Thesis
jhh19970724
Thesis.docxIntroduction
Knowledge has emerged as the most strategically significant resource of the 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 knowledge exchange. Alliances provide firms with a unique opportunity to leverage their strengths with the help of partners. In bringing together firms with different skills and knowledge bases, alliances create unique learning opportunities for partner firms. In essence, alliances provide firms with `a window on their partners' broad capabilities' (Hamel et al., 1989).
Cultural differences affect people’s behavior in many aspects, during the organization of strategic alliances, people from different cultures and 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. Value systems within our societies shape our behaviors and cannot be divorced from our views of the world (Hofstede, 1997). 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 important. Knowledge sharing is critical to a firm's success in today's highly competitive environment (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.
Meanwhile, even though some scholars suggested that cultural differences and educational level can influence the knowledge sharing within an 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 how the cultural differences and different educational levels can influence the knowledge exchange during the 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.
Theory section
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.
Knowledge is an intangible resource that exists within the mind of the individual (Sveiby 1997). In the social exchange theory, Blau (1964) argued that individuals involved in an exchange relationship expect that a balance will be maintained in the exchange between parties. While the individual behaviour is strongly affected by their culture. Culture is defined as the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art and other capabilities and habit acquired by man as a member of society. (McCort and Malhotra, 1993). Individuals have their social value embedded in their behaviours 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).
In order 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. The second theory I used in this paper is from Hall (1976) high- and low- context culture which illustrates the different communication styles from the different culture.
Individualism and collectivism
Individualism is defined as the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups (Hofstede, 1994, p. 6), it stresses the individual goal and the right of an individual person. While collectivism is characterized by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between ingroups and outgroups, they expect their ingroup to look after them, and they feel they belong to it (Hofstede, 1980b, p. 45). A notion that is particularly important in drawing differences between individualism and collectivism cultures in the distinction between in‐groups and out‐groups, a distinction initially introduced by Sumner (1906). Triandis (1988) defined an in‐group as a group of people who share common values and interests, and it have a concern for each other's welfare, and whose members may include family, distant relatives, co‐workers, and members of political and/or religious groups to which an individual belongs. Triandis (1995) suggests that individualism cultures tend to subscribe to idiocentric assumptions and beliefs focusing on individual orientation and performance, those from collectivism cultures are likely to hold allocentric ideas emphasizing harmony and cooperation.
Power distance
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, most 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).
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
Long-term and short-term orientation
Masculinity and femininity.
High- and low context culture
Hypothesis 2: Difference in educational level can influence the employees’ motivation to share the knowledge with others, different behavior can form different group identities, it can lead to different results in knowledge transfer during the strategic alliance.
https://www-jstor-org.proxy-ub.rug.nl/stable/29730190?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/science/article/pii/S026323739700090X#!
https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/science/article/pii/S0268401212001314
https://www-emerald-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09696470610661117/full/html
Reference:
G Hamel, Y Doz, C.K Prahalad Collaborate with your competitors — and win
Harvard Business Review, 67 (2) (1989), pp. 133-139
Hofstede, G. (1997), Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw‐Hill Co., New York, NY.
Steven J. Armstrong and Anis Mahmud (2008) Experiential Learning and the Acquisition of Managerial Tacit Knowledge
Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 189-208 (20 pages)
Yan Chen and Sherry Xin Li (2009) Group Identity and Social Preferences The American Economic Review Vol. 99, No. 1 (Mar., 2009), pp. 431-457 (27 pages)
Grant, R. M. (1996a). ‘Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration’,Organization Science,7(4), pp. 375–387.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley and Sons.
Wayne, S, Shore, L & Liden, R, 'Perceived organizational support and leadermember exchange: a social exchange perspective', Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), (1997) pp 82-111.
G. Hofstede Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values Sage, Beverly Hills, CA (1980)
E.T. Hall Beyond culture Doubleday, New York (1976)
Sumner, W. G. (1906). ‘Folkways and mores’. In Mizruchi, E. H. (Ed.), The Substance of Sociology: Codes, Conduct and Consequences. New York: Appleton‐Century Crofts, 90–100.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M. and Lucca, N. (1988). ‘Individualism and collectivism: cross‐cultural perspectives on self‐ingroup relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 323–38.
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744–764. 10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 962–973. 10.1037/a0034269
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A., Waldman, D., Xiao, Z. X., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 34–72. 10.1177/0001839213520131
Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192–212. 10.1006/obhd.1999.2863
