How Humanness Increases Organizational Knowledge Sharing 08

(1)

How Humanness Increases Organizational

Knowledge Sharing

Results from the South African hotel industry

(2)

How Humanness Increases Organizational

Knowledge Sharing

Results from the South African hotel industry

Master thesis International Business and Management Janine van Bree - S1765310

janinevanbree@gmail.com

Supervisors Dr. B.J.W. Pennink Dr. L.A. Toolsema – Veldman

(3)

Abstract

A lot of research has been done on Humanness as a management concept and its relationship with knowledge sharing. Humanness is a South African philosophy and management style based on five values, Survival, Solidarity, Compassion and Respect & Dignity (Sigger et al., 2010). In this multiple case study performed in the hotel industry of Cape Town, South Africa, Humanness as part of organizational culture and its affect on individual capital and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing is investigated. Bourdieu’s theory of practice is adjusted to fit the business environment and then used as a theoretical basis. This research is the first research to use the tool of Sigger et al. (2010) with additional case interviews in order to provide a more complete view of the presence of Humanness and its affect on knowledge sharing. Results show that Humanness is present in South Africa and that it can be conceptualized as being part of organizational culture. Humanness has a positive affect on knowledge sharing through affecting social capital and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing. Social capital, furthermore, has a very positive affect on both attitudes towards learning and attitudes towards knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing in turn has been proven in previous studies to positively affect organizational effectiveness. An interesting finding is that Humanness is closely related to corporate social responsibility. Further research is necessary in order to determine the causality and details of this relationship. Humanness increases attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing and should be incorporated as management and organizational habitus as it proves to be valuable for management in the South African context.

Keywords: Humanness, Learning, Knowledge sharing, Individual Capital, Bourdieu’s

(4)

Acknowledgements

In this chapter I would like to take the time to thank everyone who helped me complete this research.

First of all, I would like to thank dr. B.J.W. Pennink for introducing me to the research of Ubuntu, for supervising me and providing useful feedback throughout the entire process, and for providing me with useful contacts in Cape Town. He inspired me to think out of the box throughout the research. I would also like to thank my second supervisor, dr. L.A. Toolsema – Veldman, for providing especially useful feedback regarding the analysis of the data.

Then, I would like to thank the managers that were interviewed and the respondents of the surveys for giving me some of their time and input for this research. I would also like to thank the respondents of the surveys. I would also like to thank the two additional interviewees, Billy Coop and Cynthia Schoeman, for providing me with useful new insights into Humanness.

Additionally, I would like to thank my parents for their emotional and financial support. I would also like to thank my brother, sister, and friends, who have always motivated and supported me throughout my studies.

(5)

List of Tables and Figures

TABLE 1: HOFSTEDE COMPARISON OF CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 12

TABLE 2: PROFILE OF CASES 34

TABLE 3: MEASURES OF CONSTRUCT 37

TABLE 4: CRONBACH’S ALPHA’S 41

TABLE 5: CRONBACH’S ALPHA’S OF ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTS AND DIMENSIONS 42 TABLE 6: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF SURVEY RESULTS 59

TABLE 7: ADJUSTED CONSTRUCTS AND VARIABLES 61

TABLE 9: SUMMARY RESULTS REGRESSION ANALYSIS 65

TABLE 10: SUMMARY RESULTS FOR HYPOTHESES 67

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 31

FIGURE 2: DEGREE OF HUMANNESS IN RESULTS 60

FIGURE 3: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ADJUSTED WITH BETAS 66 FIGURE 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF HUMANNESS AS ORGANIZATIONAL HABITUS 76

(7)

1. Introduction

“In the old days when we were young, a traveler would stop at a village and once

he stopped he did not had to ask for food or water, once he stopped the people gave him food at the table. That is one aspect of Ubuntu, but it will have various aspect; respect, helpfulness, caring, community sharing, trust and usefulness. Ubuntu does not mean that people should address themselves, the question therefore is; are you going to do so in order to enable the community around you to be able to improve? These are important things in life and once you can say that you have done something very important, that will be appreciated.” –Nelson Mandela, 2006

The above quote is Nelson Mandela’s definition of the philosophy of Ubuntu and a concept from which he derived his forgiving nature. Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu were the first to name the concept Ubuntu as a pillar of the new South African republic after the abolition of Apartheid. Ideally, Africans want to export this concept of African management or Ubuntu, thereby gaining global recognition and affecting globalization with their local ‘Africanism’ (van den Heuvel, 2008). Professor Lovemore Mbigi claims that Africa needs to enter the global market in its own way using Ubuntu (van den Heuvel, 2008). Ubuntu stems from the Zulu expression ‘Umuntu Ngumuntu Ngabuntu’ and can be translated as: the person is a person through other persons (Karsten and Illa, 2005). In English, Ubuntu can best be translated as Humanness.

Jackson (2004) was one of the first authors who mentioned Humanness as being part of African management. In 2010, Sigger et al. created a measurement tool in order to measure the level of Humanness in organizations in Tanzania by using the five dimensions of Humanness developed by professor Mbigi: Survival, Solidarity,

Compassion, Respect and Dignity. With this tool, they were the first to find empirical

(8)

Furthermore, Scholtens (2011) found in Tanzania that Humanness has a very positive effect on knowledge sharing. Empirical studies done in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Netherlands confirmed this (Boom, 2011; Scholte, 2012; Fredriks, 2012). Knowledge sharing, in turn, has been found to have a positive effect on the innovativeness and success of the firm. Furthermore, especially in multinational corporations (MNC’s), knowledge sharing is of great importance. In fact, knowledge is the most valuable source of competitive advantage because it helps MNCs develop and retain sustainable advantages (Bolisani and Scarso, 1999). These studies thus showed the importance of Humanness as a management concept.

The purpose of this research is to extend the research that has been done on the African management concept called Humanness and its effect on attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing using the model of Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1986). This model has been used by Borkent (2013) as well to study attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing and how individual capital determines these attitudes in the hospitality industry. However, in this research, the focus is on Humanness as organizational habitus, or organizational culture. Habitus is ‘the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product’ (Bourdieu, 1990a: 56). Borkent had not specifically incorporated habitus in her research, a gap that this research will fill. The aim of this research is to reconstruct the theory and to build a conceptual model of how Humanness fits in the organizational environment and how it affects different attitudes.

This research attempts to give a more in-depth view of Humanness, its relation towards knowledge sharing, and a better understanding of Bourdieu’s theory of practice in the business environment and as a result will attempt to prove the value of Humanness as organizational habitus in South African organizations. The main research question therefore is:

Is Humanness as a management habitus present in South Africa and how does it influence the relationship between individual capital and attitudes towards learning and

(9)

This research has several contributions to existing research done on Humanness. The first contribution of this paper is that it extends the empirical evidence found on Humanness to South Africa. Several researchers have used the measurement tool of Sigger et al. (2010) all over the world, but the country where Ubuntu, or Humanness, originally comes from has not been investigated. If Humanness can be measured in South Africa, reliability of this measurement tool can be strengthened. A second contribution is the strengthening of Bourdieu’s theory of practice in the business environment. Borkent (2013) has done research on this in the American business environment, but has not incorporated habitus in the study. This research incorporates habitus in the study by conceptualizing Humanness as part of the organizational culture. Furthermore, the culture in South Africa is different to the culture in the USA, so different results can be expected. A third contribution is that this research is one of the few studies that investigate Humanness in-depth while still producing empirical results. Bourdieu’s theory of practice allows Humanness to be measured at several layers within the organization, so a more complete view of the concept can be created. The interviews on the topic of Ubuntu, or Humanness, allows for a deeper understanding of the concept in a business setting. Finally, finding a positive relationship with attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing proves the value of Humanness as organizational habitus in South Africa.

(10)

2. Theoretical background

This literature presented below is used as a basis for theory building in order to form the different theoretical propositions, hypotheses and the theoretical framework. First, the South African culture and management styles are touched upon. Then, the concept of Humanness and its different dimensions are explained. Following that, Bourdieu’s theory of practice, is explained. Finally, the attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing are shortly addressed.

2.1. South African culture

Culture can be described as “the shared motives, values, beliefs, identities and interpretations or meanings of significant events that result from common experiences of members of collectives and are transmitted across age generations” (House et al., 2002). The history of South Africa has shaped its society, political systems, labor relations but also its organizational cultures. Its society today is the outcome of interaction between people with very different cultural backgrounds. Since the dismantling of Apartheid in the 1990s, the government of South Africa changed its business community and moved towards a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist form of government (Mangaliso, 2001).

It is hard to measure organizational culture in South Africa because it is a sensitive subject and very dynamic (Ndletyana, 2003). The South African population consists of about 43 million people. Of the population, 10% are classified White, 78% Black, 9% “colored,” and about 3% Indian (South African Institute of Race Relations, 2001). These records show the very diverse culture of South Africa as a result of South Africa’s colonial and Apartheid past. Therefore, it is very hard to speak of one unified African culture. Rather, there is more a kind of Black and White culture (Ndletyana, 2003).

However, Thomas and Bendixen (2000) found that according to the Hofstede values it is a possible to measure the South African culture (see Table 1). Two of the five different dimensions are distinctly different from the dimensions of other nations: Power

Distance and Individualism. The low Power Distance score is expected since South

(11)

governance (Thomas and Bendixen, 2000). However, what is common in the culture of South Africa is that leaders are respected naturally (Makrus and Kitayama, 1991). What is interesting to see, is that the Individualism score is very high. This is due to the differing views of Collectivism (the opposite of Individualism in the Hofstede dimensions) between Western society and African society. While European Collectivism is seen as the basis of socialism and communism, Black African Collectivism is the notion of people conspiring together as a group united (also called communalism). Communalism, or African Collectivism, is thus coexistent with individualism rather that being the opposite. Personal freedom, or Individualism, and personal community (or communalism) stand in direct relation to each other (Shutte, 1993). Communalism is a dimension or a part of collectivism that thus should be included in the Hofstede dimensions in order to make it more global. GLOBE (2004), a research project on management styles, also identifies collectivism as an important dynamic in African culture (Saunders, 2011).

African cultures are thus generally considered collectivist cultures (Zoogah, 2011). Individuals in collectivist cultures see themselves as being interdependent with others and sharing resources. They have in-group goals, adhere to norms and obligations and emphasize relatedness (Triandis and Bhawuk, 1997). Collectivists normatively accept leaders, whereas individualists tend to question leaders (Makrus and Kitayama, 1991). What is similar in all African ethnicities is that there is high respect for authority. In general, however, the African culture can be ascribed to the concept of Ubuntu, or

Humanness. This concept and its dimensions will be touched upon in later sections of this

(12)

Table 1: Hofstede Comparison of Cultural Dimensions

Comparison of Cultural Dimensions

Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO

SA – present study 1 81 34 48 45 SA – original study 49 65 63 49 - France 68 71 43 86 - India 77 48 56 40 61 Malaysia 104 26 50 36 - Netherlands 38 80 14 53 44 United Kingdom 35 89 66 35 25 USA 40 91 62 46 29

Note: Adopted from Thomas and Bendixen (2000)

2.2. South African organizational culture and management

Organizational culture is regarded by Trompenaars (1993) as the level below culture in the hierarchy. Organizational cultures are composed of practices rather than values and they are manageable (Hofstede, 1994). They are comprised of assumptions and related values formulated, transmitted and learned by groups and play a central role in the behavior of the organizational members (Ndletyana, 2003). They are the outcome mostly of the national culture, but also of the practices of the managers and employees. Organizational cultures in South Africa are marked by large disparities between races as a result of the Apartheid. Organizing always demands on answering two questions: 1) who has the power to decide what and 2) what rules will be followed to attain the desired ends? (Hofstede, 1997). White men still hold the majority of management and leadership positions in South Africa (Ndletyana, 2003). Also, corruption is a major problem in Sub-Sahara Africa and managers are having problems dealing with this (Mapunda, 2011). Since cross-cultural research has found a strong connection between organizational culture and management styles, a focus will be put on South African management styles next (House et al., 2002).

(13)

since the 1990’s. This African management philosophy is an outcome of a combination of developments related to historical, political, and economic contexts and can be seen as a highly complex case of ‘glocalisation’ in South Africa. ‘Glocalisation’ is the two-way process of localization and globalization influencing each other. Authenticity and a consequent cultural patriotism has become a routinized response to globalization. Thus, Africans want to go back to the roots by promoting local culture and as a result African management, with Ubuntu as a key concept. The African management discourse has been used by many inhabitants as a metaphor for its liberation and can be interpreted as a long process of cultural networks and hybridization of colonizers and South Africans (van den Heuvel, 2008).

South African management styles can be placed in two ways: as being

non-Eurocentric or as being multidimensional and open-ended. Non-non-Eurocentric, or Afrocentric, perspectives can be seen as an attempt to undo the inferiority status that

Africans had due to colonization. What South Africans wanted, was to have a management style that was completely different from the popular Western management styles. African management styles wanted to gain academic recognition. A concept based on the humane dimensions of management, Ubuntu, was created as a pillar of the South African management discourse to gain recognition and challenge Western management styles.

The first view is the African or non-Eurocentric view of African management. This view compares the African styles of management with the European management styles. According to Mbigi (2000), the African genius lies in people management whereas the Western and Asian genius lies in technical innovation and process improvement. African management approaches have a more humanistic way of viewing employees. People have a value in themselves, instead of seeing the employees as resources (Western approach of Human Resources) (Jackson, 2004). Furthermore, rather than focusing on shareholders, like Western companies do, South African MNCs focus on stakeholders such as employees. However, van den Heuvel (2008) found that African values actually coexist well with European values, and he thereby refuted the Afrocentric, or

non-Eurocentric perspective. Rather, he argues that an African approach should be used by

(14)

The other view of South African management styles is that these styles are multidimensional and open-ended in order to account for the multicultural workforce. Storytelling, inclusive decision-making and participatory community meetings are key features in traditional rural African communities (Karsten and Illa, 2005). These aspects have been incorporated into South African management styles. Furthermore, South Africa has a very multicultural workforce and is therefore developing a highly adaptive and hybrid management system to utilize these strengths.

South Africa has seen enormous economic growth in the past few years, and with it came an interest in managing South African organizations. South African organizations are becoming more internationally oriented and have started entering the highly competitive global market (Newenham-Kahindi, 2009). Most multinational companies from emerging economies like South Africa have traditional organizations based on social systems and humanistic values. In a study on South African MNCs, the one that were most successful were able to combine American and European practices with their own cultural organizational practices (Newenham-Kahindi, 2009). Thus, managers in African organizations need to embrace its indigenous values and combine it with Western views in a hybrid system. According to Karsten and Illa (2005), Humanness can form this cultural steppingstone. Humanness as part of the organizational culture and its dimensions are elaborated on next.

2.3. “Ubuntu” or “Humanness”

Ubuntu is originally a philosophy that stems from South Africa and can be translated as: “the person is a person through other persons” (Karsten and Illa, 2005). It is a worldview that is rooted and anchored in people’s daily life. Ubuntu can be seen as humaneness, which is “a pervasive spirit of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness, that individuals and groups display for one another” (Karsten and Illa, 2005). For this research, Humanness, the English translation of Ubuntu is used.

2.3.1. Humanness as part of organizational culture

(15)

more human and more directly responsive to the suffering caused by colonization (Clements, 2000). Khoza (1994) states that “ Ubuntu is a concept that brings to the force images of supportiveness, cooperation and solidarity. It is the basis of a social contract that stems from, but transcends the narrow confines of the nuclear family to be extended kinship network, the community. With diligent cultivation it should be extendable for the business cooperation”. This was a first attempt to extend Ubuntu, or Humanness, as a philosophy to the business environment. Humanness consists of a set of social behaviors like sharing, interdependent helpfulness and seeking consensus (van den Heuvel, 2008). Humanness, a humane view of management, is present in the way employees interact with each other and share experience and knowledge.

In order to bring African business management in line with Humanness, Humanness should be present in the organizational culture. The organization should be recognized as a community. This is a form of collectivism, because to promote the good of a community is to promote the good of all (Lutz, 2009). In an organizational culture with Humanness dimensions, authority is exercised in a caring and paternal way. Respect to authority is high and managers are people-oriented (Blunt and Jones, 1997). When Humanness values are anchored in people’s daily lives, it will be embedded in the corporate culture of an organization as well (Karsten and Illa, 2005).

2.3.2. Humanness becoming international

Ideally, Africans wanted to export the concept of Humanness to the rest of the world, thereby gaining global recognition and affecting globalization with their local ‘Africanism’ (van den Heuvel, 2008). The introduction of Humanness as a management concept has not replaced management concepts from the Western world, but can instead support the development of hybrid management system in Africa. In Africa, Humanness will help translate Western concepts into African settings.

(16)

in more organizations in the world like Malaysia, Indonesia and the Netherlands (Scholte, 2012; Boom, 2012; Fredriks, 2012), thereby raising the question whether Humanness can really be considered truly African.

Billy Coop, an African business consultant, states that the traditional term Ubuntu nowadays is often referred to as ‘something my grandparents used’. This supports the fact that Ubuntu as a traditional African term might be outdated. However, the more international term Humanness is still found in organizations all over the world. Ubuntu, or Humanness, might thus be present in organizational cultures, but in different degrees. According to Lutz (2009), the dimensions of Humanness are generally embedded in human nature. The dimensions of Humanness used by Sigger et al. (2010) to measure the level of Humanness in an organization are explained in the next paragraph.

2.3.3. Dimensions of Humanness

The dimensions formulated by Mgibi (1997) have been used by Sigger et al. (2008) to create a measurement tool of the level of Humanness in an organization. By using this measurement tool, levels of Humanness have been found in organizations in other parts of the world. Next to Mbigi (1997), other authors have used different dimensions of Humanness, but these aim at the same values. Mbigi (1997) refers to his dimensions according to so-called “fingers”, where each finger is one dimension and together these “fingers” are a collective value system (Poovan et al., 2006). The five “fingers” are Survival, Solidarity, Compassion, Respect and Dignity. In the measurement tool of Sigger et al. (2008), Respect and Dignity are taken together because they are closely related and previous research done by Poovan et al. (2006) and Broodryk (2006) has also taken these two dimensions together as well. According to Mbigi, all these dimensions are currently present in African societies. This has however never been empirically proven using this measurement tool in South Africa. It is interesting to see if these values can be measured in South Africa as well. Next, the four dimensions are explained.

Survival: Survival is considered the core value representing Humanness. It can be

(17)

complex history with war and poverty. During these times, tribes and communities had to learn to work together and ‘survive’ together. People thus depended on each other for survival. This interdependence created brotherhood and this aspect of survival is seen as the heart of the dimension survival (Sigger et al, 2010). According to Mbigi (1997), members of the organization should rely on each other in order to increase effectiveness. Individual gains are reached through collective goals that, in turn, increase the coherence of the team (Lutz, 2009).

Solidarity: There is overlap between survival and solidarity when it comes to

feeling responsibility towards the community. Solidarity can be defined as someone who chooses to help other people instead of aiming for individual glory (Sigger et al., 2010). Pooven et al. (2006) claims that the solidarity spirit of Humanness can be seen as the opposite of selfishness and competitiveness. A person is defined with a reference to his or her community: “I am because we are” (Pooven et al., 2006). This feeling of togetherness is taught in the childhood of Africans through rites and dancing. According to this dimension, people believe that working together in a team accomplishes more than if each member would work individually. The ‘I’ is thus replaced by ‘we’ and a collective mindset is created.

Compassion: Compassion is about understanding the problems of others and

feeling the need to help them (Mbigi, 1997; Poovan et al., 2006; Sigger et al., 2010). This dimension creates a feeling of interconnectedness and thereby forms the communal characteristics of Humanness. The wellbeing of others is almost more important than one’s own wellbeing, forming a culture of sharing and caring (Pooven et al., 2006). According to Broodryk (2006), this dimension is one of the cornerstones of the communal characteristics of Humanness, as it strengthens current relationships or forms new ones.

Respect & Dignity: Respect can be defined as objectives, unbiased consideration

(18)

respect. Africans have a deep respect for elderly, authority and other persons fulfilling their tasks for the benefit of the community (Mbigi, 1997). When growing up, Africans learn to be respectful and by doing so they receive dignity (Sigger et al., 2010). Although respect has been highly valued in most cultures, it is actually one of the building blocks of African societies (Pooven et al., 2006). In African societies, opinions and ideas are valued and tolerated. Organizations expressing levels of Humanness place high value on hearing all opinions in order to reach to a consensus. There is a high tolerance of different religions, beliefs and cultures. A person does not have to earn respect, but generally receives it, regardless of position or status (Broodryk, 2006). A consequence of respecting each other is that mutual trust is created. When trust is created, ideas and information sharing is encouraged which in turn will lead to team performance. Knowledge sharing is one of the central topics of this research as well, and is touched upon next.

2.4. Knowledge sharing

Many different definitions of knowledge have been given. The following definition is used for this study.

“[Knowledge is] a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms” -Davenport and Prusak,

1998

(19)

“non-verbalized, unarticulated and intuitive” (Hedlund, 1994). In this study, the sharing of both explicit and tacit knowledge is used, since both types of knowledge contribute to organizational performance. This section will further elaborate on knowledge and its importance to MNCs within the hospitality sector, knowledge sharing, and its facilitators.

2.4.1. The importance of knowledge to MNCs in the hospitality sector

Knowledge is a resource that is fundamental for MNCs to develop in order to retain sustainable competitive advantages (Bolisani and Scarso, 1999). It is the most valuable source of competitive advantage because it allows the MNC to respond effectively to internal and external developments furthermore, when knowledge is rich and appropriately managed, it is inimitable for competitors, making it a sustainable advantage as well (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). Furthermore, knowledge is essential for preserving traditions, learning new techniques, solving problems, creating core competencies and initiating new situations (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998).

In the hospitality industry, knowledge is related to a firm’s customers, products, services, operational procedures, competitors and job associates (Yang and Wan, 2004). Since service quality is extremely important in the hospitality industry, enhancing knowledge about customer preferences and sharing this knowledge is essential. According to Kim et al. (2012), Knowledge management in this industry promotes organizational innovation and innovative performance. Furthermore, the sharing of knowledge in this industry is crucial due to the high costs and the loss of sustained knowledge acquisition caused by the high employee turnover rates (Hallin and Marnburg, 2008; Kim and Lee, 2010; Yang and Wan, 2004).

2.4.2. Individual versus organizational knowledge

(20)

that whether knowledge is created depends on the capacity of the individual. Individual knowledge forms the basis for the development of organizational knowledge.

Knowledge in this study is treated as information that is processed by individuals including all expertise, experience, ideas, data and individual assumptions, which have relevance for the organization (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). However, in order to have relevance for the organization, individual knowledge must be transferred into organizational knowledge. The organizational value of an individual’s knowledge is increased when it is shared (Ipe, 2003). Organizational knowledge is “the processed information embedded in routines and processes that enable action. It is also knowledge captured by the organization’s systems, processes, products, rules and culture” (Beckham, 1999 p.3). It is thus the collective knowledge that enables organizational members to deal with their job successfully. Furthermore, organizational knowledge is more than the sum of its individual knowledge bases, since it resides in the relationship between individuals (Kriwet, 1997). It comprises the organizational structure, the culture, its history, workplace environment, company norms, policies and rules, company know-how, routines and operating procedures (Yang, 2004). Individual knowledge thus must be shared and so be transformed into collective knowledge in order to have value for the entire organization.

2.4.3. Individual knowledge sharing and learning

Most MNCs don’t make use of more than half of the knowledge that is available to the organization (Chini, 2004). This is due to the fact that often, knowledge is not shared or used. When employees don’t share their knowledge, it becomes orphaned. When employees hold orphan knowledge, the knowledge will be invisible to the organization and thus be lost (Yang, 2004). Through individual learning and knowledge sharing, the orphaned knowledge can be captured and transformed in organizational knowledge and practices.

(21)

et al, 2012). Kim et al. (2012) goes further to say that knowledge sharing is a process of communication between participants and it involves the acquisition and provision of knowledge. So, besides sharing knowledge, there must also be a will and capability to acquire knowledge. This acquisition of knowledge can be referred to as learning. This process of learning enables individuals to reflect on the consequences of their behaviors, to obtain insights from the organization, to understand this environment and to interpret the meaning of it (Yang, 2004). Knowledge sharing and learning can thus be viewed as two sides of the same coin.

2.4.4. Enablers of knowledge sharing

Lin (2007, p. 316) defines knowledge sharing enablers as “the mechanisms for fostering individual and organizational learning and also facilitating employee knowledge sharing within or across teams or work units”. According to Lin et al. (2009), helping, informal communications and a sharing organizational culture contribute to the organization’s ability to share knowledge. Furthermore, since knowledge sharing is a social process, results are best when relationships are close and people are willing to help each other. In other words, when there is a high amount of social capital, knowledge sharing will be enhanced most (Kim et al, 2012). When people tend to be more collectivistic rather than individualistic, the total amount of knowledge that is shared also increases. This is because people see themselves as part of a community, so there is no need for competition. Furthermore, social trust has most frequently been mentioned as a facilitator of knowledge sharing (Kim and Lee, 2010). Kaser and Miles (2001) also argue that a high level of trust between employees and an intrinsic motivation for knowledge sharing will increase the likelihood that knowledge is shared. To conclude, in organizations with stronger social interaction ties, high amount of trust, shared goals and visions, there will be a higher amount of knowledge sharing.

2.5 Bourdieu’s theory of practice

(22)

organizations. The benefits of using this practice are that it can give a methodological understanding in the discipline and that it helps conceptualize parts of management at several levels. (Ozbilgin and Tatlin, 2005). Bourdieu (1998) uses the concepts of capital and dispositions at the individual level, habitus at the meso level, and the field at the macro level in order to perform social inquiry.

The utilization of Bourdieuan concepts may also advance theory building in the field of knowledge management in the sense that attitudes toward learning and knowledge sharing can be explained through the interaction between individual capital, habitus and the field. Borkent (2013) has also used Bourdieu’s theory of practice as a model to test what influence individual capital has on attitudes towards knowledge sharing. Bourdieu proposes that individual capital is different in any situation and that this model thus is very contextual and history-dependent. This is why it might be interesting to see if testing this model in a culture that is very different from the US would still yield similar results. The conceptual framework with the concepts individual capital, habitus and field that Bourdieu proposes thus is a robust analytical model for organizational studies (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005).

2.5.1. Field

The field is found in the macro level of Bourdieu’s framework. It is the structure in which the micro and meso level phenomena occur (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005). Playing according to the rules of the game, set by specific sets of capital and power struggles within the field, contributes to reproducing the field (Bourdieu, 1977). Fields are thus seen as being dynamic and being shaped by the social practice of the actors bearing the individual capital. Conceptualization of the organizational context as a field embedding power relations at different levels and in different forms gives the advantage of going beyond the visible, surface-level indicators of discrimination and intergroup relationships in the workplace (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005).

(23)

(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). The Multinational Corporation can be conceptualized as a field in order to provide a systematic approach or framework for organizational research and its structure and agents (Lounsbury and Centresca, 2003).

2.5.2. Habitus

Habitus, studied at the meso level, is particularly useful for studying dimensions of organizational cultures (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005). “The habitus – embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history, is the active presence of the whole past of which it is the product (Bourdieu, 1990). The habitus is where the individual and field conditions exist in a state of interplay. Habitus and the field are linked in a circular relationship. The field shapes the habitus while the habitus shapes the actions that reproduce the field (Chudzikowski & Mayrhofer, 2011). Organizational culture can be conceptualized as habitus in order to adhere to the dynamic nature of the organizational culture. This is necessary because organizational culture is the result of the continuous power struggle between agents within the field, or organization (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005).

Habitus allows the researcher of the organization to explore the invisible mechanisms and structure within an organization. The habitus, or organizational culture, is not static since it is constantly subjected to the changing and varied experiences of an individual. The organizational field and habitus function as the defining principle of the several power positions in the organizational context (Ozbilgin & Tatli, 2005).

2.5.3. Individual capital

(24)

presents itself in four fundamental forms: economic capital, cultural capital, social

capital and symbolic capital.

Economic capital is the only form of capital that is material and directly

convertible into money. It consists of material and monetary wealth, physical resources and commodities. The other three forms are immaterial forms of capital. Cultural capital is only convertible into economic capital. In this research the institutionalized state of cultural capital is used, which is the form of officially recognized and guaranteed competences. Social capital consists of the resources and powers derived from networks of relationships. It is the added value of being a member of a group. Finally, symbolic

capital is any property or any of the above forms of capital that is recognized by social

agents, which cause it to have value (Bourdieu 1998). Thus, this kind of capital is formed through the shared meanings of value. The rules of a social field specify which combination of the forms of capital will be authorized as symbolic capital (Chudzikowski & Mayrhofer, 2011).

2.5.4. Attitudinal consequences of capital

Many researches have found that capital of individuals are closely linked to their attitudes and behaviors within the field (Wacquant, 2006). At the micro (i.e. individual) level dispositions are put forward as an analytical concept to explore the dynamics governing the micro level of social reality. Dispositions are broader and more inclusive than the concept of attitudes. Dispositions thus provide greater possibilities to study and understand habitual and cognitive elements of actions (Ozbilgin and Tatli, 2005). Dynamics of different forms of capital and dispositions are governed by the logic of the habitus of the field. Through employing several strategies, individuals on one hand, transform, allocate and distribute their volume of capital among different forms, and on the other hand, reproduce and transform the habitus and field.

Based on the theoretical background provided in this chapter, propositions and hypotheses are formed. These propositions and hypotheses will form a theoretical framework and this will be given in the next chapter.

(25)

3. Theoretical propositions and hypotheses

In this section, theoretical propositions and hypotheses are given based on the theoretical background given in the previous section. These propositions and hypotheses form the theoretical framework. As a basis for the theoretical framework, Bourdieu’s theory of practice is used and his concepts are tested on relations and management within an organization. Furthermore, his theory is extended to the area of business through this research, increasing the transferability of his theory (Hennink et al, 2011). His theoretical framework has been mostly studied in sociology, but it is useful to extend it to the organizational environment. Bourdieu’s theory of practice is a beneficial framework in the organizational setting because it allows for a multi layered analysis of organizational phenomena, which can be complex and ambiguous. Since causal explanations instead of initial description of an event were measured, theoretical propositions based on the literature review are developed before collecting the data (Yin, 2013). The concepts were measured using the different dimensions by performing a survey in an embedded multiple case study. Propositions were tested by using data gathered from the case interviews, while hypotheses were tested by using data gathered from the surveys. The hypotheses are formed about the embedded units of the concept.

3.1. Presence of Humanness in South Africa as organizational habitus

(26)

concept reaches beyond criteria of efficiency and effectiveness to include human values and dispositions, Karsten and Illa (2005) say that Humanness forms a fundamental part of the dispositional practices of managers, in other words: their habitus. However, Humanness could also be found in the habitus of employees when Humanness is actually part of the entire organizational culture and when this is encouraged by the management styles within an organization. Furthermore, when the manager has a higher level of Humanness, they will engage participants in an effective exchange of relevant information to create a mutual understanding about what should be done. At this stage, acts of Humanness will no longer be “executed only if consciously planned but has become part of routine and normality” (Mueller and Carter, 2005, p.233). This way, Humanness is once again part of organizational culture. Ozbilgin and Tatli (2005) state that organizational culture can be measured at the meso level as habitus. When conceptualizing organizational culture as habitus, the organizational researcher has the opportunity to measure the dynamic nature of the organizational culture, as a result of the continuous power struggle between different managers and employees within an organization.

As levels of Humanness have been found in several places in the world, such as Tanzania, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Netherlands, it can be expected that Humanness levels can be found in South Africa as well, especially since Ubuntu, or Humanness, has first been developed in South Africa based on the South African culture (Jackson, 2004). As explained in the literature review, South African management styles are known to be collectivistic and very humanistic. The management styles are multidimensional and open-ended to utilize the strengths of a multicultural workforce. These management styles are derived from the collectivistic culture of South Africa. In this study, the habitus of employees and managers were measured in order to give a more complete view of the organizational culture within South African organizations. Based on the literature review and the above information, the following proposition is formed:

(27)

Surveys were used to measure the concepts. Humanness is measured by using the four dimensions: Survival, Solidarity, Compassion, and Respect & Dignity. Based on the literature review and the similarities between the South African culture and the dimensions of Humanness, the following hypotheses are formed:

H1: Humanness is represented in the South African organizational culture

H1a: The Humanness dimension Survival is represented in the South African organizational culture

H1b: The Humanness dimension Solidarity is represented in the South African organizational culture

H1c: The Humanness dimension Compassion is represented in the South African organizational culture

H1d: The Humanness dimension Respect & Dignity is represented in the South African organizational culture

3.2. Individual capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing

Borkent (2013) found that capital detained by employees had an impact on attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing within a MNC in the USA. She found that the enhancement of individual capital is beneficial for the willingness of employees to learn and share their knowledge and expertise. Since the same kind of study is conducted in a hotel chain in South Africa, it can be expected that similar results will show. However, since the USA is more of an individualistic culture and South Africa is more of a collectivistic culture, differences in the impact of the different kinds of individual capital can be expected. South Africa as a growing economy is being influenced by Western cultures (Jackson, 2004). It is interesting to see whether the same composition of impact of individual capital will result. This leads to the second proposition and the following hypotheses:

Proposition 2: Individual capital will have a positive effect on attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing

(28)

Hypothesis 3: Individual capital will have a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing

The survey measures the four different kinds of capital: economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital and their different impacts.

Economic capital emerges as an important motivating factor for employees with regard to knowledge management initiatives. Economic capital is measured by the annual

personal income in South African Rand. An appropriate reward mechanism enhances the

motivation of employees to learn and share knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The reward in the form of a ‘hard’ tangible benefit is most effective. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formed:

H2a: Economic capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards learning within a MNC H3a: Economic capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within a MNC

Cultural capital in this study is the form of officially recognized and guaranteed competences that determine the extent of the knowledge that individuals possess (Wacquant, 2006). In this study, cultural capital is measured using concepts used by Borkent (2013) and adapted from the study of Tundui (2012): the level of education of

the individual, the level of the education of the parent, the role model of the individual, tenure in the hospitality industry, the purposeful act of entering the industry, and the ethnicity of the individual. As the level of education increases, the knowledge of

(29)

review, South Africa has a collectivistic culture and Michailova and Hatchings (2006) found that this culture enhances attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing. These findings lead to the following hypotheses:

H2b: Cultural capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards learning within a MNC H3b: Cultural capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within a MNC

As mentioned before, results of learning and knowledge sharing are best when relationships are close. Kim et al. (2012) even argues that social capital is the biggest influence of knowledge sharing since knowledge sharing is a social process. Kim et al. (2012) are not the only ones who argue for the positive influence of social capital on knowledge sharing as many authors have argued for this type of capital to be a big impediment to attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing (Liu, 2011; Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Reinholt et al., 2011). Borkent (2012) also found that when individuals hold high amounts of social capital, they would significantly have more positive attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formed:

H2c: Social capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards learning within a MNC H3c: Social capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within a MNC

Symbolic capital is a soft kind of reward mechanism in that it enhances the motivation of employees through the acknowledgement from peers. Hall (2001) found that, with regard to knowledge management initiatives, symbolic capital is an important motivating factor for employees to demonstrate pro-social behaviors. In this study, symbolic capital is measured by the three variables used by Borkent (2013): nomination, executive team member and employer selection. The following hypotheses are formed:

(30)

H3d: Symbolic capital has a positive effect on attitudes to knowledge sharing within a MNC

3.3. Effect of Humanness as organizational Habitus

Humanness can be seen as the way people interact with each other and share their experiences. During these social interactions, tacit knowledge becomes shared and a sharing and open atmosphere is created (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Karsten and Illa (2005) also state that Humanness is based on communicative action and managers and who embrace this organizational culture will support these actions. The management language is meant to mobilize people into networks for knowledge sharing and team learning (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Dialogue and participation is also enhanced through Humanness. Dialogue is the active listening and exploring of perspectives without critique in a free and trusting environment (Senge, 1990). According to Webber (1993), dialogue is an important means of enabling organizational members to make tacit knowledge explicit. McAdam and Reid (2001) also find that forms of dialogue greatly contribute to knowledge sharing. Furthermore, Scholtens (2011), Boom (2012), Fredriks (2012), and Scholte (2012) state that there is a direct relationship between the presence of Ubuntu or Humanness values and the willingness to share knowledge. Because of the above reasons, it can be expected that knowledge sharing increases when more Humanness is present.

Furthermore, as Humanness is conceptualized as a part of the organizational culture, it is expected to have a positive moderating effect on attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing. As defined by Bourdieu’s theory of practice, employee attitudes are formed by their individual capital, the habitus and the field. As organizational culture can be seen as the organizational habitus, it will affect these attitudes through affecting the relationship between individual capital and the actual attitudes. The final proposition is formed:

(31)

The survey measures the presence of Humanness and its effect on attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing as well, so the last hypotheses are formed:

H4a: The presence of Humanness will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between individual capital and attitudes towards learning.

H4b: The presence of Humanness will have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between individual capital and attitudes towards knowledge sharing.

3.4. Theoretical Conceptual Framework

The propositions and hypotheses are used to propose a conceptual framework. A conceptual framework is an abstraction of the way a specific part, function, property or aspect of reality is perceived (Jonker and Pennink, 2010). The conceptual framework (see

Figure 1) presents the key concepts of the research and their proposed relationship

according to Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice (1990). The hypotheses of the quantitative research are shown as well. The dashed line shows the moderation effect of Humanness.

(32)

4. Case Protocol

Research based on case studies has become increasingly popular in the management field, for it allows for a detailed investigation of complex phenomena. In this study, a case study was performed, as the aim was to investigate in detail Humanness and its affect on organizational attitudes (Thomas, 2004). A case protocol was initially used to guide the researcher throughout the research and later adjusted in order to explain the research design and methodology. It consists of the research design, the case study profile, the data collection methods, the measurement tool, determination of validity and reliability, and the data analysis.

4.1. Research design

The main aim of this research was to investigate the value of Humanness in South African organizations by creating a conceptual framework that places Humanness as part of the organizational culture and envisioning its effects on individuals and their attitudes. The research further aimed to extend the research that has been done on the African management concept called Humanness. This concept was studied in-depth using both qualitative and quantitative methods, allowing for a more complete view of the concept. Furthermore, its effect as organizational habitus on the relationship between individual capital and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing was examined by using Bourdieu’s theory of practice as a theoretical framework. This way, the theory can be extended to a different field of studies and the value of Humanness in African organizational settings can be proven.

(33)

surveys that are handed out to employees of the organization. This mixed method approach thus allowed for both theory-building and theory-testing. An attempt at creating a deeper understanding of Humanness in organizations is made, while still incorporating empirical data created by the surveys. The case study is exploratory as well as explanatory, as it tests the transferability of Bourdieu’s theory of practice by examining the influence of Humanness on the relationship between individual capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing (Thomas, 2004). It is exploratory on the subject of Humanness, because multiple managers and experts were asked, using open questions, about their perceptions of Ubuntu, or Humanness.

4.2. Case study organizational profile

The five cases in this study were carefully selected by using criteria in order to make a comparison across the cases. The hospitality industry was chosen because of several reasons. The first reason is that, this way, this study can be compared to Borkent (2013) in the future in order to add to the knowledge of individual capital and its effect on knowledge sharing. The second reason is that the hospitality industry is a knowledge intensive industry (Kahle, 2002). Especially large international hotel chains continuously advance their learning and knowledge sharing practices because they have to deliver an overall service quality standard in their geographically dispersed hotels (Bouncken, 2002).

The South African hotel chain in Cape Town was chosen for several reasons, the first and most important reason being that it is an African hotel chain. Since this research aims to measure African organizational culture and management styles, it is essential that the hotel chain is African. The second reason being that when the hotels are from the same hotel chain, it is easier to compare the results between the five hotels. This is a necessary criterion in order to compare the results of the cases (Thomas, 2004).

(34)

hotels have between 4 and 5 stars, which means that hotels are of good quality. Furthermore, all hotels have between 150 and 200 rooms, indicating a rough similar size. All hotels live adhere to the three principles:

1. Respect for human dignity 2. The best guest service 3. In search of excellence

Finally, the hotel chain has the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment certificate (BBEE). The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBEE) is a program launched by the South African government to redress the inequalities by giving disadvantaged groups (coloreds and blacks) privileges such as employment preference, skills development, ownership, management, socioeconomic development and preferential procurement.

The five chosen hotels were recommended by the regional manager of the hotel chain in Cape Town. A short initial description of the hotels can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Profile of cases

Hotel Stars # Rooms Business Model

Case 1 4 201 Owned Case 2 4 172 Managed Case 3 5 155 Managed Case 4 4 124 Owned Case 5 5 180 Owned 4.3. Data collection

This study relied on holistic collection strategies for studying the main case and then surveys were called upon to collect data about the embedded units of analysis. Using multiple sources of evidence allows for a broader range of research, this is also called the triangulation method. By using the triangulation method, the construct validity of the case study is strengthened (Yin, 2013).

(35)

attitude of the manager. This allowed for a more holistic analysis of the interview. At the end of the interview, the managers were shown the proposed framework and were allowed to give feedback on it. The results of the interview were used to test whether the proposed relations hold and whether these needed to be refined. Questions were formed based on the literature review, propositions and the proposed theoretical framework (See

Appendix A). The following questions were used to guide the researcher in the interview:

• What do the management styles & organizational culture in South Africa look

like?

• Is Humanness as organizational habitus present in the hotel? • What are characteristics of an international hotel chain?

• What are the different forms of individual capital in an international hotel chain

in South Africa?

• How are the attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing?

• What effect do the different forms of individual capital have on attitudes towards

learning and knowledge sharing?

• How does Humanness influence the relationship between individual capital and

attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing?

Then, two additional interviews were performed in order to gain an even more in-depth view of the concept of Humanness. The first interview was performed with Billy Coop, an African consultant who is very knowledgeable about African management and qualitative analysis. The second interview was performed with Cynthia Schoeman, who performs ethical tests and monitors these tests for public and private companies. Questions were about Humanness, or Ubuntu, and its definition, its presence in South Africa, and its possible relation with other concepts.

(36)

research several layers within the case. The quantitative data from the survey was used to empirically test the hypotheses and relationships between the concepts.

4.4. Measurement Tool

For the survey in the case study, the measurement tool developed by Sigger et al (2010) and adjusted by Scholtens (2011) was used to measure Ubuntu as a management concept using the five-point Likert scale. The surveys created by Borkent (2013) were slightly adjusted to match the purpose of this study, using the seven-point Likert scale. The surveys can be found in Appendix B. The measurement tools will be elaborated on next.

4.4.1. Measurement tool Humanness

To measure the degree of Humanness within the South African hotels, a measurement tool developed by Sigger et al., (2010) and adjusted by Scholtens (2011) was used. In total, 33 statements were used to measure the four dimensions of Humanness: Survival, Solidarity,

Compassion and Respect & Dignity. However, instead of handing this questionnaire to

managers to measure their level of Humanness, the questionnaire was handed to employees. This was done so the Humanness level of more than one layer within the companies can be tested (i.e. both employee and manager responses were used). The 5-point Likert scale was used to measure the degree to which employees agree with the statements. The Humanness level represents the first section of the survey.

4.4.2. Measurement tool individual capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing

The measurement tool developed by Borkent (2013) was used to measure individual capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing. The tool was slightly adjusted according to comments of Borkent (2013) on the survey. Furthermore, the concept of present knowledge transfer techniques was left out. Borkent (2013) did not find a significant impact of this moderator, and the levels of Humanness were tested as a possible moderator instead. The 7-point Likert scale was used to measure social capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing. Open and multiple-choice questions were used to measure the demographics, the cultural capital, the economic capital and symbolic capital.

(37)

were based on the variables created by Borkent (2013). Table 3 shows the constructs and variables used in the study.

Table 3: Measures of Construct

Construct Variables used

Humanness Survival, Solidarity, Compassion, Respect &

Dignity

Individual capital Economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital

Economic capital Annual personal income

Cultural capital Education, education parents, role model, tenure in the hospitality industry, entry into the hospitality industry, ethnicity

Social capital Social capital

Symbolic capital Nomination, executive team member, employer selection

Attitudes to learning Attitudes to learning

Attitudes to knowledge sharing Attitudes to knowledge sharing

4.5. Validity and reliability

Measuring validity in mixed methods research is complex because adequate construct validity must be found for both quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Construct validity is appropriate to use because it is a pragmatic process, it requires mindfulness, recognition and integration of both qualitative and quantitative information, and because it assumes that there are no criteria to measure research quality except as determined by discourse and language of the researcher (Cherryholmes, 1988). Construct validity can be defined as “an idea or perception resulting from the orderly arrangement of facts and/or impressions that is able to withstand criticism or objection through the process of argumentation” (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1983). In the Mixed Methods Validation Framework of Dellinger & Leech (2007), construct validity for mixed methods research is split up in Design Quality, Legitimation and

Interpretive Rigor. These dimensions are used as a basis for determining the validity and

reliability of this study and discussed next.

4.5.1. Design Quality

(38)

Furthermore, according to Brewer & Hunter (1989), when using multiple methods, validity can be increased because of the increased variety and richness of the approach. Multiple cases in this study were chosen in order to compare results and allow for a more reliable approach. Furthermore, multiple levels of analysis allowed for a more complete view of the concepts and relationships. The research design thus allows for an exploration of the propositions, as well as an explanation of the relationship between the propositions. Because more than one case is used, the consistency of the design is increased.

4.5.2. Legitimation

Legitimation determines whether the design adheres to best practice and whether the results can be trusted (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2006). In this study, triangulation of data is used, which means that multiple sources of evidence (documents, interviews and surveys) are used to give a more complete view of the phenomena studied (Yin, 2013). This increases the reliability of the data. Furthermore, interviewing managers as well as handing out surveys to employees created multiple levels of analyses, which also increased reliability. The internal validity is increased by the use of multiple cases and then matching patterns within and across these cases. Multiple cases allow for making the results more generalizable (Yin, 2013). The theoretical propositions that went into the research design were empirically enhanced by the findings of the case interviews and then tested by the results of the surveys. This formed the groundwork for the analytical generalization (Yin, 2013). Finally, what is important for the case study is whether the propositions actually are the only explanation for the results that were received. Therefore, semi-structured interviews were performed with open questions, so the researcher was open for other explanations.

How Humanness Increases Organizational Knowledge Sharing 08

How Humanness Increases Organizational

Knowledge Sharing

Results from the South African hotel industry

How Humanness Increases Organizational

Knowledge Sharing

Results from the South African hotel industry

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures

1. Introduction

2. Theoretical background

3. Theoretical propositions and hypotheses

4. Case Protocol