Behind knowledge transfer

Behind knowledge transferLuu Trong Tuan Department of Economics, University for Natural Resources and Environment, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Abstract Purpose – Through an empirical inqui

Behind knowledge transfer

Luu Trong Tuan Department of Economics, University for Natural Resources and Environment,

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract

Purpose – Through an empirical inquiry into manufacturing joint ventures companies in Vietnam

setting, this paper aims to examine the relationships among knowledge sharing and its antecedents

such as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization.

Design/methodology/approach – An analysis of data returned from a questionnaire survey

among middle level managers in these manufacturing joint ventures companies was conducted via

analysis of variance and structural equation modelling.

Findings – The study findings display the correspondence between control culture and ethics of

justice Flexibility culture, on the other hand, tends to nurture ethics of care, which in turn positively

impact localization of intellectual capital The influence of intellectual capital localization on

knowledge sharing is also discerned.

Originality/value – The study offers insight into the linkage pattern of knowledge sharing and its

antecedents, organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization, in manufacturing joint

venture companies in a Vietnam business context.

Keywords Knowledge sharing, Knowledge management, Organizational culture, Ethics of justice,

Ethics of care, Human resources localization, Vietnam

Paper type Research paper

1 Introduction

Knowledge sharing practice did not seem to be disseminated in the period of central

planning from 1945 in North Vietnam and from 1975 in South Vietnam until “doi moi”

(literally “renovation”), in which there apparently was only one direction of influence:

downward influence in organizations Every organizational member just followed the

formulas decided on from the centralized power The formulas tended to be

conservative, so downward communication of new knowledge turned out to be scanty

In organizations, desires for new knowledge have flourished since “doi moi” for the

adaptation to globalization However, desires for new knowledge are only strong drives

to individually access organizational knowledge rather than contributing their own

knowledge to organizational knowledge or sharing their knowledge

intra-organizationally or inter-organizationally even though knowledge sharing is

generally recognized as being a beneficial strategy in Vietnam context (Dong et al.,

2010) This can presumably be explained by the fact that new billboards promote “doi

moi”, yet old posters continue to urge workers to pursue the centrally planned

economic philosophy of socialism (Ralston et al., 2006)

The sharing of knowledge, one of the most vital resources of companies (Nahapiet

and Ghoshal, 1998), is a crucial phenomenon in companies (Sa´enz et al., 2009) and an

effective indicator for appraising company efficiency and effectiveness (Mohamed,

2008) Knowledge sharing and consequential knowledge creation are indispensable for

companies to attain and sustain competitive edge (Han and Anantatmula, 2007)

When it is shared with and transferred to others, knowledge can augment its value,

as Bornemann and Sammer (2003, p 21) wrote:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Behind knowledge transfer 459

Management Decision Vol 50 No 3, 2012

pp 459-478

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0025-1747

Knowledge as a resource of value creation, , allows for exceptional marginal rates ofproductivity This is due to the major attribute of knowledge: appreciating value withcontinuing use and sharing of knowledge instead of depreciating value of tangible products

or natural resources

The key to value-added is represented through that sharing of knowledge (Porter andKetels, 2003) From Patrick and Dotsika’s (2007) standpoint, essentially “developingfrom within” revolves round the location of the key knowledge and the understanding

of the antecedents, as these are both crucial to the notion of knowledge creation andknowledge sharing and basic in providing the essential value-added

Therefore, “developing from within” may involve such antecedents to knowledgesharing as organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization Until the1980s, organizational culture was largely discounted as a factor in organizationalperformance (Holbeche, 2006) including knowledge sharing The magnitude oforganizational culture in knowledge transfer process is currently highlighted (Ajmaland Koskinen, 2008) Lin (2007) also found that knowledge sharing is important in thedomain of business ethics, since an unwillingness to share knowledge may impair anorganization’s survival Ethical positions, in Rodgers and Gago Rodrı´guez’s (2006)view, may aid organizations in enhancing knowledge sharing and sustainingorganizational performance Localization is another important issue that refers to theadaptation of global knowledge to the local cultural context (Guzman, 2007) Ibrahim

et al (2009) discuss the concept of localization in the process of knowledge exchange.Even though these studies have provided certain useful information on theinterconnection between knowledge sharing and its each antecedent separately, therehas been little empirical research that examines the linkages among knowledgesharing and its precursors This study seeks to bridge this gap through developing aresearch framework that links knowledge sharing and its such precursors asorganisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization

This introduction of the paper is followed by the review of the discussions andinquiries on the variables of the current study This literature review serves as thefoundation for building the conceptual framework for which the data is then analyzed.The paper concludes with a number of practical implications and possible researchavenues linked to the concept “knowledge sharing” and its independent variables

2 Literature review2.1 Knowledge sharingResources for which companies compete incrementally tend to be knowledge ratherthan the ownership of land or access to capital (Dunford, 2000) Knowledge, as Tsoukasand Vladimirou (2001) highlight, is a portmanteau term covering a wide array ofcapabilities, skills, and experiences, including cognitive, perceptual, emotional, andtactile resources In Quinn et al.’s (1996) view, knowledge, one of the organizationalproperties, encompasses practical knowledge, high-level technical capabilities,perceptions of systems and creative abilities, and belong to organizational members.Knowledge is also portrayed as “the combination of data and information, to which isadded expert opinion, skills and experience, resulting in a valuable asset which can beused to aid decision making” (Sarmento, 2005) From its comprehensiveness andreflection of personal and organizational facets of knowledge, Davenport and Prusak’s(1998, p 5) ensuing view on knowledge is adopted in the current research:

MD

50,3

460

Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert

insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and

information It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers In organizations, it often

becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines,

processes, practices, and norms

Two types of knowledge, explicit and tacit knowledge, are complementary and

indispensable to knowledge creation Explicit knowledge is referred to as the

knowledge codified and expressed in formal language (Nonaka, 1991) whereas tacit

knowledge is intuitive, unarticulated and can not be verbalized (Li and Gao, 2003), as

well as acquired through experience sharing, and through observation and imitation

(Hall and Andriani, 2002; Kikoski and Kikoski, 2004; Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann,

2008)

Nilakanta et al (2006) underscore a crucial role organizational knowledge plays in

overall performance The magnitude of knowledge for organizations is also reflected in

the view that the sum of knowledge acquired externally and internally constitutes a

sustainable resource for maintaining competitive edge (Voelpel et al., 2005)

Knowledge grows from the local level and is embedded in a certain cognitive and

behavioral context Knowledge is asymmetrically dispensed in any organization and

may remain non-accessible to certain members of the organisation (Davenport and

Prusak, 1998) Knowledge sharing is a way to enhance the access to knowledge Hogel

et al (2003) view knowledge sharing as a social interaction culture, entailing the

exchange of employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the entire

department or organization Knowledge sharing occurs when organisational

members share organizationally relevant information, ideas, suggestions and

expertise with one another (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002) Knowledge sharing

encompasses numerous elements (Fengjie and Chen, 2004), among which the three key

elements are:

(1) Objects: what kind of knowledge is shared?

(2) The way of sharing: face-to-face, conference, knowledge network, and

organizational learning

(3) Level of sharing: knowledge sharing may involve individuals, teams, and

organizations

Levels of knowledge sharing are not discrete, but display the flows of interaction

among members, subsets, and sets Knowledge sharing is thus also viewed as activities

of transferring or disseminating knowledge (embracing implicit and tacit knowledge)

from one person, group or organization to another (Lee, 2001) Furthermore, through

knowledge sharing practices, organisational knowledge bases are coordinated with

workers’ knowledge (Nonaka and Konno, 1998) Knowledge sharing also can activate

the transformation of collective individual knowledge to organizational knowledge

(Yang, 2007) The author of the current study, however, refers to knowledge sharing as

all interactions among members, between members and their group, and between

groups for the synergy of knowledge rather than the sum of knowledge Interactions

are displayed as arrows in Figure 1

Knowledge sharing, as Ardichvill et al (2003) contend, entails both the supply and

the demand for new knowledge Similarly, Van den Hooff and Van Weenen (2004b)

Behind knowledge transfer 461

identified two processes of knowledge sharing, namely knowledge donation andknowledge collection They refer to knowledge donation as “communication based on

an individual’s own wish to transfer intellectual capital” and knowledge collection as

“attempting to persuade others to share what they know” These two distinct processesare dynamic in the sense that one is either immersed in dynamic communication withothers for the aim of transferring knowledge, or consulting others so as to gain certainaccess to their intellectual capital (Van Den Hooff and De Ridder, 2004b)

Knowledge sharing is a voluntary deed (Dixon, 2002); therefore, efficient knowledgesharing involves direct commitment on both sides of the exchange, both on thetransmitter and the receiver side (Bouty, 2000) Al-Alawi et al (2007) highlightinfluential factors toward the success of knowledge sharing such as communicationbetween staff, trust, reward system, organizational structure, and information systems.Utilizing the economic exchange theory, to examine Bartol and Srivastava (2002)investigate the role of monetary rewards in facilitating knowledge sharing inorganizations

2.2 Organizational cultureOrganisational culture is depicted as an expansion of the hypernym “culture” (Schein,2004) A universal definition on organisational culture has turned out to be elusive(Lewis, 2002); nevertheless, one of the most common definitions of organisationalculture involves a set of beliefs, values, and behavior patterns shaping the members’behavior and building the core identity of organisations (Deshpande and Farley, 1999).Culture builds a sense of identity in employees, providing unwritten guidelines on how

to behave (Holbeche, 2006)

Imparting the notion of understandings to Schein’s (1985) definition, Daft (2005)views organisational culture as a set of key assumptions, norms, values, andunderstandings that is shared by an organisation’s members and taught to newmembers as right

Nontheless, a definition of culture, from Alutto’s (2002) standpoint, should look atvariability in the homogeneity of common beliefs, norms, and values, since, as anemergent property of human interaction, organisational culture is constantly beingnegotiated (Tyrrell, 2000) The beliefs, norms, and values emerging from the ongoingnegotiation and practices among organisational members become a source of referencefor what is deemed acceptable or unacceptable in an organisation in terms of right andwrong behavior (Kusluvan and Karamustafa, 2003) Moreover, successfully reacting to

changes in the global marketplace necessitates a flexible and adaptable organisational

culture (Elashmawi, 2000)

Thus, from a dynamic, constructivist, and holistic perspective, organizational

culture can best be defined in terms of an ongoing process of identity

building/re-building and meaning-making in and around an organization, which

enables its social integration as well as its and its subgroups’ sustainability (Koot,

2004) Tuan (2010) also presents a dynamic organisational culture model to address its

dynamic reactions to internal and external forces

Culture is composed of two main components, the internal values of culture

(invisible) and external components of culture (visible) or practices (Hofstede, 1991),

which are the most direct means for transforming behaviors required to advocate

knowledge creation, sharing, acquisition, and use (De Long and Fahey, 2000)

Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1983) competing values framework (CVF) was developed

by Quinn (1988) into an organisational culture model predicated on two dimensions:

(1) organisational process (organic versus mechanistic); and

(2) organisational orientation (internal versus external)

The first dimension and the second dimension are denoted by the vertical axis and the

horizontal axis respectively, whose intersection produces four quadrants displaying

four culture types labeled as:

(1) Clan

(2) Adhocracy

(3) Hierarchy

(4) Market

Along the organisational process axis, Clan and Adhocracy are of higher degree of

flexibility or adaptability (more organic) and Hierarchy and Market are of higher

degree of control (more mechanistic) This classification is resorted to in this study

2.3 Ethics of justice versus ethics of care

From Potocan and Mulej’s (2009) stance, ethics is an integral sentimental part of

human characteristics and the subjective portion of the starting points of any human

behavior process encompassing business

Business ethics deals with the linkage between business goals and approaches to

specifically human ends (Tran, 2008) It denotes the special responsibilities which a

person and a citizen consents to when he becomes a part of the business world

Business ethics is portrayed by Preuss (2008) as part of a “veritable explosion of

concepts that aim to explain what the proper role of business in society should be,”

encompassing such terms as corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility

(CSR), triple bottom line, and sustainability

This paper looks at two types of ethics, ethics of care and ethics of justice, which

tend to contrast each other (Plot, 2009) Whereas Strike (2003) discerns in ethics of

justice the dualistic tension between benefit maximization and esteem for individual

rights, Begley (2006) views ethics of justice as a foundation for deciding on the actual

deeds that will augment benefits for all while respecting individual rights Ethics of

justice revolves round such notions as rationality, rights, and justice, while ethics of

Behind knowledge transfer 463

care is concerned with consideration, sentiments, and responsibility (Plot, 2009) Ethics

of care tilted the focus on ethics from individual rights to relational prerequisites(French and Weis, 2000) That the identity of the self – who one is – is predicated onthe caring relationships the self has with others, serves as the basis for ethics of care(Lantos, 2002) Ethics of care is a way to sustain the focus of the process on peoplerather than on policies (Begley, 2006)

Three crucial attributes differentiating ethics of care from ethics of justice, asTronto (1993, p 79) observe, include: first, ethics of care focuses on responsibility andrelationships rather than rights and rules; second, it is embeded in specificcircumstances rather than being abstract, formal, and universal; and third, it is bestexpressed not as a set of principles but as an activity, the “activity of care”

Whereas ethics of justice is embedded in fairness – the equitable allocation ofresources and implementation of rules, ethics of care looks toward the dignity andintrinsic value of each person, and “desires to see that persons enjoy a fully human life”(Starratt, 2003, p 145) as well as “focuses on the demands of relationships, not from acontractual or legalistic standpoint, but from a standpoint of absolute regard” and

“love” (Starratt, 2003, p 145)

Ethics of care is categorized by Nell Noddings into two types of caring: “caring for”and “caring about” “Caring for” stands above “caring about” and denotes directencounters in which one person cares for another, whereas “caring about” refers to care

as a virtue and take us to a more public realm, and may be foundation of justice(Debeljak and Krkac, 2008)

2.4 Human resources localizationThe emergence of the concept “localization” provides potential elucidation of moresocially and environmentally “friendly” business models (Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2010)

“Localization” is referred to as a “[set of] processes through which the forces ofglobalization are accommodated, resisted and absorbed, and given expression in anyparticular context” (Hansen, 2002, p 15) However, Hines’s (2000, p 4) view that

“localization [is] a process which reverses the trend of globalization by discriminating

in favour of the local” paves a path for the author of the current research to reach theensuing definition on localization:

Balanced with globalization as centrifugal vector, localization is a centripetal vectoractivating and/or integrating native intellectual capital into the set of core competencies of thewhole organization

Localization in the corporate setting, as Law et al (2009) explicate, is the degree towhich expatriate managers are supplanted by local members Furthermore, Feng(2004) argues that localization of human resources involves not purely employees oflow levels such as technical personnel, but also middle and top level managers.Localization of top management is also underscored by Choi (2001, cited in Chae, 2008).The construct “localization” appears to have scanty repertoire of definitions;nonetheless, business literature shows much consideration towards the local as animportant factor in business strategy As Porter (1990, p 158) indicates, “it is thecombination of national and intensely local conditions that fosters competitiveadvantage” Some researchers such as Oinas (1995) and Cox and Mair (1991) observedthe “localisation” phenomenon in some firms Park et al (2010) researched LG

MD

50,3

464

Electronics’s localization strategy and its implementation of strategic management

processes in Poland and India The study by Noruzi and Rahimi (2010) reviews

successful localization, one of the most important aspects of international human

resource management (IHRM)

Researchers also discussed benefits of localization (Doz and Prahalad, 1991; Luo,

2001) When a balance is found between globalization and local adaptation,

multinational companies can grow by leaps and bounds (He, 2009) Yan (2007) found

that the key factor behind transnational company’s success in China is whether a

strong local management group is built Chang (2006, cited in Chae, 2008) contends that

the main driver of localization of human resources is cost efficiency and employee

engagement Forstenlechner (2010) identified HR-relevant recommendations for

workforce localization in the context of emerging Gulf economies Whereas prior

research has revolved around topics such as the influence of localization,

Forstenlechner’s (2010) study suggests steps to pursue in addressing the full scale of

localization from recruitment to retention

Chae (2008) also recommends three steps in the local adaptation process The first

step entails the establishment of the local management system The second step

focuses on nurturing local talents since merely via training can the personnel

understand the vision, strategy, and business model of the parent company as well as

ascend to the top level of management Chen (2007, cited in Chae, 2008) highlights the

need for training in localization of human resources to reach the sense of belonging

from the sharing of knowledge and values In the third step, local culture within a

multinational firm should be accommodated and then stretched to the most effective

culture type

Predicated on resource dependency theory, Law et al (2009) discerned parent

company support and top management’s commitment as the antecedents of

localization success A significant linkage between localization success and top

management ratings of firm performance was also encountered in their research

3 Conceptual framework and research methodology

3.1 Conceptual framework

Culture moulds behavior (Holbeche, 2006) Culture proffers unwritten guidelines as

regards how to behave Flexibility culture types promote lax and informal control of

operations, open channels of communication, and free flows of information through

diverse layers of the organization (Burns and Stalker, 1961) Flexibility culture types

thus nurture understandings as well as caring relationships Clan culture type which

underscores member cohesiveness, sense of belonging, and commitment (Deshpande

et al., 1993) is consistent with ethics of care reflecting a concept of self that is

“connected (wherein) one’s moral obligations are grounded in a

conceptualization of individuals within community” (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999, p

186) The sense of community and interconnection implied by vision orientation

reflected in adhocracy culture is consistent with ethics of care as well The use of

creative, sustainable (win-win) problem solving approaches reflected in adhocracy

culture is also consistent with Gilligan’s (1982) ethics of care Within a care perspective,

creativity specifically refers to the tendency toward discerning ways to simultaneously

fulfill competing responsibilities (Gilligan, 1982) and emphasize the underlying interest

of each party, which relate to the concept of sustainability highlighted in adhocracy

Behind knowledge transfer 465

culture Ethics of care which is concerned with responsibility, consideration, emotions(Plot, 2009), and relationships (Tronto, 1993) relates to clan culture with its emphasis

on interpersonal cohesion and adhocracy culture highlighting sustainability closelylinked to social responsibility

On the contrary, control cultural types which promote rigid and stringent control,highly structured channels of communication, and restricted flows of informationthroughout the organisation (Burns and Stalker, 1961) hamper the development ofcaring relationships (Lantos, 2002) and “activity of care” (Tronto, 1993) Ethics of carefocuses on people rather than on policies (Begley, 2006) while ethics of justiceembedded in fairness through the implementation of rules is consistent with hiearchyculture with its anchor on rules, policies, and procedures (Deshpande et al., 1993) Due

to superficial member bonding built on rules and policies, hierachy culture tends toyield separation and autonomy, which are critical notions in ethics of justice.Furthermore, since ethics of justice exposes the predominance of individual rights andself-interest in pursuing individual goals, it tends to relate to hierarchy culture wheremember bonding is based on calculation for their individual goals Despite its customerorientation, market culture with its member bonding based on competition (Deshpande

et al., 1993), is consistent with ethics of justice, which chooses between the conflictingrights of different individuals The subsequent hypotheses thus ensued:

H1a A greater degree of flexibility organisational culture type (clan or adhocracy)corresponds to a greater level of ethics of care

H1b A greater degree of control organisational culture type (hierarchy or market)corresponds to a greater level of ethics of justice

A control culture company highlights stability and order, so tends to rigidly abide bystrategy on human resources its mother company has launched with virtually noadaptation to local context A flexibility culture company, on the contrary, tends topromote localization to obliterate cultural gaps in the company The ensuinghypotheses are consequently proposed:

H2a A greater degree of flexible culture type (clan and adhocracy) corresponds to ahigher degree of human resources localization

H2b A greater degree of control culture type (hierarchy and market) corresponds to

a lower degree of human resouces localization

Focus on people is the rendezvous of ethics of care and human resources localization.Ethics of care centers on responsibility and relationships rather than rights and rules(Tronto, 1993), so relates to the concept “localization” which provides potentialelucidation of more socially and environmentally “friendly” business models(Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2010) Moreover, localization, with its strategic anchor on theintegration of native intellectual capital into the set of core competencies of the entireorganisation, is consistent with ethics of care, mirroring a concept of self that is

“connected (wherein) one’s moral obligations are grounded in a conceptualization of individuals within community” (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999,

p 186) This sense of community is also implied by the focus on nurturing local talentsreflected in the localization strategy (Chae, 2008)

MD

50,3

466

By contrast, ethics of justice underscoring rules and policies (Tronto, 1993, Begley,

2006) and characterized by separation, autonomy, and the predominance of individual

rights and self-interest in pursuing individual goals, tends to inhibit human resources

locationzation since leaders with a propensity for ethics of justice may consent to the

designated company structure and look at expatriate managers and local employees

working autonomously as norms which does not need to undergo changes The

following hypotheses were hence formulated:

H3a A greater level of ethics of care corresponds to a higher degree of human

resources localization

H3b A greater level of ethics of justice corresponds to a lower degree of human

resources localization

The success of knowledge transfer is contingent on a company’s competence to adapt

to its local surroundings (Berchtold et al., 2010) Due to their common socio-cultural

backgrounds, local employees are able to relate better to local front-line employees than

expatriates, so human resources localization nurtures the relationships between

employees and their leaders as well as their collaboration (Hailey, 1996) Collaborating

employees are likely to swap ideas and share their knowledge (Yilmaz and Hunt, 2001)

Furthermore, when employees develop close relationships with one another, they

dedicate a noteworthy amount of time to share concerns (Huang, 2009) Intermittent

relationships presumably yield weak knowledge sharing (Szulanski, 1996) since, if an

employee assumes to have lasting relationship with others, s/he tends to share her/his

knowledge with them

Localization is meant to acquire local knowledge to design strategies to penetrate a

market or to reach market superiority The promotion of local managers will bridge the

cultural gap subsisting between expatriate managers and local line employees, thereby

creating better communication among the diverse levels within the company ( Johri and

Petison, 2008), so augmenting knowledge sharing The dearth of an aspiring culture to

communicate and explore new ideas may become a chief barrier to knowledge sharing

(Sun and Scott, 2005)

Understanding personal behavior is crucial in knowledge sharing (Bent, 2007; Tsai

and Tsai, 2005; Haas and Hansen, 2005) Local managers have fewer language and

cultural barriers in communicating with lower level members (Chen and Tjosvold,

2007), so localization increases the understanding of employee behavior, which as a

result increases knowledge sharing The subsequent hypothesis consequently

emerged:

H4 Knowledge sharing is positively associated with human resources

localization

The hypothesized linkage between knowledge sharing and its such antecedents as

organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization is illustrated in

Figure 2

3.2 Methodology

3.2.1 Sample A population of 2,198 joint venture companies listed in the 2010 Vietnam

Trade Directory serves as a base to derive the sample of 1,318 manufacturing joint

ventures for this study Through self-administered structured questionnaire

Behind knowledge transfer 467

despatched to a middle level manager such as operations director or manager in each ofthese 1,318 manufacturing joint ventures, data on such contructs as knowledgesharing, organisational culture, ethics, and human resources localization were collated.Since middle management members would have more opportunities to observe high aswell as low layers of organizational behavior than would lower level members, theywere invited to share their observations of the variables of the study.

Of 1,318 questionnaires sent to middle level managers, 314 were returned incompleted form for a response rate of 23.82 per cent, which is consistent with the 15-25per cent response rate range found in many studies (e.g Baines and Langfield-Smith,2003; Lee et al., 2001; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001) where middle and top managers withhectic working schedules acted as respondents

3.2.2 Quantitative measures Knowledge sharing Adapted from studies by Van denHooff and Van Weenen (2004a) and by De Vries et al (2006), knowledge sharingdonation and collection were each investigated through four items Knowledgedonation items measure how willingly employees transfer or disseminate knowledge toothers, and knowledge collection items examine collective beliefs or behavioralroutines as regards the spread of learning among employees

3.2.3 Organizational culture Further adapting Cameron and Freeman’s (1991) theoperationalization of the culture construct, Deshpande et al (1993) constructed succinctscenarios to portray the dominant features of each of the four culture types Thevalidity of this instrument has been substantiated (e.g Zammuto and Krakower, 1991)

In the research instrument, all four culture types are displayed as alternatives in eachquestion Respondents were invited to dispense 100 points among the four scenarios inthe questions, contingent on how analogous respondents reckoned each scenario was

to their organization The scenarios, where organization A denotes clan culture,organization B denotes adhocracy culture, organization C denotes hierarchy culture,and organization D denotes market culture, are consistently arranged in the questions,appraising the organizational attributes, leadership, bonding, and strategic accents