How can collectivistic societies influence Humanness and Knowledge Sharing in corporate setting- Empirical evidence from UAE

(1)

0 | P a g e

How can collectivistic societies influence Humanness

and Knowledge Sharing in corporate setting-

Empirical evidence from UAE

(2)

1 | P a g e

How can collectivistic societies influence Humanness and

Knowledge Sharing in corporate setting- Empirical evidence from

UAE

Master Thesis Saumya Rohit Garg

s2993600 August 2016

saumyagarg2007@gmail.com

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc. International Business and Management

(3)

2 | P a g e ABSTRACT

This study explores how managers perceive the way humanness can influence knowledge sharing and furthermore how this relation and the perception of this relation is influenced by the cultural background. In this research we propose that the more a manager exerts humanness the higher is the willingness to share knowledge and this relation will be influenced by the background of a manager: collectivistic or individualistic societies.

The difference between practicing humanness and willingness to share knowledge is studied for two societal backgrounds: - Collectivistic and Individualistic societies with a proxy by using ethnicity - Arab and Indian background as representative for the collectivism and European background as a proxy for the individualistic society.

22 managers were interviewed as a total. 7 managers from individualistic societies and 14 managers from collectivistic societies were interviewed for analysis. An additional manager from a government organization was interviewed to understand its functioning.

The results bring forward experiences of managers from these different cultural background who state how there are other factors such as organizational culture, job insecurity, prior exposure to multicultural environments or time spent in a multicultural environment that play role in acceptance of humanness and willingness to share knowledge.

(4)

3 | P a g e ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to thank all the participants who agreed to be interviewed for my research and my acquaintance in MNC‟s who helped me to acquire the contacts of these participants.

Subsequently, I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Bartjan W. Pennink. Professor Pennink was always there to guide me whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research or writing. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. S.R. (Sathyajit) Gubbi as the second reader of this thesis, and his valuable inputs.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout the process of researching and writing this thesis.

(5)

4 | P a g e

Knowledge is a resource that provides organizations with a competitive edge that improves the firm‟s performance (Almahamid et al., 2010; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Foss & Pedersen, 2002; Grant, 1996; Spender & Grant, 1996). Effective distribution of knowledge resources ensures that essential knowledge, at the required time will be available for the right people to make decisions. Therefore, it enhances the value of the decisions taken (Suliman & Al-Hosani, 2014). Knowledge sharing is important for growth and its importance as a resource is not just restricted to firm level; countries have also started moving towards being a knowledge based economy (www.gulnews.com). Knowledge sharing can be attained at a primal level when the members of a team feel unified, share passion and common goals (Cummings, 2004; Pulakos, Dorsey, & Borman, 2003). Since the last decade or so it is a known fact that a person‟s cultural background effects their behavior and attitude. It has been firmly established that culture is a key determinant in a person‟s behavior (Church, 2000; Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2003; Markus & Kitayama, 1998; Triandis & Suh, 2002). Our humanity, willingness to share, attitude towards other societies and courage to be outside our comfort zone builds up our character. Some authors claim culture to be a barrier in the process of knowledge sharing while others say culture enhances knowledge sharing. In both circumstances culture is seen as a moderator; whose existence is influencing knowledge sharing (Möller & Svahn, 2002). This makes it interesting to study the concept of knowledge sharing in reference to culture.

(7)

6 | P a g e characteristic of an individual, which enhances knowledge sharing amongst individuals. The presence of humanness reflects characteristics such as empathy, compassion, sharing and mutuality (Mbigi, 2002; Poovan et al, 2006; Broodryk, 2006).

The theory of Humanness as a management style comes from an African term Ubuntu. It was developed by Mbigi (Mbigi, 2002). Ubuntu is derived from an expression „Umunutu ngumuntu ngabanty‟; which translates as: „the person is a person through the other person‟. Therefore, Ubuntu can be interpreted as humanness or being human. Professor Mbigi Lovemore considers himself as the founder of Ubuntu management style. In his work he has expressed his opinion that Africa should enter the global markets upholding their traditions, cultural heritance and business styles; and influences the western management styles rather than being influenced by them. Humanness empathizes on relationships over material wealth (Mbigi, 1997). The concept of humanness is built upon terms such as balance, team work, spirituality, interdependence, relationship and dialogue. The values of humanness are not only restricted to the African culture but can be found in other cultures as well (April & Hill, 2000). Ubuntu referred to as humanness in this study defines an individual in terms of his or her relationships with others in the community. As these relationships change, the character of an individual also changes. An individual can have multiple personalities which reflect his different relationships and roles in a society (Louw, 2008). Dimensions of humanness by Mbigi (1997) and Poovan et al (2006) [see table 2] – solidarity,

survival, compassion, respect and dignity are the central dimensions of humanness

which have been used in the past studies to measure humanness and are used in this present study to explain the concept of humanness to managers during interviews.

(8)

7 | P a g e knowledge sharing are influenced by culture. Culture shapes the behavior of its members. It does not provide with dominant logic to perform actions but instills habits, skills and styles in individuals. Cultural practices are behaviors observed and displayed by members of a culture (House et al, 2004).

There have also been some previous studies on finding a relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing (Sigger et al, 2010; Boom & Pennink, 2012; Scholtens, 2011 and many more listed in the appendix, section A). Section 2.2 has further information on the relationship between knowledge sharing and humanness.

However, there is lack of information on how culture affects both humanness and knowledge sharing simultaneously, this is the research gap found. The literature review will bring forward some of the research done on humanness and knowledge sharing in relation to culture. Nevertheless, the research gap found is to be studied by exploring the perceived relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing influenced by culture. Managers in companies make up the best sample for this study. This is because humanness is a management style and knowledge sharing is also being studied within organizations. This cross cultural difference will be studied through the distinction between collectivism and individualism as it is undoubtedly the most common criterion for cross cultural studies (Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2006). Moreover, Bhagat et al. (2002) argue that the dimensions collectivism and individualism strongly influence the process of knowledge sharing between individuals. As the study wishes to examine both the societies- collectivistic and individualistic, the research is best to be conducted in a multicultural environment to derive a contrast between the two cultural backgrounds.

This theory driven study aims to understand to what extent an individual‟s knowledge about one another‟s cultural background alters their ability to communicate, collaborate and share. The central question of this research is to understand how managers feel in a highly multicultural with regard to values of humanness and knowledge sharing.

(9)

8 | P a g e variation and multiculturalism results in improved humanness and propagation of knowledge sharing across the organizational hierarchy, if so how? And to find out if managers from collectivist culture adapt humanness as a management style easier than those of individualistic cultures.

The purpose of this research to find evidence on culture moderating the relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing inclines this study towards a grounded theory approach.

(10)

9 | P a g e 2. LITEATURE REVIEW ON HUMANNESS, KNOWLRDGE SHARING AND

CULTURE

2.1 Relevance of Humanness and knowledge sharing in corporate setting

Ubuntu [Humanness] as a management concept improves the coordination of employees in organizations. It is, “a pervasive spirit of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness that individuals and groups display for one another”. In this management style primal focus is upon establishing and reinforcing relationships of personnel‟s (Karsten & Illa, 2005).

Table 1: Definitions of Humanness

Table 2: Dimensions of Humanness

Humanness not only enhance communication between management and employees but also provides a voice too, that is, a participatory interaction where openly conflicts

Authors Their definition of Humanness

Mangaliso (2001) “Pervasive spirit of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness-that individuals and groups display for one another”.

Nussbaum (2003) “The capacity in African culture to express compassion, reciprocity, dignity, harmony, and humanity in the interests of building and maintaining community.”

Authors Dimensions they propose for the concept of Humanness Mbigi (1997) compassion, solidarity, survival, respect and dignity

Poovan et al (2006) compassion, reciprocity, dignity, humanity, mutuality

(11)

10 | P a g e and social formation can occur (Deetz, 2003). Mangaliso (2001) brings forward seven competitive advantages an organization experiences when it considers Ubuntu/Humanness as management style [see Figure 1]. In short it results in higher motivation to work, better communication in the organization, collective decision making and higher productivity.

Figure 1: Competitive advantage from Ubuntu in a corporate setting by Mangaliso (2001)

(12)

11 | P a g e expertise of one department is not being used to leverage other departments; f) the acceleration in technology has changed the dynamic of the corporate world, making everything globally accessible, to be up-to-date with the game one needs to be efficient at knowledge sharing (Gurteen, 1999).

Table 3: Definitions of Knowledge Sharing

A firm‟s performance can only be increased when that firm is constantly learning from the market it caters. Businesses can be market oriented, profit oriented or product oriented. However, market oriented or „market driven‟ businesses are able to anticipate the change in customer needs, taste and preference; moreover they are prone to be better at development of innovative products and services. This provides an advantage to grasp the opportunities available and turn their threats into possibilities (Slater & Narver, 1995). Market orientated firms constantly need to be innovative.

Day‟s market learning model describes the stages involved while a firm acquires market information. In this model [See Figure 2] it is shown that this „process of learning‟ is a continuous process in which the firm and its employees have to retain the information and knowledge it has collected and be able to access it and apply it with ease. This results in a knowledge-base which is a firm‟s valuable resource. It is very important that this knowledge-base is shared within the organization effectively and efficiently. Hence effective collections and distribution of knowledge is essential for firms (Day, 2002).

Authors Their definition on Knowledge Sharing

Paulin & Suneson (2012) “The exchange of knowledge between and among individuals, and within and among teams, organizational units, and organizations. This exchange may be focused or unfocused, but it usually does not have a clear a priori objective.”

(13)

12 | P a g e

Figure 2: Day's Market Learning Model.

This example supports the arguments put forward by few researches, stating that the flow of information or knowledge sharing in a firm is very important but challenging at the same time as information shared can be highly sensitive and confidential. As knowledge is a power, that provides competitive advantage. Knowledge also gets influenced by culture which could create a difference in the willingness to share knowledge (Lin, Lee & Wang, 2009).

For example: Philips has an internal database where all data about Philips, its market research, past projects, current projects, future goals and many other valuable information are available for the employees to go through. However there is a filter to

(14)

13 | P a g e 2.2 Relationship between Humanness and Knowledge sharing

As mentioned before the lack of consideration of the involvement of human characteristics in knowledge sharing lead to the failure of knowledge management (Wang & Noe, 2010). The theory of humanness helps to fill this gap by providing characteristics of individuals during the practice of humanness as a management style which results in successful propagation of knowledge. Gibbert and Krause (2002) argue that employees cannot be forced to share their knowledge, but can only be motivated and be provided with the right tools to do so. Humanness management style allows knowledge management to be performed successfully as the process will now include motivation and encouragement.

Mangaliso (2001) creates a contrast between traditional management concepts such as Taylorism and Fordism with Ubuntu [also known as humanness]. He says the former [Taylorism and Fordism] focus on formal language as means of transferring information, whereas the latter [Ubuntu = Humanness] creates conversations.

Knowledge sharing includes both the actors and act of sending and receiving information (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Van der Hooff & Van Weenen, 2004). Communication of knowledge can occur directly, such as face-to-face conversation or through workgroups, and indirectly, such as through a virtual environment using technology (Lin et al., 2009).

(15)

14 | P a g e Hence, presence of humanness increases knowledge sharing; this is the relationship between these two concepts being acknowledged in this study.

The past studies done by previous students of The University of Groningen contribute towards this relationship between the two concepts through their findings. Majority of these studies are mentioned in the appendix under Section A; following is a detailed example of the past studies on humanness and knowledge sharing -

Table 4: Positive relationship found between Humanness and Knowledge sharing by previous students of The Groningen University

Therefore it has already been established that there is a positive relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing. Now we want to research if an individual‟s cultural

Authors Country of

Analysis

Findings

Scholtens (2011) Tanzania One of the first studies to bring forward a strong relationship between Humanness and willingness to share knowledge.

Scholtens (2012) Indonesia Found a correlation between humanness and knowledge sharing and their dimensions through Pearson correlation test. The highest correlation was found between Humanness and Leadership and corporate culture (a dimension of knowledge sharing).

Boom (2012) Malaysia Continued this topic of research in Malaysia and similar to the past researched she too found the same results.

Proschel (2015) West and East Germany

(16)

15 | P a g e background reflects humanness in their management style and/or dictates their willingness to share knowledge and moreover how managers think about these relations; to gain an insight on their point of view on culture stimulating management style and sharing information. Humanness management style helps in converting organization knowledge into a competitive advantage. This transition is done by the leaders of an organization. Hence, it is important to study the crucial role manager‟s play in the process of managing organizational knowledge.

2.3 Collectivism & Individualism’s effect on humanness and knowledge sharing; and the way managers interpret this relation

Culture is made up of norms, tools, values, habits and procedures. The culture of an individual shapes his or her personality, and engages them in behaviors which are not evident in other societies (Reyes & Pinillos, 2016). Hofstede (1980) says “Culture is the

collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another”.

(17)

16 | P a g e or cultural web by Johnson and Scholes, there would be better explanation of Ubuntu [humanness] in managerial context. It lacks the wide consideration of culture.

As mentioned in the introduction, culture affects humanness and knowledge sharing individually. Figure 3 shows how cultural norms, history, beliefs which can all be categorized as culture, influences the philosophical thought system termed as Ubuntu/Humanness which drives the social attitudes and workplace behavior of individuals. The concept that cultural affects humanness management is understudied (Mangaliso, 2001).

Figure 3: Philosophical thought system and Workplace Behavior by Mangaliso (2001)

(18)

17 | P a g e However, Moller‟s model depicted in Figure 4 is just being used as a base to show that culture in terms of collectivism and individualism, effects knowledge sharing.

Figure 4: Influence of culture, net types and knowledge sharing on cross cultural knowledge sharing in business nets by (Möller & Svahn, 2002)

Figure 3 and 4 give a base for this research by supporting the question raised to know if culture affects the relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing. As it is important to first point out how culture affects humanness and knowledge sharing individually.

(19)

18 | P a g e universal measure for culture. Hence humanness and knowledge sharing are going to be studied on basis of cultural societies (Ardichvili et al, 2006).

(20)

19 | P a g e

Figure 5: Schwartz's cultural dimensions vs. Hofstede’s Cultural Differences

Collectivism: individuals coming from collectivistic societies are interdependent on each

other in a group; the group could be their family, the team they work with at office, tribe, nation, etc. These are highly traditional societies who give superior importance to the welfare of a group rather than the welfare of an individual. Their decisions are driven or influenced by the norms of their culture or groups (Triandis, 2001). Individualism: individuals coming from individualistic societies are independent from their group. They give superior importance to their personal goals rather than the goals of their group. Their decisions are driven by their own personality and not the norms of their culture or groups (Triandis, 2001).

There seem to be few similarities between the concept of collectivism and the concept of humanness. Such as, solidarity [dimension of humanness] can easily be connected to the concept of collectivism by Hofstede (2001) where people work together to achieve a target.

(21)

20 | P a g e which people in a society are integrated into groups (Hofstede, 2010). Secondly, the concept of humanness varies from culture to culture. That doesn‟t imply that cultures such as collectivism which focus on collective aspects are same as humanness. What it means to be human in different societies shows cross cultural dissimilarities. Third, on comparing the measurement of these two concepts it is noticed that they are not similar; in the appendix [see appendix Section B & C] you can see the questionnaire for humanness and for collectivism. Collectivism is measured as horizontal and vertical collectivism and is often measured along with individualism; whereas humanness is measured individually. On comparison you can see a difference in questions asked. Fourth, collectivism is a cultural concept at a societal level, where everyone behaves in a similar patter and depends on each other. Whereas humanness is a concept at individual level, it is how one sees himself as a part of a team (Vogt & Laher, 2009). Moreover in this research humanness is being considered as a management style whereas collectivism/individualism is being considered as the culture of the managers being interviewed. These are few of the many differences between collectivism and humanness.

(22)

21 | P a g e 2.4 Model proposed in this study

Figure 6: Framework Applied in this study

Figure 6 is the model being proposed in this research after studying and analyzing, past literature on: Humanness, Knowledge Sharing and Culture in terms of managers coming from collectivistic or individualistic societies. This study is analyzing three nationalities – Arabs, Europeans and Indian Sub-continent as representatives of the mentioned societies. The model shows that higher acceptance of humanness as a management concept will result in higher willingness to share knowledge. As previously mentioned in section 2.3, culture affects humanness and knowledge sharing individually and section 2.2 states how humanness and knowledge sharing have a positive relation. Humanness as a management style increase knowledge sharing. This forms the base of this model being proposed.

Cultural Societies

C vs. I

Humanness _Knowledge

Sharing Higher the Acceptance &

Reflection of Humanness

Higher willingness to Share Knowledge

Catalyst

Generates

(23)

22 | P a g e There has been a pilot study done by Grainger, Mills, & Sibanda (2010) with a Zimbabwean English speaker and a British English speaker to analyses the intercultural interaction between the two cultures. The results indicate that the Zimbabwean (collectivistic) participant had more traces of Ubuntu in his approach of sharing information in comparison to the British (individualistic) participant. The way he addressed others was more respectful and polite. The study by Grainger et al (2010) does not include managers as its sample nor does it include the corporate world, but it does resemble the objective of this to explore how culture influences the relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing, making it a strong base for this study and the model proposed. Moreover in the past research by Arend (2014), on comparing the scores of humanness between Tanzania, Malaysia, Indonesia and Netherlands it was found that Tanzania, Malaysia and Indonesia score higher than Netherlands in terms of humanness. One of the drivers of this difference is the culture of these nations. Following Hofstede‟s cultural dimension and focusing on collectivism vs. individualism [noted as C vs. I in figure 6]; we notice that collectivistic societies such as aforementioned countries – Tanzania, Indonesia and Malaysia are more accepting of humanness in comparison to Netherlands.

(24)

23 | P a g e Proposition 1. Collectivist managers accept humanness as a management

concept easier than Individualistic managers

element that might speed up the process of accepting humanness and knowledge sharing provided the manager comes from a collectivistic cultural background. The research done so far on humanness and knowledge sharing has mainly focused on their relationship with each other and their existence in the country of research. So now the purpose is to know how the culture of an individual reflects on their management style in terms of humanness and their willingness to share knowledge. However, these are assumptions on basis of past research. This study is intended to find out if managers agree with the model being proposed or not or think that there are other elements that also need to be considered.

There is a need for a research exploring what managers perceive of cultural differences and its effect on humanness in their management style and their willingness to share knowledge. A grounded theory helped in outlining few of the elements we assume influence a manager coming from a certain cultural background. These are presented in form of proposed propositions. The study presents three sensitizing concepts which are framed as propositions. After collecting data from the finalized sample and analyzing the results the study intends to propose further developed sensitizing concepts framed as developed propositions and even a newly developed model.

This theory will also help to examine the points of view of these managers as the proposed propositions are used to formulate questions for the interviews. Through which we derive how collectivistic and individualistic managers view themselves and each other in terms of humanness and knowledge sharing. Following are the propositions based on assumptions:

(25)

24 | P a g e Proposition 2. Managers from collective societies are more willing to share

knowledge in comparison to managers from individualistic societies

Proposition 3. Collectivistic managers prefer to share knowledge with managers and employees from a similar cultural background rather than with managers

or employees from individualistic societies. [The same is assumed for individualistic managers]

(26)

25 | P a g e 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Method

The research approach is to find if different ethnicities in a foreign land think or find that there is a difference in the influence on knowledge sharing and humanness; and to check if the prepositions are correct, or are there other elements influencing humanness and willingness to share knowledge of a manager. The method for this proposal is qualitative. This method is being considered so that humanness and knowledge sharing can be studied with a different approach. So far most of the researches done on this topic have been conducted by using surveys and questionnaires. These studies have mentioned the lack of in-depth interviews as their limitations. Therefore, this research will not only overcome these limitations but possibly try and bring out other elements of the proposed terms (Boom & Pennink, 2012). Interviews will make it possible to differentiate the thoughts on humanness and knowledge sharing that different ethnicities have.

A qualitative approach allows the managers to present their views, stories related to their job experience and their personal transition in a workplace. This allows for an explanation on why they behave in a certain way or why they assume a colleague from a different cultural background behaves in a certain way. A quantitative method usually uses a Likert scale to measure actions and behaviors which is not sufficient. Each behavior is triggered by an event. And qualitative methods such as interviews in this case allow the participants to point out the events that are effect their behavior.

3.2 Setting of Analysis

(27)

26 | P a g e with multicultural environment. There are other countries such as USA and Canada which also come as highly successful cases of multicultural environments, but locals of these individualistic countries are present in the corporate setting and influence its functioning whereas locals of the collectivistic country UAE are not easily found in the workplace and exert minimum to no influence on the corporate functioning. Hence, the results derived from UAE will not be influenced by the locals but purely dependent on individuals from the two cultural backgrounds and their experience in a multicultural workplace.

Reasons to choose UAE as the location to conduct this research are as following:

Firstly, only 13% of UAE‟s population is its native habitants known as Emiratis. Rest are expatriates from different parts of the world, making UAE an appropriate place to conduct this research as this proposal is to investigate how different cultural socities approach humanness and knowledge sharing (www.worldpopulationreview.com).

Secondly, there seems to be certain disturbances and restrictions in other Middle Eastern countries making them an unappealing setting. For example only recently have Saudi Arabian women given the right to vote, showing how restricted lives they do live (gulfnews.com). Their strict rules not only limit the lives of women but limit the chance of knowledge sharing opportunities. Even Jordan and Lebanon have been facing political and social crisis (gulfnews.com); problems in Syria are causing the habitats to leave the country and seek refuge. All these crisis and restrictions presently make many Middle Eastern countries unattractive for research; this results in support for keeping UAE as the setting.

(28)

27 | P a g e Third, UAE is transitioning towards a knowledge-based economy. They have recognized the need to be innovative and technologically competent (Ahmed & Alfaki, 2013). UAE has won the EXPO 2020 and is working towards bringing different field experts and utilizing their expertise to put up a memorable event. They recently even had an innovative week in which the public and private sectors participated in week full of interactive workshops, seminars, exhibitions and programs. This event was a platform for different fields and sectors irrespective to their ethnicity or cultural background to unite and share their knowledge (www.thenational.ae). Fifth, the dimensions of humanness can easily be applied to UAE, for example - the survival instinct is seen in UAE. After the 2008 crisis Dubai was struggling to overcome the recession; people were losing jobs, real estate value was below par, and more than half of construction over the city had stopped mid-way. During this difficult time Abu Dhabi [the oil hub in UAE] loaned Dubai [flourishing tourism, FDI and service industry] with billions of Dirhams to help it through these financial crisis (Hasan, 2010). Examples set by the royal families about helping each other for survival have instilled this dimension amongst the inhabitants of UAE. For a detailed description of UAE: see the next paragraph

3.2.(1) Country Background: UAE

(29)

28 | P a g e provided a safe and welcoming environment for other nationalities and created a multicultural environment.

UAE has a history stretching back to 100,000 years to the early Stone Age. Evidence from Neolithic period – 5500 BC (or 7500 years ago) states that there was interaction with the outside world. Hence, UAE has always been involved with sharing knowledge and commodity. Islam was spread in this area around 630 BC. The Persian Gulf coast was initially controlled by the Ottoman Empire and then the Portuguese. Soon other European countries too started showing interest in this Arab region. As a result numerous treaties were signed to preserve territories and local industries. The sheiks of UAE refused to indulge in any relationships and trade with any European country other than Britain. During this British era the local industry (pearl industry) was flourishing. It also leads to the discovery of oil in UAE. After independence, the new government of India imposed heavy taxes on the import of pearls crushing the peal industry (www.uaeinteract.com/uaehistory).

By early 1971 the rulers of emirates came to agreement to form a union. Therefore, the formation of United Arab Emirates [UAE] took place on 2nd December. Presently UAE has seven emirates under it – Abu Dhabi the capital, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Fujairah, Umm Al Quwain and Ras Al Khaimah. Each emirate is ruled by royal family of UAE.

Thirty years ago UAE was one of the least developed countries of the world. However their massive oil reserves allowed them to skip the hypothetical stages of development that other transiting countries had to go through. Given the abundance of natural resources, UAE adapted Resource Based Industries as development strategies. These resources attracted a lot of foreign investments in the country. Other than that, UAE is located in the heart of the Persian Gulf, making it a strategically optimal location for trade. This attracted traders from neighboring African countries, Middle-East, Europe and Asia.

(30)

29 | P a g e of natural resources, liberal and transparent fiscal policies promoting domestic and international investments, and political and social stability of UAE has led to its development that can be seen in the Figure 6. By 2015 the shown abandoned and underdeveloped deserts has turned into the heart of Dubai with various luxurious services, foreign trade establishments and other investments. It even houses the tallest artificial structure of the world, Burj Khalifa.

Figure 7: Image of Downtown Dubai – 1990 vs 2015

(31)

30 | P a g e The UAE has secured benefits from foreign unskilled and skilled workers, who initiated its economic development and subsequently have come to sustain it. Today 80% of its population is made up of expats. Figure 8 is a pie chart giving approx. of some of ethnicities in UAE for the year 2014.

(32)

31 | P a g e

Figure 9: Breakdown of population of UAE in terms of Collectivism and Individualism

Figure 9 is a breakdown of the cultural societies- collectivistic and individualistic in UAE. This figure has been derived from Figure 8 and its source where breakdown of the population each nationality in UAE is available. In figure 9 the blue area, being the largest area is the collectivistic society being considered for this research. It consists of two ethnic backgrounds – The Arabs and The Indian Sub – Continent. The red area represents the individualistic society being considered for this research, it consisted of managers from European countries. The green sector in the pie chart is for the UAE locals – Emiratis. They too come under collectivistic societies but are set separately in this research. The purple sector of the pie chart is the remaining part of the population of UAE that is not being considered for this research, they could be from either of the societies – collectivistic or individualistic. However since majority of the population is being consider for this reach and the results will be on cultural society levels then the results should be applicable to all nationalities coming under collectivistic or individualistic societies.

Breakdown of Cultural Socities

Collectivistic Socities in this research

Individualistic Socities in this research

(33)

32 | P a g e Hofstede‟s findings on UAE culture

Figure 10: Hofstede 6-D Model for UAE

Figure 10 shows UAE‟s cultural score as per Hofstede‟s 6-D Model. As per this model UAE scores high in Power distance which means that individuals and organizations in the country expect and accept high unequal distribution of power. The country is collectivistic where members in a group take responsibility for each other. UAE scores 50 in terms of masculinity. Therefore, it cannot be labeled as a society driven by completion and success or a society driven by quality and compassion for each other. Scores for long term orientation and indulgence are unavailable for the country. Hence, measuring the culture of UAE on the basis of all of Hofstede dimensions is not advisable. This dimension is relevant as we intent to study the management style of Emirati managers. Hofstede has found similar information on other ethnicities as well, few of which are being studies here in terms of their characterization into collectivistic or individualistic societies in UAE.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Hofstede's Cultural Score

(34)

33 | P a g e 3.3 Data Collection

Data will be collected through in-depth interview with semi structured scripts. Managers play a crucial role in the process of managing organizational knowledge; therefore, they are the sample for this research. So far all the research on humanness, knowledge sharing includes managers as a sample (Mbigi, 1997; Managers from two cultural backgrounds will be studied – collectivistic societies and individualistic societies. Ethnicity will be used as a proxy for these societies. Mangers from Arab regions [referred to as Manager A in transcripts, results and findings] and The Indian Sub - Continent [referred to as Manager I in transcripts, results and findings] will represent collectivistic society where as managers from Europe [referred to as Manager E in the transcripts, results and findings] will represent individualistic society. The three ethnicities to be interviewed to represent the two societies are selected because – Arabs cover the Middle Eastern region and make the results applicable to a mass population; Indian Sub- continent build up majority of the population of UAE, and their results are also applicable to a mass population. Moreover, both these ethnicities fit perfectly to represent collectivism. Europeans are the highest numbers of individuals from individualistic societies in UAE making them appropriate to represent individualistic society in this research. Twenty two managers were interviewed for this thesis. Fourteen managers from collectivistic societies and seven managers from individualistic societies being studied and one extra interview from a manager at a government organization.

These 21 managers were found through personal contact person in different companies. To avoid any biasness the person of contact in each company was not interviewed for this study but the managers recommended by them were. These managers were approached based on their cultural background. Later on other elements were also considered while selecting managers which are mentioned in the memo.

(35)

34 | P a g e to further understand humanness and knowledge sharing in collectivistic and individualistic managers in UAE. Many companies interviewed in this study did not have Emirati managers in their firm; in others the person of contact was unable to fix an appointment with the Emirati managers in their company. Some companies contacted through personal contact were unable to provide any interviews due to some internal budgeting going on which made it difficult for managers to interact with anyone outside the firm. Moreover a lot of companies did not respond when asked for the permission to conduct interviews with their managers, these companies were contacted formally not through personal contacts. Perhaps while conducting interviews it is beneficial to have a person of contact within the firm. It is an assumption that all managers in UAE irrespective to their cultural background follow the locals in their management style. For this the management style of locals is to be examined. Moreover there is very scarce information available on management style of Emiratis.

Conducting interviews in government organizations is a very difficult process. A lot of formalities have to be completed. Due to lack of time, a personal contact in one of the government organizations in UAE was contacted. This participant was interviewed informally.

(36)

35 | P a g e 3.4 Data Analysis

Data gathered through interviews will be analyzed through coding. Results of the collected information will be derived in four steps. Step one is initial coding also known as open coding; where each interview, their notes and their transcripts will be observed. Codes will be produced on each answer and the first set of code tree will be developed. Step two is axil coding; where codes will be rephrased, added or deleted as some codes might be missing or replaced. Step three; a result will be derived for each of the three ethnicities being studied as proxy, and then presented as results for the two societies. Four, different set of point of views will be presented in results for the societies- collectivist and individualist on basis of the results found from their proxy ethnicities. A memo will also be added in the research stating why the selected participant‟s parts of this research were part of the sample.

3.5 Memo

(37)

36 | P a g e While interviewing the same participant, Manager A – 2, it‟s observed that she has always worked in UAE. Hence being in a multicultural environment from the beginning has made her very open to other ethnicities. Thus, the two managers - one from individualistic society and another from a collectivistic society were selected who have worked in UAE from the beginning to see if they share similar views as her, these were Manager E – 4 and Manager I – 4 respectively. On research it is evident that since these managers have always been exposed to a multicultural environment they are very open to other nationalities; however, their views on collectivistic managers being more willing to share knowledge and collectivistic managers having more traces of humanness in their management style differs.

Manager E – 1 points out that there is difference in humanness in companies on the base of their size. He says SME‟s; even global ones are more collectivistic than large global organizations. However, this point is not further studied or used as a variable in this research.

During the interviews two managers from the collectivistic society have dual nationality. Manager A – 5 also has a Dutch nationality and Manager A – 4 has an American citizenship. This makes them as interesting variables in this research as they belong to and have experienced both the cultural backgrounds. Whereas Manager E – 1, a participant from individualistic society is married to a person from a collectivistic society and has also spent a considerable amount of time in collectivistic countries, exposing him more collectivist cultures at personal levels.

(38)

37 | P a g e A government manager was finally interviewed to get an insight on traces of knowledge sharing and humanness in a government organization. This brought forward new variables. However, due to lack of time more government managers could not be contacted, neither could the new variables be used as a means of selecting new managers.

(39)

38 | P a g e 4. WHAT DO MANAGERS SAY - RESULTS

4.1 Managers from Collectivistic background

The fourteen managers interviewed for this cultural background came from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, India and Pakistan. Therefore, the results are easily applicable to Middle Eastern nations and Indian Sub - Continent. The participants mention that while working in UAE they have been exposed to more nationalities, a more professional, and diverse and developed workplace. Along with this there are also individual inputs provided by these managers as their own experiences. These managers, excluding the ones with prior exposure to the west, come from countries not as developed as UAE so face a certain cultural shock at the beginning of their transition. Each manager has also had his or her own inputs in the difference in working style in UAE and their home country as per their individual experience which can be seen in the individual coding of the managers [See Appendix, Manager A – 1 to Manager A – 7 & Manager I – 1 to Manager I – 7].

(40)

39 | P a g e constant formal and informal interactions people from different ethnicities trust each other and get comfortable around each other.

Ten out of fourteen participants state that managers coming from collectivistic societies have higher traces of humanness in their management style. Though it has been noticed, that humanness in terms of management is limited to employees in the teams of these managers. Out of the remaining four managers; Manager A – 4 has a US citizenship, after recently shifting to UAE and working there she has experienced that Individualistic managers are insecure about their jobs. Hence tend to lose humanness in their management style in fear of losing their job and letting another person grow. Manager I – 4 has always worked in the same MNC in UAE and working in a multicultural environment from the beginning has made him open to all cultures. Manager I – 7 puts forward his opinion that managers from both collectivistic and individualistic can have equal humanness in their management style. As each culture is not pure anymore, everyone has been exposed to each other through globalization.

Nine out of fourteen managers state that managers coming from collectivistic societies are more open to knowledge sharing. They argue that collectivists are very generous by nature, their cultural background and orientation towards their families has molded their character of being open and sharing. They argue that these managers have more empathy, unity, compassion, team spirit and have a sort of brotherhood with each other. The reason behind is considered to be their family backgrounds and upbringing. The concept of helping free riders is present in this ethnicity. The remaining five managers state that the competiveness in the regions they come from, job insecurity and the concept of „knowledge is power‟ stops these managers to share information.

(41)

40 | P a g e managers. Majority of these managers feel that Individualistic managers do not reflect humanness as high as collectivistic managers in their management style.

As per the initial model [figure 6] proposed in this study these managers indicate that collectivistic managers have higher acceptance/reflection of humanness and willingness to share knowledge. Their culture is acting as a catalyst, which spends their speed of accepting humanness in their leadership, resulting in more openness and knowledge sharing with their employees.

4.2 Managers from Individualistic background

The seven managers interviewed came from different countries in Europe such as Netherlands, Denmark, Russia, Germany, Scotland and United Kingdoms. These managers come from more developed and social countries; hence, they go through a cultural shock at personal and professional level; except Manager E – 4 who did part of his education in UAE and got his first professional job there and did not go through cultural enigmas as he molded into the country culture at an early stage; and Manager E – 3 and Manager E – 1 who had worked in a middle east country before coming to UAE. Many of them in their previous jobs have been exposed to different cultures but not at such a high proportion as what is present in UAE [See appendix, Manager E – 1 to Manager E – 7].

Most of the participants have said to have a neutral relationship with other nationalities. They have just mentioned how they are sub consciously aware and cautious about avoiding topics such as politics and religion. The Europeans have a free style of conversation and outside their culture they need to accommodate as per the people they are dealing with.

(42)

41 | P a g e Only one European manager states that managers coming from collectivistic societies are more willing to share knowledge. The reason behind this could be that Manager E – 2 even while working in Europe was part of the same company and its Dubai team. He faced lack of collaboration in his home country as all his team members were in UAE. Hence, when he joined company branch in UAE he was already accustomed to his team members, and collaboration was easy.

The results from individualistic managers indicate that, individualistic managers have seen higher reflection of humanness as a management style in collectivistic managers. However, some of them argue that this humanness only extends to people from their own or similar cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless, they support proposition 1. Proposition 2 is not supported by individualistic managers as they feel that individualistic managers accept and reflect the same will as collectivistic managers to share information with others. Similar to collectivistic managers even individualistic managers have mixed reviews regarding proposition 3.

(43)

42 | P a g e 5. NEW FINDINGS

5.1 Discussion on different points of view

On collaboration of the results from collectivistic and individualistic managers from part 4.2, it‟s evident that most of the managers coming from collectivistic societies have more humanness in their management style and higher willingness to share knowledge. However a few of them stated otherwise. Even when managers from collectivistic societies agreed to the above statements they have pointed out common variables such as competiveness and job insecurity as descriptions of collectivistic managers which eventually hinders their management style and process of sharing information. This study is not a means of providing a comparison but a bridge to understand the different point of views people coming from different ethnicities have about themselves and each other.

(44)

43 | P a g e

Table 5: Different viewpoints of the studied cultural societies

The table above states how managers coming from collectivistic societies [Arabs + Indian Sub – Continent] and individualistic societies [Europeans] describe UAE as a diverse and multicultural country. They also find job insecurity and the reputation of managers as the drivers of the behavior of collectivistic managers with colleagues. Collectivistic managers tend to show more humanness in their behavior but their insecurities hinder their end goal. But at the same time their urge to maintain their status forces them to share more information with their teams than required. This in return hinders the independent growth of their employees. Whereas as individualistic managers allow their teams to independently grow but at the same time provide guidance in doing so.

Variables Collectivistic Managers Individualistic Managers

Find UAE as Multicultural, diverse, professional

Multicultural, flexible, strict

Find Collectivistic Managers as

Job insecurity, Team orientated, go out of the way to help someone, worry about their

reputation

Job insecurity, culture orientated, family orientated

Find Individualistic Mangers as

Need their space, avoid personal conversations, don‟t allow free riders, allow team members to

grow independently

Always taught to be open and social but like their own space.

Humanness Argue that Collectivistic people have higher humanness due to

their family background. Influenced by personality.

Argue that humanness is equally present and missing in

both societies. Influenced by personality.

Find that Knowledge Sharing influenced by

Top management, Organizational culture, Nationality of the

company

Top management, organizational culture

Find that Knowledge Sharing is promoted by

Creating comfort zones, HR activities, increasing interactions

Creating comfort zones, HR activities, increasing

(45)

44 | P a g e 5.2 New Model Proposed

Figure 11: Newly Developed framework

Cultural Societies

C vs. I

Humanness Knowledge

Sharing Higher the Acceptance

and Reflection of Humanness Higher willingness to Share Knowledge N ew Cat alyst Generates Prior exposure to the opposite cultural society through education or job Organization Culture &

(46)

45 | P a g e The new framework [see Figure 11] proposed includes more elements than before. After the interviews it has been observed that at an initial stage, cultural background of a person might dictate their willingness to share knowledge and inspire their management style by humanness. Hence, cultural background is now referred to as an initial catalyst that speeds up the process of accepting humanness and willingness to share knowledge at early stage, but it is further influenced by other elements which are mentioned below as new catalyst. In the model the boxes and arrows in red represent the new variables added and the boxes and arrows in black represent the variables present in both the old and new models.

As time passes, gradually an individual gets accustomed to other nationalities around it and is then equally open to them. Hence time spent in a multicultural environment melts down predominant ethnic prejudices. This makes „time spent in a multicultural

environment’ as relevant variable to be added to the revised framework.

It was also observed that prior exposure of person from west to the eastern culture and a person from east to the western culture through means of education, socializing, job and etc., helps them as individuals to overcome the cultural barrier that hinders them from doing their job.

The multicultural environment of UAE that is making all nationalities so comfortable over here -Manager A - 5

. Due to my exposure and background in Bahrain I wasn’t afraid to come back to this region. Many of my colleagues, many Europeans said never. I didn’t bother; I had the experience from

(47)

46 | P a g e The first and second new variables are connected to the cultural lens of a manager. Cultural lens is how one views a situation or people from a different cultural background than their own. Therefore, the more time spent in a multicultural environment and existence of prior exposure to other cultures, widens the cultural lens of managers (Sambharya, 1996; Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; Nielsen & Nielson, 2011). This as a result acts as a new catalyst in practice of humanness in management style and knowledge sharing.

Organization culture and the organization nationality, which is the origin of the company,

play a big role in influencing and promoting knowledge sharing and humanness. A company‟s culture is adapted by the country of origin. Some organizations spend a lot of resources, time and money on motivating their employees and managers to feel comfortable in a team. For example, the American company participant states that his company hires an external consultant who takes personality and performance tests of the employees to see how competent these employees are in terms of team spirit, collaboration, information sharing and etc. The results of these tests let a manager know which all areas does he and his team lack, the consultant company then comes up exercises customized for each team, its members and managers short comings. Organization culture connects employees, trains them and encourages them to share information with each other. It helps in building teams (Wang & Noe, 2010; Hatala & Lutta, 2009).

Clearly there are some companies where there is more emphasis on being cooperative and sharing like we have here and then there are some companies that are very competitive internally between employees and maybe employees don’t like each other and hinder sharing even if the companies vision is about sharing. So sharing can be obstructed by individuals and

(48)

47 | P a g e Therefore, in the new model being proposed - time spent in a multicultural environment, prior exposure to multicultural environment through job and education and organization culture/nationality are the new catalysts which speeds up the process of willingness to share knowledge and humanness in management style.

Based on the new model being proposed resulting from the codes derived from the interviews conducted, new propositions are also being put forward:

New Proposition 1. When individualism is influenced by collectivistic culture, the managers of these individualistic societies have higher traces of humanness in their management style.

New Proposition 2. After spending considerable amount of time (approximately 5 years) in a multicultural environment predominant ethnic prejudices, no longer exist.

New Proposition 3. Organization culture plays a crucial role in acceptance of humanness as management style.

New Proposition 4. Organization culture plays a crucial role in dictating the flow and frequency of share knowledge amongst managers.

(49)

48 | P a g e

Example 1a, from an individualistic manager’s transcript.

Transcript: Codes:

What influences sharing information is related to culture and atmosphere or you know the vibe that you have, the relationship between colleagues. Ofcourse it’s about the tools you have and the systems you have about sharing that information. Clearly there are some companies where there is more emphasis on being cooperative and sharing like we have here and then there are some companies that are very competitive internally between employees and maybe employees don’t like each other and hinder sharing even if the companies vision is about sharing. So sharing can be obstructed by individuals and their relationship with each other which is influenced by company culture.

 Atmosphere +Vibes  Relationships

 Company culture  Competition

= Organization culture

(all of the above codes can be categorized as organization culture)

As a result this code helped to form the new variable organization culture which dictates a manager’s willingness to share information. Similarly other transcripts used this same code (now a new variable) as a catalyst to describe knowledge sharing and humanness. This helped in forming the new model and new propositions 3 and 4.

Example 1b, from an individualistic manager’s transcript.

Transcripts: Codes:

Surely, due to my exposure and background in Bahrain I wasn’t afraid to come back to this region. Many of my colleagues, many Europeans said never. I didn’t bother; I had the experience from Bahrain.

Prior exposure to opposite cultural society.

(50)

49 | P a g e

Example 2a, from a collectivistic manager’s transcript

I am a little bit of a different case because I grew up in an Arabic household and I went to an American school growing up and I was surrounded by American culture growing up and I am a Palestinian by origin so I have always grown up around people of different cultures. Then I went to states for further education. I am just as comfortable with somebody from the Arabic world as somebody from Texas

 American education in home

country

 Surrounded by American culture

and friends.

 Went to US for further studies.

=Prior exposure to the opposite cultural society.

(all the above codes can be categorized under prior exposure)

As a result this code helped to form new variable prior exposure to opposite

cultural society and even contributed

towards another variable – time spent in

a multicultural environment. This helped

(51)

50 | P a g e Example 2b, from a collectivistic manager‟s transcript

What do you think influences sharing information in an organization AND why?

The organizational culture. How the organization promotes or supports the personal interaction between two individuals. This is the third corporation that I have worked in. the second one I worked in was very much supportive of social interactions. On monthly basis they would bring people in a room and have general discussion and we would have a lunch or dinner every quarter. In that environment people are more prone to discuss their personal lives and they were more open and close to their colleagues. Other organizations that I have worked for don’t really support such a thing. It’s never even mentioned. I find that in those companies the people are only focused on the work they are doing. They are very reluctant to share

 Organization culture

 Promotion and support by company

 Monthly discussion

= organization culture

(all of the above codes can be categorized as organization culture)

(52)

51 | P a g e Example 2c, from a collectivistic manager‟s transcript

It took some time initially. But now some of my best friends are not Indians. Of course there is a cultural difference. So it takes time for families to meet. It takes time for families to mingle with each other.

It takes time if it is happen. I have had so Arab friends even sharing financial problems with me. Some happening within family, some issues with wife and mother in law. These come after 5 plus years of interaction. It doesn’t come easily.

 Time overcomes culture  Trust

 Years of interaction

= time spent in a multicultural environment

As a result this code helped to form new variable time spent in a multicultural

environment. This helped in building the

new variables in the new model proposed and to form the propositions 2.

The codes found in transcripts are categorized as themes such as

- How is it working in UAE

- How is it working in Home Country

- Relationship with similar and opposite societies - Sharing information

- Views on Collectivistic managers having humanness and their knowledge sharing

For example, an overview of coding from one of the transcripts:

Working in UAE  Multicultural

 Mixed environment  Different approaches  Different tunings

(53)

52 | P a g e  A cultural shock in the early stage

Working in Home Country  Similarity in approach  Same tuning

 Same culture

 Subservient in nature  Hierarchy driven

Relationship with other societies

 It takes time and lots of informal interaction to create strong bonds with people outside your own nationality

 Now extremely open and close to people from other ethnicities Relationship with same societies

 It‟s same as working in the home country Sharing information

 Job demands

 Teams

 Fear of bad reputation influences

 Trust

 Competitiveness

 Groups within organizations  HR activities

 Increased interactions

 Creating safe zones promotes

 Creating comfort zones

Collectivistic Managers – Humanness = YES  Allow freeriding

 Adjusting nature  Emotional

Collectivistic Managers – Knowledge sharing = YES  Brotherhood

 Helping people along the way

 Share professional information personally

Figure 11: An overview of the coding in a transcript