The influence of Humanness on organizational knowledge sharing and learning

(1)

The influence of Humanness on

organizational knowledge sharing

and learning

Results from the Dutch hospitality industry

Master Thesis International Business & Management

Nils de Vries – s1693549

n.de.vries.14@student.rug.nl

Supervisors

Dr. B.J.W. Pennink

Dr. A.A.J. van Hoorn

Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

January 2016

(2)

2

Abstract

The African „Ubuntu‟-philosphy consists of five dimensions: Solidarity, Survival, Compassion, Respect and Dignity (Mbigi, 1997). The philosophy is deeply vested in many African cultures. However, the philosophy has also found its way into western cultures and even organizations. Previous researchers have studied the effect that Ubuntu (or Humanness) has on attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning; two aspects that are of great importance to any organization. Some of these studies have also included Bourdieu‟s Theory of Practice, which mentions 4 forms of individual human capital: economic, cultural, social and symbolic (Bourdieu, 1986). The combination of these subjects has been researched within organizations that operate in the Dutch hospitality industry by using an adapted version of the measurement tool developed by Sigger, Polak and Pennink (2010). Results have shown that , even though all the dimensions of Humanness are present within the organizations, only the concept of social capital (which deals with the relationships and ties individuals have with one another) is of a significant positive influence to the attitudes of both learning and knowledge sharing.

(3)

3

Acknowledgements

(4)

4

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Country comparison Hofstede‟s Cultural Dimension ... 17

Figure 2: Proposed theoretical framework ... 26

Table 1: Characteristics of participating hotels ... 28

Table 2: Concepts and variables ... 30

Table 3: Cronbach‟s Alpha-scores of used concepts ... 32

Table 4: Adjusted Cronbach‟s Alpha-scores of used concepts ... 34

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of survey results ... 35

Table 6: Correlations ... 38

Table 7: Correlations dimensions of Humanness ... 39

Figure 3: Theoretical framework with adjusted Beta‟s ... 41

Table 8: Overview of tested hypotheses ... 42

(7)

7

1. Introduction

“An anthropologist proposed a game to the kids in an African Tribe. He put a basket of fruit near a tree and told the kids that whoever got there first won the sweet fruits. When he told them to run they all took each other‟s hands and ran together, then sat together enjoying their

treats. When the anthropologist asked them why they had run like that as one could have had all the fruit for himself, they said: “Ubuntu. How can one of us be happy if all the other ones

are sad?””

(8)

8 Van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) subsequently continued building on these results, shifting the field of research from a regular organizational setting to the hospitality industry. Their results differed with regards to some aspects of the learning and knowledge sharing aspects compared to the research that was performed in different industries. In order to expand the body of knowledge on these subjects in this type of sector, it goes without saying that further research has to be performed in different regions. The research that was performed by van Bree (2012) and Crick (2012) was performed in the countries of South Africa and Indonesia, respectively. Other previous research combining the subjects of Humanness and learning and knowledge sharing were also performed in countries located in African and Asian regions. Therefore, it would be interesting to see how these concepts are connected in a Western society. Therefore, this research will shift the ideas van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) to the hospitality industry in the Netherlands. In order to perform research and compare the results to those of previous studies, a main research question must be used as a guideline to this study. The main research question of this study is as follows:

Does Humanness exist in Dutch organizations and how does it influence employees‟ attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning?

More specifically the presence and possible effect of Humanness on attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning within organizations operating in the Dutch hospitality industry will be examined.

The purpose of this research is to extend on research previously performed by Fredriks (2012), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014). Therefore, its main contribution to the literature is that it will expand the body of knowledge on the subjects of Humanness, knowledge sharing and learning within organizations. Based on the attained results, managerial implications will be listed in order for organizations and the managers of these organizations to use the findings to their advantage.

(9)

9

2. Literature Review

2.1 Ubuntu

The origins of the Ubuntu philosophy can be traced back to South Africa; more specifically, to the Zulu culture. The literal translation of the saying “umuntungumuntungabantu”, of which the word Ubuntu is deterioration, slightly varies depending on which author has translated the saying. These variations include “the person is a person through other persons” (Karstenand Illa, 2005) and “I am a person through other human beings” (Broodryk, 2005). The most accurate and universally accepted translation of Ubuntu is “Humanness” (Karstenand Illa, 2005; Broodryk, 2005).

2.2 Ubuntu as a management concept

After the end of the Apartheid era in 1994, it became clear that the South African business community needed to undergo changes in order to be able to coincide with the political changes in the country. Several philosophies and dimensions were utilized in order to facilitate these changes. One of these philosophies was Ubuntu (Karstenand Illa, 2005). The aspects that made Ubuntu relevant for African management are, according to Mbigi (1997): “the spirit of unconditional African collective contribution, solidarity, acceptance, dignity, stewardship, compassion and care, hospitality and legitimacy”. These aspects make them relevant as a strong philosophical base for the community concept of management (Khoza, 1994). Khoza (1994) was the first to attempt to extend the Ubuntu philosophy to the African business environment. The presence of Humanness in organizational culture is an essential prerequisite in order for management to be in alignment with Humanness. Therefore the organization should be seen as a community. According to Lutz (2009), this is a form of collectivism, which is in alignment with the Ubuntu philosophy, since the wellbeing of the community equals the wellbeing of all individuals in said community. Karstenand Illa (2005) mention that when Humanness values are present in people‟s daily lives, they will automatically be reflected in organizational cultures.

2.3 Humanness outside of Africa

(10)

10 present in African management, but in the management cultures of a variety of countries. Evidence for this has been found through research in Tanzania (Sigger et al, 2010), Malaysia (Boom, 2012), Indonesia (Scholte, 2012) and the Netherlands (Fredriks, 2012). This evidence however does not mean that Ubuntu has replaced traditional Western management styles, but has incorporated some aspects of Humanness (van Bree, 2014). All these researches have made use of a measurement tool developed by Sigger et al (2010)., who used their tool to become the first to find empirical evidence of Humanness in (international) organizations. This management tool incorporates the five dimensions of Ubuntu as proposed by Mbigi (1997) These dimensions are Survival, Solidarity, Compassion, Respect and Dignity. Broodryk (2006) also found multiple dimensions of Ubuntu, which are very similar to those proposed by Mbigi. These dimensions have been acknowledged, and subsequently used in further research, by various authors such as Poovan et al (2006), Broodryk (2006) and the previously mentioned Sigger et al.(2010).

2.4 The five dimensions of Humanness

“A thumb, although it is strong, cannot kill aphids on its own. It would require the collective operation of the other fingers”(Mbigiand Maree, 1995: 110)

This African proverb formed the inspiration for Mbigi‟s theory of the five fingers. These fingers can be seen as two things. Firstly, they represent individuals who collectively will have to work together to achieve certain goals. Secondly, they represent the five dimensions of Ubuntu as mentioned in the previous section: Survival, Solidarity, Compassion and Respect and Dignity. Since the latter are so closely connected they combined represent one finger by Mgibi (1997), something that has been followed in further research by Poovan et al. (2006), Broodryk (2006) and Sigger et al. (2010). Following the several dimensions will be listed and explained.

2.4.1 Survival

(11)

11 shared reliance between members of an organization, which should lead to a more effective organization (Mbigi, 1997). Achieving collective goals will strengthen the collective of a team and will subsequently lead to individual gains.

2.4.2 Solidarity

Closely related to Survival is the dimension of Solidarity. Like with Survival, in this dimension as emphasis is put on the collective or community and its wellbeing rather than on individual interests, gains and goals (Sigger et al., 2010), up to a point where the individual identity almost becomes non-existent (Nussbaum, 2003). Translated to organizational culture this would mean that proper team work will lead to organizational gains, of which the „individuals‟ will also benefit. Team cohesion and commitment are important in order to achieve this (Broodryk, 2006).

2.4.3 Compassion

The third dimension as described by Mbigi (1997) is Compassion. Compassion deals with a person‟s understanding of problems of others, and the willingness to help them (solve these problems), whether they are members of their community or not, almost resulting in the individual‟s wellbeing being less important than that of others(Poovan et al., 2006). Compassion strengthens the connection between community members, and will also help in creating new connections.

2.4.4 Respect and Dignity

As mentioned previously, the last two dimensions have been merged into one by Sigger et al. (2010) since they are so closely related to one another and are very much the same. One definition of respect is “objectives, unbiased consideration and regard for rights, values

beliefs and property” (Pooven et al., 2006). Dignity is best described as “the state or quality of being worthy of respect” (Sigger et al., 2006). A high value is placed on the respect that is

(12)

12

2.5 Knowledge

“A fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating 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 andPrusak, 1998

Out of the many definitions that have been formulated on the subject, this definition of knowledge is the most applicable to this research. This definition has also been used by Borkent (2013), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014), works of which the findings will be discussed later on in this research.

2.5.1 Knowledge in the hospitality industry

Since the main focus of this research and the research by Borkent (2013), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) are all focused on the hospitality industry, an explanation on the importance of knowledge to the hospitality industry must be given before the concept of knowledge will be dissected any further. The nature of the service that firms in the hospitality industry try to provide is one that stems from the interaction between customers and employees, in which the latter are supposed to have knowledge of the customers‟ needs in order to satisfy these needs (Kahle, 2002; Kotler, Bowen and Makens, 1999). To be more specific, this structure includes the customers, products, services, operational procedures, competitors and job associates of the organization (Yang and Wan, 2004). From this information one can deduct that the proper management of knowledge can have a positive effect on organizational innovation and innovative performance (Kim, Lee, Paekand Lee, 2012). Moreover, high employee turnover rates may lead to higher costs and the loss of knowledge, which makes proper knowledge management even more important (HallinandMarnburg, 2008; Kim and Lee, 2010; Yang and Wan, 2004).

2.5.2 Explicit vs. tacit knowledge

(13)

13 transferring this knowledge. Adding to this the factors of action, involvement and commitment, and one can conclude that it is less easy to communicate (Nonaka, 1994). Despite their different nature, both types of knowledge play an important role when linked to organizational performance, which makes them both relevant for this research, as well as the research that will be discussed later on.

2.5.3 Individual vs. organizational knowledge

Secondly, the difference between individual and organizational knowledge will be explained. Darroch describes individual knowledge as “comprehensive interpretations and syntheses of

information being gathered by applying individual talent, past experiences and competences”

(Darroch, 2003). Nonaka and Takeuchi add to this the relation with the values, beliefs and actions of individuals (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Therefore, the capacity of the individual determines whether(and if so, what level of) knowledge is created (van Bree, 2014). Organizational knowledge partially consists of individual knowledge; the latter can be seen as the basis for the first. However, organizational knowledge can also be defined as the combination of group- and/or sub-unit knowledge (Hatch, 2010). In order to be useful as organizational information, individual information first needs to be transferred into such. Naturally, one of the ways this can be done is by sharing the individual information (Ipe, 2003). Therefore, it is crucial that employees communicate and interact with each other. Apart from turning individual knowledge into knowledge of an organizational kind, this process will also enrich the knowledge of individuals (Bhatt, 1998; Ibe, 2003).

2.5.4 Individual knowledge sharing and learning

(14)

14 vital role in the creation of organizational knowledge. Whereas Kim and Lee (2006) define the process of knowledge sharing as “the ability to share experience, information and expertise with other employees through both formal and informal interactions”, other authors expand on this concept by explaining it as the communication between various members within an organization. This communication involves the acquisition and provision of knowledge (Kim et al., 2012).Since the process involves one individual sharing knowledge and another acquiring said knowledge, new learning opportunities are generated. This means however that the first individual is actually willing to share the knowledge, and that the second individual is actually able to acquire and process this knowledge; this is the will and ability to learn. If there is no attitude to learn among the employees, knowledge on an individual level will be orphaned and will therefore most likely never turn into one of an organizational kind (Robertson and Hammersley, 2000). The level of learning is determined by the capability of an individual to obtain insight of the organization, understand the organizational environment and interpret the meaning of this environment, and reflect and react on the consequences of their behavior (Yang, 2004; van Bree, 2014). From this information can be derived that learning and knowledge sharing, although slightly different, are very closely related to one another.

2.5.5 Triggers of knowledge sharing

(15)

15 Lee, 2010). To summarize this section, organizations that carefully enable and foster social ties and interaction, trust and shared goals and visions will most likely experience a higher level of knowledge sharing than companies who do not do this (van Bree, 2014).

2.6 Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice

Before moving on to the section in which the three previously mentioned researches will be discussed, a theory that plays a vital role in all three must be explained. This theory is Bourdieu‟s theory of practice. This theory can be explained as “a multi layered framework that conceptualizes individuals as producers of social practices within a social space while following specific logics of practices” (Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer, 2011: 22). Within this theory, there are three concepts that are of importance. These concepts are field, habitus and capital. These three all work together and as a result they will generate practice. (Bourdieu, 1977). Although Bourdieu‟s theory can help conceptualize parts of management at multiple levels (Özbilgin and Tatli, 2005), it is not a theory that has often been used by researchers in the past, simply because it is quite difficult to comprehend due to its size, the fact that it is written in French and its writing style (Özbilgin and Tatli, 2005; Everett, 2002: 77). However, the theory is gaining popularity among researchers, and therefore is drawn upon increasingly more (Özbilgin and Tatli, 2005). The previously mentioned levels of the organization that may be helped by utilizing the theory are the macro level (through field), the meso level (through habitus) and the individual level (through capital and dispositions) (Bourdieu, 1998).

2.6.1 Field

(16)

16

2.6.2 Habitus

The habitus can be explained as standard practice that is vested deep within the organization. It can be studied at the meso level and can be used for the study of organizational cultures‟ dimensions (Özbilgin and Tatli, 2005). According to Bourdieu, “the habitus […] is the active

presence of the whole past of which it is the product” (Bourdieu, 1990). The habitus and the

field are closely connected in such a way that the habitus is shaped by the field and the actions that reproduce the field are shaped by the habitus. Furthermore, the habitus is the reason for the coexistence of field and individual conditions (Chudzikowski and Mayrhofer, 2011). The best example or synonym for habitus is organizational culture.

2.6.3 Individual capital

The final concept incorporated in Bourdieu‟s theory of Practice is that of individual capital. Individual capital consists of four dimensions: economic capital, cultural capital, social

capital and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986).

Economic capital deals with a subject‟s financial compensation, financial status, physical

resources and commodities. Hence, it is the only form of individual capital that is of a materialistic nature.Cultural capital deals with an individual‟s competences, for example through their level of education and acknowledgements related to this, or the amount of cultural influences a person has had, for example through the reading of newspapers and books.Social capital deals with the level of relationships and strength of ties a person has with other individuals; in other words, the deeper understanding behind a person‟s social life. Finally, symbolic capital deals with the shared recognized meaning of all of the previously mentioned types of capital, which give value to these possessions (Bourdieu, 1998).

2.7 Relevant previous research

(17)

17

Figure 1: Country comparison Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2016)

2.7.1 Fredriks (2012)

The first research that will be discussed is that performed by Fredriks (2012). Out of the four studies that will be discussed in this section, this research incorporated the concept of Humanness and its dimensions the most. The first aim of the research was to examine the presence of Humanness in Dutch organizational culture. Questionnaires were sent to Dutch managersand with a sample size of 190 the response rate was quite high. Data analysis showed that Humanness and all of its four dimensions were present within the Dutch organizations. Furthermore, the influence of Humanness and its dimensions on knowledge sharing within organizations was examined.Humanness and the dimensions of Survival and Respect & Dignity turned out to be positively related towards knowledge sharing within organizations. The total research was somewhat more elaborate than this, but the other hypotheses that were tested are not of any further relevance to this research.

2.7.2 Borkent (2013)

(18)

18 and data was gathered by means performing a case study. 101 usable questionnaires were returned by employees from five hotels from the same chain of hotels, which was one of the limitations of this research. The questions that were asked in these questionnaires concerned the process of knowledge sharing within the organization and are very similar to those used in parts two and three of this research‟s questionnaire. Results of the research showed that there was evidence of a significant relation between individual, cultural, social and symbolic capital and attitudes to learning, as well as a significant relationship between individual, cultural, social and symbolic capital and attitudes to knowledge sharing. However, no statistical evidence for a significant relationship between economic capital and attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing were found, and neither a positive association of attitudes to learning and knowledge sharing and the performance of the MNC/organization. One of the most important findings that the research showed was that those employees holding the most individual capital (which can be (a combination of) cultural, social and symbolic capital) were most willing and eager to learn new and share possessed knowledge. Therefore, a larger amount of individual capital amongst more employees will be beneficial to the organization, since this will have a positive effect on the process of knowledge sharing, which again will increase the amount of individual capital, and so on.

2.7.3 van Bree (2014)

(19)

19 sharing. However, this was limited since it was only significant through social capital. In this case, Humannessdoes not have a significant positive effect on the relationship between individual capital and both learning and knowledge sharing. One important conclusion of the research was that managers are a vital exponent when it comes to making Humanness an organizational habitus. If the manager has a mind that is set towards Humanness, only then can it become part of the organization; the manager sets an example. These findings are similar to conclusions drawn by other researchers.

2.7.4 Crick (2014)

(20)

20

3. Hypotheses

In the following section, the theoretical propositions and hypothesis that will be used for this research will be listed and linked to the theoretical framework as described in the previous chapters. The propositions and hypothesis have been borrowed from the van Bree (2014) research. The reason for this is that this research is an extension of that study, only performed in a different cultural setting, namely the Netherlands instead of South Africa. The basis for the propositions and hypotheses that will be used is the theory of practice as formulated by Bourdieu. Even though this theory was originally designed to perform tests in the field of sociology, previous research has shown that it also well equipped to be used in business setting. As has been explained previously, this theory is useful in that it can be used to test the subjects of knowledge sharing and learning within the organization on multiple levels. Added to this theory has been the concept of Humanness. Based on these two theories, van Bree (2014) formulated multiple propositions, each with its own hypotheses. What follows is an explanation of the propositions and hypotheses and their relevance to this research.

3.1 The presence of Humanness in the Netherlands

(21)

21 derived from the theoretical background and the research performed by Borkent (2013) and van Bree (2014), the first hypothesis is formulated as such:

H1:Humannes is represented in the Dutch organizational culture

More specifically, the data required for this research will be gathered by distributing surveys to individuals who work in several layers of organizations operating within the hospitality industry. Since the nature of this industry is often different from the average business environment, using this industry as the field of research will contribute to the knowledge regarding the Netherlands, in which previous data was gathered by Fredriks (2011), but in a different sector. However, based on this previous research and the research that has been performed hospitality industries in different countries, it is expected that (parts of) Humanness will be present within organizations operating in the Dutch hospitality industry. As explained previously, the concept of Humanness can be divided into four main groups: Survival, Solidarity, Compassion and Respect & Dignity. Based on the above information, the following set of sub-hypotheses was constructed by van Bree (2014):

H1a: The Humanness dimension Survival is represented inthe Dutchorganizational culture H1b: The Humanness dimension Solidarity is represented in the Dutchorganizational culture H1c: The Humanness dimension Compassion is represented in the Dutchorganizational culture

H1d: The Humanness dimension Respect & Dignity is represented in the Dutchorganizational culture

(22)

22

3.2 Individual capital and attitudes towards knowledge sharing and

learning

The second set of hypotheses will deal with the concepts of knowledge sharing and learning.Borkent (2013), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) have all tested the relationship between individual capital and its four dimensions, and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing. Although the United States and South Africa do not differ a lot when it comes to Hofstede‟s dimensions (2010), Borkent found proof of more significant relations between these concepts than van Bree did. The results presented by Crick are comparable to van Bree‟s, despite the fact that the country in which he conducted his research, Indonesia, is in some respects quite different from South Africa. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what kind of results research in the Dutch hospitality industry will show, The following hypothesesdeal with the relationship between individual capital and learning, and have also been used by the three researchers mentioned above:

H2: Individual capital will have a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing H3: Individual capital will have a positive effect on attitudes towards learning

These two hypotheses will each be divided into four sub-hypotheses, each of which will cover one dimension of individual capital. This method has been applied by Borkent (2013) as well as van Bree (2014). The first set of sub-hypothesis deals with economic capital. The answers to the question about the employee‟s annual income will provide an answer to this question. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998), well-constructed reward mechanisms can enhance employees‟ motivations to learn and share knowledge. Since the concept of „employee of the month/year‟ has been left out of this research, the annual income will be the only motivating factor for employees to partake in learning and knowledge sharing behavior. The first two sub-hypothesis were constructed as follows:

H2a: Economic capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within an organization

(23)

23 The second dimension of individual capital is that of cultural capital. This type of capital deals with the capabilities of an employee. These capabilities are determined by their background and reason for entering the industry, and they have an influence on the level of knowledge the employee possesses. The questions in the survey that will be used to measure this concept are the ones that deal with an employee‟s level of education, their parents‟ level of education, how long they have been employed in the hospitality industry, the reason for entering the hospitality industry and possible influences and finally the cultural background of the employee. These questions have been used by Borkent (2013), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014), and have been adapted from work by Tundui (2012). The level of education is

positively related to an individual‟s possession of and their ability to share knowledge (van Bree, 2014). Another influence on the level of knowledge present is whether or not

employees‟ parents have been active in the same sector (in this case, the hospitality industry). If this is the case, employees are likely to have gained knowledge from these parents(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Reinholt,Pederson and Foss, 2011). The length of employment in the industry has an influence on the willingness to learn and share knowledge, since employees who have been employed in a certain industry longer usually feel like they can make a significant contribution by engaging in such activities (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Reinholt et al., 2011). A final influence on cultural capital is, perhaps not surprising, the cultural background of an individual. The cultural dimensions as presented by Hofstede (2001) each have their particular influence on attitudes of knowledge sharing, with a collectivistic culture positively influencing this process, for example. Having taken all this information into account, both Borkent (2013) and van Bree (2014) presented the following set of sub-hypotheses:

H2b: Cultural capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within an organization

H2b: Cultural capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards learning within an organization

(24)

24 far as to call social capital the biggest influence on the knowledge sharing process (Kim et al., 2012). With this information in mind, the following set of sub-hypotheses is as follows:

H2c: Social capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards knowledge sharing within an organization

H3c: Social capital has a positive effect on attitudes towards learning within an organization

The final type of capital that will be tested for is symbolic capital. This type of capital can best be explained as acknowledgement employees receive from their peers. When it comes to positive enforcers of proper knowledge management, symbolic capital has proven to be a very motivating factor towards the proper social behavior of employees. This means that good deeds should not be unnoticed (Hall, 2001). On the other hand, however, research has shown that employee reward systems (such as employee of the month contests) can act as a replacement of monetary rewards, subsequently leading to the point that employees do not perform their tasks for the love of their job, but rather for the extra rewards (Gubler, Larkin & Lamar). This could imply that such a system would not be beneficial for the knowledge sharing process. Therefore, it is interesting to test the presence of this form of capital within organizations. In order to test this in the United States, Borkent (2013) has used the variables

nomination, executive team member and employer selection. In short, nomination deals with

acknowledgements through systems such as employee of the month. Executive team member was included as a dummy variable. Finally, employer selection deals with the reason for applying for a job at this employer. Van Bree (2014) has used the same set of hypothesis, but as opposed to Borkent did not find sufficient evidence for the presence of symboliccapital in South Africa. Since an employee of the month-system is not typical in the Dutch culture, it was the intent to exclude symbolic capital from this research altogether. However, for clarity‟s sake, its presence will be tested for nonetheless. The final set of sub-hypotheses therefore is:

H2d: Symbolic capital has a positive effect on attitudes to knowledge sharing within an organization

H3d: Symbolic capital has a positive effect on attitudes to learning within an organization

3.3 Humanness as moderator

(25)

25 relationship between attitudes towards both learning and knowledge sharing within

organizations. Humanness within an organizational setting can be explained as the social interactions between employees, eventuallyleading to (tacit) knowledge gets shared (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). As was explained previously, this process is quite important for most organizations, especially for those operating in the hospitality sector, since this sector has shown to be quite knowledge intensive.One of the factors that is influenced by Humanness, and has not been mentioned thoroughly, is the factor of dialogue within an organization. Within dialogue, participants are encouraged to share their views and ideas on certain matters, without having to expect criticism on these views (Senge, 1990). Therefore, dialogue can be seen as another form of (social) communication. As was mentioned earlier on in this research, active communication is needed to turn tacit knowledge into knowledge of an explicit kind. Apart from authors finding a positive relationship between dialogue and knowledge sharing within an organization (McAdam and Reid, 2001), other researchers have found a direct relationship between the concept of Humanness (as a managerial concept) and attitudes towards knowledge sharing (Scholtens, 2011; Boom, 2012; Fredriks, 2012; Scholte, 2012). Van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) however, did not find significant evidence of this

relationship with research performed in the hospitality industries of respectively South Africa and Indonesia. However, evidence was found for a positive relationship between Humanness and attitudes towards learning within organizations. A possible explanation for this could be the nature of the hospitality industry, which may be different from those of other industries. Taking this information into account, it is expected that this research will produce results similar to the results presented by van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014), due to the nature of the setting in which the research will be performed. For this research, following up on the

research performed by van Bree (2014), Humanness will be treated as a part of organizational culture, rather than as a management concept. The final two hypotheses are presented as follows:

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

(26)

26

3.4 Conceptual model

Based on all the information listed in the previous sections, the hypotheses and expected relationships of the concepts are clarified by the following proposed conceptual model.

(27)

27

4. Research Methodology

4.1 Research design

Since this study will expand on previous research performed in similar settings, it makes sense to take the same approach as said previous research in order to find the answers to the hypotheses, which were based on already existing literature and theories. The approach that is deemed most applicable for this is that of a case study. A reason for a case study being the best fit is that it comes with the possibility of acquiring a rich and complex understanding of the subject being researched (Thomas, 2004). Yin (1993) states that a case study can be of an explanatory, descriptive or exploratory nature. For this study, the choice has been made to go with exploratory research. The several organizations from which data was gathered are a good representation of the single or small number of units of interest needed to perform exploratory research (Thomas, 2004). Furthermore, the hypotheses that will be tested are tested in a real world situation, which is also an important prerequisite of exploratory research (Thomas, 2004). The setting that has been chosen for this research is the Dutch hospitality industry. For this research, the presence of Humanness and its influence on organizational learning and knowledge sharing will be tested. Previous research on these subjects has been performed in other countries, and the subject of Humanness has also been researched in the Netherlands, however not in the hospitality industry. The data required to test the hypotheses will be obtained by handing out surveys to employees of several Dutch hotels. These hotels vary in size and nature; they can be part of a chain or privately owned. The reason for performing existing research stems from the disadvantage of this previous research: case study findings are not generalizable due to the specific environment the research has been performed in. However, the more the same research is performed in different countries or industries, the more generalizable it will be come.

4.2Data collection

(28)

28 An overview of this information is represented in Table 1.

Hotel # of stars # of rooms # of employees Ownership

1 4 513 ±400 International Chain 2 3 120 ±70 BeNeLux Chain 3 3 78 ±50 Dutch Chain 4 3 117 ±135 Privately ownership 5 3 46 ±30 Private ownership

Table 1: Characteristics of participating hotels

(29)

29

4.3Measurement tools

The survey that has been used for this research is divided in three sections. One section tests for Humanness and its four dimensions, one section tests for individual capital and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing, and the final section deals with the cultural, symbolic and economic capital, as well as the respondents‟ demographics. The questionnaires were distributed and collected at random, meaning that no preference was given towards rank of the employee or department within which the employee was active. The Dutch version of the original survey can be found in Appendix A. This version has been included since some concepts used are not easily translated into the English language and it is the only version that was eventually collected. The following sections will include a more thorough description of the survey and its several sections.

4.3.1 Humanness

The first section, which was originally created by Sigger et al. (2010) and modified by Scholtens (2011), was used to test the presence of Humanness and its four dimensions as previously discussed. The first part of the questionnaire consists of 33 statements in total, to which respondents could react by choosing answers on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.

4.3.2 Individual capital and attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing

The second section of the questionnaire was originally developed by Borkent (2013) and includes 27 statements that deal with employees‟ attitudes towards learning and knowledge sharing within an organization. As opposed to the first section, the second section offers answering options on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging again ranging from „strongly disagree‟ to „strongly agree‟.

4.3.3 Demographics and remaining types of capital

(30)

30

Concepts Variables

Humanness Survival, solidarity, compassion, respect & dignity Individual capital Cultural, economic, social & symbolic capital Economic capital Annual 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 Nominations, Executive team member, employer selection Attitudes towards knowledge

sharing

Attitudes towards knowledge sharing Attitudes towards learning Attitudes towards learning

Table 2: Concepts and variables

4.4Quality criteria

(31)

31 The last of the three quality criteria that needs to be considered is that of validity. Validity does not necessarily exclusively mean the results are what was meant to be measured in the end, but also focuses on the validity of the research as a whole (Thomas, 2004). Although there are many kinds of validity, three kinds are of importance to this study. First there‟s

construct validity. Construct validity actually refers to the level on which an instrument

measures what it is supposed to measure (de Groot, 1969). By deleting unnecessary and questions that did not meet the required thresholds, validity for this research was strengthened. The triangulation as discussed previously also resulted in a stronger construct validity. The second type of validity is internal validity. Internal validity deals with “the

semantic relationships that are presumed between the notions in statements of the conceptual model, which have to be a correct interpretation of coherences between the examined phenomena that were found in reality”(Jonker and Pennink, 2010). In this research, internal

(32)

32

5. Data Analysis

The data analysis section is divided into several steps. First, the reliability of the concepts will be tested, and if necessary the concepts will be altered by removing items where necessary, in order to achieve the required scores for reliability. Secondly, an overview of the most important sample characteristics will be presented and explained. Thirdly, the presence of Humanness will be tested. Finally, the relationship of the variables will be tested, which in other words will test the hypotheses.

5.1 Cronbach’s Alpha scores for the main concepts

The first step of the data analysis is to check the validity and reliability of the concepts, or in other words, the questions that have been used in the survey. Since the survey has been developed in the past and has been used successfully before, there is no need for a factor analysis, which normally would be used to check variability of observed and correlated variables. However, there is a need to check the concepts that are included in the questionnaire for internal consistency and correlation. In order to do this, the concepts are measured by performing a Cronbach‟s Alpha test in SPSS. Even though some authors opt for higher threshold scores for measuring reliability of new scales (Nunnaly and Bernstein, 1994), the rule of thumb for already tested scales is that the overall score of a concept‟s test result must exceed 0,600 in order for the concept to be reliable (Ferketich, 1991; Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson, 2010). Table 3 provides an overview of each concept and its corresponding number of items and Cronbach‟s Alpha-score. Furthermore, an overview of the Cronbach‟s Alpha‟s for each individual question of all the concepts is given in Appendix B.

Concepts Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items

Humanness 0,874 33

Solidarity 0,592 7

Survival 0,838 8

Compassion 0,645 8

Respect & Dignity 0,867 10

Social Capital 0,885 8

Attitudes towards learning 0,863 9

Attitudes towards knowledge sharing 0,855 10

Table 3: Cronbach’s Alpha-scores of used concepts

(33)

33 conclusion that „employee of the year‟-initiatives are all but absent in the Netherlands, in this particular case in the hospitality industry of said country. Therefore, this concept has intentionally been left out of Table 4. Now if the scores that are presented are compared to scores of previous research, we see almost no anomalies. Some scores are comparable to results previously gathered in the Netherlands, and some scores are quite similar to those attained in the hospitality industry of countries such as Indonesia and South Africa. However, the concept of Solidarity does not meet the required threshold of 0,600. Therefore, one or more questions of this concept have to be deleted.In case an item needs to be deleted in order for the Cronbach‟s Alpha to meet a certain level, the item with the lowest corrected item-total correlation score is chosen. In this case, this would be question E. As can be seen in Appendix

C1, removing question E from the concept „Solidarity‟ already results in a Cronbach‟s Alpha

score of more than 0,600, namely 0,629. However, this still results us in several items not meeting the threshold of a corrected item-total correlation of between 0,300 and 0,700, which is recommended for good scale (Ferketich, 1991). Therefore, the next item with the lowest correlation score will be selected and removed. In this case, this is question F, which has a score of 0,048. Removing this item results in a Cronbach‟s Alpha of 0,696 and only one final question not meeting the 0,300 threshold. Now the decision has to be made whether or not to delete this final item. The suggested threshold of 0,300is not necessarily required, and since this correlation is based on results of a 5 point Likert scale, a question with a corrected item-total correlation of around 0,200 could still be useful and of value when it comes to content validity. The item in question deals with the right to say „no‟ to team members. If the relevance of this question with respect to the concept of „solidarity‟ is considered, it must be concluded that deleting this item would not hurt the validity of this research. Therefore, question G is also removed from the equation resulting in a final Cronbach‟s Alpha of 0,746, and all corrected item-total correlations for the concept „solidarity‟ being within scale.

(34)

34 In total, 5 questions have been removed. This removal results in adjusted Cronbach‟s Alpha scores for Humanness, Solidarity and Compassion. The new scores have been processed, and have been added to the existing scores (see Table 4, adjusted scores marked in green).

Concepts Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items

Humanness 0,888 28

Solidarity 0,746 4

Survival 0,838 8

Compassion 0,680 6

Respect & Dignity 0,867 10

Social Capital 0,885 8

Attitudes towards learning 0,863 9

Attitudes towards knowledge sharing 0,855 10

Table 4: Adjusted Cronbach’s Alpha-scores of used concepts

5.2 Sample Characteristics and descriptives

(35)

35 these findings are somewhat different. A possible explanation for the high level of F&B employees could be that the hotels in question operate restaurants which are also accessible to customers who are not staying at the hotel, and therefore the need for F&B personnel could be relatively higher than is the case for the other two divisions. For future research, a more evenly divided sample could possibly be preferred.

The next step is to provide the descriptive of all concepts that were used in this study. Table 5 gives an overview of these concepts and their corresponding means, standard deviations and amount of responses. If these numbers are compared to those of previous studies which included Humanness and were performed in the hospitality industry (van Bree, 2014; Crick, 2014), similar scores can be found. For the means and standard deviations of the individual questions, see Appendix B.

Concept Mean Standard deviation N

Humanness 3,8750 0,38240 52

Solidarity 3,6800 0,44011 50

Survival 3,9881 0,55053 52

Compassion 4,1652 0,37349 46

Respect & Dignity 3,6667 0,56393 48

Social Capital 5,8865 0,67896 52

Attitudes towards Knowledge sharing 5,8269 0,65052 52

Attitudes towards learning 5,8037 0,68580 52

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of survey results

5.3 Hypothesis Testing

5.3.1 Presence of Humanness

Since this research incorporates aspects of previous studies, it would be interesting to see how the results compare to those of said previous studies. Fredriks (2012) found evidence of the presence of all dimensions of Humanness in the Netherlands, albeit not in the hospitality industry. Van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) found evidence of the presence of Humanness in the hospitality industries of two different countries, South Africa and Indonesia respectively. In order to check if Humanness and its dimensions are present in the Dutch hospitality industry, a one-sample t test has to be performed. The degree of Humanness can be

(36)

36 significant, indicating that all dimensions are present on a high level. This means that all dimensions of Humanness are present in the Dutch hospitality industry, which is according to the expectations expressed earlier on in this research. Accordingly, the first set of Hypotheses (H1,H 1a,H 1b,H 1c and H1d) are accepted.

5.3.2 Correlation of the variables

Now that the presence of Humanness and all of its dimensions has been confirmed, the next step is to check the correlation of the variables that have been used in the research. As could already be derived from the information displayed in Table 6, the Mean-scores for Attitudes towards knowledge sharing and Attitudes towards learning are quite favorable, with scores of 5,83 and 5,80 respectively, based on a 7-point Likert scale. The Mean-score of 5,89 also indicates that there is a fair amount of social capital present.

(37)

37 to annual personal income (r=-0,382; n=45; p<0,01). Finally, a correlation between being an executive team member and the variables of knowledge sharing, learning, social capital or Humanness could not be found. A possible explanation for this could be that it seems that there was only one executive team member among the respondents.

5.3.3 Correlations with dimension of Humanness

In order to give a more detailed view of the influence of Humanness on knowledge sharing and learning, the correlations between the four dimensions of Humanness (solidarity, survival, compassion and respect & dignity) have to be tested. The results of this test can be found in

Table 7. As could be expected, there are no positive correlations between attitudes towards

knowledge sharing and any of the four dimensions of Humanness. When it comes to attitudes towards learning however, there three positive correlations can be detected. These correlations are for Survival (r=0,347; n=52; p<0,05), Compassion (r=0,456; n=46; p<0,01) and Respect & Dignity (r=0,499; n=48; p<0,01).

(38)

(39)

39

Table 7: correlations dimensions of Humanness

5.4 Regression Analyses

5.4.1 Regression analysis with Humanness as moderator

The final step that has to be taken in this data analysis presents itself in the form of a multiple regression analysis. The multiple regression analysis needs to be performed in order to establish causality of the relationship between the dependent and independent variables that have been used in this study. The dependent variables are attitudes towards knowledge

sharing and attitudes towards learning and the independent variables are Humanness, social capital, symbolic capital, cultural capital and economic capital. Finally, a moderator variable

of the independent variable Humanness will also be used, in order to check for a difference in Beta‟s.

The first relationships that will be checked are those between symbolic, cultural and economic capital and attitudes towards both knowledge sharing and learning. Based on the calculated correlations, it is expected that most beta‟s will not be significant, apart from the one that deals with attitudes towards learning and the manner of entering the industry, either by accident or planned. This category would fall under cultural capital. The results of the regression analysis are represented in Appendices E1 through E3. The results show no difference in significance. Furthermore, the results also indicate that the Beta for attitudes

(40)

40 was a relationship between the two after all. Taking all this information into account, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2d as well as H3a and H3b can be rejected. H3d dealt with the relationship between attitudes towards learning and cultural capital. Even though a relationship between the two has been found, the relationship was a negative one. Therefore, hypothesis H3d is also rejected.

The final form of capital which will be tested is that of social capital. The tests for correlation showed that social capital was positively related to both attitudes towards knowledge sharing and attitudes towards learning. Appendix E4 shows the results of the multiple regression analysis that was performed by using the dependent variables of attitudes towards knowledge

sharing and attitudes towards learning, as well as the independent variables of Humanness

and social capital as well as a moderator variable which was a combination of the two independent variables. The regression analyses confirm the previous findings, in that attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning are positively influenced by social capital. The final equations for these two relationships hence are:

Formula 1:Attitudes towards knowledge sharing: 3,263 + 0,560*social capital +

-0,190*Humanness + 0,011*Moderator + Ɛ, with F=7,137;p<0,01 and R2

=0,308, which means that 30,8% of the variance in attitudes towards learning is explained by the independent variables, including the moderator. However, based on the results of the regression model, only the constant and the variable social capital seem to be of a significant contribution to the model. Therefore, hypothesis H2b is accepted. However, Hypothesis 4a is rejected, since Humanness as a (positive) moderator in the relationship between individual (social) capital and knowledge sharing has not been proven.

Formula 2:Attitudes towards learning: 1,137 + 0,639*social capital + 0,232*Humanness +

0,019*Moderator + Ɛ, with F=15,652;p<0,01 and R2

(41)

41

5.4.2 Regression analysis dimensions of Humanness

The final regression analysis that will be performed deals with the four dimensions of Humanness and attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning. The outcomes of this analysis are shown in Appendix E5.Surprisingly, none of the beta‟s for this test turn out to be significant, even though there were correlations for Humanness and some of its dimensions. Therefore, a positive influence of Humanness or any of its dimensions on attitudes towards learning cannot be confirmed. This finding will be elaborated on in the Discussion‟s section.

5.5 Conclusion of data analysis and survey findings

Based on all the information that was gathered during the data analysis, a final theoretical framework is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Theoretical framework with adjusted Beta’s

(42)

42

Hypothesis Description Result

H1 Humannesspresence in Dutch hospitality industry Accepted

H1a Survivalpresence in Dutch hospitality industry Accepted

H1b Solidaritypresence in Dutch hospitality industry Accepted

H1c Compassion  presence in Dutch hospitality industry Accepted

H1d Respect & Dignity  presence in Dutch hospitality industry Accepted

H2 Individual capital  attitudes towards knowledge sharing Accepted

H2a Economic capital  attitudes towards knowledge sharing Rejected H2b Cultural capital  attitudes towards knowledge sharing Rejected H2c Social capital  attitudes towards knowledge sharing Accepted

H2d Symbolic capital  attitudes towards knowledge sharing Rejected H3 Individual capital  attitudes towards learning Accepted

H3a Economic capital  attitudes towards learning Rejected H3b Cultural capital  attitudes towards learning Rejected H3c Social capital  attitudes towards learning Accepted

H3d Symbolic capital  attitudes towards learning Rejected H4a Humanness moderator attitudes towards knowledge sharing Rejected H4b Humanness moderator attitudes towards learning Rejected

(43)

43

6. Discussion

6.1Humanness and attitudes towards knowledge sharing

The results of this study with regards to Humanness and the attitudes towards knowledge sharing are not very surprising. Whereas Fredriks (2012) found evidence of a positive relationship between the two after conducting research in the Netherlands and Scholte (2011) and Scholtens (2012) did the same in different countries, van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014), who both conducted research in hospitality industries (albeit of different countries) did not find a positive relationship between the two. The results of this research regarding this subject are similar compared to those presented by the latter two. The possible explanation of this given by Crick (2014), based on work presented by Kahle (2002), which states that the hospitality industry is a very knowledge intensive industry on its own, seems very plausible. Due to this highly knowledge intensive nature, it is possible that the respondents of the survey already consider the sharing of knowledge a vital component in the process of providing the best service possible, which subsequently will lead to a higher team- and organizational performance. Therefore, it could be possible that the influence of Humanness does not significantly contribute to this process.

6.2 Humanness and attitudes towards learning

(44)

44 would be if the majority of respondents consists of full-time employee with rich histories at the organizations.

6.3 Individual capital and attitudes towards knowledge sharing and

learning

Even though all results indicate that individual capital has a positive influence on attitudes towards both knowledge sharing and learning, this only seems to be the case because of the factor of social capital. These findings are comparable to the findings presented by van Bree (2014) and partially comparable to the results presented by Crick (2014), who also found a positive influence of economic capital on both attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning.

The finding that economic capital does not seem to influence either of the two in this case could be explained by the fact that many of the respondent were young, part-time employees, and therefore do not have a high personal income. A second explanation could be that in the Netherlands, people are already willing to share knowledge and learn, regardless of the monetary incentives. This finding would be in line with the results presented by van Bree (2014).Furthermore, a relatively large amount of 7 people (13,5% of the total respondents) was not willing to share their annual personal income. This is not surprising, since the subject of compensation is sometimes still somewhat of a delicate subject in several societies, including the Netherlands. Borkent (2013) and van Bree (2014) experienced the same difficulties in their studies, which leads to the conclusion that it is difficult to measure attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning in terms of financial compensation (Cohen, 1998). It would be interesting to see what kind of influence a larger, more varied and more complete response rate would have on the subjects of knowledge sharing and learning.Hier typ ik nog een hele lange blanco regel om het geheel op te vullen.

(45)

45 level of education, since the hospitality is not necessarily an industry in which high skilled labor in the form of high education is required).Hier moet ook nog een lange witregel.

Based on work presented by Reinholt et al. (2001), Wasko and Faraj (2005), Liu (2011), Kim et al. (2012), who all emphasize that a network of strong ties encourage the processes of knowledge sharing and learning, and the research conducted by Borkent (2013), van Bree (2014) and Crick (2014) it was already expected that the third type of personal capital, social capital, would positively influence attitudes towards both knowledge sharing and learning. The survey results have confirmed this expectation in every way. Based purely on the survey findings, it was expected and confirmed that symbolic capital in the form of nominations and other recognitions would not be a part of the Dutch culture. The results have confirmed this expectation, therefore making it impossible to test the influence of this type of capital on attitudes towards knowledge sharing and learning. However, it would be interesting to see what kind of information could be gathered by interviewing employees one-on-one. This method has been used by van Bree (2014) and resulted in some interesting findings regarding acknowledgement from peers and individual recognition.

6.4 Managerial implications

(46)

46

7. Limitations and future research

(47)

47

8. Conclusion

Figure 3: Concluding theoretical framework

(48)

(49)

49

9. References

 Bhatt, G. D. (1998). Managing knowledge through people. Knowledge and Process

Management, 5 (3), 165-171.

 Borkent, P. 2013. The role of individual capital in learning and knowledge Sharing:

Empirical results from the U.S. hospitality industry. Unpublished dissertation,

University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

 Bourdieu, P. 1977. Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Karabel, J., and Halsey, A. H. 1977. Power and ideology in education. Oxford University Press, USA.

 Bourdieu, P. 1988. Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social science. Theory and

Society, 17: 773 – 787.

 Bourdieu, P. 1998. Practical reason: on the theory of action. Polity Press, UK.

 Bourdieu, P., Wacquant, L. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press, UK.

 Broodryk, J. 2005. Ubuntu management philosophy: exporting ancient African

wisdom into the global world.KnowresPuhlishing, Republic of South Africa.

 Broodryk, J. (2006). Ubuntu- African Life Coping Skills - Theory and Practice. CCEAMConference, Cyprus

 Brown, J.S. andDuguid, P., (1998), Organizing Knowledge, California Management

Review vol. 40, no.3

 Caddy, I., Guthrie, J., and Petty, R. 2001. Managing orphan knowledge: current Australian best practice. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4): 384 – 397.

 CBS Statline: „Çapacity of Dutch Hotels‟.

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=82063NED&LA =NL Retrieved December 22nd2015, 3.54 PM.

 CEIC: „Incredible growth opportunities for Indonesia‟s Hotel Industry‟.

http://www.ceicdata.com/en/blog/incredible-growth-opportunities-indonesia-hotel-industry Retrieved December 22nd 2015, 4.15 PM.

 Chini, T.C. 2004. Effective knowledge transfer in multinational corporations. PalgraveMacmillan, USA.

The influence of Humanness on organizational knowledge sharing and learning