese technology industry. Selecting technology industry follows the some reasons, and which are proposed by Lin (2008b). These reasons include five points: (1) This industry consists of a lot of enterprises; (2) The companies in this industry highly use knowledge; (3). Employees. work. autonomously;. (4). This. industry. is. a. knowledge-intensive industry, and (5) The sample size is large enough. The above reasons were provided which aim to the perspectives about knowledge sharing. Surprisingly few studies have so far been made at selecting technology 37.

(52) industry as the sampling population to discuss organizational learning. However, organizational learning benefited for improving technological changing, and it could bring about technological innovation (Gupta & Thomas, 2001). As reported above, this study proposed that technology industry should focus on organizational learning. However, this study discussed exploratory organizational learning, and it belonged to organizational learning. Thus, this study suggested that the association between exploratory organizational learning and technology. Hence, technology industry was considered as the population in this study. The population was technological workers and includes middle managers and basic-level employees. Middle managers offer an important point of observation from which to study the organizational process linked to build and renew capabilities (Conway & Monks, 2011). Additionally, Janczak (2004) indicates that middle managers use analytic, intuitive, and pragmatic phases to create and integrate dispersed knowledge into organizational knowledge. Moreover, basic-level employees in technology companies should learn more knowledge and skills. This study collected 216 questionnaires from the workers who work in technology industry. Therefore, this study used purposive sampling, which was based on research purposes to survey populations.. 3.4 Instruments In this research, the questions of the present study used Likert 7.0 scale to measure all variables, and ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. 3.4.1 Learning behavior 3.4.1.1 Exploratory organizational learning The scale of exploratory organizational learning was offered by Li, Chu, and Lin (2010). In this scale, exploratory organizational learning 38.

(53) consisted of five items. All standardized factor loadings of the five questions were larger than 0.60. Furthermore, this study used Cronbach’s α to measure the reliability of these questions, and the value was 0.81. Additionally, Li et al. (2010) showed that the research result satisfied the criterion of discriminant validity. Therefore, the research of the present study decided to employ this scale to measure exploratory organizational learning. 3.4.1.2 Knowledge sharing Regarding to the topic of knowledge sharing, this study applied the two scales which were offered by Yang and Farn (2009) and Lai, Huang, Lin, and Kao (2011). Both scales contained 3 items, so 6 items were employed to measure knowledge sharing. Yang and Farn (2009) used CFA to analyze convergent validity, and factor loadings of knowledge sharing behavior were 0.944, 0.960, and 0.939, thus, the convergent validity values were acceptable. Lai et al. (2011) used Likert 7-point scale to measure 3 items of knowledge sharing, and the Cronbach’s α was 0.882. 3.4.2 Individual level 3.4.2.1 Need for cognition The researcher used 18 items to measure need for cognition, and these items were provided by Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, and Jarvis (1996). Cacioppo et al. (1996) used Likert 5-point scale to measure the 18 items. Moreover, Cacioppo et al. (1996) indicated that several studies used the 18 items to measure need for cognition, and all α values exceeded 0.80, and had confirmed that this scale has high internal consistency. However, Cacioppo et al. (1996) did not clearly show α value or other reliability. 3.4.2.2 Openness Soto and John (2009) used 5 items to measure the ideas of 39.