Thesis

This paper studies the impact of cultural differences and educational levels on group identity and the effect that that group identity has on knowledge sharing behavior in employees. The findings are that cultural differences as well as education levels have impacts on group identity. In addition, group identity is found to have an influence on knowledge sharing between employees.

Contents Abstract 2 1. INTRODUCTION 4 Hypothesis 5 2. DEFINING THE CONCEPTS 7 i. Individualism and collectivism 8 ii. Power distance 9 iii. Uncertainty avoidance 10 iv. Long-term and short-term orientation 11 v. Masculinity and femininity. 12 High- and low context 13 3. METHODOLOGY 13 4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 14 4.1. Influence of Cultural Differences on Group Identity and Overall Influence in Knowledge Sharing 14 4.2. Influence of Education Differences on Group Identity and Overall Influence in Knowledge Sharing 18 5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION 18 5.1. Conclusion 18 5.2. Limitations and Future Research 19 6. References 20

Knowledge remains one of the most significant resource for any given firm (Grant, 1996a: 375). New knowledge is essential in all organizations, it contributes to the innovation, organizational change, cost-reduction routine performance and their survival. Knowledge provides the organization the opportunities to improve their capacity and their market position. Nowadays strategic alliance has become a common cooperation form in the modern economy. In the past years, strategic alliances have significantly increased, since 1900 strategic alliances have increased by more than 25 per cent annually. (Andrew, 1998) Organizations recognized the importance of the strategic alliance, which is during the strategic alliance, knowledge exchange occurs in each party. Because of this, more and more organizations increase their motivation to do strategic alliances with other parties in order to get the benefits associated with knowledge exchange. Alliances are offer ways in which organizations can make proper use of their strengths by the help of their partners. Different organizations have different knowledge and skills. Therefore, alliances are unique avenues through which organizations can work together, share this knowledge and unlock their potentials (Hamel et al., 1989). Comment by Author: Clear introduction. Perhaps for the section on knowledge you can include a reference. Comment by Author: Here I would also include a reference, I think this is a clear intro as to why organizations aim for strategic alliances. Comment by Author: Other?

Cultural differences affect people’s behavior in many aspects, during the organization of strategic alliances, people from different cultures or society behave differently. People from the same cultural group are more likely to form a group identity which can influence the knowledge exchange during the strategic alliances. According to Hofstede (1997), the value systems that exist in our societies play a pivotal role in shaping people’s behavior and cannot be separated from the manner they look at the world. However, it is difficult to facilitate knowledge exchange in strategic alliances, and we do not know how different cultures can influence the knowledge exchange differently. Education level can also be a factor which can influence the result of the knowledge exchange. During the strategic alliances, knowledge sharing towards the target program is critical. In today’s competitive markets, knowledge sharing is critical for firms’ success (Grant, 1996). In the strategic alliance’s case, knowledge sharing can influence two or more firm’s success. Employees’ educational level can influence the knowledge exchange process. Employees with high educational level can learn the tacit knowledge more efficient than the people who have a lower educational level. (Steven et al., 2008). In addition, because of no fear of the replacement, people with high educational level have more motivation to share the knowledge with others.  Comment by Author: Here you jump from cultural differences to group identity, yet the group identity is not yet explained to the reader. Perhaps you can first introduce both concepts, and then make the bridge between the two. Perhaps start off with that strategic alliances form diverse environments for companies, expecially international strategic alliances, meaning that they will thus encounter cultural differences in their operation. Comment by Author: Here I think this is a good bridge to your gap and contribution, perhaps you can provide a reference, and show that while we know cultural differences are important in cooperation, its effects on knowledge exchange (especially in strategic alliances) is yet underexplored which is where your study comes in.

Hypothesis 1: Culture differences shape people behavior which can form a group identity, the subgroup which formed by small cultural differences can lead to high efficiency in the knowledge transfer process during the strategic alliance. Comment by Author: Generally the hypotheses come after you introduce the theory, they are seen as a logical conclusion of what you build up to based on prior literature (hence I would move them to the end of this section, first describe them then mention them).

Hypothesis 2: Difference in educational level can influence the employees’ motivation to share the knowledge with others, different behavior can form different group identities, and it can lead to different results in knowledge transfer during the strategic alliance.

According to Sceiby (1997), knowledge is an immaterial resource and is found in the mind of the individual who holds it. Blau (1964) argues that when individuals are in some sort of an exchange, they expect that a balance between the parties will be maintained. While the individual behavior is strongly affected by their culture. Culture is a complex amalgamation of knowledge, belief, art as well as other capabilities and habits that are acquired by man as a member of society. (McCort and Malhotra, 1993).  Individuals have their social value embedded in their behaviors affected by their social norm and value which is called national culture. National culture formed by collective values, norms and principles shared in national communities that guide people’s behavior and interactions (Hofstede, 2001, House et al, 2004 and Ghemawat, 2001). 

van Beers et al. (2018) argue that people tend to share knowledge based on the perceived benefits that will be accrued from their knowledge sharing behavior. As such, people with various educational levels have different ways of perceiving the benefits gained from a given knowledge sharing environment (van Beers et al., 2018). People with higher levels of education tend to see more avenues to gain benefits in knowledge sharing set ups and will be, therefore, be predisposed to share knowledge with others in their groups than those with lower education levels (van Beers et al., 2018). Meanwhile, even though some scholars suggested that cultural differences and educational level can influence the knowledge sharing in a given organization, there is no evidence to prove the relationship between culture difference, educational level and knowledge exchange in strategic alliances. In this thesis, I focus on answering the central question which is: Comment by Author: How so? This would be interesting to go into more detail on why this is the case, it would help you make your point for the contribution of the study.

RQ: how do cultural differences and different educational levels of employees influence knowledge exchange among employees of different organizations during strategic alliances.

In order to clarify the relationship between cultural differences, educational level and knowledge exchange during the strategic alliances, I introduce a mediation variable which is group identity. People with similar preference are more likely to form the same group identity. (Yan.C et al., 2009). For instance, people who are from a similar culture society or people with higher educational level are more likely to form a group identity, they will share the same social value and norm in this subgroup, therefore, their behavior is similar with other group members, within this subgroup, people will have fewer conflicts and communication biases, so the knowledge sharing process is more likely to occur and the efficiency of this process is relatively high. Comment by Author: I think this is good, you can spend some more explanation as to what group identity is (it does not become fully clear from your intro) and how it is linked to knowledge exchange.

Group Identity Comment by Author: I think this is clear, you can include a short section at the end where you translate this to your own context i.e. in the context of our study, organizational identity therefore relates to the … that employees experience in a strategic alliance.

Group identity is described as sense of belonging to a certain group of a person. More specifically, group identity involves the social influence in a group. The social influence is based on a given social category or the interpersonal relations between members of a given group. Ho et al. (2012) present group identity as a precursor for trust and social relationships between employees from a given organization or between organizations. The trust then facilitates knowledge sharing between the employees.

Knowledge Sharing Comment by Author: Is the definition in the first few sentences also based on Ho et al.?

Knowledge sharing involves exchange of information among people, organizations or communities. In organizations, knowledge is regarded as an asset and is critical in creating as well as maintaining competitive advantage. Knowledge sharing has been seen as a major way of gaining as well as sharing information in business alliances other than mergers and acquisitions. Ho et al. (2012) explain that for knowledge sharing to occur successfully within an organization, employees need to trust each other. As indicated above, trust is based on a person’s group identity, indicating that group identity acts as a mediation in knowledge sharing.

On Cultural Differences and their Impact on Self Identity and Overall Effects on Knowledge Sharing in Strategic Alliances

So as to test the relationship between cultural differences and knowledge sharing during the strategic alliances, I introduce two main theories, the first theory is from Hofstede’s culture dimensions. According to Hofstede (1980), cultural differences are from 5 dimensions, individualism and collectivism; power distance; uncertainty avoidance; Long-term and short-term orientation; Masculinity and femininity. Comment by Author: I think this is good to let the reader know which theories you base your study on, that helps them manage the expectations for your model.

Individualism on the one hand is the level to which a country’s people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of a group (Hofstede, 1994, p. 6), it stresses the individual goal and the right of an individual person. Collectivism on the other hand is characterized by close-knit social frameworks where people are either in-group or out-group and people within an in-group are expected to look after each other and feel that they belong to the group (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45). According to Sumner (1906), the distinction that exists between in-groups and out-groups is the major distinction between collectivism and individualism. In-groups are made up of individuals who share values and interest s that are common to all of them (Triandis, 1988. They are concerned about each other’s welfare and could be members of a family, co-workers or people who share religious and political affiliations. Individualism is based on self and is concerned with individual orientation as well as performance while collectivism advocates for harmony and cooperation.

Because the knowledge sharing behavior is strongly implied by culture dimensions, the sharing and harmony value held by collectivism culture would take the knowledge sharing behavior between in-group members, I raise the hypothesis 1a: people from collectivist society are more likely to share the knowledge with others during the strategic alliances. Comment by Author: I think the overview of what collectivism/individualsm does is clear. You can make a bit of a further explanation as to how it is linked to knowledge sharing. (i.e. what are the features of knowledge sharing that are important/affected by cultural values, what are the reasons that it affects it? Comment by Author: And then in a one or two sentences translate this to the alliance context. “Therefore, if an organization engages in a strategic alliance with a company that is… they will experience…

Power distance defines as “the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in an institution or an organization distributes unequally” (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45). When the power distance is high, employees expect their leaders to be dominant, take charge, and give strong direction (Kirkman et al., 2009). In this case, people from a large power distance society are less likely to share knowledge with other people. Because they think the decisions should be under the scope of leadership. (Cole et al., 2013; Hu & Judge, 2017; Tyler, Lind, & Huo, 2000). Besides that, people who are from a small power distance country, people desire more power sharing (Earley, 1999), the result of the power sharing is that the leaders will be attentive to members’ input and enable individual members to share information and speak up (Ou et al., 2014; Owens & Hekman, 2016). Comment by Author: I think this is clear. Perhaps you can also introduce a sentence or two (before the hypothesis) where you explain a bit more explicitly how things work in the alliance context (how does what the literature says translate to your context).

Therefore, I raise the hypothesis 1b: Employees from small power distance societies are more likely to share knowledge with others during the strategic alliance.

Uncertainty avoidance index takes into consideration the level or extent to which a given uncertainty or an ambiguity is tolerated. This dimension assesses how a given unknown situation or unexpected occurrences are dealt with (Hofstede, 2003). The dimensions are expresses as:

a. High uncertainty avoidance index. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance index have low tolerance for uncertainties and ambiguities. They are highly risk averse. To minimize the unknowns, the cultures employ very strict rules and regulations (Hofstede, 2003). People within societies that have high uncertainty avoidance index form groups that have low social connections and less trust especially towards people with whom they have had no prior interactions with.

b. Low uncertainty avoidance index. Cultures with this dimension have high levels of tolerance for uncertainties and ambiguities. They are risk lovers. There is open acceptance of the unknown and the rules and regulations are lax (Hofstede, 2003). People within societies with low uncertainty avoidance index are quick to extend trust to others. As such, they are able to share knowledge with more ease with people whom they have had no prior interaction with.

Chang et al. (2020) say that there is a relationship between uncertainty avoidance index and group identity. In addition, group identity informs knowledge sharing behavior. According to their study, groups that have higher uncertainty avoidance indices tend to view knowledge sharing as a process through which they may not benefit in. Such employees are uncertain that they will learn back from their colleagues after they have themselves shared their own knowledge. As such, they tend to be less motivated to share knowledge (Chang et al., 2020). Employees within settings that have low uncertainty avoidance indices are less skeptical about the possibility of learning new information back from the people with whom they are in knowledge sharing strategic alliance with. Comment by Author: This would be interesting to go into more detail on, what are the reasons for this connection, how does this connection take shape?

This dimension takes into perspective the extent to which a given society or culture looks at its time horizon. Long-term orientation on the one hand is more focused on the long-term future rather than the short term (Hofstede, 2003). As such, people with long-term orientation are happy to delay their success or gratification on the short term so that they can achieve long-term success. Such people are more concerned with persistence, perseverance as well as growth in the long-run. Short-term orientation on the other hand focuses on the near future, with efforts put to earn short-term success or gratification and emphasizes on the present rather than on the long-term future. It also emphasizes quick results (Hofstede, 2003).

People tend to form groups according to their orientation. As such, there are groups with long-term orientation as well as those that have short-term orientation. On the one hand, groups with long-term orientation have been seen to have knowledge sharing behavior (Bashir & Usuro, 2017). Such groups are focused on working together over the long term future and to deliver group success over the long time into the future. As such, they tend to have more knowledge sharing behavior compared to short-term orientations that is far more competitive and focused on short-term success (Bashir & Usuro, 2017).

This dimension focuses on a society’s preference regarding achievement, sexual equality and behavior. Masculinity is also regarded as “tough”. It is characterized by distinct gender roles, assertiveness and is more focused on material achievements as well as gathering wealth. Femininity on the other hand is characterized by more fluid gender roles, modesty, nurturing behavior and focuses on the quality of life rather than wealth creation. Femininity is referred to as “tender” (Hofstede, 2003). Kasmir et al. (2010) argue that there are higher levels of trust in groups that exhibit femininity which leads to higher incidents of knowledge sharing. Masculine groups exhibit high levels of competitiveness and mistrust leading to lower levels of knowledge sharing. Kasmir et al., 2010)

1. On Communication Context and Its Effect on Group Identity and Overall Impact in Knowledge Sharing in Strategic Alliances

The second theory we used in this paper is from Hall (1976) high- and low- context culture which illustrates the different communication styles from the different culture.

The communication context is the physical framework within which communication occurs. High-context cultures are highly reliant on the context and members of such societies form close-knight relationships, are stable and collectivist and hold interpersonal skills in high esteem (Wu, 2010). Low-context cultures on the other hand has lesser regard to context and are heavily reliant on verbal communication. People within groups that have low context form short-term relationships. Van den Hooff & den Ridder (2004) indicate a higher connection between communication context and knowledge donating as well as knowledge gathering. Groups with high communication contexts were seen to have higher levels of knowledge sharing behavior (Van den Hooff & den Ridder, 2004).

This research aims at establishing how cultural differences as well as different education levels influence employees’ group identity and how the group identity affects knowledge sharing behavior by employees from two different organizations in a strategic alliance. As such, I perform an exploratory study based ion literature review where literature on the above mentioned themes are analyzed and developed in order to gain new insights on the main concepts. I extract major concepts from previous studies in the area of study and thereby identifying information relevant as per the research questions.

Literature relevant to this study were identified through initial overviews of the abstracts of articles in the research subject. Once a relevant source was identified, further in-depth analysis was done.

The link between cultural differences group identity and its overall influence on knowledge sharing behavior is best looked at based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory.

Individualism and Collectivism Comment by Author: What I think would be nice is if you could summarize every section in a proposition i.e. based on these findings, we propose the following relationship between individaulsism/collectivism and knowledge sharing: …

Jetten et al. (2002) found out that people who exist in individualistic settings have high group identification levels. As such, the people are more predisposed to incorporate the social norms of the societies that they live in into their actions. However, such norms include competitiveness and limited levels of trust and therefore find it difficult to share knowledge with other people, especially when those other people do not belong to the same society as the persons who hold the information (Jetten et al., 2002). Comment by Author: How come, what are the reasons for this? Comment by Author: This is clear.

Casimir et al. (2012) further argue that collectivists have lower group identification levels compared to individualists. Their collectivist norm, however, drives them to trust each other and take care of each other thereby with a view to working towards a common goal. They are therefore more likely to be more involved in knowledge sharing behavior (Casimir et al., 2012).

Power Distance

Kirkman et al. (2009) link high power distance with low group identity. Since high power distance societies place most of their responsibilities on their leaders and employees feel lower need to share power, they feel that they are less identifiable with a given group that is there is low group identity. Jetten et al. (2002) argue that employees who accept highly skewed leadership power are less liberal and are less likely to contribute to a knowledge sharing set up as they are more prepared to wait and learn rather than share new information themselves. People in lower power distances treat each other almost as equals and easily identify with the social groups within which they exist. They are also more liberal (Kirkman et al., 2009). As such, they share they are more likely to share information with other employees in a strategic alliance. Comment by Author: This sentence is not fully clear to me. Perhaps you can explain more explicitly how this happens.

Uncertainty Avoidance Index

Employees from societies with high uncertainty avoidance indices are more skeptical than those in societies with lower uncertainty avoidance indices. They are more likely to avoid risks and have low group identity (Ho, 2013). This low group identity that is caused by risk averseness is also manifested in low knowledge sharing behavior. Employees from societies with low uncertainty avoidance indices are less risk averse and identity more with their groups (Chang, 2020). Such risk loving behavior which is a characteristic of their group identity is manifested in their predisposition to share knowledge with others. Comment by Author: Would like to see a bit more on this relationship, since this sounds interesting to your overall research question, the why/how for this relationship.

Long-term and Short-term Orientation

Societies with long-term orientation were seen to identify more within their groups as decisions and actions are based on long-term success and are more concerned with the success of the group at as a whole. As such, they are characterized by collaborative working (Bashir & Usuro, 2017). This collaborative behavior bolsters knowledge sharing in strategic alliances. Short-term orientation is seen to have less group identification. Employees with short-term orientation identify less with their groups and are more focused on short-term success and gratification of the self rather than of the group at large. As such, they tend to hold on to knowledge so that they can use it for themselves and gain success in the short-term (Sheldon & McGregor, 2000). They are less likely to engage in knowledge sharing behavior since it is less to bring instantaneous success for them.

Masculinity and Femininity

Masculinity was seen to lead to low group identity based on high competitiveness levels in masculine societies while femininity has high group identification based on less competitiveness and high cooperation (Early, 1964). Masculine groups have lower knowledge sharing behavior compared to feminine groups. This is because group identities of highly masculine societies encourage competition and success of the self rather than collaboration and shared success. As such, they hold such acts as knowledge sharing in low esteem and would be happier to hold on their knowledge rather than share it with another organization in a strategic alliance. Femininity is more concerned with this collaboration and shared success and therefore is more predisposed to encourage knowledge sharing since it is a collaborative act in itself.

Communication Context

Influence of Education Differences on Group Identity and Overall Influence in Knowledge Sharing

Stabuger (2009) asserts that educational levels determine the group identity of individuals. People with high educational levels are more likely to identify with their groups than do people with lower education levels. There is less conflict with the group identities of highly educated professionals which makes it easier for them to work together and are more predisposed to share knowledge with each other (Stabuger, 2009).

Stabuger (2009) asserts that educational levels determine the group identity of individuals. People with high educational levels are mor e likely to identify with their groups than do people with lower education levels. There is less conflict with the group identities of highly educated professionals which makes it easier for them to work together and are more predisposed to share knowledge with each other (Stabuger, 2009). In strategic alliances, this group identity comes into play. Employees who have higher education levels will find it easier to interact with each and share information with each other. More often than not, they are conscious of what they need to learn from their peers from another organization and will work actively collaborate with them to gain and share knowledge. Conflicts that characterize interactions between people with lower education levels, exhibited in their low group identity are one of the reasons why it would be very difficult for knowledge to be shared by them. Comment by Author: Here, what is the reason that Stabuger argues for, how come that people with high educational levels are more likely to do so?

Comment by Author: I think that overall this section is clear and going in the right direction. Some parts that I am still missing are the theoretical contributions (how do your findings relate to existing research, to the ‘gap’ that you identify in the introduction). What are the practical contributions (what is the take-away that managers should care about, what should they learn for their practice?) Finally, you can go into some further detail for the future research directions, perhaps find 1 or 2 interesting areas that you found, and explain why these are promising for further research, and what we can learn from them.

The literature review above has explored the main concepts of cultural differences, educational levels, group identity and their overall impact on knowledge sharing in a strategic alliance of two organizations. I have identified and developed linkages between cultural differences and educational levels to group identity. I have identified further linkages between group identity and knowledge sharing behavior between employees. The following conclusions have been made from the study. First, cultural differences between individuals inform their group identities. Their group identities then inform how they make decisions, that is, people who identify with a group tend to perform actions and make decisions based on social norms. When social norms are encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing, then the employees are more predisposed to engage in more knowledge sharing behavior. When people identify with groups that discourage knowledge sharing, such as individualism, masculinity, short term orientation and low communication context, then knowledge sharing will be less likely to be successful. Second, educational levels are linked with group identities. People with high educational levels are more likely to identify with their groups than do people with lower education levels. There is less conflict with the group identities of highly educated professionals which makes it easier for them to work together and are more predisposed to share knowledge with each other. Lastly, as indicated in the two conclusions above, group identity plays a pivotal role knowledge sharing between employees. Therefore, it is important for the two organizations seeking to form a strategic alliance to take into consideration their employees’ cultural differences and educational levels as they would influence their knowledge sharing behavior. Comment by Author: Perhaps you can mention (without going into too long of an explanation, as I know that there are quite a few things to discuss) what directions you found (i.e. what was positive, what was negatively related to group identities). Comment by Author: This sentence in itself does not argue much, when people encourage x, they do x. Perhaps you can state why, or how?

While this research has no doubt shed new light on the relationship between educational levels and group identity, the literature regarding that subject is limited. There is need to carry further research to evaluate the relationship between education levels and group identity to further support the findings of this research.

Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 189-208 (20 pages)