Tacit knowledge transfer: an antecedent for innovative ambidexterity.
~ An Empirical Study in the Dutch Communication Consultancy Industry ~ Written by Mitchell Steven Bakker University of Amsterdam Master of Business Administration Entrepreneurship & Innovation Track Thesis: Master Version: Final Supervisor: Dr. Wietze van der Aa Second reader: Dr. Ileana Marisde Bresser Student: Mitchell S. Bakker (10884467)
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Mitchell Steven Bakker who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents. Signature ________________________________ date: August 19th, 2016
Acknowledgements
After working fulltime in the advertising industry for more than five years, I decided to turn the ship around by resigning from my job and obtaining a Masters degree in Business Administration at the Amsterdam Business School. This paper is my personal contribution to the existing business management literature along with practical recommendations for the advertising industry. I take full responsibility for every word in this paper, but I also received help and guidance from others, so, therefore, I would like to express my gratitude to a select group of people who made this paper possible.
First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Wietze van der Aa, who gave me the opportunity to work on a topic that was of my personal interest. His expertise, guidance and particularly his patience made the process of writing a Master’s thesis an interesting and satisfying one. From the very first start to the moment of the final deadline, he showed utmost trust in me and my research, which made it a real pleasure working with him.
Secondly, I am highly indebted and thoroughly grateful to Cees Wijnnobel and Daisy Verma from the VEA. Without our partnership and their help I would probably not have been able to collect such high quality data for my sample in such short amount of time. They way they showed their trust in our collaboration works inspiring.
Last but not least, I am thankful to my family, friends, and especially my girlfriend Janouk van Beek for their support. I am fully aware that none of them have seen much of me the last couple of weeks, but all of them knew it was for a good cause. I would be lying if I did not need the occasional motivational words every now and then, so I am very grateful to them to take on this role.
Table of contents
Acknowledgements 3 Abstract 5 Ch. 1 Introduction 6 Ch. 2 Theoretical Foundation 11 2.1 Competitive Advantage 11 2.2 Knowledge as Competitive Advantage 13 2.3 Absorptive Capacity as Competitive Advantage 20 2.4 Innovative Ambidexterity 23 Ch. 3 Conceptual Framework 27 3.1 Level of Analysis 27 3.2 Tacit Knowledge Transfer and Innovative Ambidexterity 27 3.3 Tacit Knowledge Transfer, Innovative Ambidexterity and 29 Absorptive Capacity 3.4 Organizational Hierarchy Structure 30 3.5 Research Model 31 Ch. 4 Methodology 33 4.1 Research Design 33 4.2 Data Collection and Sample 33 4.3 Measures 35 Ch. 5 Data Analysis and Results 41 5.1 Data Analysis 41
5.2 Results 48 Ch. 6 Discussion 53 Ch. 7 Conclusion 59 7.1 Conclusion 59 7.2 Limitations and Future Research 60 7.3 Managerial Implications 61 References 64 Appendices 74
Index Tables and Figures
Table 1: Respondents Education 42 Table 2: Agency Focus 42 Table 3: Means, Standard Deviation and Variance of IA, TKT, AC, and OHS 45 Table 4a: Descriptive Statistics Normal Distribution 46 Table 4b: Descriptive Statistics Normal Distribution Adjusted 47 Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations 48 Table 6: Mediation Effect (Process) 50 Table 7: Results of Hypothesis 52 Figure 1: Research Model 32 Figure 2: Simple Mediation Model 4 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) 49 Figure 3a: Simple Moderation Effect on Innovative Ambidexterity Model 1 51 Figure 3b: Simple Moderation Effect on Absorptive Capacity Model 1 51Abstract
Dutch communication consultancy agencies identify attracting qualified personnel as the largest barrier for growth. The goal of this study is to find an unconventional solution to this problem, from an intraorganizational perspective. In order to do so, the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer, innovative ambidexterity, absorptive capacity, and organizational hierarchy structure is being studied. It is proposed that tacit knowledge transfer is positively related to innovative ambidexterity, suggesting that agencies that are capable of transferring tacit knowledge more successfully outperform agencies that are less capable of tacit knowledge transfer, whereas innovative ambidexterity functions as a proxy for firm performance. In addition, a firm’s absorptive capacity is expected to play a significant role in the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer an innovative ambidexterity. Also, organizational hierarchy structure is expected to moderate the effect of both the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity, as well as the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity. Empirical data has been collected from leading communication consultancy agencies in the Netherlands ( n = 97) via an online survey that was sent out in the beginning of June 2016. Findings of this paper reveal a positive significant correlation between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity. Moreover, absorptive capacity appears to partially mediate this relationship. When examining the effect of organizational hierarchy structure, no significant correlation effect has been found between both aforementioned relations. However, there is a positive significant correlation identified between organizational hierarchy structure and organizational size. The results of this paper enlarge our understanding of the constructs of knowledge management, absorptive capacity, innovation and organizational structure, and could also be beneficial for managers in the communication consultancy industry and beyond to improve their current knowledge base and, thus, improve their sustained competitive advantage.
Key words: innovative ambidexterity, tacit knowledge transfer, embedded knowledge,
absorptive capacity, communication consultancy agencies, organizational hierarchy structure.
Chapter 1: Introduction
"Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." ~ Benjamin Franklin ~
The Dutch communication consultancy industry is, with more than 29.000 registered agencies, known as a very competitive industry (CBS, 2015). Despite the economical crisis, media spendings continue to grow annually with an average percentage of 1.9% resulting in a total net market value of € 4.63 billion in 2014. The number of agencies and freelancers also continues to increase as a result from the attractive industry and easy market entrance, which causes an even more intensified competitive environment. There is a growing trend among agencies changing their business models from fullservice towards specialized offerings to improve their competitive position. Also, due to the shift from ‘traditional’ television, radio and print advertising towards ‘online’ services, agencies are almost obliged to offer holistic solutions to satisfy its clients.
According to an extensive industry study conducted by True and Emerce in 2015, the 1 2 largest barrier for growth faced by agencies is the fact that they experience difficulties in attracting qualified personnel (Emerce, 2015). This is problematic, because communication consultancy agencies differentiate themselves not only by the strategy they choose and the specific services they offer, but mostly through the quality and creativity of their customized solutions. These solutions are, to put in context, the product of an agency's most important set of resources: its employees and their skills and knowledge. According to Alavi and Leidner (2001), knowledgebased resources, such as the knowledge of qualified personnel, are usually complex and difficult to imitate suggesting that knowledge lies at the core of the creation and maintenance of a competitive advantage (Volberda et al., 2010). So, what if agencies could find an unconventional way of creating a sustained competitive advantage, not from an HR perspective, but through the optimization of its current resources?
Approaching this question from a resourcebased perspective, it is arguable that communication consultancy agencies could, in theory, outperform other agencies not only by selecting the resources appropriately, but also by creating an environment where these resources are able to perform to their full potential (Barney, 1992). Especially the latter can be challenging, because the organization's knowledge resides within its employees and needs to be expressed and transferred in such a way that coworkers are able to interpret it in order to become of value (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Despite the recognized importance of knowledge transfer, distributing the right knowledge from the right people to the right people at the desired time is one of the biggest challenges in knowledge sharing (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Adler & Kwon, 2000). Therefore, it is not surprising that the transfer of knowledge within the organization is a widely studied subject (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000).
Theory shows us that there are two types of knowledge: explicit and tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1996). The latter is subject of this study and entails the type of knowledge that can only be learned through practical experiences in a relevant context (Nonaka, 1994). Lam (2000) describes tacit knowledge as 'learningbydoing' and it is seen as the most powerful type knowledge because it holds the key to a sustained competitive advantage as it cannot be codified and easily imitated, which makes it difficult to transfer (Holste & Fields, 2010).
However, the literature remains unclear whether organizations with high tacit knowledge transfer capabilities are more successful than organizations with less tacit knowledge transfer capabilities. An answer to this question ought to be found by using innovative ambidexterity as a proxy for organizational success (Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996). Innovative ambidexterity entails a firm's capability to simultaneously 'explore new possibilities' and 'exploit old certainties' (March, 1991), and studies show that there is empirical evidence in the relationship between innovative ambidexterity and sales growth (He & Wong, 2004).
Also important, following Cohen and Levinthal's (1990) construct of absorptive capacity, it is not sufficient that coworkers share or transfer their knowledge to other coworkers to become of value. They state that the value of the newly acquired knowledge should be recognized, assimilated and actually applied, before it is successfully transferred and, thus, adds extra value to the organization. Therefore, it is important to take the agency's absorptive capacity
into account when studying the relation between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity.
In addition, Teece (1996) states that formal and informal organizational structures have an important bearing on the strength and the kind of innovative activity. He presents several frameworks to indicate how firm structure and the nature of innovation are linked, and states that hierarchies are often associated with organizational properties inimical to innovation, such as slow (bureaucratic) decision making and weak incentives. Therefore, the effect of organizational hierarchy structure will also be taken into account in this research.
Thus, as the intention is to find an unconventional solution to the practical challenge that Dutch communication consultancy agencies face, the following research question is formulated:
What is the effect of internal tacit knowledge transfer on innovative ambidexterity? And how does absorptive capacity and organizational hierarchy structure influence this relationship?
Finding an answer to this question is important as it adds new insights to the existing literature because the relationship between these constructs has not yet been studied in previous research. Also, finding a positive correlated relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity could be of use for managers of communication consultancy agencies, or managers in general, to create a work environment where tacit knowledge transfer is encouraged. Moreover, if organizational hierarchical structure and/or absorptive capacity play a substantial role within these relationships, managers could learn from this paper and adjust their organization structure or culture if necessary.
Empirical evidence is provided through data from an online questionnaire that was distributed under the leading communication consultancy agencies of the Netherlands in the beginning of June 2016. The dataset consists of 97 completed questionnaires and was primarily filled out by CEOs, Board Members, and Managers. With a response rate higher than 57%, it is safe to say
that managers of communication consultancy agencies are sincerely interested in alternative ways to improve their competitive advantage through the use of internal tacit knowledge transfer.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Chapter two provides a brief overview of the existing theory on the three constructs of innovative ambidexterity, tacit knowledge transfer, and absorptive capacity. These constructs form the foundation for the conceptual model, which will be presented in chapter three. This model is accompanied by several proposed hypotheses. Chapter four will describe the design of this research, including measurement scales. Thereafter, the data will be analyzed and hypotheses will be tested in chapter five. This paper ends with a critical discussion of the results and an answer to the research question in the conclusion. Also, practical recommendations for managers in the advertising industry, future research suggestions, and limitations of the present research will be discussed.
Chapter 2 Theoretical Foundation
This chapter provides a brief overview of the literature on the extensive constructs of the resourcebased view, tacit knowledge transfer, absorptive capacity, and innovative ambidexterity. These constructs are all of importance to be able to address the research question of this paper. Therefore, after each construct, a concise interim summary is provided that includes conclusions learned from the literature, creating the context of this study. This chapter will serve as a foundation for the development of the conceptual framework in the next chapter.
2.1 Competitive Advantage
Every successful business requires an effective business model ( Johnson et al., 2008: 60). There are many different business models out there, but all models consist of several interlocking elements that together create and deliver value. Commercial businesses usually generate profit by creating value for their customers in the form of products or services. In an environment where competition is high, companies not only need to make a profit to survive, they also need to establish a sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). A competitive advantage is achieved when a firm implements a value creating strategy that is not simultaneously being implemented by any other current or potential competitor. A competitive advantage is sustainable when other firms are unable to duplicate the benefits of this strategy (Barney; 1991: 102). Moreover, empirical evidence shows that competitive advantage positively correlates with firm performance (Day, 1984; Porter, 2011).
From Positioning School to ResourceBased School
Based on the strategic management literature, there are basically two ways of looking at the construct of competitive advantage: from an external (industry) perspective and from an internal (firm) perspective. The first outside in view stems from StructureConductPerformance paradigm, which illustrates that industry structure determines much of the performance of the firms within an industry, but that individual firms can outperform others by choosing successful strategies (Bain, 1968). Porter’s (1979) 5forces model shows the importance of analyzing the industry’s competition and attractiveness, and demonstrates that the collective strength of these
external forces are the core drivers of a firm’s strategic advantage and profitability. Hence, profitable firms are those firms that create a competitive advantage by occupying favorable positions in attractive industries (Porter, 1979). This positionings perspective rests on the neoclassical market model and assumes that all firms have equal access to all the resources that are necessary to enter a market and that all firms will therefore be the same (Diamond, 1965).
Despite this highly recognized school of thought in the 1980s, the assumption that all firms in one industry are equal led to the counter internal perspective in the 1990s that is known as the resourcebased view (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). This view focuses merely on internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization, rather than external opportunities and threats of the industry, and argues that firms are bundles of heterogeneous resources and capabilities that are imperfectly mobile across the firm (Barney, 1991). As a consequence, the imperfect mobility of heterogeneous resources can lead to a competitive advantage for firms that have superior resources or capabilities. Empirical evidence shows that a sustained competitive advantage is best achieved when organizational resources and capabilities are rare, valuable, nonsubstitutable, and imperfectly imitable (Barney, 1986; 1991).
Firm Dynamic Capabilities
An extension of the resourcebased view was initiated by Teece et al. (1997) after explaining that the resourcebased view does not adequately explain how and why certain firms have a competitive advantage in unpredictable markets that change rapidly (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Teece (2007) shows empirical evidence that the sustainable competitive advantage of firms depends on their ability to create, transfer, utilise and protect of difficulttoimitate commercial and industrial knowledge assets by assessing large enterprises. These assets include both technical and organizational tacit and codified knowhow, which can be protected through trade secrets, copyrights or patents. The extent to which these assets are transferable and usable inside the firm, but also difficult for outsiders to attain access to or to recreate, determine how sustainable the competitive advantage is.
Interim Summary: Competitive Advantage of Communication Consultancy Agencies
In sum, theory shows us that it is important for communication consultancy agencies to create a competitive advantage relative to other agencies, especially in high competitive markets such as the communication industry, because evidence shows us that a competitive advantage is positively related to firm performance. Not only is it important for organizations to determine the proper strategy and selecting an attractive market (outside in approach), it is equally important for firms to develop dynamic capabilities in order to be able to react to market changes (inside out approach). The resourcebased perspective entails that the best way of doing this is by choosing optimal resources, which are, in the case of communication consultancy agencies, its employees. In addition, the most important asset that these employees carry are their unique set of skills and knowledge.
2.2 Knowledge as competitive advantage
According to Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) extensive literature study, knowledgebased resources are usually difficult to imitate and complex, which has led to multiple studies suggesting that knowledge lies at the core of the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage (Volberda et al, 2010). So, what defines knowledge?
2.2.1 Knowledge definition
Some authors address the task of defining knowledge through the distinction between knowledge, information, and data. A generally held view is that data is raw numbers and facts, information is processed data, and knowledge is authenticated information (Dretske, 1981; Machlup, 2014; Vance, 1997). In order for information to become knowledge, it has to be individually interpreted and personalized based on individual’s personal experiences, competences and skills. In other words, knowledge is information possessed in the mind of individuals: it is personalized information (which may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments (Alavi & Leidner, 2001: 109). Because knowledge is personalized, in order for individual’s or group’s knowledge to be useful for others, it must be expressed in such a way that
receivers are able to interpret it. Therefore, individuals must share a certain knowledge base to arrive at the same understanding of data or information (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
2.2.2 Knowledge perspectives
Knowledge can be seen from several perspectives: (1) a state of mind, (2) and object, (3) a process, (4) a condition of having access to information, or (5) a capability (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Schubert et al. (1998) have described knowledge as “a state or fact of knowing” and refer to knowing as a condition of “understanding gained through experience or study; the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.” The first perspective of knowledge as a state of mind focuses on enabling individuals to expand their personal knowledge and apply it to the organization’s needs. The second perspective defines knowledge as an object that can be viewed as a thing to be stored and manipulated (Eriksson & Raven, 1996; McQueen, 1998). Thirdly, knowledge can also be seen as a process of simultaneously knowing and acting. This perspective focuses on applying expertise knowledge (Zack, 2002). The fourth perspective posits the access to information, and claims that organizational knowledge must be organized to facilitate access to and retrieval of content (McQueen, 1998). This view is often seen as an extension of the second view that sees knowledge as an objective, but then with a special emphasis of the accessibility of the knowledge objects. Finally, Carlsson et al. (1996) claim that knowledge can be viewed a capability with the potential for influencing future action. This view is redefined by Watson (2008), suggesting that knowledge is not so much a capability for specific action, but rather the capacity to use information.
The implication of these different concepts of knowledge is that each view suggests a different strategy for managing knowledge. This research follows Alavi and Leidner’s (2001:110) article that states that the perspective that is relied upon most implies the distinction of knowledge from data and information, which is closely related to the first perspective of ‘knowledge as a state of mind’. Knowledge as a state of mind implies that employees are able to expand their personal knowledge for the sake of the organization's needs. So, in an industry as the communication consultancy industry, where the employee’s knowledge is a key antecedent
for developing a competitive advantage, it is justifiable to look at knowledge from this particular perspective.
2.2.3 Knowledge dimensions
When analyzing knowledge of organizations, two dimensions are identified: the epistemological and the ontological dimension (Lam, 2000). The first refers to the expression of knowledge, namely, Polanyi’s (1966) distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. The latter distinguishes between the loci of knowledge which can reside at the individual or collective level.
The Epistemological Dimension: Explicit vs. Tacit knowledge
Looking at the epistemological dimension, human knowledge can be articulated explicitly or manifested implicitly (tacit), and there are three critical differences between them (Lam, 2000: 490). The first difference involves the area of codifiability and mechanisms for the transfer of knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be codified, be abstracted and stored in the ‘objective world’, and be understood and shared without the ‘knowing subject’. Popper (1972) refers to this world as ‘World three’. Tacit knowledge, in contrast, is intuitive and unarticulated and resides in Popper’s ‘World two’ where knowledge cannot be communicated, understood or used without the ‘knowing subject’. Examples of human tacit knowledge in organizations are operational skills and knowhow acquired through practical experience. Because this type of knowledge is actionoriented and has a personal quality, it is therefore difficult to formalize or communicate. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, can be formulated, abstracted and transferred across time and space (Lam, 2000). Secondly, the main method of acquisition and accumulation differs between the two forms of knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be generated through logical deduction and acquired by formal study, whereas tacit knowledge can only be acquired through practical experience in relevant context (Nonaka, 1994). The latter is also referred to as ‘learningbydoing’ (Lam, 2000: 490). The final difference between both types of knowledge lies within their potential for aggregation and modes of appropriation. Explicit knowledge can be aggregated and stored in one or more locations, such as libraries, databases, computers, etc.,
without the participation of the knowing subject. Tacit knowledge, on the contrary, is personal and contextual.
Although it is possible to distinguish conceptually between external and tacit knowledge, in practice they are closely connected. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) claim that new knowledge is generated through the combination and via dynamic interaction of both types by presenting empirical evidence from Japanese companies. However, Lam (2000) explains that firms differ in their capacity for fostering the interaction between them, which means that the relative importance and status of the two types could vary. Holste and Fields (2010: 128) refer to several studies empirical evidence shows that tacit knowledge is the most useful type of knowledge in some professional organizations. More importantly, the creation of new knowledge in itself requires the use and generation of tacit knowledge. Thus, Polanyi (1966) states that the learning and innovative capability of an organization critically depend on its capacity to mobilize tacit knowledge and foster its interaction with explicit knowledge.
The Ontological Dimension: the Individual vs. Collective
The second dimension of knowledge entails that knowledge within the firm can both exist at the individual level or be shared among members of the organization (Nonaka, 1994; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Individual knowledge is that part of the organization’s knowledge which is embodied in the brains and skills of the individual. This knowledge differs per person and is transferable to others (Lam, 2000). Due to the cognitive limits of the individual, the individual's knowledge is specialized and domainspecific. This is known as the ‘bounded rationality’ problem (Simon, 1957).
Collective knowledge resembles the ‘memory’ or ‘collective mind’ of the organization, and exists rather between individuals than within individuals (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Glynn (1996) describes that collective knowledge can be seen as the sum of the individuals’ knowledge, depending on the mechanisms that translate individual into collective knowledge. Lam (2000) adds that the accumulated knowledge of the organization is stored in its rules, procedures, routines, and shared norms which guide the problemsolving activities and patterns among its members.
The distinction between the individual or the collective knowledge dimension allows us to determine the level of analysis, which is, in this research, the collective level.
The Two Dimensions of Knowledge Connected
Collins (1993) was the first to relate the explicittacit and individualcollective dimensions of knowledge and made the distinction of dividing knowledge into four categories: (1) embrained, (2) embodied, (3) encoded, and (4) embedded knowledge. With this distinction, he tried to explain the psychological and behavioural aspects of knowledge. This typology is adapted by Blacker (1995) to describe the different ‘images’ of knowledge within organizations by integrating the cognitive and organizational dimensions (Lam, 2000).
Embrained knowledge (individualexplicit) depends on the conceptual skills and cognitive abilities of the individual. It is formal, abstract or theoretical knowledge and is seen as a privileged social status in Western societies (Layton, 1974).
Embodied knowledge (individualtacit) is action oriented and depends on abstract theoretical reasoning and builds upon practical experiences. Its generation cannot be separated from application (Lam, 2000).
Encoded knowledge (collectiveexplicit) has been codified and stored in recipes, blueprints, written rules, and procedures. It generates unified and predictable patterns of behaviour and knowledge in organizations. It is, according to Lam (2000), simplified and selective, and therefore it fails to capture and preserve the tacit skills and judgment of individuals.
Embedded knowledge (collectivetacit) resides in organizational routines and shared norms. This category is contextual, relationspecific and spread out over the organization. Lam (2000) explains that it is organic and dynamic: due to absence of written rules, knowledge that is capable of supporting complex patterns of interaction emerges.
According to Spender (1996), organizational knowledge results from the uninterrupted interaction between these four classes of knowledge, which requires that the individual’s knowledge and skills are accumulated into organizational and shared knowledge (Spender, 1996). All individuals learn and gain experiencebased knowledge in their daily work. Once this
personal knowledge and its meaning is shared with others, coworkers for instance, they can start benefiting from it. At this moment, personal knowledge has become a public (organizational) good (Wasko & Faraj, 2000).
In addition, according to Nonaka et al. (2006), organizational knowledge is not only a result of the sum of the knowledge of its coworkers, it is also a result of the interaction between the organization and its environment. This suggests that organizations are also subject to the changing and evolving nature of knowledge. In order to create new organizational knowledge, adjustments and updates based on new insights and newly developed ideas that arise from practice should be captured, categorized and contextualized throughout all layers of the organization. To conclude, this means that organizations can actually learn and acquire knowledge over time, and that individual and organizational knowledge are interdependent and cannot be separated.
2.2.4 Transfer knowledge assets
The literature describes knowledge transfer as the most important component of knowledge management, because it proves to be the essential element for organizational learning and innovation (Goh, 1998), and it holds the key to a competitive advantage (Desouza, 2003).
Smedlund (2008) states that the transfer of knowledge assets is successful not only when knowledge becomes accessible but when they are used to create accumulated value. In other words, without actually using the shared information, knowledge transfer in organizations is not successfully completed.
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000) indicate that the transfer of knowledge assets can both reside within the firm (intraorganizational) or between firms (interorganizational). Interorganizational knowledge transfer is embedded in its organizational process, procedures, routines and structures, and cannot be moved into an organization without the transfer of clusters of individuals with established patterns (Teece, 2000: 36). Empirical evidence presents that this is most frequently accomplished via personal relations or through alliances, joint ventures, or mergers and acquisitions of business units. Intraorganizational knowledge transfer, in the contrary, involves organizational learning among different units or colleagues (Tsai, 2001). Since
knowledge assets are grounded in the experience and expertise of those individuals working in a company, therefore, a firm has to provide the right learning structure to shape knowledge into competencies (Smedlund, 2008). Not only physical and resource allocation structures are important drivers for knowledge transfer, also the social structure is key in intraorganizational knowledge transfer (Teece, 2000).
Smedlund (2008) states that the transfer of knowledge assets within organizations relies on four components: social network structure, norms, beliefs, and trust. Norms form the common context for the functions performed in the social network of an organization. Shared beliefs include a common vision of the future and function as a motivational element. Finally, trust among individuals or in the organizational structure ensures that the activities of others are considerably predictable (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Adler & Kwon, 2000). Smedlund (2008) based this claims on a thorough literature study, and identifies trust as the most dominant factor of tacit knowledge transfer, because: “When the message is uncodified, trust has to reside in the quality of the personal relationships that bind the parties or people through shared values and expectations rather than the intrinsic plausibility of the message” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998: 255).
Despite the recognized importance of knowledge transfer, distributing the right knowledge from the right people to the right people at the right time is one of the biggest challenges in knowledge sharing (Riege, 2005: 23). Barriers of knowledge transfer reside within the individual, but could relate to either other individuals or groups within or between business functions. Riege (2005) developed a list of 17 potential individual barriers for knowledge sharing, ranging from: general lack of time to share knowledge to low awareness of potential value of knowledge sharing, and use of strong hierarchy to lack of trust in people. Many of these barriers are discussed separately, but will more likely be intertwined. He also developed a 14point list of potential organizational barriers for knowledge sharing. These organizational barriers range from missing or unclear incentives for knowledge sharing to the shortage of formal and informal spaces to share, reflect and generate (new) knowledge, and from lack of leadership in clearly communicating the benefits and values of knowledge sharing practices to internal competitiveness within business units.
Interim Summary: Tacit Knowledge Transfer in Communication Consultancy Agencies
In sum, theory suggests that that an organization’s knowledge lies at the core of developing a competitive advantage. This is particularly the case in the communication consultancy industry, because the most valuable assets or resources are the agency’s employees. This study follows the practical concept of knowledge as ‘a state of mind’, meaning that employees expand their knowledge for the benefit of the agency. Also, the theory makes a distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge, whereas tacit knowledge is seen as the key antecedent for a sustained competitive advantage because it is personal, actionoriented and contextrelated, which makes it difficult to formalize and communicate. Tacit knowledge also exists within the organization, which is the sum of the individual's knowledge and it is stored in the organization's rules, procedures, routines and norms. The combination of tacitcollective knowledge is called ‘embedded knowledge’. Polanyi (1966) states that an agency’s capacity to mobilize its tacit knowledge the determinant is of the agency’s innovative capabilities. In order to mobilize tacit knowledge, it needs to be shared or transferred among coworkers. However, transferring the knowledge by making it accessible is not enough: it also needs to be properly used. This process of knowledge transfer is known as a firm’s absorptive capacity.
2.3 Absorptive Capacity as Competitive Advantage
The term absorptive capacity was first mentioned in a study on international technology transfer (Kedia & Bhagat, 1988). Nonetheless, it only became one of the most studied research topics of the previous two decades since the contribution of Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) paper in early 90s. This paper defined absorptive capacity as ‘the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990: 128). This means that access to new knowledge solely is not enough; firms need to develop the capability to manage the new knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002). Empirical evidence shows that absorptive capacity can be seen as an explanation of competitive advantage (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), and, thus, firm performance (Lane et al., 2001; Tsai, 2001). Moreover, the ability to exploit external knowledge is also the key component of innovative
capabilities. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) state that the firm’s ability to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends is essential to its innovative capabilities.
Key Antecedents of Absorptive Capacity
Key antecedents of absorptive capacity include managerial antecedents, intraorganizational antecedents, interorganizational antecedents and prior related knowledge (Volberda et al., 2010: 941).
Firstly, dominant managers could affect the absorptive capacity of an organization by the limits of their cognitive capabilities to scan broadly for new knowledge, and identifying and using key employees who could serve as gatekeepers and boundary spanners (Volberda, 1996). This also accounts for the capacity of managers to create, extend, or modify the knowledge resource base of an organization (Adner & Helfat, 2003). In addition, the absorptive capacity of a firm could be influenced by various formal and informal managerial incentives (Volberda et al., 2010).
Secondly, intraorganizational factors could influence the level and type of absorptive capacity (Van den Bosch et al., 1999). Examples of these factors are the organizational form, such as organizational hierarchy structure, incentive structures, informal networks, and internal communication. Despite the fact that Cohen and Levinthal (1990) emphasized the importance of these organizational mechanisms on absorptive capacity, empirical evidence is still missing (Volberda et al., 2010).
Thirdly, interorganizational antecedents like gaining knowledge from external sources and learning are essential in absorptive capacity. The path and organizational context may influence a firm’s absorptive capacity; such as social embeddedness and network position (Volberda et al., 2010).
Fourthly, prior related knowledge was accepted by many as the most important antecedent to absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). This is, however, challenged by more recent contributions to the literature (Van den Bosch et al., 1999). The understanding of the knowledge absorption on lower level of analysis, such as the individual or group level, is still
limited, which means that the process that connects prior related knowledge to the firm’s absorptive capacity remains unclear.
Absorptive Capacity Process
These antecedents all affect the process of absorptive capacity (Volberda et al., 2010). Theory on the process of absorptive capacity varied over the years. It started with Cohen and Levinthal’s well known dimensions of recognition, assimilation, and exploitation (1990). Zahra and George (2002) altered this into four dimensions and splitted up the construct of absorptive capacity into potential and realized absorptive capacity. Potential absorptive capacity contains knowledge acquisition and knowledge assimilation, whereas realized absorptive capacity refers to the transformation and exploitation of knowledge.
Knowledge acquisition refers to the identification and acquisition of knowledge relevant for the organization (Zahra & George, 2002). Step two includes knowledge assimilation, which is the inclusion, conversion, and interpretation of information (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). In the transformation phase, new and existing information is combined (Zahra & George, 2002). In the final and fourth step, transformation, the application of knowledge is commercialized.
To sum up, the literature clearly describes the process of absorptive capacity in detail and how they change over time (Volberda, et al., 2010:942). Despite these alterations by different studies, the absorptive capacity process remains close to Cohen and Levinthal’s original process threestep process of knowledge recognition, assimilation and application.
Outcomes of Absorptive Capacity
Most studies have focused on the tangible outcomes of absorptive capacity, but also seem to result in intangible outcomes (Volberda et al., 2010). Examples of intangible outcomes include knowledge search (Shenkar & Li, 1999), interorganizational learning (Lane et al., 2001), and intraorganizational transfer of knowledge (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000).
When it comes to tangible outcomes, absorptive capacity is seen as an explanation of competitive advantage (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990), firm performance (Lane et al., 2001; Tsai,
2001), innovation (Stock et al., 2001), and exploitation/exploration orientation (Lewin et al., 1999).
Interim Summary: Absorptive Capacity in Communication Consultancy Agencies
In sum, theory shows us that a firm’s absorptive capacity is often seen as the explanation of a competitive advantage (Zahra & George, 2002), as it describes a firm’s ability to recognize, assimilate and apply new and external knowledge (Cohen & Levinthal, 199). This also accounts for communication consultancy agencies as they are no exception for the need of developing absorptive capacities to enhance their competitive advantage. Despite alteration of the theory on the absorptive capacity process over the years, the majority of the theories remain close to Cohen and Levinthal’s (1990) original threestep process. In addition, Volberda et al. (2010) have identified several antecedents of absorptive capacity (managerial, intraorganizational, interorganizational, and prior related knowledge), and their paper suggests that empirical evidence is still missing, making them interesting study topics. This paper can not cover all antecedents, and will therefore focus on only one of them: organizational hierarchy structure of communication consultancy agencies. This is a conscious decision by the researcher because DeCanio et al. (2000) show empirical evidence that organizational hierarchy structure is the most important factor for the adoption of innovations. Finally, absorptive capacity can also be seen as an outcome, both tangible and intangible. The outcome of absorptive capacity studied in this paper is tangible in nature. Cohen and Levinthal (1990) state that absorptive capacity is essential to a firm’s innovative capabilities. For a communication consultancy agency to develop innovative capabilities, it needs to be able to deal with both exploitation and exploration of its knowledge base.
2.4 Innovative Ambidexterity
There is a growing tendency in the academic literature that the best firms are those who can simultaneously balance explorative innovation with exploitative innovation in an ambidextrous way (He & Wong, 2004; Morgan & Berthon, 2008; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Tushman and O’Reilly (1996: 11) claim that almost all successful organizations
evolve through relatively long periods of incremental (exploitative) innovations disrupted by environmental shifts and revolutionary change. These interruptions may be driven by competitors, regulations, technology, or significant changes in political and economic conditions, and can upset the congruence that has been part of the organization’s success. Unless the competitive environment remains stable, which is high unlikely, firms must confront revolutionary change (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996: 12). If an environment is stable and changes only gradually it is possible for an organization to evolve slowly through continuous incremental change. But, many managers have learned that slow evolutionary change in a fastchanging industry is just a path to the graveyard.
Innovation Definition and Ambidexterity Construct
This paper follows Bessant and Tidd’s (2007) definition of innovation, which states that innovation is the process of translating ideas into useful new products, processes, and services. Exploitation of ideas is associated with activities such as selection, refinement, efficiency, and implementation, and exploration of ideas refers to the concepts of experimentation, search, efficiency, and discovery (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008: 375). March (1991) briefly summarizes the distinction in ‘exploration of new possibilities’ and ‘exploitation of old certainties’. Exploitation of existing capabilities is often required to explore new capabilities, and exploration of new capabilities simultaneously enhances a firm’s existing knowledge base. Thus, exploration and exploitation form a dynamic path of absorptive capacity (He & Wong, 2004: 483).
In order to be ambidextrous, firms need to coordinate the inherent tension that exist between acts of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991). Chang and Hughes (2012) explain that these tensions are brought about conflicting task demands and competing firm design requirements. Traditionally, these problems were addressed as an inevitable tradeoff forcing organizations to choose either explorative or exploitative innovation pathway due to scarce resources (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Ahuja et al. (2001) show empirical evidence that exploitationfocused firms may improve shortterm performance, however, they might not be able to adequately respond to environmental changes resulting in a competency trap. In contrast, explorationfocused firms may improve the organization’s ability to renew and improve its
knowledge base, but could easily fall into the trap of deliberately looking for innovation without rewards (Volberda & Lewin, 2003). Jansen et al. (2005) confirm that pursuing both opposing strategies are increasingly important, especially when competition intensifies and technical renewal accelerates. Firms that are not able to develop and maintain this balance have the risk of missing superior performance (Volberda, 1996; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000). Moreover, empirical evidence shows that the interaction between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is positively related to sales growth rate. Also, the relative imbalance between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is negatively related to sales growth rate (He & Wong, 2004). So, how can a firm engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability, and, simultaneously, devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its future viability?
Difference in Innovative Ambidexterity in SME and Large Enterprises
Despite wide consensus that balance between the two innovation types is key, a clear understanding of how innovative ambidexterity can be achieved leaves a disproportionate gap in the literature, especially in smalltomediumsized (SME) firms (Chang & Hughes, 2012). Prior studies have shown that SMEs tend to use different means to pursue innovative ambidexterity in comparison to larger organizations. Larger firms often have superior access to internal and external resources, which allows them to benefit from a combined dimension of innovative ambidexterity. Resourceconstrained firms, such as SMEs, however, could benefit from the use of a balanced dimension of innovative ambidexterity. Cao et al. (2009: 782) state that balanced dimension refers to ‘the match in the relative magnitude of explorative and exploitative activities’ and that combined ambidexterity refers to ‘increase of combined magnitude of both explorative and exploitative activities’. In addition, it is widely mentioned in the literature that SMEs differ from larger firms on multiple levels: the availability of resources such as human capital and financial capital (Forbes & Milliken, 1999), the level of managerial expertise (Forbes & Milliken, 1999) to effectively manage changing internal and external environments (Ebben & Johnson, 2005). In addition, SMEs tend to be less structured, bureaucratic and diversified than larger firms (Forbes & Milliken, 1999), and possess less formal systems like procedures and planning activities (Busenitz & Barney, 1997). Andriopoulos & Lewis (2009) therefore conclude
that SMEs face greater challenges in dealing with contradictions, tensions, and tradeoffs associated with explorative and exploitative innovation compared to larger firms.
Organizational Hierarchy Structure and Innovative Ambidexterity
Organizations with strong hierarchies are often associated with organizational characteristics that are harmful to innovation, such as slow (bureaucratic) decision making. Every type of innovation, regardless of it is explorative or exploitative by nature, requires access to capital (Teece, 1996: 200). Financial decision making in strong hierarchical organizations usually requires approval from top management or some financial committees, which slows down the innovation process. Also, when more people are involved in the innovation decision making process, the more likely it is that internal politics will influence the decision making process and compromises will be made, instead of acting in the organization’s best interests.
Interim Summary: Innovative Ambidexterity in Communication Consultancy Agencies
In sum, theory shows us that the best firms simultaneously balance between explorative and exploitative innovation, whereas balance refers to the match in the relative magnitude of both contradicting activities (Cao et al, 2009). March (1991) explains the different activities as the ‘exploration of new possibilities’ and the ‘exploitation of old certainties’. Empirical evidence that suggests that a balance between the two activities is provided through a significant correlation effect between a balanced innovative ambidexterity and sales growth (He & Wong, 2004). However, achieving such balance appears to be difficult due to the scarcity of resources (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008), especially for SMEs (Chang & Hughes, 2012). To conclude, innovative ambidexterity forms the dynamic path of absorptive capacity (He & Wong, 2004).
Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework
This chapter advances the understanding relationship between tacit knowledge transfer on innovative ambidexterity, whereas innovative ambidexterity is seen as a proxy for firm performance and, thus, organizational success (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). As discussed in the previous chapter, absorptive capacity plays a central role in both concepts knowledge transfer and innovation exploration/exploitation (Goh, 1998; Smedlund, 2008; Volberda et al., 2010). This paper ought to create a better understanding of the relationships between these three constructs, including the role of organizational hierarchical structure. In the following sections, the expected relations between the three constructs are discussed and hypotheses are formulated. This chapter ends with a physical representation of the research model.
3.1 Level of analysis
In order to achieve a better understanding of the relation between the three constructs, it is important that all of the constructs are studied at the same level. Crossan and Apaydin (2010) explain with their multidimensional framework of organizational innovation that there are three determinants of innovation: (1) the individual and group level, (2) the organizational level, and (3) the process level. Since this paper follows the resourcebased and the knowledgebased view, in combination with the dynamic capabilities perspective, the level of analysis of this paper will focus solely on the organizational level. To study the organizational level of absorptive capacity, intraorganizational tacit knowledge transfer and the organization's innovative ambidextrous capabilities, managers of Dutch communication consultancy agencies were asked to score their organization in terms of these constructs. Therefore, the unit of analysis are the agency’s managers, the level of analysis is the organizational level, and the unit of observations are the aforementioned constructs.
3.2 Tacit Knowledge Transfer and Innovative Ambidexterity
The resourcebased view (Wernerfelt, 1984; Hamel, 1991; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Barney, 1991) and the dynamic capabilities perspective (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000) highlight the importance of both resources and dynamic capabilities of firms in order to develop
a competitive advantage. Barney (1991) states that a sustained competitive advantage is best achieved when a firm’s resources and capabilities are rare, valuable, nonsubstitutable, and imperfectly mobile. In line with this reasoning is the knowledgebased view, which indicates that a firm’s knowledge lies at the core of the creation and maintenance of a competitive advantage (Volberda et al., 2010), because knowledgebased resources are usually difficult to imitate and complex (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Looking at the two dimensions of knowledge, knowledge can be expressed explicitly or implicitly (tacit), and can reside at the individual or at the collective level (Polanyi, 1966; Nonaka, 1994; Lam, 2000). When putting both tacit and explicit knowledge to the test of Barney’s four attributes of a potential sustained competitive advantage, we can assume that tacit knowledge plays a more dominant role in developing a sustained competitive advantage than explicit knowledge. This is because explicit knowledge, in contrast with tacit knowledge, can be codified and easily imitated or spread throughout the organization by sharing the codified knowledge in the form of documents. Tacit knowledge, in contrary, is experiencebased and cannot be codified or spread through documentation. In other words, despite that explicit and tacit knowledge can both be rare and valuable, tacit knowledge is more difficult to imitate and to transfer than explicit knowledge and is therefore considered more powerful in creating a sustained competitive advantage. This line of reasoning is confirmed by Holste and Fields (2010), because they state that the creation (innovation) of new knowledge requires the use and generation of tacit knowledge, and by Grant (1996) stating the importance of tacit knowledge for sustaining a firm's competitiveness.
In order for an organization to gain from an employee’s individual knowledge, it needs to be transferred to other coworkers. Without the transfer of knowledge to others, it stays within the individual and, thus, cannot be seen as ‘collective mind’ (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Glynn (1996) adds that collective knowledge can be seen as the sum of the individual’s knowledge, depending on the mechanisms that translate individual into collective knowledge. Therefore, in order for knowledge to become a collective organizational good, it not only needs to be shared among coworkers, it also has to be used (Smedlund, 2008). Collins (1993) refers to the combination of collectivetacit knowledge as ‘embedded knowledge’.
In addition, Leonard and Sensiper (1989: 112) clearly describe the importance of tacit knowledge in group innovation. They claim that tacit knowledge is even essential to the innovation process, because the process of innovation is about translating ideas into useful new products, processes, and services (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). Moreover, the process of new idea creation and development require tacit knowledge capabilities, such as problem solving, problem finding, and prediction and anticipation (Leonard & Sensiper, 1989: 114). These capabilities cannot be learned through explicit knowledge, but solely through (tacit) experiences.
The literature suggest that the best firms are those who can simultaneously balance explorative innovation and exploitative innovation in an ambidextrous way (i.e. He & Wong, 2004; Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). In order to be ambidextrous, firms are capable of coordinating the tension between innovation exploration and innovation exploitation options (March, 1991). Empirical studies show that balance between the two types of innovation are positively related to sales growth rate, and thus, firm performance (He & Wong, 2004).
To conclude, tacit knowledge is a requirement for the innovation process, and since innovation ambidexterity is seen as one of the antecedents of firm performance (He & Wong, 2004), this research suggests to test the relationship, which has never been studied before, between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity through the most important hypothesis of this research:
Hypothesis 1: Tacit knowledge transfer is positively related to innovative ambidexterity.
3.3 Tacit Knowledge Transfer, Innovative Ambidexterity and Absorptive Capacity
In addition to the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity, this research suggests a mediating role for absorptive capacity. The literature describes that absorptive capacity most likely has positive outcomes because it is often seen as an explanation of competitive advantage, innovation, exploitation/exploration orientation, and firm performance (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Stock et al., 2001; Lewin et al., 1999; Lane et al., 2001; Tsai, 2001), but firms can also have too much absorptive capacity (Volberda et al., 2010). Several studies suggest that those firms that focus too much on knowledge acquisition and assimilation
(potential absorptive capacity) are able to continuously renew their knowledge base, but may suffer from the costs of acquisition without gaining benefits of exploitation (Zahra & George, 2002; Lichtenthaler, 2009). In contrary, firms that focus on transformation and exploitation (realized absorptive capacity) may achieve shortterm benefits but are more likely to fall into a competence trap (Ahuja & Lampert, 2001; Jansen et al., 2005; Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). An ideal level of absorptive capacity allows firms to deal with the tensions in ambidexterity that arise from pursuing exploration and exploitation simultaneously (Rothaermel & Alexandre, 2009).
This ambidextrous challenge, however, is not present in Cohen and Levinthal’s (1991) initial concept of absorptive capacity where the firm’s ability to deal with new information plays a central role. They define absorptive capacity as a firm’s ability (1) to recognize the value of new information, (2) to assimilate that information, and (3) to apply it to commercial ends. This means that firms need to develop capabilities to successfully deal with all three aspects, otherwise the absorptive capacity is not ideal.
To sum up, in order for an organization to use tacit knowledge to its full potential, it needs to be absorbed by the organization. The ability to actually absorb the tacit knowledge depends on the firm's ability to recognize, assimilate and apply this new knowledge. In order to attain a better understanding of the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer, absorptive capacity, and innovative ambidexterity, the following hypothesis will be tested:
Hypothesis 2: Absorptive capacity significantly influences the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity.
3.4 Organizational Hierarchy Structure
According to Teece (1996), organizations with strong hierarchical structures are expected to be face more challenges when it comes to innovation, and thus the ability to innovate ambidextrous, because of slow decisionmaking and weak incentives. In order to find out if this is also present in the communication consultancy industry, the following hypothesis will be tested:
Hypothesis 3: Organizational hierarchy structure has a moderated effect on the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity
.
An agency’s current knowledge base cannot be separated from its current organizational structure (Kogut & Zander, 1992), which means that the existing organizational form influences how a firm process knowledge. From this perspective, the organizational form are expected to influence the absorptive capacity of an organization. In order to find out if this can be confirmed in the communication consultancy industry, the following hypothesis will be tested:
Hypothesis 4: Organizational Hierarchy Structure has a moderated effect on the relationship between Tacit Knowledge Transfer and Absorptive Capacity
.
3.5 Research Model
To summarize, this research ought to find empirical evidence for the relation between tacit knowledge transfer, innovative ambidexterity and absorptive capacity. This research expect absorptive capacity to have a mediating role in the relationship between tacit knowledge transfer and innovative ambidexterity. Also, organizational hierarchical structure is expected to have a moderating role.
Figure 1: Research model
Chapter 4 Methodology
In this chapter, the empirical setup of this research is described. The first section outlines the design of this research. Thereafter, a brief description of the data collection and the sample is provided. The third section provides an overview of the measurements, items and scales used to test the variables. The online questionnaire administered for this research can be found in the appendix.
4.1 Research design
This research follows the positivistic research philosophy, and is both exploratory and explanatory in nature. Explanatory research because the goal of this study is to find empirical evidence for the relationships between tacit knowledge transfer, innovative ambidexterity, and absorptive capacity within the industry of Dutch communication consultancy agencies. The fact that these constructs have not been studied in this particular combination and industry is exploratory in nature (Creswell & Clark, 2007).
In order to achieve the goal of finding empirical evidence between the three constructs, a quantitative research approach is chosen (Cresswell, 2013: 4). The hypotheses discussed in the previous chapter will be testing the existing theory deductively, using a correlation strategy design to describe and measure the relationship between the three variables (Cresswell, 2013: 12). This is done in the form of a survey, because surveys are often used with the intent to generalize from a sample to a population (Fowler, 2013). Due to time constraints, the researcher was compelled to gather data in one point of time (crosssectional time horizon), rather than through a multiple measurements over time (longitudinal time horizon). The latter would have been preferred, because it would add an extra dimension to this research by demonstrating the development of communication consultancy agencies over time.
4.2 Data collection and sample
To test the aforementioned hypotheses, quantitative data is collected through a single collection technique: an online questionnaire. This technique has its limitations due to possible
