University of Groningen The relation between humans and … · Penelitian ini juga meneliti...

University of Groningen

The relation between humans and knowledge sharing in MalaysiaBoom, I.; Pennink, Barteld

Published in:International Journal of Business

DOI:10.22146/gamaijb.5443

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.

Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:2012

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):Boom, I., & Pennink, B. (2012). The relation between humans and knowledge sharing in Malaysia:Empirical evidence from Malaysian managers. International Journal of Business, 14(2), 99-122.https://doi.org/10.22146/gamaijb.5443

CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

Download date: 27-06-2019

https://doi.org/10.22146/gamaijb.5443

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/en/publications/the-relation-between-humans-and-knowledge-sharing-in-malaysia(207617ec-33e5-4979-b8e6-e11cfca894b9).html

99

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - May-August, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2012

The Relationship between Humanness and KnowledgeSharing in Malaysia

Empirical Evidence from Malaysian Managers

Ilona H. BoomFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen

Bartjan W. PenninkFaculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen

Gadjah Mada International Journal of BusinessVol. 14, No. 2 (May - August 2012): 99 - 122

Corresponding authors. E-mail: [email protected]; and [email protected]

ISSN: 1141-1128http://www.gamaijb.mmugm.ac.id/

Abstract: This paper explores whether there is a relationship between humanness and the willingness toshare knowledge in Malaysia. Furthermore, the differences between the Malay, Chinese and Indian ethnicitiesare researched for the presence of humanness and the willingness to share knowledge. Two hundred andfourteen respondents from privately owned companies participated in this research showing that there isa strong relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing. However, the differences between thethree ethnicities are small, which is a surprising finding. It can be concluded that people-oriented managers(one of the ways to express humanness) are more willing to share knowledge, and differences betweenethnicities have no influence in this matter. From these results, it can be recommended to managers andorganizations in Malaysia that they pay more attention and be aware of their management style.Stressingthe humanness aspects more as they are described could improve the knowledge transfer within compa-nies.

Abstrak: Artikel ini bertujuan untuk melihat apakah ada hubungan antara kemanusiaan dan keinginanuntuk saling berbagi pengetahuan di Malaysia. Penelitian ini juga meneliti perbedaan antara etnis Melayu,Tionghoa, dan India untuk mengetahui keberadaan kemanusiaan dan kemauan dalam berbagi pengetahuan.Dua ratus empat belas responden dari perusahaan swasta yang berpartisipasi dalam penelitian inimenunjukkan bahwa ada hubungan yang kuat antara kemanusiaan dan berbagi pengetahuan. Namun, adatemuan yang mengejutkan bahwa perbedaan diantara tiga etnis tersebut kecil. Hal ini dapat disimpulkanbahwa seorang manajer yang peduli dengan anak buah (people-oriented managers) lebih bersedia untuk berbagipengetahuan, dan perbedaan antar etnis tidak memiliki pengaruh dalam hal ini. Dari hasil penelitian, dapatdikatakan bahwa manajer dan organisasi di Malaysia lebih memperhatikan dan menyadari tipe atau gayamanajemen mereka. Penekanan yang lebih pada aspek kemanusiaan seperti yang telah digambarkan dapatmeningkatkan transfer pengetahuan (knowledge transfer) dalam perusahaan.

Keywords: culture; humanness; knowledge sharing; Malaysia

Boom and Pennink

100

Introduction

Sharing knowledge with colleagues ormanagers is important within organizationsdue to the innovative potential to generatenew ideas and develop new business oppor-tunities through socialization and learningprocesses of knowledgeable workers(Darroch and McNauthon 2002). Addition-ally, the knowledge sharing literature statesthat the performance of an organization canonly be increased when an organization islearning from the market (Slater and Narver1995). To accomplish a knowledge sharingenvironment, organizations must face sometough challenges. According to Lin et al.(2009) some of these knowledge sharing chal-lenges are:1) the need to create mutual trustbetween actors;2) the ability and willingnessto make explicit and formulized, highly per-sonal knowledge;3) to overcome resistanceand realize that knowledge sharing behavioris voluntary and, finally;4) to share know-ledge means sharing of power, which can beseen as giving up a competitive advantagecompared to colleagues.

Knowledge encompasses the utilizationof information and data which is combinedwith people’s skills, competencies, their ideas,intuitions, commitments, and motivations touse information in a way that meets the ob-jective of individuals or an organization (Tan2000). The learning process of knowledgesharing needs to be encouraged and improvedby managers within the organization to de-velop a continuous experimental environ-ment. This means that the involvement ofmanagers is key in the knowledge sharing pro-cess of organizations. Moreover, a certainstyle of leadership is needed to create a situ-ation where employees feel free to experiment

and exchange knowledge instead of beingheld responsible for possible failures.

As is mentioned previously, knowledgesharing is a human skill which stimulates busi-ness. Unfortunately, it is difficult to motivateemployees to share their knowledge when theadvantages are not a personal favor. Severalscholars (Lin and Lee 2004; Lu et al. 2003;MacNeil 2004; Taylor and Wright 2004)found evidence that managers can act as lead-ers and mentors which will help stimulate em-ployees to begin sharing knowledge. Knowl-edge sharing will be influenced by the way inwhich managers manage. Thus, the reasonwhy we pay attention to the management stylethey follow.

In the literature, an interesting phenom-enon is discovered which is called human-ness. This, from its origin in African manage-ment style, is based on the four fundamentaldimensions, namely Solidarity, Survival, Com-passion and Respect and Dignity. A recentstudy (Scholtens 2011) found a strong rela-tionship between humanness and the willing-ness to share knowledge between managersand employees in Tanzania. The strong fo-cus of the managers on these important cul-tural factors stimulated employees to shareinformation with others. How will this be inthe Malaysian context? Additionally, how willthis be influenced by the enormous culturaldiversity within the Malaysian context?

Within this research, the main focus willbe on the relationship between knowledgesharing and humanness in Malaysia, and it willbe compared to the results of Tanzania. Fur-thermore, the differences between the cul-tures of the three ethnicities and their influ-ence on knowledge sharing is researched.

101


Conceptual Model

Knowledge Sharing

With the fast moving global environ-ments, the storage of information or knowl-edge about opportunities and threats withinmarkets becomes more important. The qual-ity of knowledge and the knowledge pro-cesses in organizations are seen as the keybusiness activities that make an organizationsuccessful in competitive marketplaces(Housel and Bell 2001). Additionally, Slaterand Narver (1995) state that the performanceof companies can only be improved by learn-ing from the market. According to these au-thors, a ‘market-driven’ organization is ableto anticipate the changing needs of consum-ers by using knowledge to develop innova-tive products and services. Using this know-ledge will create advantages for these marketdriven organizations as it enables them torespond quickly and effectively to opportu-nities and threats, which makes market ori-entation actually a learning orientation pro-cess. To gain from these knowledge learningprocesses, knowledge sharing within the or-ganizations is important. Darroch andMcNaughton (2002) define knowledge shar-ing as ‘a form of organizational innovationthat has the potential to generate new ideasand develop new business opportunitiesthrough socialization and learning processesof knowledge workers.’ Furthermore, Lin,Lee and Wang (2009) define knowledge shar-ing as ‘a social interaction culture involvingthe exchange of employee knowledge, expe-riences and skills through the whole depart-ment or organization.’ This implies that know-ledge sharing is influenced by cultural aspectsand that cultural norms and values have an

impact on the willingness of employees to shareknowledge within an organization. In theirresearch about knowledge sharing, Lin et al.(2009) identified four dimensions which cap-ture the most influential factors of knowedgesharing which are; Corporate Culture, Ma-nagement and Leadership, Employee Moti-vation and Information Technology. The di-mensions of knowledge sharing are explainedin Appendix 4.

Humanness

According to Mbigi (1997, 2000) whosees himself as the founder of the human-ness philosophy, Africa should stop imitat-ing the Western business styles and use itsown heritage which is based in their culture.Moreover, ‘the African life emphasized hu-manity and relationships over material wealth’(Shonhiwa 2006). The cornerstones of hu-manness define the management concept andare used and developed by several scholars(Broodryk 2005; Pooven et al. 2006; Siggeret al. 2010). These dimensions are Solidarity,Survival, Compassion and Respect and Dig-nity and are referring to the relationships be-tween people within communities. The di-mensions of humanness are explained inAppendix 5. Humanness(as labeled by Siggeret al. 2010) is a philosophy that brings peopletogether regardless of their background ortheir access to wealth and can be seen as aunifying factor (Sithole 2001).

Scholtens (2011) has started to conductempirical research in Tanzania on the rela-tionship between humanness and the willing-ness to share knowledge between Tanzanianmanagers within organizations and discovereda strong correlation between the two con-cepts.

Boom and Pennink

102

The Relation between KnowledgeSharing and Humanness

This research is based on the findingsby Scholtens (2011) in Tanzania, who founda strong relationship between the conceptsof humanness and knowledge sharing. Thismeans that, with the use of important cul-tural cornerstones, it is possible for manag-ers to encourage their employees to shareknowledge.

The direct relationship between knowl-edge sharing is interesting, but a closer lookat this relationship is also interesting whenwe realize that both concepts, humanness andknowledge sharing, can be described with theassistance of dimensions. These independentdimensions are influencing each other, thoughit is not clear to what degree.

For example, how much influence doesSolidarity have on Employee Motivation?Figure 1 illustrates the relationships this re-search will examine to determine whetherthere is a difference in influence of the in-dependent dimensions.

Although a strong relationship wasfound between humanness and knowledgesharing, some negative relationships were alsofound by Scholtens. His findings indicated anegative relationship between solidarity andthe willingness to share knowledge. Further-more, a low presence of humanness wasfound in the dimensions Information Tech-nology. Based on the findings of Scholtens,a comparison with the current study will bemade. The data found by Scholtens will beuseful to determine the degree of influencehumanness has on knowledge sharing.

Figure 1. The Relation between the Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing and Human-ness

Information Technology

Employee Motivation

Corporate Culture and Leadership

Survival

Respect andDignity

Compassion

Solidarity

103


Setting the Research Scene (Malaysia)

The relatively advanced developingcountries, whose scope and scale of indus-trial production is growing rapidly and whohave a highly competitive export sector, canbe called Newly Industrialized Economies(NIE) (Sibert 2007). One of these NIE coun-tries is Malaysia.The country is developingrapidly after leaving the colonial heritage be-hind. Major changes have been carried outwhich are shown in the strong growth ratesof 5-6 percent and the increase in GNP in2010. Although these numbers are fasci-nating, the Malaysian Government wantsmore and has developed a plan to change thecountry from a production-based economyinto a knowledge-based economy. Theseplans were already made in 2002 and rede-fined in 2005, however, only minor changeshave been implemented, and Malaysia is stillnot seen as a knowledge hub (Syed-Ikhsanand Rowland 2004).

Furthermore, Syed-Ikhsan et al. (2004)state that the role of managers is an impor-tant factor to stimulate knowledge sharingwithin an organization. They need to createan environment where employees are ensuredof sharing knowledge without the the nui-sance of cultural barriers. Furthermore, theresults of Cheng et al. (2009) showed thatthe Malaysians are aware of the changes thegovernment wants to implement to becomea knowledge-based economy. However, theirparticipation in this process is low, whichimplies that managers could have an impor-tant influence on this process. In a globalizedworld, it is good to learn more from otherplaces in the world, and a focus on howpeople can work together and the way this ismanaged can be compared to the studies doneon management styles in Africa.

Malaysia?

Within the Malaysian values, family isthe most important aspect and members of afamily help each other no matter what theissue is. This is in line with the studies of theGlobal Leadership and Organizational Be-havior Effectiveness (GLOBE) which com-pare cultures and attributes of effectiveleadership in 61 countries, including Ma-laysia (House et al. 2002; 2010). Accord-ing to these studies, Malaysia scores high onthe GLOBE cultural dimension of human ori-entation, which entails that they have the ten-dency to see others, such as family, friends orthe community,as more important. Humanoriented societies are motivated by the needfor belonging and affiliation where the valuessuch as love, kindness, altruism and generos-ity are essential. Looking at the main culturalnorms and values of Malaysian employees,they are similar to the dimensions of human-ness which are based on the strong commu-nal relationship and the need to help eachother.

Although the Malaysian Government iscampaigning with the slogan ‘1 Malaysia’which means that,despite the cultural differ-ences between the inhabitants,everyone livesin harmony with each other; however, theopposite is true. This is the conclusion of thestudy conducted at Nestlé Malaysia byZawawi (2008). In this research, several em-ployees from different backgrounds discussedtheir daily business and explained the diffi-culties they face in these practices. The re-spondents argued that miscommunicationsand misunderstandings were caused by thelack of cultural knowledge of other ethniccolleagues.

To understand these differences, moreis explained about the important norms and

Boom and Pennink

104

values of the main ethnicities present in Ma-laysia. For instance, the Malays are, by theMalaysian Constitution, Muslims whichmeans that they strongly believe in the con-cept of Allah the Almighty. In the Koran, it issaid that there is an equal benefit of resourcesfor everyone that should be acquired right-fully and is in line with guidelines that busi-nessman take social goods into their consid-eration in business for reasons other thanmaking a profit (Rice 1999). Therefore,Malays expect their managers/leaders to actas role models who value the religion andspirituality of the group (Zabid and Ho2003).

Within the Chinese community, valuessuch as ambition and being successful aremore common. Factors such as education,wealth or prosperity, respect of face, improv-ing oneself and harmony are important(Zabid and Ho 2003). Furthermore, the Chi-nese are regarded as workers who are targetoriented and motivated by financial rewards(Sendut 1991). The third large ethnicitypresent in Malaysia are the Indians who areliving more according to rituals and traditionssuch as the caste system and the belief in re-birth (Nordin and Hussin 2004). With thesebeliefs, the Indians strive hard to gain author-ity, self-confidence and self-respect (Zawawi2008). Within organizations, Indians are seenas loyal people who work hard. They have ahigh tolerance and are keen on adapting tothe rules and structures of a company.

Research Methods

Sample

Questionnaires were distributed amongmanagers from Malaysian organizations. Fromevery industry, managers were asked to par-ticipate in the research.Managers from the

public sector, however, were lesswilling torespond to any e-mails or phone calls. Thetotal response of the questionnaires is 214which is, according to the statements ofThomas (2004), enough when the samplesize is unknown. Of the participants, 125(58%) are men and 89 (41.6%) women. Fur-thermore, the participants were asked to fillin their ethnicity which provided surprisingresults. The majority (47%) are Chinese, theMalay account for 22 percent and the Indi-ans 9.3 percent. Another large group were themanagers who are not originally from Malay-sia (17.8%).

Scales and Measures

The presence of humanness and thewillingness to share knowledge in organiza-tions was measured using a survey of 47 ques-tions (shown in Appendix 1). Respondentswere asked to which degree they agreed withthe statements, using a five-point Likert scale(ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). To avoid similarities in an-swers, the items were grouped randomly rep-resenting the four dimensions of humannessand the three dimensions of knowledge shar-ing. As is mentioned before, this study com-pares the results of humanness and the rela-tionship to knowledge sharing of Tanzaniato Malaysia. In the study by Scholtens (2011),some adjustments were made because the di-mensions of Corporate Culture and Leader-ship and Management included many simi-larities and, therefore, these dimensions areseen as one.They are used in this study aswell. Three dimensions for knowledge shar-ing remain.

Variability and Reliability

The scales used in the questionnaire aretested by using Cronbach’s alpha to determine

105


whether there is an internal consistency oraverage correlation of items. The perfect out-put of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient has ascale above 0.7. In AppendixII, the tables ofthe Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of know-ledge sharing and humanness of both coun-tries are shown. Both countries show a higherscore than 0.7 which indicates that the ques-tions measure the same underlying construct.

Analysis and Results

First the presence of humanness inMalaysia is investigated. This is done by us-ing the same measurement tool Scholtens(2011) used, which is developed by Sigger etal. (2010) to calculate the presence of hu-manness in a country. In this measurementtool, the means of the individual dimensionsare used to measure the level of humanness.

Scores of 2.4 or less indicate a low level ofhumanness. Scores between 2.5 and 3.5 indi-cate a moderate level of humanness, andscores of 3.6 or higher indicate a positive highlevel. In this study, it is expected that, in thecomparison to Tanzania, Malaysia will scorelower on the humanness dimensions Solidar-ity, Survival and Compassion because thesevalues are basics in the African culture. How-ever, it is expected that Malaysia will scorehigher on the dimension Respect and Dignitydue to the high exposure of cultural differ-ences as is explained by the respondents inthe study of Zawawi (2008).

Figure 2 visualizes the results of theMalaysian respondents compared to the man-agers of Tanzania. First, the results show thatthe Malaysian managers score more than 3.6on all dimensions of humanness. In compari-son, the results for the Tanzanian managers

Figure 2. Humanness Dimensions Compared for Malaysia and Tanzania

Boom and Pennink

106

are, in general, the same. Although it was ex-pected to find larger differences, one assump-tion proved to be true. The Malaysian ma-nagers scored higher on the dimensions Re-spect and Dignity compared to Tanzanianmanagers, emphasizing the results of Zawawi(2008).

In line with the aforementioned find-ings, it is possible to research whether thereis a relationship between the willingness toshare knowledge and humanness in Malay-sia. To calculate this relationship, it is neces-sary to see if these variables correlate witheach other. Using the Pearson correlationcoefficient, a possible linear relationship be-tween the dimensions of knowledge sharingand humanness in Malaysia is calculated. InAppendix III, it is shown that there exists amoderate/strong linear relationship betweenmost variables with the exception of the di-mension Information Technology. It isweaker than the others, suggesting that therelationship is minimal. The results makes itpossible to use the one-on-one RegressionAnalysis and the Multiple Linear RegressionAnalysis to analyze to what extent the vari-

ables knowledge sharing and humanness arerelated. First, the relationship between thevariables knowledge sharing and humannessis studied. Looking at the coefficient of de-termination, the R-Square shows a value of0.618, which is quite high for this kind ofresearch. The degrees of freedom are F =560.900 with a significance of p <0.000.From these results, it can be said that 61.8percent of the variability of knowledge shar-ing is explained by the presence of human-ness (see Figure 3). The coefficient of hu-manness shows a 0.786 which means thathumanness has a linear positive effect onknowledge sharing in Malaysia.

In comparison to Tanzania, the scoresof the latter are slightly lower with a vari-ability percentage of 49.3 percent (Scholtens2011). Additionally, the of Malaysia is0.786 and for Tanzania the is 0.780. Thismeans that the differences between the coun-tries in the relationship between knowledgesharing and humanness is not large. The dif-ference in explained variances between bothcountries might be a new research questionfor follow-up research.

Figure 3. Malaysia and Tanzania Compared in the Relationship between KS and H

Knowledgesharing

Malaysia

Knowledgesharing

Tanzania

HumannessTanzania

HumannessMalaysia

61.8%

49.3%

107


Now that the relationship betweenknowledge sharing and humanness is found,it is interesting to more closely inspect thedimensions of both concepts and analyze towhat degree the individual dimensions influ-ence each other. First, the influence of theindividual humanness dimensions on knowl-edge sharing is investigated and is shown inFigure 4. The results from the RegressionAnalysis illustrate that all individual human-ness dimensions have a positive influence onknowledge sharing (Solidarity 0.12; Survival0.26; Compassion 0.20; Respect and Dignity0.34). From this information, it can be con-cluded that the humanness dimensions haveinfluence on knowledge sharing, whichmeans that cultural values are important fac-tors in the willingness of managers to shareknowledge.

In addition to the influence of the indi-vidual dimensions on knowledge sharing, thisstudy looks at the influence of the human-ness dimensions on the individual knowledgesharing dimensions of Corporate Culture andLeadership (CCL), Employee Motivation(EM) and Information Technology (IT).

For Corporate Culture and Leadership,the Multiple Regression Analysis (Figure 5)shows an R-Square of 0.74, explaining 74.4percent of the variability is explained by theindividual humanness dimensions. However,it is notable that there is a negative relation-ship between Solidarity and Corporate Cul-ture and Leadership. Additionally, not all di-mensions have a significance of p < 0.01.

Figure 4. The Influence of the Humanness Dimensions on Knowledge Sharing

Survival

Respect andDignity

Solidarity

Compassion

KS

0.34

0.12

0.20

0.26

Boom and Pennink

108

Figure 5. The Influence of Humanness Dimensions on Corporate Culture and Leader-ship

Survival

Compassion

Solidarity CCL

Respect andDignity

Figure 6. The Influence of Humanness’ Dimensions on Employee Motivation

Survival

Compassion

EMRespect andDignity

Solidarity

0.38

0.07

0.30

0.31

0.43

0.04

0.11

0.28

109


The dimension Employee Motivation,Figure 6, has a lower R-square than the pre-vious dimensions. The R-square is namely0.65, which means that 65 percent of thevariance in Employee Motivation is causedby the humanness dimensions. In contrast tothe former dimension, all humanness dimen-sions have a positive relationship, thoughthey are not very high; Compassion 0.43;Survival 0.28; Solidarity 0.11; Respect andDignity 0.04.

Finally, the variance of InformationTechnology is calculated. The R-Square is0.34 which means that 34 percent of the vari-ability is explained by the humanness dimen-sions and is the lowest score of all know-ledge sharing dimensions which is illustratedby Figure 7. Furthermore, a negative relation-ship is found between Information Technol-ogy and Respect and Dignity indicating thatmodern technology does not have an influ-ence on human values. As shown in Figure 7,

the scores of the humanness dimensions onInformation Technology are not high, whichis similar to the low findings of the Pearsoncorrelation coefficient.

The diversity of cultures in Malaysia isunique and makes it an interesting topic forresearch. In this study, the respondents wereasked to fill in their ethnicity which led tothe aforementioned distribution of the par-ticipants. The high participation of Chinesemanagers is in contrast to the majority ofMalays in Malaysia (60% versus 30%). How-ever, according to Arlès (1971), the dif-ferences between this research and the sta-tistics of Malaysia is due to the dominanceof Malays in the public sector which is offsetby the economic prominence of the Chinese.For this research, the Malaysian governmen-tal institutes were not able to participate and,therefore, this is a valid explanation for thedifferences in distribution.

Figure 7. The Influence of Humanness Dimensions on Information Technology

Compassion

Solidarity

ITRespect andDignity

Survival

0.39

-0.09

0.30

0.29

Boom and Pennink

110

As mentioned before, the differencesbetween the ethnicities are found in theirnorms and values. Malays live according tothe rules of Islam, Chinese are hard workersand entrepreneurial and the Indians live theirlives to acquire a higher caste in rebirth. Dur-ing the data collection process, it becameapparent that a fourth group should be in-cluded in the research indicated as the man-agers not from Malaysia. This group includesthe international managers from around theworld living and working in Malaysia andcould not be ignored due to its large pres-ence (17.8%).

The four ethnicities were first examinedfor their presence of the humanness dimen-sions Solidarity, Survival, Compassion andRespect and Dignity using the one-wayANOVA. Although the literature suggeststhere are differences in viewpoints with re-spect to cultural norms and values, the Ho-mogeneity of Variances shows p > 0.05 indi-cating equality between the groups. Further-

more, the Levene’s test shows that the dif-ferences in variance are not attributed bychance and, therefore, the results can be used.Figure 8 shows that all the ethnicities have ascore of 3.6 or higher, explaining the pres-ence of the humanness dimensions in allethnicities and showing small differences be-tween the groups.

Calculating the sum of squares betweenthe groups and dividing this by the total sumof squares reveals the exact differences forthe humanness dimensions which are 2.7 per-cent for Solidarity, 3.6 percent for Survival,1.8 percent for Compassion and 2.6 percentfor Respect and Dignity. Even the use ofdummy variables could not find any of theexpected differences between the ethnicities.Furthermore, it was expected that the Malaysand their Islamic norms and values were morein line with the humanness dimensions com-pared to the other ethnicities. In Figure 7, theopposite is true which means that the assump-tion is rejected and that the other ethnicities

Figure 8. The Humanness Dimensions Compared between Ethnicities Using ANOVA

111


score equally high or even higher than theMalays. Surprising is the high score of theIndians on all dimensions, which is in con-trast to the findings from the literature. Fromthe data results, the Indians score highest onall humanness dimensions, suggesting thatthis ethnicity is most in line with the dimen-sions of humanness.

Along with investigating the presenceof humanness, the presence of knowledgesharing is investigated, revealing similar re-sults to the humanness dimensions, as isshown in Figure 9. The Homogeneity of Vari-ance shows p > 0.05 and, according to theLevene’s test, the results are not found bychance. The findings are all above the scaleof 3.6 and quite similar to each other, mean-ing that all managers of the ethnicities arewilling to share knowledge with each other.

Even the dummy variable found an R-square of 0.017 showing 1.7 percent of thedifferences between the ethnicities is ex-

plained by knowledge sharing. Furthermore,the Indians have a higher score on these di-mensions as well. Although the differencesare smaller compared to the humanness di-mensions, the results suggest that Indians aremore willing to share knowledge comparedto the Malay, Chinese and managers not fromMalaysia. Surprising is the conclusion that theethnicities have a similar score for both hu-manness and knowledge sharing, indicatingthat mutually cultural aspects such as thewillingness to share knowledge are highlypresent in Malaysia.

Conclusion

The main objective of this study wasto find a relationship between the humannessmanagement style and the willingness to shareknowledge of managers from Malaysia andthe possibility of difference when the ethnicbackground of managers was taken into ac-

Figure 9. The Knowledge Sharing Dimensions Compared between Ethnicities UsingANO

Boom and Pennink

112

count. Due to the findings of Scholtens(2011) in Tanzania, a strong positive relation-ship is expected between these two concepts.For a developing country such as Malaysia,knowledge is essential for the transformationfrom a production-based economy to a know-ledge-based economy. With the results of thisresearch, it can be stated that human manage-ment or people management has a strong in-fluence on the willingness to share know-ledge within organizations. Therefore, it isimportant for companies to know that humanaspects such as culture and norms and valuesinfluence a learning environment, whichmeans that managers can encourage theiremployees to share knowledge with eachother.

Furthermore, the regression analysisshows the relationships between the human-ness and knowledge sharing dimensions. How-ever, not all relationships proved to be posi-tive or high, and especially the relationshipsconcerning Information Technology provedto be low. The relation with Respect and Dig-nity was even negative. From these relation-ships, it can be concluded that IT and humannorms and values are correlating less com-pared to the other relationships which is sur-prising because digital communication isbecomingmore popular every day. Therefore,it would be interesting to investigate this re-lationship in future research.

Although the literature suggests other-wise, minor differences were found betweenthe four different ethnicities living in Malay-sia. The results show that the cultural heri-tage of Malaysian managers is not visible inthe behavior of managers towards their em-ployees and, therefore,it can be concludedthat different cultural backgrounds of man-agers does not influence the willingness toshare knowledge in Malaysian organizations.The findings of this research do suggest that

managers should apply more human orientedmanagement skills such as Solidarity, Sur-vival, Compassion and Respect and Dignityto encourage their employees to share moreknowledge between each other. This leads toan environment where knowledge transferbetween co-workers is encouraged and em-ployees no longer fear making errors or say-ing something wrong.

Options for Future Research

The results of this research show thereis a strong positive relationship between hu-manness and knowledge sharing in Malaysia.This is important information for the Malay-sian Government in their development plan.All of our respondents are working in theprivate sector, and a variety of them havetheir own business, while many potential res-pondents work in the public sector which isalso important for this research on manage-ment styles. However, it is difficult to con-tact governmental offices or institutions.Nevertheless, it is interesting to investigatewhether humanness and the willingness toshare knowledge are strongly related in thissector since many Malay inhabitants work atgovernmental institutions. Moreover, it is in-teresting whether the Malay cultural normsand values are highly present in this sectorand if this has any influence on the know-ledge transfer within the government. Al-though this research found no difference inthe cultural norms and values used by man-agers from various ethnic backgrounds, thiscould be different in the public sector due tothe high presence of Malay employees. Fur-thermore, the work ethics and bureaucraticsystem of the public system is different fromprivate businesses and, therefore, it would beinteresting to see whether the two sectors aresimilar or different.

113


References

Arlès, J. P. 1971. Ethnic and socio-economic patterns in Malaysia. International Labor Review 104: 534.

Broodryk, J. 2005. Ubuntu Management Philosophy. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres.

Cheng, M. Y., S. Hossain, and J. H. Guo. 2009. Social acceptance and readiness for the knowledge-basedeconomy in Malaysia. ASEAN Economic Bulletin 26 (3): 253–65.

Darroch, J., and R. McNaughton. 2002. Examining the link between knowledge management practicesand type of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 3 (3): 210–222.

House, R. J., N. R. Quigley, and de M. Luque. 2010. Insights from Project GLOBE, Extending globaladvertising research through a contemporary framework. International Journal of Advertising 29 (1):111-139.

House, R., M. Javidan, P. Hanges, and P. Dorfman. 2002. Understanding cultures and implicit leadershiptheories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37: 3-10.

Housel, T., and A. H. Bell. 2001. Measuring and Managing Knowledge. New York: The McGraw-Hill Compa-nies, Inc.

Lin H. F., and G. G. Lee. 2004. Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour.Management Decision 42 (1): 108–125.

Lin,H. F., H. S. Lee, and D. W. Wang. 2009. Evaluation of factors influencing knowledge sharing based ona fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Information Science 35 (1): 25–44.

Lu, L., K. Leung, and P. T. Koch. 2006. Managerial knowledge sharing: the role of individual, interper-sonal, and organizational factors. Management and Organization Review 2 (1): 15–41.

MacNeil, C. M., 2004. Exploring the supervisor role as a facilitator of knowledge sharing in teams. JournalofEuropean Industrial Training 28 (1): 93–102.

MacNeil, C. M. 2003. Line managers: Facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams. Employee Relations 25 (3):294–307.

Mbigi, L. and J. Maree. 2005b. Ubuntu: The Spirit of African Transformation Management. Randburg, SouthAfrica: Knowres.

Nordin, M., and H. Hussin. 2004. Pengajian Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: FajarBakti Sdn. Bhd.

Poovan, N., M. K. A. Du Toit, and A. S. Engelbrecht. 2006. The effect of the social values of Ubuntu onteam effectiveness. South African Journal of Business Management.

Rice, G. 1999. Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of Business Ethics 18 (4): 345-358.

Scholtens, C. 2011. The Innovative Value of Ubuntu: Knowledge sharing in African Organizations.

Sendut, H. 1991. Managing in a multicultural society? the Malaysian experience. Malaysian ManagementReview 26 (1): 61-69.

Shonhiwa, S. 2006. The Effective Cross-Cultural Manager: A Guide for Business Leaders in Africa. Cape Town:Zebra Press.

Siebert, H. 2007. The World Economy: A Global Analysis (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Sigger, D. S., B. M. Polak, and B. J. W. Pennink. 2010. ‘Ubuntu’ or ‘humannes’ as a management concept.CDS Research Paper 29.

Boom and Pennink

114

Sithole, J. 2001. Africa Can Only Use Own Culture to Influence Globalization. Afrol [African Online Services]News, http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/ 2001/0515afr.htm. Accessed 14 May 2009.

Slater, S., and J. C. Narver. 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing 59:63-74.

Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S., and F. Rowland. 2004. Knowledge management in a public organization: A study onthe relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer.Journal of Knowlegde Management 8 (2): 95-111.

Tan, J. T. L. 2000. Knowledge management- Just more buzzwords? The British Journal of AdministrativeManagement (Issue 19): 10-11.

Taylor, W.A., and G. H. Wright. 2004. Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing: Chal-lenges for public sector managers. Information Resources Management Journal 17 (2): 22–37.

Thomas, A. 2004. Research Skills For Management Studies. Routledge

Zabid, A. R. M., and J. A. Ho. 2003. Perceptions of business ethics in a multicultural community: The caseof Malaysia md. Journal of Business Ethics 43 (1/2): 75-87.

Zawawi, D. 2008. Cultural dimensions among Malaysian employees. International Journal of Economics andManagement 2 (2): 409-426.

115


APPENDIX I. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS

What is your ethnicity?

What is your gender? o Malay

o Woman o Chinese

o Man o Indian

o Mixture

o I am not from Malaysia

For the following questions, please indicate in how far you agree with the statement, rangingfrom ‘I strongly disagree’ to ‘I strongly agree.’

Strongly StronglyDisagree Agree N/A*

The organization encourages teamwork

When I share knowledge with my employees,

I believe that my future requests for knowledge will be answered by them

Within my team, employees have reciprocal faith in the behaviors and intentions of co-workers

Within my team all the employees are equal

My organization uses technology infrastructure

that allows employees to share knowledge with other people inside the organization

My employees are friendly and helpful

I care about the well-being of my employees

I am willing to give up personal needs for the good of the team/organization

I have to work closely with others to do my job well

I encourage diversity in opinions

*Not applicable

Boom and Pennink

116


I enjoy helping others by sharing my knowledge

I encourage a high participation in sharing knowledge and ideas among employees

In the organization employees make extensive

use of the electronic storage (such as databases and data warehouses) to access corporateknowledge

I respect the customs and beliefs of my employees

I always put the interest of the whole team before my own interest

I have confidence and trust in the team

Different ethnic groups work in harmony within the organization

*Not applicable


I respect the religion of my employees

I see myself as an active listener towards my employees

A crisis in the team will always be solved in a harmonious way

There is open communication in the organization

All opinions have a fair hearing and consideration within the team

I take the time to greet my employees

The organization provides all employees open access to all information

APPENDIX I (Continued)

117



I value sharing what I have with my family

I provide equal opportunities to all within my team

I am confident in my ability to provide knowledgethat others in the organization find valuable

*Not applicable


I view employee training as an investment rather than an expense

I receive increased promotion opportunities in return for my knowledge sharing

Top management provides a clear organizational vision and goals to employees

Long discussions take place in team meetings

My employees are people I inform about my personal life

I encourage dialogue during meetings

In the organization ceremonies and personnel parties are organized

*Not applicable


In the organization employees use knowledge

networks (e-mail, intranet, etc.) to communicate with co-workers

Encouraging knowledge sharing with co-workers is important component of my policy


Boom and Pennink

118


I have the well-being of my employees as a major objective

When a co-worker gets promotion and I am not, I am happy for him/her

My employees and I get together outside of work time

I feel I am really a part of the team

The employees and I are like a family

I encourage my team to suggest ideas for new opportunities

I have the freedom to take my own approach in my work

I have the right to say no to the team

I enjoy to work as a part of a team

My family is always welcome to visit the organization

When I share my knowledge with employees the people I work with respect me

*Not applicable


119


APPENDIX II: CRONBACH’S ALPHA

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing Dimensions inMalaysia

Cronbach’s Alpha Nr. of Items

Humannes 0.947 32

Solidarity 0.724 7

Survival 0.857 8

Compassion 0.819 8

Respect & Dignity 0.819 10

Knowledge sharing 0.879 14

Corporate Culture & Leadership 0.790 7

Employee motivation 0.750 3

Information Technology 0.674 3

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing Dimensions inTanzania

Cronbach’s Alpha Nr. of Items

Humanness 0.916 33

Solidarity 0.705 8

Survival 0.785 7

Compassion 0.726 8

Respect & Dignity 0.891 10

Knowledge sharing 0.859 15

Corporate Culture & Leadership 0.859 4

Employee Motivation 0.639 8

Information Technology 0.762 3

Boom and Pennink

120

APPENDIX III: PEARSON CORRELTATION

Table 3. Correlations Humanness and Knowledge Sharing Dimensions

Humannes

KnowledgeSharing PearsonCorrelation 0.841 **

Corporate Culture and Leadership PearsonCorrelation 0.844 **

Employee Motivation PearsonCorrelation 0.793 **

InformationTechnology PearsonCorrelation 0.560 **

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)All correlations have a significance of 0.00N=214.

APPENDIX IV. KNOWLEDGE SHARING

The study by Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) uses four dimensions. However, Scholtens (2011)found that the dimensions corporate culture and leadership & management are too similar andneed to be clustered together.

Corporate Culture & Leadership According to the study of Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) en-tities need a social-oriented organizational climate toencourage knowledge sharing among employees. Socialnetworks or informal networks within organizations in-fluence knowledge sharing between employees. Accord-ing to O’Dell and Grayson (1998) both formal and infor-mal relationships and contacts between employees areimportant for the sharing process within organizations.Trust is important for managers to share their knowledgewith others. Trust is one of the main aspects of the hu-manness dimensions because without trust there is nosolidarity, survival, compassion or respect & dignity.

Employee Motivation Personal benefits are an important motivation for em-ployees. To share knowledge with others, individuals needcertainty that others will be worth the effort and that theirexpectations of receiving something of value in returnare correct (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). These ‘private

121


rewards’ accrue more likely to individuals who partici-pate actively in the sharing process and are willing to helpothers (von Hippen and von Krogh, 2003). Secondly, thereputation of employees is a factor in their motivation.According to the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) ‘in-dividuals engage in social interaction and expect socialrewards such as approval, status and respect’. Therefore,it is expected that individuals actively participate in theperception to enhance his or her personal reputation inan established network.

Information Technology The final dimension refers to modern technology, whichbecomes more important with the development ofInternet and information technology (IT). Moreover, ear-lier knowledge management research has indicated thatIT can be seen as an important facilitator of knowledgesharing, which happens through the use of Internet,intranet, software agents, knowledge bases, and commu-nities of practices (Song 2002). The use of Internet andIT systems make it possible to share information quickto departments all over the world and to a large numberof individuals (Powell et al. 1996).

APPENDIX V. HUMANNESS DIMENSIONS

Solidarity The dimension of solidarity is about the accomplishmentof difficult tasks collectively. ‘The hallmark of the Afri-can philosophy is about being a good community mem-ber’ writes Mbigi is his paper (2005b). Tutu (1999) ex-plains that the solidarity of a person is the essence ofbeing human. When a person is truly humanness thismeans he/she is generous, hospitable, friendly, caring,compassionate and share what they have. The personswithin a community are inextricably bound to each otherand appertain in a bundle of life.

Survival This dimension has some overlap with the aforementionedconcept of solidarity and therefore the two are closelyrelated. To survive poverty, wars and political instability,

APPENDIX IV (Continued)

Boom and Pennink

122

Africans are dependent on each other. Therefore theyneed to share their resources and strengths to protect thecommunity.Identically to solidarity, the dimension sur-vival is about sacrifices individuals need to take for thesake of the community or team. According to Magaliso(2001) this kind of survival result in some sort of kin-ship in organizations. Family members help each other tofind jobs, but it is shown as well between people whograduated from the same university.

Compassion As compassion is about understanding the problems ofothers and feel the urge to help them. Magaliso (2001)states that one should treat others as members of theirown family which is done by compassion, kindness andhumility. To reach out to help others and feel compas-sionate towards their problems is the foundation on whichrelationships and friendships are based (Pooven et al.2006). Within organization and team formations, a sharedvision is important to increase the ability of teams toperform successful.

Respect & dignity Within the humanness management style people sensethat they are treated with respect and dignity. These peopleshow greater commitment to the goals of an organiza-tion and therefore work harder to achieve them (Mangaliso2001). As is stated before, the utility of finding a deci-sion which is supported by all members of a team or or-ganization is more important than finding the best deci-sion. Furthermore, there is a deep respect for the elderly,authority and others who fulfill their obligations for thesake of the community (Mbigi 1997).

APPENDIX IV (Continued)

University of Groningen The relation between humans and … · Penelitian ini juga meneliti...

Documents

Transcript of University of Groningen The relation between humans and … · Penelitian ini juga meneliti...