The relationship between Humanness and
Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia
The relationship between Humanness and Knowledge
Sharing in Malaysia
Empirical evidence from Malaysian managers
Master Thesis Ilona Boom
1926705
ilona_boom@hotmail.com
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Msc. International Business and Management
Mr. Dr. B.J.W. Pennink Mr. Dr. A.A.J. van Hoorn
ABSTRACT
This paper explores whether there is a relationship between Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge in Malaysia. Furthermore, the differences between the Malay, Chinese and Indians in presence of Humanness and willingness to Share Knowledge is researched. 214 respondents from private owned companies participated in this research showing that there is a strong relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing. However, the differences between the three ethnicities are small which is a surprising finding. It can be concluded that people oriented managers are more willing to Share Knowledge and differences between ethnicities have no influence in this matter. From these results it can be recommended to managers and organizations in Malaysia to include cultural norms and values to improve the Knowledge transfer within companies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to thank all the respondents who were willing to participate in my research by filling in my questionnaire. Some of the respondents even forwarded the questionnaire to colleagues, for that I am very grateful. Furthermore, I would like to thank Mr. Jan Soer, Deputy Head of Mission of the Dutch Embassy, who recommended me many names of different managers. Without your help it would have been impossible to get into contact to all these people.
Subsequently, I want to thank Mr. Ong Tan who was so kind to take me to the BNI Lighthouse Chapter and was even willing to pick me up from my apartment when taxi drivers did not want to bring me to TTDI. Due to your kindness, I managed to get into contact with many local business owners who wanted to participate in my research.
Additionally, I want to thank my supervisors Mr. B.W.J. Pennink and Mr. A.A.J. van Hoorn for their help in statistics, their guidance and their willingness to provide feedback so I could finish my Master thesis in five months.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 7
COUNTRY BACKGROUND 9
LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Humanness becoming international 13
The dimensions of Humanness 14
Knowledge Sharing 17
The willingness to Share Knowledge in Malaysia 19
Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing 20
The Malay, Chinese and Indians together in one country 23
Evidence from Tanzania 26
PROBLEM STATEMENTS 28
Investigating the existence of Humanness 28
Willingness to Share Knowledge 29
Individual influence on Knowledge Sharing 30
Humanness and Knowledge Sharing within the different ethnicities 31
METHODOLOGY 34
Scales and measures 35
Variability and reliability 36
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 37
Presence of Humanness in Malaysia 37
The relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing 38
Influence of individual Humanness on individual Knowledge Sharing 40
Presence of Humanness between different ethnicities 43
Comparison presence in Knowledge Sharing between ethnicities 45
DISCUSSION 47
CONCLUSION 49
Recommendations for companies and managers 50
Limitations and suggestions for further research 51
REFERENCES 52
LIST OF TABLES
Page 1: Cronbach’s alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions in Malaysia 36
2: Cronbach’s alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions in Tanzania 36
3: Correlations Humanness and Knowledge Sharing Dimensions 38
4: Model summary Humanness and Knowledge Sharing 39
5: Coefficients Humanness and Knowledge Sharing 39
6: Summary of all the results 46
LIST OF FIGURES
1: Market-driven processes for learning about markets 18
2: Scores on Humanness between Malaysia and Tanzania 29
3: Comparison between Malaysia and Tanzania in Knowledge Sharing 30
4: Influence independent dimensions 31
5: Presence of Humanness between ethnicities 33
6: Presence of Knowledge Sharing between ethnicities 33
7: Humanness dimensions Malaysia compared to Tanzania 37
8: Comparison Malaysia and Tanzania relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing 39 9: Influence independent Humanness dimensions on Corporate Culture and Leadership 41
10: Influence independent Humanness dimensions on Employee Motivation 41
11: Influence independent Humanness dimensions on Information Technology 42
12: The distribution of ethnicities in Malaysia 43
13: Comparison Humanness dimensions between ethnicities using ANOVA-test 44
INTRODUCTION
Humanness is about people and embraces culture as a key aspect for managing people. This, from origin African, business philosophy is about communalism, traditionalism, co-operative teamwork and mythology (Sigger et al. 2010). Humanness is a management style which is developed in 2000 by professor Mbigi, who states that the aforementioned cultural aspects can be found in the human values which are expressed by people in their daily lives. Important values are the spirit of caring, dignity, respect, importance of the community and tolerance for each other (Mbigi, 2000). Although scholars have implemented Humanness in research, the application of this new phenomenon is only conducted in African countries. Therefore, this research wants to apply Humanness in another continent to investigate whether this management style can be applied universal.
Within Asia, Malaysia is a country which is developing fast and uses resources as Palm Oil to increase their economic growth. From the colonial heritage, Malaysia is a colorful cultural country with ethnicities varying from Malay, Chinese, Indians and Western expats. By the Malaysian constitution, a Malay is a Muslim which means that they strongly believe in the concept of Allah the Almighty. Therefore, Malays highly respect their leaders and expect them to act as role models who value the spiritual and religious norms of the Islam (Rashid and Ho, 2003). In their daily communication, self respect of face, politeness, sensitivity to feelings and relationships are highly valued (Asma, 1992). The next largest group in Malaysia are the Chinese, who are seen as the business people in Malaysia and are motivated by financial rewards (Sendut, 1991). The Malaysian Chinese value hard work, wealth and prosperity, education, relationship, risk taking and face. Although these norms are more individualistic, family and community are of high importance in the Chinese culture and members of a family are expected to share their wealth and social standing with the entire group (Rashid and Ho, 2003). Furthermore, the Indians are concerned about the family ties and hierarchical structured authority of elder members (Chatterjee, 1987). Indians are characterized by their loyalty, hard work and organizational skills. They value face, are afraid of God and ‘karma’ is an important part of their lives. Within the Indian community there is a heavy reliance on informal information and interpersonal trust, especially information from elderly is highly respected. The selected values by Mclaren and Rashid (2002) shown in Appendix F, provide a clear overview of the differences in norms and values of the three ethnicities. Although, respect for elderly, the importance of family ties and community and the willingness to prevent losing face are in common, which is perhaps the key for the harmony in which the ethnicities live next to each other.
mentioned before, prior Humanness studies have been implemented in Africa. However, the evidence of Africa is useful for the implementation of the results from Malaysia. Therefore the study of Scholtens (2011) is used to compare the results from Malaysia to the results of Tanzania.
Besides the presence of Humanness, this study will investigate whether Humanness is related to the willingness of Sharing Knowledge between Malaysian managers and their employees. The study of Scholtens (2011) proved a strong and significant relationship between Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge. The findings of the study by Scholtens (2011) will be used to compare the results of Malaysia, to give a good indication whether the relationship in Malaysia is weak or strong.
Furthermore, the differences in ethnicities in Malaysia are rooted within the Malaysian culture, however many scholars stress that these differences are the reason for conflicts or misunderstandings within organizations. With this study it is possible to see which ethnicity is more in line with Humanness and is more willing to Share Knowledge. As is mentioned before, there are differences between the ethnicities and therefore it is interesting to look at these differences more closely.
COUNTRY BACKGROUND
After the domination of Malaysia by the Portuguese and the Dutch, there was a British intervention in the late 19th century. At that time, the community was mainly consisted of Malay inhabitants. During the colonization of the country and the economic development of numerous resources, the British brought in the Chinese and Indians to work and exploit more resources (Gale, 1981). The predominance of the United Kingdom ended in 1957 and Malaysia achieved its independence. Although all the inhabitants were free to go to their ‘home country’ many Chinese and Indians stayed, maintaining their own ethnic identities, practices of their culture, language and beliefs. Due to these historical reasons, the population of 28.5 million1 is divided into 60% Malays, 30% Chinese, 9% Indians and 1% others. In this paper the terms Malay and Malaysian will be used often and must be distinguished from each other. Mentioning Malay only refers to the ethnic group of Malays. When Malaysian is used, all ethnicities are meant and no distinction is made between the ethnicities. Due to the different ethnicities present in Malaysia, many religions are practiced such as Islam (60.4%, Buddhism (19.2%), Christianity (9.1%), Hinduism (6.3%) and others/none (5.0%) (www.state.gov, 2011) explaining the numerous religious holidays in the country. Although there are many different cultures present in Malaysia, the main language is Bahasa Malaysia. However in general, companies have international business or employees and therefore English is the leading language in business environments.
Nowadays, Malaysia practices a Parliamentary democracy with constitutional monarchy and has been politically stable since independence. At this moment the Prime Minister is Najib Bin Abdul Razak who is supported by the UMNO party, a party that has been ruling the country for over several decades. A new policy of the Prime Minister is the slogan ‘1 Malaysia’ indicating that all different ethnicities live in harmony next to each other and help with the development of Malaysia. Unfortunately, the opposite is visible. Rashid and Ho (2003) show that the ethnicities live separately from each other having their own norms and values, religion and language. These differences can lead to tensions and misunderstandings due to the lack of knowledge of other cultures (McLaren and Rashid, 2002). Furthermore, the Constitution of Malaysia safeguards the position of the Malays and natives and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of article 153. Within this Article, which is also called the ‘Bumiputra law’2, it is stated that every race has certain privileges when it comes to positions in the public service, scholarships, training etc (www.malaysia.gov.my).
1
Economic Planning Unit, 2011 2
The term ‘bumiputra’ is a local rendering incorporating ‘Bumi’ meaning ‘earth’ or ‘soil’ while ‘putra’ can be translated as ‘prince’, or more commonly used as a polite reference term for ‘son’ (Siddique and Suryadunata, 1982).
‘We life and work beside each other, but there is no contact when this is not needed. The separation starts at school already. My children only play with other Chinese children although every race is represented there’. Chinese manager about her Children.
Since the independence of Malaysia, the Government has tried to develop the country and attracted many international firms. According to Islam et al. (2011) Malaysia is a Newly Industrialized Economy. Which can be defined as a relatively advanced developing country whose scale and scope of industrial production is growing rapidly and has a highly competitive export sector (Siebert, 2007). Additionally, the UN has given Malaysia a score of 0.823 on the Human Development Index and classified the country as a highly developed country. Within Asia, only countries such as Singapore, South Korea and Japan score higher than Malaysia3. The Gross National Product has a growth rate of
5-6% and the average income of Malaysians is RM 23,653 (€5.697,324) in 2010. Although the economy is booming at the moment, the Malaysian Government developed a new policy called the ‘Knowledge content in Key Economic Sectors in Malaysia’5. The report is developed to change the country from a production-based economy into a knowledge-based economy. These plans and goals have been the concern of the Government for several years, however the results are still not satisfying and more development is needed (Syed-Ikhasan and Rowland, 2004). The results of the study by Syed-Ikhasan and Rowland (2004) imply more use of Internet and databases to evolve knowledge sharing between employees within a company. According to the statistics of the Government6, 70% of the inhabitants have access to Internet and almost all companies work with the world wide web and databases.
Although Malaysia seems to develop into a Western country, the norms and values of the different ethnicities are still strong. According to the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2001) Malaysia is a collectivistic country, meaning that the community or group is important and individuals will gladly put the interest of the community before their own. Therefore, it is assumed that the style to manage an organization will be different than management styles from Western countries.
The following sections explain more about the Malaysian culture, the Humanness philosophy and Knowledge sharing. After describing the results of Scholtens (2011) about Tanzanian managers, the methodology and results of Malaysia are given. Many hypotheses are formulated which will be
3
Malaysia: Country Analysis Report, 2009
4
www.wisselkoers.nl
5
Economic Planning Unit, 2005
6
LITERATURE REVIEW
Before Knowledge Sharing or Humanness can be investigated in Malaysia a basic understanding of the Malaysian management style and Humanness business philosophy is necessary. First of all, Malaysian management styles are explained. Furthermore, the context of Humanness in the international context is described to understand this new management style better. Subsequently, the reasons for companies to exploit more in Knowledge Sharing are given, providing more insights in the definitions of Knowledge Sharing. Additional, the different ethnicities within Malaysia are discussed for their differences and similarities in culture and the assumption for the presence of Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge. Finally, this study uses another research to compare the findings. In the study of Scholtens (2011), he found a strong relationship between Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge and his most important findings are explained.
In the past, Malaysian leadership styles were characterized as authoritarian, regulative and powerful. The managers had virtually all power, everything was done by law and reinforcement of ownership was important (Hofstede, 2001). Especially elderly and superiors lived up to these characteristics. Decisions were made by them and juniors had nothing to say, even when they did not agree with decisions. This meant that anger and hostility against superiors were suppressed leading to an adaptive environment (Ansari et al., 2004). Due to under educated employees, this type of authoritative leadership was needed to make sure employees were able to achieve organizational goals and objectives (Rani et al., 2008). However, nowadays most employees are well educated and exposed to modernization due to the digital age. Employees are not satisfied with obeying orders and need more information and responsibilities. According to Awad and Ghaziri, (2004) managers should recognize the changes in global markets and the competitiveness between markets, which illustrates that a traditional way of leadership is no longer effective.
Malaysian employees. They value group goals, group concerns and want to serve the collective needs (Jayasingam and Cheng, 2008). Furthermore, the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2001) characterizes Malaysia with a high power distance culture, which explains the autocratic leadership style of the managers.
In line with the findings of Hofstede, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) theories compare cultures and attributes of effective leadership in 61 countries including Malaysia (House et al., 2002;2010). According to this study, Malaysian managers score high on the cultural dimension future orientation explaining the degree to which future-oriented behavior such as planning, investing in the future and delaying gratification is followed by individuals in organizations or societies. This means that Malaysians are more focused on the long-term success and view material success and spiritual fulfillment as an integrated whole or which is interrelated. Furthermore, Malaysia scored high on the GLOBE cultural dimension Human Orientation, emphasizing the tendency to see others as more important such as family, friends or the community. Humans Oriented societies are more motivated by the need for belonging and affiliation. Values as love, kindness, altruism and generosity are important. Additionally, children should be obedient and should be closely controlled by their parents, suggesting that the authorial structures in organizations are based in the family ties in Malaysia.
Humanness becoming international
The use of Humanness as a management style can be seen as the way people interact with each other and share their experiences. During the social interactions between employees, tacit knowledge becomes shared and creates an atmosphere where open conversations can be held (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This reflects the importance that all participants within an organization have a voice during decisions. Diversity of vision is even encouraged and protected because within this Humanness management style, unity in the final decision is more important than the utility of finding a decision (Mangaliso, 2001). Or as Sithole (2001) states, ‘Humanness brings people together regardless of their background or their access to wealth and can be seen as a unifying factor’. This means that Africans are working for the benefit of the whole which is based on a long-term vision, rather than constantly changing individuals (Nnadozie, 1998).
To make it possible to investigate the Humanness dimensions among cultures, studies of Broodryk (2005) and Sigger et al. (2010) identified several values that are associated with the Humanness philosophy. For example, Broodryk (2005) identified sixteen different values which can be found within Humanness including five ‘core values’; humanness, caring, sharing, respect and compassion and each of these values have several ‘associated values’. Additionally Sigger et al. (2010) and Pooven et al. (2006) constructed a measurement instrument of several dimensions which identify the Humanness concept. Although Humanness is constructed and found in Africa, it is possible to find Humanness in other continents as well. However, this is not yet done and therefore this study will investigate whether Humanness is present in Malaysia because the norms and values of this country are similar to the dimensions representing Humanness. In the next sections, more information is given explaining the meaning of the Humanness dimensions.
The dimensions of Humanness
To better understand the cornerstones of Humanness, all dimensions are briefly discussed. These dimensions are Solidarity, Survival, Compassion and Respect & Dignity. Furthermore, the resemblances between these dimensions and the norms and values of Malaysians are discussed to highlight the differences and similarities between cultures.
Solidarity
The persons within a community are inextricably bound to each other and appertain in a bundle of life. Within organizations, Solidarity supports cooperation and competitiveness by allowing individuals to contribute their best and be successful with the entire team. Together within a team, employees can accomplish more than individuals working alone (Mangaliso, 2001).
Within the culture of Malaysia the collective is most important. According to Hofstede7 a collectivistic culture is a group that is strongly connected to each other by cohesive in-groups. The groups are most of the time extended family ties, which are loyal and protective towards each other. Moreover, these strong ties are also viewed in corporate terms. Malaysian employees do not want to benefit themselves but the entire company (Zawawi, 2008). Hereby the interests of individuals are overlooked to serve the interests of the collective or company. However, the same study (Zawawi, 2008) reveals that respondents admitted to prefer personal benefits sometimes more. This suggests that the culture within Malaysian companies is changing and that individualistic views become more important, which is in contrast to the Solidarity viewpoint of Humanness.
Survival
This dimension has some overlap with the aforementioned concept of Solidarity and therefore the two are closely related. To survive poverty, wars and political instability, Africans are dependent on each other. Therefore they need to share their resources and strengths to protect the community.
Identically to Solidarity, the dimension Survival is about sacrifices individuals need to take for the sake of the community or team. According to Magaliso (2001) this kind of survival result in some sort of kinship in organizations. Family members help each other to find jobs, but it is shown as well between people who graduated from the same university. As Turaki (2006) mentioned before in this paper, the individuals are living interdependent from one another and are therefore obligated to take care of each other.
Due to the fact that Malaysia is a newly industrializing economy (Islam et al. 2011) the country does not know poverty or war anymore. The strong feeling to survive is more based on economic success and materialism. The Chinese work hard and achieve much in their careers, while Malay are less educated and developed (Zabid and Ho, 2003). To become successful, Indians and Malays try to copy the work ethics of the Chinese, to survive the struggles of a fast moving country. Although Malaysia is still a developing country, the sense to survive is different from what is meant in the Humanness philosophy. Therefore, it is assumed that the dimension Survival will be less present in Malaysia compared to African countries.
7
Compassion
Within the dimension Compassion, the aforementioned concepts are visible. As Compassion is about understanding the problems of others and feel the urge to help them. Magaliso (2001) states that one should treat others as members of their own family which is done by compassion, kindness and humility. To reach out to help others and feel compassionate towards their problems is the foundation on which relationships and friendships are based (Pooven et al., 2006).
Within organization and team formations, a shared vision is important to increase the ability of teams to perform successful. According to Senge (1990) a vision is extracted from the team members’ personal views and are derived from the deep caring of individuals for this vision. The caring for a vision can be assimilated to the social value compassion, and indicates a relationship between compassion and the development of a shared vision.
Within Malaysia the values politeness, sensitivity to feelings and family ties are important. These values are mainly based on the various cultures which are practiced in the country (Zawawi, 2008). Therefore, Malaysians feel compassionate towards their community and feel the urge to help each other and serve them well. Within Malaysian organizations a shared vision helps employees to achieve common goals and objectives, and therefore it is assumed that Malaysians are highly compassioned. However, to find a shared vision is sometimes difficult due to the differences in ethnicities. This can be found in the different cultures, however some differences are regulated by law. For instance, Article 153 (Constitution of Malaysia) states that some ethnicities, the indigenous ones (Malay), enjoy privileges when it comes to education and development training, which leads to crooked faces from the other ethnicities who have to work harder to achieve the same.
Respect & Dignity
According to Pooven et al. (2006) Respect can be defined as the unbiased consideration and regard for rights, values, beliefs and property. The quality of being worth respect is defined as Dignity. Although it is possible to use these values of Respect & Dignity separately, the authors of previous studies (Sigger et al. 2010; Scholtens 2011; Broodryk, 2006; Pooven et al. 2006) used them as one dimension, because they are closely related to each other. Within the African culture, Respect & Dignity are seen as the most central values of the continent as it stipulates the social position of the Africans in their society (Pooven et al., 2006). This is shown by the deep respect for the elderly, authority and others who fulfill their obligations for the sake of the community (Mbigi, 1997).
decision. People who show mutual trust create a harmonious atmosphere, which increases an effective working climate. Without trust, the chance of being successful and effective decreases, because the individual activities are undermined (Robbins and Finely, 2000).
As is mentioned before, Malaysia is multicultural which makes Respect & Dignity two important values. Children are educated to always respect other races and religions in the country (Zawawi, 2008). Within many schools, different races are represented and educates children how to deal with others.
The local subway in Kuala Lumpur provides the perfect example for the mutual respect races have for each other. A Muslima wearing a colorful scarve and cloths that cover her entire body sits beside a Chinese women who is dressed according to the latest Western fashion statements.
Furthermore, elderly are highly respected by the whole family and seen as the leaders. This is also visible within organizations where managers and leaders have authority and employees need to act according to their wishes (Jayasingam and Cheng, 2009). Therefore it is assumed that Malaysian managers have high respect for their employees.
Knowledge Sharing
Nowadays the quality of knowledge and knowledge processes which are seen as key business activities, make organizations successful in competitive marketplaces (Housel and Bell, 2001). However, to accomplish this it is vital to define the concept of knowledge into more specific factors and practices. Knowledge regards the utilization of information and data which is combined with people’s skills, competencies, their ideas, intuitions, commitments and motivations and the ability and perception to use information in a way that meets the objective of individuals or the organization (Tan, 2000).
Before organizations actually learn from markets and benefit from the competitive advantage of new knowledge, companies need to manage the market learning process. Although many large established entities try to implement such a process within their strategy, it seems to be a challenging change (Adams et al., 1998). Day (1999) developed a stage model (figure 1) showing the different stages organizations need to follow if they want to learn from the market.
Figure 1: Market-driven processes for learning about markets (Day, 1999).
During this process, organizations acquire market information through research and obtain data which needs to be translated into applicable knowledge for the entity. For this study, the shared knowledge base process is important. To accomplish this process, several elements need to be available in an organization. For example, employees must feel the freedom to experiment and make mistakes, instead of being afraid to be responsible for possible failures. Especially managers play a major role in this fail to failure syndrome. Furthermore, there are many companies that do not know what is known within the organization. The lack of good sorting and locating systems make it difficult to store or find specific information such as local knowledge. Information gathered within a region will not benefit the local company or is kept to the region only and is not shared with the rest of the organization. To complete the shared knowledge base, organizations need to develop internal mental models that ensure order within the multidimensional, ambiguous information to make clear what is important for the company.
Knowledge is crucial for organizations to gain competitive advantages in the market. Therefore, Knowledge Sharing between employees and managers is highly important. According to Darroch and McNaughton (2002), Knowledge Sharing can be viewed as ‘a form of organization innovation that has the potential to generate new ideas and develop new business opportunities through socialization and learning processes of knowledge workers’. Furthermore, Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) define Knowledge Sharing as ‘a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of employee knowledge, experiences and skills through the whole department or organization’. The definition of Knowledge Sharing from Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) implies that Knowledge Sharing is influenced by culture which could indicate differences in the exchange of Knowledge between cultures. In this study this definition of Knowledge Sharing is used to investigate whether Humanness has influence on the willingness of Malaysian managers to Share Knowledge.
The willingness to Share Knowledge in Malaysia
In order to compete with the changes in global development, Malaysia is forced to make a transition from a production-based economy towards a knowledge-based one (Cheng et al. 2009). Already in 2002, the Malaysian Government developed the ‘Knowledge-based Economy Master Plan’ (ISIS, 2002) and after a few years refined this in the ‘Knowledge Content in Key Economic Sectors in Malaysia’ report (Economic Planning Unit 2005). With the establishment of these goals, the Malaysian Government wants the country to become a dominant player in the world economy.
To make Malaysians participative actors in the development, guidance of managers is important. The respondents in the study of Syed-Ikhansan et al. (2004) referred to managers as being the key to create an environment where employees are ensured of Knowledge Sharing without cultural barriers. For a better understanding of Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia, the individual dimensions will be discussed further.
Dimensions of Knowledge Sharing
Various academics have tried to formulate and identify the different factors influencing the motivation for employees to Share Knowledge. In this paper the set of determinants found by the study of Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) is used, because they managed to identify four dimensions which capture the most influential factors of Knowledge Sharing. These are Corporate Culture, Employee Motivation, Leadership and Management and Information Technology.
However, another study that uses the dimensions of Lin, Lee and Wang (2009), by Scholtens (2011) found that the dimensions Corporate Culture and Leadership & Management are too similar and need to be clustered together. Therefore this dimensions is from now on called Corporate Culture & Leadership. In this section, the dimensions of Knowledge Sharing are briefly explained to have an understanding of them.
Corporate Culture & Leadership
According to Lin, Lee and Wang (2009) there are several dimensions influencing Knowledge Sharing within organizations and one of them is Corporate Culture & Leadership. In fact, according to their study the dimension Corporate Culture & Leadership is the highest ranked dimension influencing Knowledge Sharing. This result indicates that entities need a social-oriented organizational climate to encourage Knowledge Sharing among employees. To clarify Corporate Culture & Leadership more clearly it has been made up by several attributes which are explained next.
Furthermore, a sharing culture is important. According to Syed-Ikahsan et al. (2004), ‘A Knowledge Sharing culture is one of the most important elements that organizations need to understand before they implement new strategies’. To organize such a sharing culture supported by top management is important to create involvement of employees, which are supported by reward systems (Lin and Lee, 2006; Bock et al. 2002; Bock and Kim, 2005; Connelly and Kelloway, 2003; Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Furthermore, Macneil (2003) suggested that senior managers contribute to the development of core competences and skills, when they establish a Knowledge Sharing environment that encourage employees to apply their explicit and tacit knowledge to problem-solving situations. Due to the strong position of senior managers, which is a result of their autonomy, prestige and power, they are able to promote Knowledge Sharing mechanisms. (Lin et al, 2009).
Within Corporate Culture & Leadership many aspects of Humanness are visible. For instance the importance of trust is crucial for managers to Share their Knowledge with others. Trust is one of the main aspects of the Humanness dimensions because without trust there is no Solidarity, Survival, Compassion or Respect & Dignity. Furthermore, to Share Knowledge a sharing culture or vision between managers is important which can be accomplished with Compassion and Solidarity. With this is mind, it is assumed that the Humanness dimensions are present within the Knowledge Sharing dimension Corporate Culture & Leadership.
Employee Motivation
The following dimension, Employee Motivation, is considered to be another important aspect in the willingness to Share Knowledge. These values are subjective and differ among individuals, however according to several researchers the personal benefits are quite similar.
Firstly, personal benefits are an important motivation for employees. To Share Knowledge with others, individuals need certainty that others will be worth the effort and that their expectations of receiving something of value in return are correct (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). These ‘private rewards’ accrue more likely to individuals who participate actively in the sharing process and are willing to help others (von Hippen and von Krogh, 2003). Therefore it can be expected that personal benefits are a motivation for individuals to contribute to Knowledge Sharing in absence of personal acquaintance, similarity or the likelihood of direct reciprocity (Constant et al. 2005).
perception to enhance his or her personal reputation in an established network. This is supported by the fact that one’s reputation is an important asset which individuals use to achieve and maintain status within their network (Jones et al. 1997). Finally, scholars have found that self-evaluation is an important motivation for employees. Bandura (1986) states that self-evaluation, which is based on competences and social acceptance, is important because it drives engagement in activities for the sake of the activities itself and not for external rewards. Therefore the aforementioned performance-based reward systems will not work on everybody, due to the fact that some are already satisfied by helping others and do not need external incentives (Kollock 1999).
Lastly, the Malaysian culture is collectivistic and will therefore be more interested in the status and rewards of the company than individual status or rewards. The status of the team and the accomplishment of doing it together is more important and therefore it is expected that due to this sharing view and the ability to motivate teams as a whole, managers in Malaysia use the Humanness dimensions when they are motivating their employees.
Information Technology
The final dimension refers to modern technology, which becomes more important with the development of Internet and Information Technology (IT). Moreover, earlier knowledge management research has indicated that IT can be seen as an important facilitator of Knowledge Sharing, which happens through the use of Internet, intranet, software agents, knowledge bases, and communities of practices (Song, 2002).
The use of Internet and IT systems make it possible to share information quick to departments all over the world and to a large number of individuals (Powell et al. 1996). This enlarges the available knowledge and enables organizations to increase employee productivity to become more compatible with other companies (Lin et al., 2006). According to Dewett and Jones (2001) this development can be explained by the creation of organizational innovation, which is provided by IT facilities and provides problem solving and decision making. Although the aforementioned literature states that IT contributes to Sharing Knowledge, Lin (2007) argues that it does not mean IT leads to individual Knowledge Sharing. According to these researchers, Sharing Knowledge is a social interaction which can not be practiced through technology. However contradicting this viewpoint, the social exchange theory (Blau 1964) states that electronic networks and systems provide a stronger motivation to participate in Sharing Knowledge because it affects the reputation of an individual. Therefore, this study assumes technology to contribute to the willingness of Sharing Knowledge by employees and managers.
Backberry’s or I-phones to check their e-mail where ever they are. In combination to the Humanness dimensions, it is assumed that the IT facilities that are available within the Malaysian organizations, encourage managers to Share Knowledge with their employees.
The Malay, Chinese and Indians together in one country
Malaysia is a colorful and diverse country with all its different cultures and races. The different ethnic groups from Malay, Chinese and Indians live in harmony next to each other and respect each other’s norms and values. This is also visible within business organizations, where employees from different nationalities work next to each other. Although the three ethnicities live together in harmony, much mingle between the cultures is not observed, which could be explained by the differences in culture and behavior. Zawawi (2008) is one of the few researchers who studied the similarities and differences between the three ethnic groups living in Malaysia. She managed to do this in a case study at Nestlé Malaysia. The results of this study show that there are many differences between the cultures, although some respondents say that the norms and values keep moving around from one race to another. In this section the three main ethnical groups are explained by their cultural norms and values.
The Malaysian Malay
managers/leaders to act as a role model who value the religion and spirituality of the group (Zabid and Ho, 2003).
Within organizations, Malay employees motivate themselves when they see benefits for the company, their family, community or nation as a whole (Zawawi, 2008). This shows how collectivistic Malays are, which is already suggested by other studies (e.g. Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars, 1993; Abdullah, 1996). According to Hofstede (www.hofstede.com), collectivistic cultures are more focused on the goals and social norms of a group than on their own individualistic pleasures or needs. A ‘we’ attitude is dominant and when someone is a member of such an in-group, there is almost no competition because everyone looks after each other and everything is shared. However, some respondents of Zawawi (2008) admitted that although they still value the group and collectivistic thinking, they thought individual thinking might be better at times.
Furthermore, values such as ambition and knowledge are valued highly, which contradicts the traditional standards of Malays. This could mean that Malays are changing their perspectives and desire to success and wealth more than before. Additionally, the study of Taman et al. (1996) confirms this change within organizations in Malaysia in general. According to these authors, Malaysian organizations encourage their employees to evolve more individually by taking initiatives and responsibilities to achieve more. Although this suggest Malaysians to be more individualistic, the findings show that managers still do not consider obtaining status and prestige as important which proves their dedication to the collective. In the communication towards others, Malays are tactful and indirect. For them politeness, self-respect of face and sensitivity to feelings are important. Within the Malay culture an apologetic behavior is a symbol for humility (Asma, 1992).
Entrepreneurial Chinese
Traditional Indians
In contraction to the Chinese and the Malay culture which are highly focused on helping others and serving the community, the Indian culture prevail to be more individual. Rituals and traditions such as the caste system and the believe in rebirth, highly influence the live of Indians (Nordin and Hussin, 2004). Due to these believes, Indians strive hard to gain authority, self-confidence and self-respect (Zawani, 2008). To achieve more and behave better, Indians hope to be reborn in a higher caste, for this reason many Indians start their day with prayer to Deities (Ahmad, 2001). Although many of the aforementioned values are focused on individuals, politeness towards others is also being viewed as important. Furthermore, family ties of Indians are extracted with hierarchically structured authority (Chatterjee, 1987). In their communications, Indians rely on the informal information lines such as rumors due to their interpersonal trust with each other, especially when the information is passed by a family member (Zabid and Ho, 2003). Within organizations, Indians are known for their loyalty, hard work and organizational abilities.
Cultural differences or adaptation?
Although it is stated that the three ethnic groups live in harmony with each other, Zabid (1989) found in his study in the banking sector that there are significant differences among Malays, Chinese and Indians. Especially differences were found on ethical issues, for instance Zabid (1989) found Indians to be more tolerant towards unethical practices than Chinese or Malays. Furthermore the results showed that Malays and Chinese are more adaptive towards the business environment than Indians (Zabid, 1989).
Nowadays, the Malaysian business environment is influenced by Chinese and Western management styles. Therefore, an adaptive ability for the ethnic groups is seen as important to improve their economic situation. According to Asma (1996) this is applicable to all ethnic groups because they are known for their compromising, conflict avoidance and collaborative attitude, which is also confirmed by the uncertainty avoidance dimension of Hofstede8. Due to this adaptive approach of Malaysians, Wimalasiri et al. (1996) states that there are no significant differences in cultural values about business practices. This is because Malays and Indians have observed the Chinese and Western business practices and converged the perceived business ethics. The common Malaysian expression illustrates this behavior and says ‘Masuk kandang kambing mengembek, masuk kandang harimau mengaum’ which is translated into English as ‘When you are in the goats’s den, you would express like the goat, and when you are in the tiger’s den, you would roar like the tiger’ and is similar to the expression ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’ (Zabid and Ho, 2003). This expression shows the adaptive possibilities of the different cultures within Malaysia.
8
In the prior sections the presence of Humanness and Knowledge Sharing within Malaysia is proposed. Due to the strong appearance of the three different ethnic groups within Malaysia, it is interesting to see how high the presence of Humanness and Knowledge Sharing within the ethnic groups is. In the aforementioned section, cultural differences are discussed. It is assumed that the Malay culture and its collectivistic, sharing and caring character, will be more in line with the Humanness philosophy. Subsequently, this sharing and caring culture is also in line with the determinants of Knowledge Sharing and therefore it is expected that Malay managers are more willing to Share Knowledge compared to the other ethnicities. The following section will explain more about the research which is done in Tanzania to investigate the presence of Humanness as well.
Evidence from Tanzania
In the aforementioned section, much is explained about the Humanness dimensions. Prior research proved that within the African companies, culture is highly valued and used in the daily management structures. In one of these studies, Scholtens (2011) looked at the influence Humanness has on the willingness to Share Knowledge. In his Master Thesis ‘The innovative Value of Ubuntu: Knowledge Sharing in African Organizations’, Scholtens (2011) found a positive relationship between the presence of Humanness and Knowledge Sharing within Tanzanian organizations. With the findings of Scholtens (2011), it is possible to compare his findings to the results of this study and provide insights in the relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia. The same measurement tool is used to make it easier to compare the findings. However, first it is important to know what the findings of Scholtens (2011) are before it is possible to make the comparison and therefore the following information is about Tanzania.
The study of Scholtens (2011) took place in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania where he managed to find 215 respondents to fill in his questionnaire. The main research question of his study was ‘is there
a causal relationship between the presence of Humanness and the willingness to share knowledge’.
As is stated before, this relationship is found based on the found correlations which stated that 49% of all variability in the willingness to Share Knowledge can be explained by variance in the presence of Humanness. Furthermore, Scholtens used a regression analysis to calculate the Beta for the relationship between Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge, which resulted in a β of .780 with a significance of 0.05 which shows there is a strong positive relationship.
Furthermore, employees who value Compassion and Respect & Dignity favor an organization that supports and encourages Knowledge Sharing.
Although a strong positive relationship was found between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing, Scholtens (2011) also found some negative relationships. The first is the low presence of Humanness in the dimension Information Technology. Scholtens (2011) explanation for this negative relationship is based on the Human factor of Humanness. Perhaps Humanness is only applicable on humans and does not work on Technology. Another explanation for the low presence might be due to the lack of IT equipment available in Tanzanian companies. It is possible that the minor use of internet or shared databases influenced the relationship between Humanness and Information Technology.
Additionally, Scholtens (2011) found a negative relationship between the dimension Solidarity and the willingness to Share Knowledge. The reason for this negative contribution to Knowledge Sharing is difficult to find. Scholtens (2011) thinks this can be explained by the togetherness and the defensive system employees develop to protect the community/team. Due to protective feelings towards their team/department, employees might be resistant in Sharing Knowledge with others in the organization. To conclude, the findings of Scholtens (2011) show that although the dimensions of Humanness are closely related to each other, there are significant differences in their relationship to other concepts.
PROBLEM STATEMENTS
In the literature review it already became apparent that Humanness and Knowledge Sharing are the main subjects of this paper. As is mentioned before the Humanness business philosophy is a new phenomenon which is only researched in Africa until now. The reason to choose Malaysia stems from the similarities between the norms and values of Humanness and the Malaysian culture which is highly collectivistic. The central research question concerns the influence of Humanness on the willingness to Share Knowledge between Malaysian managers. From prior research, such as Scholtens (2011), it is clear that such a relationship should be found. However, to answer this central question it is important to investigate whether Humanness is present in Malaysia.
Furthermore, the results of Scholtens (2011) give an indication of what is necessary for a strong relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Management and therefore these results are used as a comparison in this research. As a double check, the individual Humanness dimensions are examined for their influence in the willingness to Share Knowledge, proving insights in the precise weight of their influence. From these hypotheses it is possible to see whether all dimensions have a positive effect on Knowledge Sharing. If this is not the case, this is interesting material for the discussion.
Finally, the different ethnicities are being tested for their presence of Humanness and Knowledge Sharing. Due to the multicultural culture of Malaysia, it is interesting to include the ethnicities and investigate whether they differ in the presence of Humanness and Knowledge Sharing. This is interesting for managers who are dealing with cultural problems within their company. From the collected literature it is expected that the differences among the ethnicities are large and that this has consequences for the presence of Humanness and their method of Sharing Knowledge.
Investigating the existence of Humanness
As is mentioned before, to investigate the relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing the first step is to examine whether Humanness is present in Malaysia at all. The following Hypothesis will test this.
H1: Malaysian managers score high on the Humanness philosophy.
H2: Malaysian managers score lower on the Humanness dimension Solidarity than Tanzanian
managers.
H3: Malaysian managers score lower on the Humanness dimension Survival than Tanzanian
managers.
H4: Malaysians managers score lower on the Humanness dimension Compassion than Tanzanian
managers.
H5: Malaysian managers score higher on the Humanness dimension Respect and Dignity than
Tanzanian managers.
Figure 2: Scores on Humanness between Malaysia and Tanzania
Figure 2 illustrates the four hypotheses which are about the presence of Humanness in Malaysia compared to Tanzania. As the bars show, it is expected that the dimensions of Humanness are more rooted in the leadership styles of Tanzanian managers compared to Malaysian managers. Except for the hypotheses about Respect & Dignity. As is mentioned in the findings by Zawawi (2008) Malaysians are daily exposed to the diverse cultures of the different ethnicities which makes Respect & Dignity highly important. Therefore it is expected that Malaysians score higher on this dimensions than Tanzanians. The numbers on the y-Axis are the Means which will be calculated using the measurement tool developed by Sigger et al. (2010) which is explained in the Analysis and Results.
Willingness to Share Knowledge
With the expectation that Humanness is present in Malaysia, it is possible to look at the influence of Humanness on the willingness to Share Knowledge of Malaysian managers. Additionally, the relationship is compared to the findings by Scholtens (2011) in Tanzania. With these findings it is possible to compare the results of Malaysia and see whether culture has an influence on the way managers Share their Knowledge. The following hypotheses are formulated to test this;
H6: The Humanness dimensions positively effects the willingness of Malaysian managers to Share
Knowledge.
H7: Malaysian managers score higher on Knowledge Sharing dimensions than Tanzanian managers.
The following figure shows the relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia compared to Tanzania. It is expected that there is a stronger relationship in Malaysia compared to Tanzania because Malaysia is more developed than Tanzania especially in information Technology. It is expected that the use of e-mail, databases and intranet is more implemented in Malaysia than in Tanzania. Therefore, it is expected that the willingness to Share Knowledge between managers who are influenced by the Humanness dimensions will be stronger in Malaysian than in Tanzania.
Figure 3: Comparison between Malaysia and Tanzania in Knowledge Sharing
Individual influence on Knowledge Sharing
The previous hypotheses tests whether there is a relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing. A relationship is expected, and therefore it is interesting to have a closer look at the individual relationships of the dimensions. The following hypotheses test the influence of all Humanness dimensions on the individual Knowledge Sharing dimensions. From the results of Scholtens (2011) differences were found in the individual influence of the Humanness dimensions and with these hypotheses this paper wants to test whether this is also true for Malaysian managers. The next three hypotheses are formulated to test this influence;
H8a: Managers scoring positive on a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c) Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity will
attribute more to Corporate Culture and Leadership than managers who do not score positive on a, b, c or d.
H8b: Managers scoring positive on a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c) Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity will
show more personal motivations to accommodate Knowledge Sharing than those managers who do not score positive on a, b, c or d.
H8c: Managers scoring positive on a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c) Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity, will
make more use of IT for Knowledge Sharing than those managers who do not score positive on a, b, c or d.
Figure 4 visualizes the individual relationships between the Humanness dimensions and the Knowledge Sharing dimensions. From the literature review it is expected that the influence between the variables will be positive and therefore the arrows are green.
Figure 4: Influence independent dimensions
Humanness and Knowledge Sharing within the different ethnicities
H9a: Malay managers score higher on the Humanness dimensions a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c)
Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity than the Chinese, Indians and managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c and d.
H9a.1: Malay managers will score higher on the Knowledge sharing dimensions a) Corporate Culture
& Leadership, b) Employee Motivation and c) Information Technology than the Chinese, Indians and managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c, and d.
H9b: Chinese managers score higher on the Humanness dimensions a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c)
Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity than the Indians and managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c and d.
H9b.1: Chinese managers will score higher on the Knowledge sharing dimensions a) Corporate
Culture & Leadership, b) Employee Motivation, and c) Information Technology than the Indians and managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c, and d.
H9c: Indian managers score higher on the Humanness dimensions a) Solidarity, b) Survival, c)
Compassion, d) Respect & Dignity than managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c and d.
H9c.1: Indian managers will score higher on the Knowledge sharing dimensions a) Corporate Culture
& Leadership, b) Employee Motivation, and c) Information Technology than managers not from Malaysia do on a, b, c, and d.
Figure 5: Presence of Humanness among ethnicities
Figure 6: Presence of Knowledge Sharing among ethnicities
All the hypotheses that are tested in this paper are explained and illustrated to give a clear overview. The next section explains more about the research methods and the reliability of this research paper. Furthermore, the results and analysis of the above mentioned hypotheses are provided, using the same illustrations.
Malay Chinese Indians Not from Malaysia
Humanness
Humanness
Malay Chinese Indians Not from
Malaysia
Knowledge Sharing
METHODOLOGY
It was necessary to come to Malaysia and collect data personally to be able to answer the hypotheses. Prior research (Sigger (2010), Scholtens (2011)) confirmed that collecting questionnaires personally would be easier than communicating via the internet or telephone. Therefore, hard copy questionnaires were used. However, Malaysian managers suggested to create a digital survey because this was logistically easier and faster for them and therefore an online questionnaire was developed giving managers the choice how to fill in the survey. In this section the reason for choosing Malaysia is explained and what kind of resources are used to establish the required amount of respondents. Furthermore, the used scales and measures and the validity and reliability of the used research methods are clarified.
The reason to choose Malaysia is based on two reasons. The Malaysian Government wants to become a knowledge-based economy, but is struggling to accomplish this. With the use of Humanness, this paper wants to provide a different view on the difficulties companies face in Sharing Knowledge. Another reason for choosing Malaysia is that the country is multicultural, which makes it interesting to see whether there are differences among the ethnicities. Although the University of Groningen developed a relationship with the Malaysian Dutch Business Council, there were no other connections or existing networks available for this research. Through the recommendations of the Dutch Embassy, many companies from the MDBC Business Directory 2010/2011 participated in the survey. Furthermore, many contacts were made at the BNI chapters, which are weekly networking events of all kind of business associates that come together to pass through referrals.
‘During the process of collecting surveys, many respondents were enthusiastic to participate in this research. Especially the multicultural aspect of this research made respondents curious for the results and requested a copy of the final version’.
As the population of managers in Malaysia is unknown, an A-select sample is used to determine the number of participants needed to provide sufficient information about the population. The number of managers working in private sector companies is unknown and therefore the statements of Thomas (2004) are used to determine the minimum for the sample size. In his book ‘Research skills for Management studies’ he recommends a minimum of 200 respondents to make valid and reliable statements. The total response of the questionnaires is 214. The 214 respondents are used to answer the hypotheses, however 7 respondents were ignored in testing hypotheses 9a1-c1, because they are a mixture of ethnicities and are assumed to have mixed norms and values. Of the 214 participants, 125 (58,4%) are man and 89 (41.6%) women. Furthermore, the ethnicities of the participants were asked and revealed a different result as expected. Surprisingly, the majority of respondents (47%) are Chinese. The Malay account for 22% and the Indians for 9,3%. Another large group (17,8%) were the respondents who are not originally from Malaysia and can be seen as expats. This distribution between the ethnicities is illustrated in figure 12 at page 42.
Scales and measures
As is mentioned before, this study uses a comparison to accurately measure the presence of Humanness in Malaysia. Sigger et al. (2010) developed a measurement tool to calculate the presence of Humanness in a country and Scholtens (2011) used this tool to find a relationship between Humanness and the willingness to Share Knowledge in Tanzania. Due to the fact that the study of Sigger et al. (2010) is very new, Scholtens (2011) made new arrangements in the items for Humanness scales and advised to use this renewed version. Therefore, the questionnaire (Appendix A) is based on rearrangements of the Humanness dimensions by Scholtens (2011).
Variability and reliability
Before the hypotheses are tested, the used scales should be checked to see whether they are reliable and valid. Cronbach's alpha is used to determine whether there is an internal consistency or average correlation of items in a questionnaire to measure its reliability. The ideal output of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient has a scale above 0.7. Looking at table 1, almost all dimensions, both Humanness and Knowledge Sharing, score higher than 0.7. This indicates that the items in the questionnaire measure the same underlying construct, namely Humanness and Knowledge Sharing. Moreover, the objective of this study is to find a relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia. One of the methods used to indicate how strong this relationship is, is a comparison of the results by Scholtens (2011). To compare the findings the same items and measurements tools should be used. Based on the Cronbach’s alpha9 it is reliable to use the same questionnaire which form the same scales for the Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions. Now everything is ready to be tested and therefore the results are shown in the next section Analysis and Results.
Table 1: Cronbach’s Alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions in Malaysia
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha for Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions in Tanzania
9
Besides the Cronbach alpha a Factor Analysis is used to prove that there are relations between underlying factors. However, the factors were formed by different items compared to the Factor Analysis of Scholtens (2011). In Appendix B more explanation for these differences are given. Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Humanness ,947 32 Solidarity ,724 7 Survival ,857 8 Compassion ,819 8
Respect & Dignity ,819 10
Knowledge sharing ,879 14
Corporate Culture & Leadership ,790 7
Employee motivation ,750 3 Information Technology ,674 3 Cronbach’s alpha Nr. of Items Humanness Solidarity Survival Compassion Respect & Dignity Knowledge Sharing
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
All the dimensions are checked for their reliability and validity and now it is possible to analyze the hypotheses and look at the results. To answer the fist hypothesis, the Means and Standard deviation are used. Subsequently, an independent t-test is used to compare the findings of Humanness in Malaysia to the results of Tanzania. Furthermore, the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Regression Analysis test the hypotheses to see if there is an influence of Humanness on Knowledge Sharing among Malaysian managers and whether this correlation is significant or not. Finally, the hypotheses concerning the comparison between the different ethnicities are tested using the One-way ANOVA.
Presence of Humanness in Malaysia
The first hypothesis assumes Humanness to be present in Malaysia, which is supported by the literature. To determine the scales of Humanness, the Mean scales and Standard deviation are used. These scales are developed by the study of Sigger et al. (2010) and will be used in this paper, because this is a validated measurement tool found in the literature. The scores of the Means are used to measure the level of Humanness within a country. Scores of 2.4 or less indicate a low level of Humanness. Scores between 2.5 and 3.5 indicate a moderate level of Humanness, and scores of 3.6 or higher indicate a positive attitude. As is visible in figure 7, Malaysian managers score more than 3.6 on all dimensions of Humanness, which indicates that Humanness is present in Malaysia. Furthermore, figure 7 shows the means of Tanzania which makes it possible to compare the presence of Humanness in both countries. Both countries show a high presence of Humanness with small differences between the scores. Looking closer at the results Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4 are rejected, because the scores of the countries is equal.
Figure 7: Humanness dimensions Malaysia compared to Tanzania
0 1 2 3 4 5
Humanness Solidarity Survival Compassion Respect & Dignity Comparison Humanness
Furthermore, the independents t-test is used to compare the results and show that there is little difference between Malaysian and Tanzanian managers when it comes to Humanness. The complete results can be found in Appendix C. Especially the dimensions Solidarity (3,76 vs. 3,76), Compassion (4,10 vs. 4,10) and the Humanness dimensions in total (3,96 vs. 3,92) seem to be similar. However, not all findings are significant (p < ,005).
The relationship between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing
In this paper hypotheses 6 predicted Humanness to have a positive effect on Knowledge Sharing in Malaysia. Before it is possible to see whether a variable has a positive effect on another variable, it is important to see if these variables are correlating at all. With the Pearson correlation coefficient or the Pearson’s r, the extent to which a linear relationship exists between variables can be calculated (Baarda, 2004). The values for r can range between -1 to +1, where r = 1 is a perfect linear positive relationship between variables. Furthermore, the strength of the number of samples used to indicate the significance of a correlation is calculated with the Pearson’s coefficient. In table 3 the coefficients between Humanness and Knowledge Sharing are shown and indicate a moderate/strong linear relationship between the variables. Knowledge Sharing and Corporate Culture & Leadership correlate strong to Humanness, while Employee Motivation is a bit weaker. However, the relationship between Humanness and Information Technology is weak which will be interesting for hypothesis 8c where the Humanness dimensions are tested for their relationship with Information Technology.
Table 3: Correlations Humanness and Knowledge Sharing dimensions
Humanness Knowledge Sharing Pearson Correlation ,841** Corporate Culture and Leadership Pearson Correlation ,844** Employee Motivation Pearson Correlation ,793** Information Technology Pearson Correlation ,560** **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). All correlations have a significance of 0.00.
N=214.
