Master Thesis Organization Studies MSOS 2017-2018

“Understanding trust, business diversity and knowledge sharing in social partnerships.”

Name: Zeb Bergsma ANR/SNR: 761937/U1279546

Title of circle: Core problems of organizing between organizations Circle supervisor: Dr. N.R. Barros de Oliveira 2nd supervisor: Dr. J.P. Bechara Preface

Two years ago, I decided to continue studying after graduating from my bachelor in ‘Event management’. At that point I was looking for possibilities to broaden my knowledge and view on management by not only looking at events, but at organizations and societies as well. How do they function, and why do they choose to do so? When I was visiting an information evening at Tilburg University, Dr. Martyna Janowicz was explaining more about the ‘Organization Studies’-program. She was only halfway through her story and I had already decided that this program was going to be my next step. Thanks to the premaster- and master ‘Organization Studies’ of Tilburg University, I learned everything that I wanted to learn, and so much more. This master thesis is written as final assignment in order to complete the master ‘Organization Studies’. During the last months I have been busy exploring inter-organizational collaborations, specifically by looking at how and why people share knowledge within social partnerships. I believe that in order to solve global challenges in current- and upcoming generations, knowledge sharing is an important concept that could help to facilitate collective learning and therefore increase the probability of developing and implementing successful solutions towards these challenges. I would like to take this opportunity to thank a number of people for supporting me during this period. In no particular order: My circle supervisor Dr. Nuno Barros de Oliveira, for the accompaniment, coaching and feedback during the period of writing my thesis; My second assessor Dr. John Bechara, for not only providing critical feedback, but also acknowledging the strengths of my thesis; MTO evaluator Guy Moors, for helping me to optimize the methodology of my thesis; The library of Midden-Brabant, for the opportunity of collecting data in their network of partners; My parents, for their support and feedback; And last but not least, my girlfriend for her support, feedback and forbearance during these months. In addition, I would like to thank everybody who has not been mentioned and had in any way contributed to my thesis. Without cooperation of colleagues, friends and family I would not have been able to finish my thesis.

I hope you enjoy reading it!

Warm regards, Zeb Bergsma, Breda 2018

2

Abstract

This research explores the influence of interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing between organizations that address social issues (social partnerships). The study was built on a cross sectional research design with quantitative measures. By using a library’s network of social partnerships, this context should fill the missing gap in knowledge on social partnerships. The sample consisted of 89 partner-organizations from different sectors. The results of this study show a positive and significant effect of interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing. This research has been conducted within one network only and as it is based on the knowledge provider. One should keep in mind that knowledge sharing is a process between knowledge provider and recipient. Managers in social partnerships should realize that trust might exist before a formal partnership is established. Meaning that choosing the right employee potentially increases knowledge sharing. In order to encourage knowledge sharing, managers should emphasize multi-level benefits as this potentially increases the value for the knowledge provider.

Keywords: Knowledge sharing, Interpersonal trust, perceived business diversity, non-profit partnerships, social partnerships, knowledge provider.

3

Table of contents

1. Introduction ...... 6

1.1 Research problem ...... 6

1.2 Research question ...... 8

1.3 Relevance of research ...... 8

2. Theoretical background ...... 9

2.1 Knowledge sharing ...... 9

2.2 Social capital theory ...... 10

2.3 Impact of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing ...... 10

2.4 Impact of perceived business diversity on trust and knowledge sharing ...... 12

2.5 Conceptual model ...... 13

3. Methodological framework ...... 14

3.1 Empirical setting...... 14

3.2 Research design ...... 15

3.3 Sample strategy and data collection ...... 15

3.4 Reflection data collection ...... 16

3.5 Measures ...... 16

4. Results ...... 18

4.1 Preliminary data analysis ...... 18

4.2 Sample characteristics ...... 18

4.3 Hypothesis testing ...... 19

4.4 Robustness checks ...... 21

4.5 Additional analysis ...... 22

4

5. Discussion ...... 23

5.1 Implications of hypothesis 1 ...... 23

5.2 Implications of hypothesis 2 ...... 24

5.3 Additional implications ...... 25

5.4 Limitations and future research ...... 27

5.5 Managerial implications ...... 28

5.6 Conclusion ...... 29

6. References ...... 31

7. Appendices...... 38

7.1 Appendix A – Operationalization table ...... 38

7.2 Appendix B – Data strategy ...... 39

7.3 Appendix C – Questionnaire ...... 42

7.4 Appendix D – Analyzes ...... 56

5

1. Introduction 1.1 Research problem Our global community is facing numerous challenges such as, poverty, unemployment, hunger, climate change, resource-depletion, and environmental degradation, as well as the potential impact of the latest technological revolution (United Nations, 2017). Mr. Li, Director General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization emphasizes that “The only way to solve the challenges ahead of us is in social partnerships…partnership with governments, UN sister agencies, the private sector, and civil society.” (UN, 2017, p.1). These social partnerships facilitate e.g. information transfer, investment flows and skills development between a variety of partners. The assurance that these partners can trust each other and that valid information can flow freely between them is crucial for developing and implementing successful solutions for these global challenges (McEvily, Perrone & Zaheer, 2003; Nonaka, 2000; Pardo, Cresswell, Thompson, & Zhang, 2006; Selsky & Parker, 2005). This illustrates how important trust and knowledge sharing between partners is for our global welfare. However, organizations that are supposed to work together and coordinate knowledge sharing often fail to do so. It has been estimated that at least 31.5 billion dollars is lost each year by ‘Fortune 500’-companies as a result of failing to share knowledge (Babcock, 2004). This failure – similar to those that I study in this research – has consequences for organizations, such as inadequate application of knowledge, more reluctance to share knowledge with others, and a decrease in overall performance (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005; Jackson, Hitt, & DeNisi, 2003; Zárraga & Bonache, 2003). Despite these consequences is success in knowledge sharing positively related to reduction of costs, faster completion of new projects, firm innovation capabilities and firm performance (Arthur & Huntley, 2005; Collins & Smith, 2006; Lin, 2007; Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). Academic literature has paid a lot of attention to knowledge sharing in inter-organizational collaborations (Easterby-Smith, Lyles & Tsang, 2008; Van Wijk, Jansen & Lyles, 2008; Pinjani & Palvia, 2013; Chen, Lin & Yen, 2014; Loebbecke, van Fenema & Powell, 2016). Almost all of these studies explore the concept ‘knowledge sharing’ in order to increase its effectiveness. However, these same studies focus on profit partnerships and hardly on partnerships that address social issues (from here on referred to as ‘social partnerships’). This leaves the context of social partnerships understudied. When organizations from different sectors collaborate and focus on the same issue, they are likely to think about it differently, to be motivated by different goals, and to use different approaches (Waddell, 2005). As social partnerships are mostly represented by non-profit organizations, theory suggests that trust is important for both profit and non-profit partnerships, but motivational differences exist (Rondinelli & London, 2003, Selsky & Parker, 2005; Shaw, 2003; Waddell, 2005).

6

One of the reasons for ineffective knowledge sharing could be the lack of trust between the partners, as it may seriously hamper sharing of important information, potentially damaging the effectiveness of business processes (Rutten, Blaas-Franken & Martin, 2016). An organization’s ability to effectively share its knowledge is therefore highly dependent on its employees and their behavior (Argote, Ingram, Levine & Moreland, 2000). Employees participating in knowledge sharing often agree on knowledge sharing being beneficial for their organization. Despite this agreement, knowledge does not flow freely between them. Trust is believed to increase knowledge sharing by encouraging the disclosure of knowledge to others by granting others access to one’s own knowledge (McEvily et al., 2003) Therefore, knowledge sharing is only likely to occur when there is an atmosphere of trust and employees are genuinely interested in helping one another (Cheng, Yeh & Tu, 2008; Panteli & Sockalingam, 2005; Senge, 1997). Another reason for ineffective knowledge sharing could be related to the perceived business diversity of the knowledge provider. Employees are concerned about risks in knowledge sharing, because of changes in power structures or knowledge spillovers (Argawal, Audretsch & Sarkar, 2010; Jayasingam & Ansari, 2010; Liao, Fei, Liu, 2008). As partners are more diverse based on their core business, they perceive less competition over resources (Sankowska, 2012). While more similar partners potentially compete over the same resources (Spender & Grand, 1996). Individuals in social partnerships have to deal with a variety of partners from a variety of sectors. The relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing could therefore be contingent on perceived business diversity. When perceived business diversity is lower, higher risks perceptions could hamper the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, for a knowledge provider to share its knowledge one must assume that their contribution towards others will be worth the effort and that some new value will be created, with expectations of receiving some of that value for themselves (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998). Thus, when perceived business diversity is higher, the knowledge provider could assume that the knowledge recipient has potentially valuable information he/she does not own. In order to increase probability of meaningful knowledge exchange, the knowledge provider could have more trust in the other and therefore shares more knowledge. By assuming knowledge sharing as a pattern of interpersonal interaction of individuals in which the knowledge provider decides whether or not to share knowledge, I aim at advancing the current understanding of how knowledge sharing is affected by interpersonal trust in social partnerships and how perceived business diversity influences this relationship.

7

1.2 Research question To what extent does interpersonal trust influence knowledge sharing in social partnerships, and to what extent does perceived business diversity moderate this relationship?

1.3 Relevance of research My research contributes to the current understanding of knowledge sharing by examining the influence of interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity in social partnerships. From an academic perspective, the literature on knowledge sharing empirically validated the effect between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing in collaborations between profit-organizations. As social partnerships are believed to involve different motivational behaviors, this research focusses on the context of social partnerships. Furthermore, I examine the boundary conditions of the relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing as the established literature falls short on this. Previous research on knowledge sharing considers business diversity as an environmental antecedent influencing motivational factors of knowledge sharing such as trust and justice (Wang & Noe, 2010). However, perceived business diversity potentially moderates the effect between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing as social partnerships include a variety of partners from a variety of sectors. From a managerial perspective, organizations and institutions are increasingly recognizing the benefits of collaborating on a wide range of social and environmental challenges. The assurance that collaborating partners can trust each other and that valid information can flow freely in between them is crucial for developing and implementing successful solutions for these challenges. A better understanding of when interpersonal trust influences knowledge sharing and under what conditions knowledge sharing can be reinforced would contribute to more effective management in knowledge sharing and therefore to more successful social partnerships.

8

2. Theoretical background 2.1 Knowledge sharing Build on Penrose’s (1959) resource based view, multiple researchers emphasize the role of knowledge as an important resource for organizations and as enabler of competitive advantage (Foss, 1996; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka, 1996; Spender, 1996; Grant, 1996). This knowledge-based view suggests that the key role of a firm lies in creating, applying, storing and sharing knowledge. While the resource- based view is built on the assumption of firm heterogeneity (Felin & Hesterly, 2007), knowledge sharing is a process that is likely to reduce heterogeneity given that ‘‘even small, incremental knowledge can distinguish an organization from its competitors” (Cohen, 1998 p. 23). Empirical research over the last 20 years shows that organizations may significantly improve their knowledge resources and innovative capabilities by leveraging the skills of external organizations through knowledge sharing between individuals (e.g., Andrews & Delahaye, 2000; Becerra-Fernandez & Sabherwal, 2001; Bhatt, 1998; Quinn, Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996; Ipe, 2003). However, knowledge sharing is a complex process and in practice not easy to achieve. Even in a relatively simple case of knowledge sharing between different units in the same organization, there are a number of factors that could affect effectiveness (Szulanski, 1996). Knowledge sharing between organizations brings even more complexity because of the multifaceted nature of the boundaries, cultures, and processes involved (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). Following the definition by Gilbert and Krause (2002); “Knowledge sharing is the willingness of individuals to share with others the knowledge they have acquired or created” (p. 89). This definition stresses that ‘willingness’ is a key element of knowledge sharing. Since knowledge largely exists in individuals’ minds, the knowledge remains unexposed to others until one wants to make it available. Furthermore, making knowledge available depends on how individuals asses their benefits they may gain from knowledge sharing (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Szulanski, 1996). Thus, unless individuals have a clear answer to the question, “what is in it for me?”, knowledge sharing is unlikely to take place (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). In contrast to assessing benefits, knowledge sharing is also seen as an activity involving risk (Sankowska, 2013). For the knowledge provider, knowledge sharing potentially includes the risk of losing competitive advantage over the knowledge recipient by revealing valuable knowledge. The knowledge recipients may take equally a risk, as one cannot be sure of the quality of the information, which may have been conveyed with potentially bad intentions (Jayasingam et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2008). As this research focuses only on the knowledge provider, knowledge sharing is only likely to happen when there is an atmosphere of trust and the knowledge provider is genuinely interested in helping another (Panteli & Sockalingam, 2005; Chen et al., 2014).

9

2.2 Social capital theory Social capital is conceptualized as: “The sum of the assets or resources embedded in the networks of relationships between individuals, communities, networks, or societies” (Chang & Chuang, 2011, p. 10). This theory acknowledges that most organizations do not possess all required knowledge within their formal boundaries. To acquire relevant knowledge, organizations must rely on connections to external organizations and individuals, as they grant access to new information, expertise, and ideas. (Anand, Glick & Manz, 2002). Employees who interact with their external connections, often do so informally and free from constraints of hierarchy and organizational rules. Even when the employing organizations is a direct competitor to an external connection, informal and reciprocal knowledge exchanges between individuals are valued and sustained over time (Bouty, 2000). Social capital theory acknowledges three dimensions, namely; structural-, relational- and cognitive dimension (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). The structural dimension deals with the pattern of relationships found in organizations. It describes the interpersonal configuration of connections between people and the extent to which people in an organization are connected with one another (Bolino, Turnley & Bloodgood, 2002). The relational dimension deals with the nature of the connections between individuals. The cognitive dimension contains the extent to which people in a social network share a common perspective or understanding. Following the work of Chiu, Hsu & Wang (2006), this research adopted interpersonal trust, as relational social capital, and perceived business diversity for cognitive social capital. In this way, an examination can be made on how these resources affect knowledge sharing in social partnerships.

2.3 Impact of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing Trust is a very broad concept with a variety of definitions. Inter-organizational trust and interpersonal trust are often acknowledged as two forms of trust between organizations. Zaheer, McEvily and Perrone (1998) define interpersonal trust as: “The extent of a boundary-spanning agent's trust in her counterpart in the partner organization” (p. 142). In other words, interpersonal trust is the trust placed by the individual boundary spanner in her individual opposite member. This differs from inter- organizational trust as it is the extent of trust placed in the partner organization by the members of a focal organization. The difference between both concepts is illustrated in Figure 1 (Zaheer et al., 1998, p. 142). Based on the assumption that an organization’s ability to effectively share its knowledge is highly dependent on its employees and their behavior (Argote et al., 2000; Ipe, 2003), my research focuses on interpersonal trust as knowledge in social partnerships is shared by individuals and therefore trust is placed by individuals.

10

Figure 1. Differences between Inter-organizational and Interpersonal

Trust. Reprinted from Zaheer et al., (1998) p. 142.

As trust is believed to increase knowledge sharing between individuals, the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing has received much attention amongst scholarss. Different authors have strived to empirically validate the effects of trust on knowledge sharing. For example, some have empirical validated a positive correlation between trust and knowledge sharing (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Chiu et al., 2006; Mohammed-Fathi, Cyril-Eze & Guan Gan Goh, 2011; Hau, Kim, Lee & Kim, 2013; Holste & Fields, 2010; Lucas, 2005; Sankowska, 2013; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Wickramasinghe & Widyaratne, 2012; Wu, Lin, Hsu & Yeh, 2009). While others could not find a significant correlation between trust and knowledge sharing (Chow & Chan, 2008; Li, 2005). Overall, literature on this relation suggests that trust has a positive effect on knowledge sharing. A trusting atmosphere is believed to increase knowledge sharing by encouraging cooperative interaction and the disclosure of knowledge to others by granting others access to one’s own knowledge (Chang & Chuang, 2011; Maurer, 2010; McEvily et al., 2003). This means that when an individual grants someone else access to its own knowledge, the other is likely to return the favor. Furthermore, trust is believed to mitigate risk perceptions (Kadefors, 2004; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, if trust is present, individuals can engage in knowledge sharing without overthinking potential hidden motives an exchange partners might have. Although this body of research generally has shown a positive relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing, no literature on this relation in social partnerships could be found. Theory suggests that trust is important for both profit and non-profit partnerships, but motivational differences exist (Rondinelli & London, 2003, Selsky & Parker, 2005; Shaw, 2003; Waddell, 2005). For example, successful non-profit organizations and public agencies do not form partnerships for financial gain (Shaw, 2003). This is in line with Rose-Ackerman (1996) as she finds that employees of non-profit organizations are more likely (than for-profit sector employees) to report that “their work is more important to them than the money they earn”. Because social partnerships collaborate to address social issues and reach a common goal, it is less likely that individuals have hidden motives or need trust to mitigate these perceptions. Therefore;

11

Hypothesis 1: The higher the level of interpersonal trust, the higher the level of knowledge sharing in social partnerships.

2.4 Impact of perceived business diversity on trust and knowledge sharing Research on inter-organizational knowledge sharing recognizes that organizations are often involved in multiple temporal and/or more permanent collaborations (Chang & Gurbaxani, 2012; Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008; Marabelli & Newell, 2012; Zimmermann & Ravishankar, 2014). In such collaborations, individuals come together to integrate, synthesize and share information and expertise during a process in order to achieve shared common goals (Salas, Cooke & Rosen, 2008; Edmondson & Nembhard, 2009). Especially social partnerships have partners from different sectors and with diverse missions, goals and knowledge bases. The relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing could therefore be contingent on perceived business diversity for two reasons. Firstly, individuals participating in knowledge sharing are concerned about risks of exploitation, power structures, fear of knowledge spillovers and opportunistic behaviors (Agarwal et al., 2010; Jayasingam et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2008). As earlier mentioned, trust is believed to mitigate these risk perceptions (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). But when partners in a social partnership operate in different sectors it is assumed they do not ‘fight’ for resources and competitive advantage (Spender & Grant, 1996), therefore overcoming the need for mitigation. Thus, a higher level of perceived business diversity diminishes risks perceptions, causing a stronger relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. Secondly, individuals in partnerships must be able to capitalize on member resources by accurately discerning, weighting, and incorporating the task relevant knowledge of members (Littlepage, Robison & Reddington, 1997; Henry, 1995). Research on team innovation acknowledges that innovation requires the generation of novel ideas about products, services and/or processes (Amabile, 1988). The diversity of knowledge associated with perceived business diversity provides cognitive knowledge resources for innovation (Amabile, 1988; Milliken, Bartel & Kurtzberg, 2003; Taylor & Greve, 2006). This means that partnerships with functionally diverse partners could benefit from their diverse pool of knowledge by sharing and combining them to generate novel ideas. For effective knowledge sharing, individuals must assume that their contribution towards others will be worth the effort and that some new value will be created, with the expectation of receiving some of that value for themselves (Nahapiet & Ghoshal 1998). When perceived business diversity is higher, the knowledge provider could assume that the knowledge recipient has potentially valuable information he or she does not own, which increases trust and knowledge sharing as potential cognitive resources seem at hand. Therefore;

12

Hypothesis 2: The higher the level of perceived business diversity, the stronger the relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing.

2.5 Conceptual model The following conceptual model provides an overview of all the expected hypotheses in this research.

Interpersonal Trust +

Knowledge Sharing + Perceived Business Diversity

13

3. Methodological framework 3.1 Empirical setting This research had the unique opportunity to have access to a sizable heterogeneous network of organizations collaborating in social partnerships. This ego centric network centers on ‘Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant’ (from this point forward called as ‘BMB’), a foundation of libraries in the Brabant- region in the Netherlands. In 2017, BMB had 70.757 members, 2.398.290 loans, 1.471.498 visitors, a collection of 573.737 items and 258 inter-organizational collaborations with their numerous strategic partners. BMB’s network is suitable to collect data in, because their collaborations can be characterized as a knowledge intensive as they aim to increase societal relevance by: “Helping people develop themselves by creating, sharing and making knowledge and stories accessible” (De Bibliotheek Midden Brabant, n.d.). All partners are represented by one individual, which fits the unit of observation & analysis. In addition, BMB initiates and/or participates in many collaborations with a great diversity of partners. Their network is therefore vast, diverse and knowledge intensive. This makes it a perfect context to address the research question as it examines the effects of trust, diversity and knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships. To illustrate an example collaboration from the empirical setting, figure 2 is inserted.

Figure 2. Illustration of an example collaboration (De Bibliotheek Midden Brabant, n. d.).

Figure 2 represents an initiative called “Scoor een boek”. BMB is positioned in the upper-left corner. In this example, four partners participate. Only one individual represents a partner organization. Therefore, only one single person will be observed for each partner organization. Both the level of analysis and observation are on the level of the individual. An extensive description on the empirical setting can be found in appendix B.

14

3.2 Research design All the concepts and hypotheses addressed and suggested in this research are built on established research and literature, therefore this study can be characterized as a deductive study. In order to get more insights in the concepts and the hypotheses, a cross-sectional approach was used. This approach is deemed to be appropriate because of this research’s focus on relationships at a specific point in time, as opposed to the evolution of a relationship. A cross-sectional approach enables to study differences between individuals. Although this approach is suitable for this research, it is difficult to establish differences between individuals since the data is collected at a specific point in time. This might weaken the internal validity of the research. To gather data on a large number of respondents this research used a quantitative research method using questionnaires. This method is in line with the cross-sectional approach as it establishes a clear ‘snapshot’ of the outcome and characteristics associated with it.

3.3 Sample strategy and data collection The sample consisted of a network of 89 partner-organizations collaborating with BMB. The partners were selected based on four categories separated by their intensity of collaboration. The aim of this categorization was to include only those collaborations in which both BMB and the partner(s) played a significant role. BMB only considered those collaborations as relevant for participating in this research. For details on how the categorization was established, see appendix B. The data for this research was collected through questionnaires. The questionnaire was composed by myself and four other master-thesis-circle-students, with each their own set of items. Based on the sample, 89 questionnaires were distributed among the respondents using an online survey program called Qualtrics. All respondents answered questions about the projects in which they were involved in 2017. The partners were coded into categories by a master-thesis-circle-student and subsequently by an employee of BMB. To check whether there were any differences between the coders, the intercoder reliability was computed using the Cohen’s Kappa measurement of agreement. The agreement coefficient value was greater than 0.9 (0.922), indicating that the intercoder reliability is acceptable for this study. The common method bias is often mentioned as a risk in cross-sectional studies (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012). To test if this is the case, the Harman’s single factor score was computed. The total variance for a single factor is less than 50 per cent (31.056%), indicating that the common method bias does not affect the data of this research.

15

3.4 Reflection data collection The data collection resulted in 57 complete questionnaires, which means 64.1% response of the sample size (N=89). From the population of 258 partners, only 104 partners were relevant due to the categorization of collaborations. Due to missing contact details only 89 partners were send a questionnaire. The 15 partners whose contact details were missing, were checked on differences between them relative to the population. But no differences were found as they represent all the different sectors and categories. The questionnaire contained 103 items and took approximately 10-15 minutes. The questionnaire was composed by myself, four other master-thesis-circle-students and BMB. Therefore, we were restricted in the items we could add to the questionnaire. We only could add the bare minimum of items needed for our researches. Fortunately, I found established scales with only a few items per scale, to measure my constructs. I checked the scale reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha scores. All scores were at least ‘acceptable’ (≥0.7) based on the guidelines of Pallant (2016). The questionnaires were distributed to specific respondents. Because of this, we were able to send reminders to those who had not filled in the questionnaire yet. This dramatically increased the response rate. Eventually 57 respondents filled in the questionnaire, representing partners of all kinds of organizations and collaborations. 36 respondents indicated that they want to receive a summary of the results, indicating that many respondents were very interested and enthusiastic about our studies. From the sample of 89 partners, 32 did not complete the questionnaire. There was no explanation for why those non-respondents did not fill in the questionnaire. The non-respondents represented all the different sectors and were almost equally distributed in both genders. Nine of them started the questionnaire but did not finish it, all of them stopped at different questions. Therefore, no significant differences between the respondents and non-respondents were found. The communication with BMB was not always as transparent and smooth as expected. We, as master-thesis-circle-students, discovered different expectations towards each other after receiving the GO for the initial research proposal. This created frustrations and delays. Fortunately, we were able to work things out in such a way that all parties were happy with the results.

3.5 Measures Several steps helped to ensure the reliability and validity of the data. The questionnaires were presented in Dutch, therefore double translation was used to increase the reliability of the scales. The questionnaire included measures that have been validated by previous studies securing the construct validity. In addition, a pilot test took place with colleagues of the master thesis and with employees of the BMB. These people gave feedback upon vague and/or ambiguous items in order to leave these out of the questionnaire. A framework for operationalization can be found in the appendix A. 16

Dependent variable: Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing was a continuous variable. This variable is measured by the use of a scale that has been validated by a previous study. Retrieved from Xue, Bradley & Liang (2011), this measure contains three items using a 5-point Likert scale. After the pilot test, 2 items were perceived as almost identical, therefore 1 item was excluded in the final questionnaire. The reliability of the scale was tested using the Cronbach’s Alpha scores, resulting in a test-score of 0.709.

Independent variable: Interpersonal trust Interpersonal trust was a continuous variable as well. This variable is measured by the use of a scale that has been validated by a previous study. Retrieved from Langfred (2007), this scale contains of two items using a 5-point Likert scale. After the pilot test, no remarks came up. The reliability of the scale was tested using the Cronbach’s Alpha scores, resulting in a test-score of 0.847.

Moderation variable: Perceived business diversity Six types of sectors/institutions were distinguished in the questionnaire based on a previous study by BMB in collaboration with Tilburg University (Ahmed et al., 2008) including; Education, Government, Cultural, Social & welfare, business, and ‘other’. When the data was collected, perceived business diversity was calculated per individual using the average scores of all projects, as the respondents answered: “To what extent does this project belong to your organization’s core-business”. Perceived business diversity is the product of interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. Thus, Interpersonal Trust * Perceived business diversity.

Control variables Based on the studies of Muthusamy and White (2005), Hardy, Philips & Lawrence (2003) and Ojha (2005), the following control variables are included: Firm size (Number of employees), duration of partnership and gender of the knowledge provider. These variables are chosen based on their possible interference with the relation under study. For example, firm size may influence the relation as large organizations may possess slack resources to manage boundary-spanning activities and may be adept at interacting with their partners. Furthermore, duration of the partnership could influence the relation as long standing partnerships have already established more trust, in contrast to relatively new partnerships. At last, to see if there are any differences between men and women, gender is included as control variable.

17

4. Results 4.1 Preliminary data analysis The data set was cleansed by refining the codebook and by checking for errors and missing values. No items had to be reversed. To ensure that none of the assumptions for the regressions are violated, some preliminary data analyses were conducted before running the actual data analysis. The variables used for this research were checked for normal distribution and outliers using histograms. All variables showed a histogram with a bell curve, indicating that all variables are normal distributed. Based on the normally distributed histograms and on the interquartile range rule for outliers by Hoaglin, Iglewicz & Tukey (1986), no data was removed from the dataset. To check the internal consistency of the measurement scales, the Cronbach alpha scores were computed. For the reliability analysis and histograms see appendix D.

4.2 Sample characteristics The dataset consists of 57 respondents working in 5 categories of institutions with a variety of functions. The population is equally balanced in terms of gender, as 54.4% is female as opposed to 45.6% males. Based on the categories of institutions, 7 respondents mentioned different categories than the proposed ones. These categories contains e.g. journalism, art dealership, nature protection, aid organization. Table 1 shows all the demographics of the respondents.

Table 1, Demographics of the respondents (N = 57)

Frequency Frequency

Gender Women 31 54,4% Function Director/owner 15 26,2%

Men 26 45,6% Board 8 14,0%

Total 57 100,0% Volunteer/member 6 10,5%

Manager 5 8,8%

Institution Social & Welfare 18 31,6% Chairman 5 8,8%

Cultural 13 22,8% Coordinator 5 8,8%

Business 8 14,0% Teacher/education 4 7,0%

Educational 6 10,5% Program maker/manager 3 5,3%

Government 5 8,8% Social worker 3 5,3%

Other, namely 7 12,3% Policy officer 3 5,3%

Total 57 100,0% Total 57 100,0%

Duration of ≤1 year 38 66,7% Firm size ≤50 employees 42 73,7%

partnership >1 years 19 33,3% >50 employees 15 26,3%

Total 57 100,0% Total 57 100,0%

18

The Pearson’s r correlations are computed to see if there are any relationships between the variables included in the analysis. Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations and the correlations. Cohen (1988) indicates that correlations between .10 and .29 are considered as small, between .30 and .49 as moderate, and correlations between .50 and 1.0 as large. Gender, firm size and duration of the partnership are added as control variables. None of the control variables correlate with one of the other variables.

Table 2, Means, standard deviations and correlations (N=57)

Mean S.D. Min. Max. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Knowledge Sharing 3,76 0,721 1 5 1,00 2 Interpersonal trust 4,25 0,595 1 5 0,489** 1,00 3 Business diversity 3,73 0,866 1 5 0,283* 0,093 1,00 4 Trust X Diversity 15,91 4,560 8 25 0,486** 0,580** 0,861** 1,00 5 Gender (Woman)ⁿ 0,54 0,503 0 1 0,073 -0,053 0,079 0,041 1,00 6 Employees >50ⁿ 0,26 0,444 0 1 -0,091 -0,072 -0,112 -0,126 0,227 1,00 7 Duration >1 yearⁿ 0,67 0,476 0 1 0,022 0,053 0,188 0,142 0,025 0,169

ⁿ. Reference category: Gender = Men; Employees = ≤50; Duration = ≤1 years

**. Correlation is significant at 0.01 (Two-tailed)

*. Correlation is significant at 0.05 (Two-tailed)

4.3 Hypothesis testing The analysis included a hierarchical linear regression analysis using SPSS to uncover the relationships among the variables. This type of analysis makes it possible to enter all variables separately and it allows controlling directly for the effect of other variables that are adopted in the model. The regression model was made in three steps. The first step represents the baseline model. This model includes only the control variables gender, duration of the partnership and firm size. In step two, the main effects interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity were included. The third step includes the interaction term of interpersonal trust*perceived diversity. This model tests the moderation effect of perceived business diversity. Table 3 reports all the regression models on knowledge sharing and their outcomes.

19

Table 3, Hierarchical linear regression analysis (N=57)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

ß SE ß SE ß SE Step 1 - Controls Gender Womanⁿ 0,099 0,201 0,090 0,173 0,089 0,174 Employees >50ⁿ -0,120 0,230 -0,044 0,200 -0,057 0,202 Duration >1 yearⁿ 0,040 0,209 -0,042 0,184 0,013 0,206

Step 2 - Main effects Interpersonal trust 0,471** 0,143 -0,214 0,937 Business Diversity 0,234* 0,101 -0,879 1,038

Step 3 - Moderator effect Trust X Diversity 1,354 0,239

R² 0,019 0,306** 0,317 Adjusted R² 0,238 0,235 F-value 0,342 4,504** 3,873**

ⁿ. Reference category: Gender = Men; Employees = ≤50; Duration = ≤1 years **. Correlation is significant at 0.01 (Two-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 (Two-tailed)

Model 1 estimated the relationships between the dependent variable knowledge sharing and the control variables Gender, firm size and duration of the partnership. No significant effects were found, showing that the control variables have no influence on the dependent variable in this research. Model 2 estimated the relations between interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing. This showed that interpersonal trust has a positive and significant effect with a coefficient of 0.471 (p<0.01) on knowledge sharing, supporting hypothesis 1. Also perceived business diversity has a positive and significant effect with a coefficient of 0.234 (p<0.05) on knowledge sharing. Model 3 included all the variables of this research. Showing no significant effects of the direct effects and the interaction variable on knowledge sharing. Meaning that hypothesis 2 is not supported. In addition, table 4 illustrates an interaction plot based on model 3 of the regression analysis. This table shows the relationship between interpersonal trust, perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing. Based on the findings from the regression analysis (no significant effect) and the interaction plot (no intersect), no moderation effect is found. At last, table 5 gives a summary of the hypothesis testing, based on the theory section combined with the results from the regression analysis.

Table 4 Illustration of interaction plot, based on the regression.

5

4,5 Low 4 Perceived Business 3,5 Diversity 3

2,5 High Perceived Knowledge Sharing Knowledge 2 Business 1,5 Diversity 1 Low Interpersonal Trust High Interpersonal Trust

Table 5, Results of hypothesis testing - Hierarchical linear regression.

Hypothesis Beta (ß) Results

H1 Interpersonal trust --> Knowledge sharing 0,471** Supported H2 Trust X diversity --> Knowledge sharing 1,354 Not supported

**. Correlation is significant at 0.01 (Two-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 (Two-tailed)

4.4 Robustness checks In order to check if there are any differences between groups within the dataset, the early- and latter responses were compared using a t-test. The early responses group included everyone that filled in the questionnaire before the first reminder (before 9th of April). The latter responses group included everyone that filled in the questionnaire after the first reminder (9th of April or later). As the dataset showed responses of the ‘early responses’ between 26th of March and 5th of April; and the ‘latter responses’ between 9th of April and the 19th of April. This distinction seemed fair, as nobody responded on the 6th, 7th and 8th of April. No significant differences between the two groups were found. To check if there are any differences between genders, a t-test was computed as well. The groups were divided by males and females. But no significant differences between the two genders were found. At last, the dataset was tested for multicollinearity. According to the guidelines of Pallant (2016), the shared variance is too low if it’s below .00001, which means that the shared variance is

21

too unrelated. The shared variance is too high if it’s above .8, which means that the shared variance explains the same thing. The dataset is assumed safe, as the determinant was .151 and there were no correlations above 0.8. Despite high VIF values (>10) in the output of model 3 in the regression analysis, multicollinearity is believed to not be a problem as the values are assumed to be caused by the interaction variable. In addition, a principle component analysis was computed for interpersonal trust and business diversity. All items loaded on the coherent construct, meaning that multicollinearity is not a problem in this research.

4.5 Additional analysis While I did not explicitly propose a hypothesis on interpersonal trust as moderating variable, I did argue that perceived business diversity is believed to reinforce the relationship of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing and that interpersonal trust is believed to mitigate the perceived risk of exploitation. Even though the hypothesis for a moderation effect is not supported, a test was conducted if there is no reversed moderation effect. This could mean the higher the level of interpersonal trust, the stronger the relationship between perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing. The hierarchical regression analysis was repeated according to the hypothesis testing of §4.3. Model 1 and 2 were identical. Model 3, included the moderation variable ‘Reversed moderation’. Reversed moderation is an interaction term of Perceived business diversity * interpersonal trust. The results of model 1 & 2 were identical to the original regression analysis. Showing no significant effects based on the control variables and showing a positive significant effect of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing with a coefficient of 0.471 (p<0.01). Also perceived business diversity has the same positive and significant effect on knowledge sharing with a coefficient of 0.234 (p<0.05). Model 3 added the interaction ‘Reversed Moderation’ to the regression, showing no significant effects of the interaction variable on knowledge sharing and therefore ruling out a reversed moderation effect. All outcomes of the additional analysis can be found in appendix D.

22

5. Discussion

This research aims to empirically examine the influence of interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing in social partnerships. Knowledge sharing is beneficial for inter- organizational collaborations. More insights on knowledge sharing between individuals could advance the understanding of the phenomenon and increase effectiveness in social partnerships. The literature on knowledge sharing empirically validated the effect between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. However these findings were only established in collaborations between profit-organizations. As social partnerships are believed to involve different motivational behaviors, this research focusses on the context of social partnerships. Furthermore, this research examines the boundary conditions of perceived business diversity on the relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. This research was built on a cross sectional research design, with quantitative measures in a questionnaire. By using a library’s network of social partnerships, this context should fill the missing gap in knowledge on social partnerships. The sample consisted of 89 partner-organizations from different sectors. The results show a positive and significant effect of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 2 is not supported as perceived business diversity shows no significant moderation effect on the relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. In addition, the results show a positive and significant effect of perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing. The results are interpreted by using theory in the theoretical implications section. After pointing out some limitations and suggestions for future research, the practical implications are mentioned. At last, the conclusion will be presented.

5.1 Implications of hypothesis 1 The results of this research show there is a positive effect of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships. This indicates that when individuals have a higher level of trust in their partner, they share more knowledge. This is in line with Chang and Chuang (2011) as they find that when relationships are high with regard to trust, individuals are more willing to engage in social exchange and cooperative interaction. Furthermore, this is in line with McEvily et al. (2003), as they argue that more trust increases knowledge sharing by encouraging the disclosure of knowledge to others by granting others access to one’s own knowledge. The mechanisms that are believed to be responsible for the relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing, run through interaction patterns, willingness to help and mitigate risk perceptions (e.g. Chiu et al., 2006; Hau et al, 2013; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Wu et al. 2009) 23

Although previous literature has generally shown a positive effect of interpersonal trust on knowledge sharing, the theory section (§2.3) presented two studies which had not been able to validate the relation between trust and knowledge sharing (Chow & Chan, 2008; Li, 2005). The difference between Chow and Chan (2008) and my research is believed to finds its origin in the measures of knowledge sharing. Chow and Chan (2008) did not find support for social trust influencing attitude towards knowledge sharing, but they did not test the relation between social trust and intention to share knowledge. The construct ‘intention to share knowledge’ in their research is much more alike the measure of knowledge sharing in this research. Therefore no meaningful implications can be established. Li (2005) tested if the relationship of trust on inward transfer to the subsidiary from relationship ties, will be more important in inter-organizational relationships than in HQ- subsidiary relationships. Because of their nature of the construct and the test between two forms of relationships, their findings cannot be compared to the findings of this research. Thus, no insightful remarks can be made based on these two researches as they are to dissimilar relative to this research. As argued, trust is important for successful partnerships in both profit and nonprofit sectors. The findings of this research present a relatively high mean of interpersonal trust between individuals in social partnerships (4.25 – 5 point scale), emphasizing the importance of trust. One of the differences between profit and non-profit partnerships is that non-profit partnerships work together to a common goal instead of financial gain (Shaw, 2003). This could mean that knowledge sharing comes more natural in social partnerships than in profit partnerships, as it potentially increases the success of reaching a common goal. Besides, a common goal reduces opportunistic behaviors and therefore possibly also risk perceptions of the knowledge provider (Das & Teng, 2001). Furthermore, key individuals in successful partnerships emphasize that it is important to like each other (Shaw, 2003). Friendship and kindness are believed to increase trust between individuals (Bock, Zmud, Kim & Lee, 2005). This could explain the high mean for interpersonal trust. Finally, in successful social partnerships personal experience with the other precedes the partnerships (Shaw, 2003). This is interesting because the theory indicated that the ability of two organizations to work together is a function of the ability of their representatives to understand each other, and past personal experience contributes to this ability. Thus, as personal experience precedes a partnerships, trust could potentially be (partly) established before the partnerships.

5.2 Implications of hypothesis 2 It was hypothesized that the higher the level of perceived business diversity, the stronger the relationship between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. Contrary to my expectation the hypothesis was not supported. One explanation for finding no support for hypothesis 2, could be 24

related to some methodological issues. A small sample size reduces the power of the research and increases the margin of error (the response was 57 in a network of 104 partners). As the regression analysis included multiple variables, the potential explained variance per variable would increase when the sample size is larger. Thus, not finding a significant effect size could potentially be caused by a small sample size. In addition, to check if there is no sign of a ‘Reversed moderation effect’ in the empirical data an additional analysis was performed, resulting in no significant effects. Thus, this research does not support a possible explanation of interpersonal trust reinforcing the relationship between perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing. Another explanation for finding no support for hypothesis 2, could be related to social capital theory. For individuals to acquire relevant knowledge, organizations must rely on connections to external organizations and individuals as they grant access to new information, expertise, and ideas (Anand et al. 2002). These so called cognitive resources are important for meaningful knowledge exchange. It could be the case that individuals in social partnerships focus less on gaining new knowledge than in partnerships between profit organizations. This would then be in line with the findings of Shaw (2003), as he states that partnerships between non-profit organizations and public agencies want to accomplish common goals and share information with each other, rather than gain financial benefits. Finally, finding no support could be related to the social exchange theory. According to Blau (1964), social exchange theory posits that individuals engage in social interaction based on an expectation that it will lead in some way to social rewards such as approval, reputation, or respect. In this case such social rewards may come in the form of reciprocity, potentially increasing the relation between trust and knowledge sharing. This is in line with Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), as they state that in order to share knowledge, individuals must assume that their contribution towards others will be worth the effort and that some new value will be created, with expectations of receiving some of that value for themselves. Furthermore, Wasko and Faraj (2005) find that in electronic networks, operations are facilitated by a strong sense of reciprocity along with a strong sense of fairness. This means that many favors were given and received. As social partnerships potentially focus more on communication and reaching common goals than on gaining new knowledge these mechanisms may be more applicable.

5.3 Additional implications The results of this research show a positive effect of perceived business diversity on knowledge sharing in social partnerships. This indicates that when individuals perceive a higher level of business diversity in their partner, they share more knowledge. Despite that there was no hypothesis proposed on this 25

effect, this section explains the theoretical implications. Based on the arguments of hypothesis 2, Jayasingam et al. (2010) & Liao et al. (2008) argue that for the knowledge provider, knowledge sharing includes the risk of losing competitive advantage over a competitor by revealing valuable information. This seems to fit the positive relation between perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing, as more diverse partners do not compete over resources and competitive advantage. However, Shaw (2003) finds that non-profit organizations and public agencies do not form social partnerships for financial gain. This seems contrary to the findings as it indicates that competitive advantage is less relevant in social partnerships. It is possible that the arguments of Jayasingam et al. (2010) and Liao et al., (2008) are still partly relevant. Individuals still assess their risks before knowledge sharing, but they may focus more on risks such as exploitation and opportunistic behaviors (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Thus, perceived business diversity could overcomes certain barriers which would otherwise hamper knowledge sharing. The literature on team learning widely accepts that knowledge sharing is a requirement for heterogeneous team members and that knowledge sharing is established through collaborative interaction (Sapsed et al., 2002). This is in line with the findings of this research that more perceived business diversity leads to more knowledge sharing between individuals of different organizations. However, this could mean one of two things. As earlier mentioned, more perceived business diversity overcomes barriers and therefore increases knowledge sharing as one’s intention to share knowledge increases. Or as individuals are more diverse from each other, they have more dissimilar knowledge base. This means that an individual feels more need to share knowledge in order to get functionally aligned with another (Cheung, Gong, Wang, Zhou & Shi, 2016). As the relation between perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing is positive, one could assume that the more diverse the partners, the more successful knowledge sharing. However, only very disperse partners is not the solution. From an innovation perspective, individuals should possess different but complementary knowledge in addition to shared knowledge for successful innovation (Cooke, Salas, Cannon-Bowers & Staut, 2000). Meaning that to enhance performance during innovation processes, individuals’ heterogeneity needs to be dealt with through collaborative interaction, but without completely dissolving the distinction between the knowledge bases. Combining these streams of literature has enabled me to identify when knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships is influenced by interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity. The findings pinpoint some interesting theoretical implications for the literature on social partnerships. Although I had to reject hypothesis 2, based on the literature I postulated some new hypothesis. Future research might benefit from that.

26

5.4 Limitations and future research Although this research has led to some interesting theoretical implications, the research is not without limitations. First, some limitation arise with the chosen research design. The research was conducted using a cross-sectional research design. The downside of this design is that the data is collected at one point in time. This indicates that the findings could be flawed or different in another time frame. Yet, it enabled me to investigate differences between individuals without the interference of changing policies for example. In addition, the data was collected with four other master-thesis-circle-students. This collaboration had as consequence that the number of items in the questionnaire were limited. Future studies will probably benefit from a questionnaire with more items per construct. Secondly, this research is unable to encompass all partnerships as the context was focused on social partnerships. Therefore, no (statistical) comparison can be made between social - and profit partnerships. However, by using arguments from profit partnerships literature, this research was able to explore and validate effects in social partnerships. As this research suggest that differences exist, further research should be carried out to establish differences in the mechanisms of trust, diversity and knowledge sharing between social- and profit partnerships. Third, the reader should bear in mind that this research focuses on the knowledge provider. As emphasized by Sankowska (2012), knowledge sharing is a process between knowledge provider and recipient. Further research could usefully explore knowledge sharing between both individuals. This potentially creates a better view on the process of knowledge sharing between individuals participating in social partnerships. Finally, this research included perceived business diversity. This measure was based on self- reported data from different sectors. Cheung et al., (2016) point out that individuals from different sectors can still be very similar in their knowledge base. For example, a HR-manager in one sector, is likely to have similar knowledge than a HR-manager in another sector. However, this research focused on perceived business diversity as it mechanisms may overcomes risk perceptions. These risk perceptions are believed to be greater within the same sector than in dissimilar ones. In order to expand the literature on business diversity, further research could also be conducted with business diversity as a direct measure. Future investigations, which take the same variables into account, might include reciprocity as moderator variable. The theoretical implications acknowledge that interpersonal trust affect knowledge sharing in social partnerships. But individuals in social partnerships are argued to focus more on social rewards, communication and reaching common goals than on gaining new knowledge. Reciprocity could potentially deepen the understanding of trust and knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships. 27

5.5 Managerial implications The findings of this research have some interesting implications for practitioners. Especially for managers who ought to increase knowledge sharing effectiveness between individuals in social partnerships. Social partnerships in this research context mainly consist of two individuals of two different organizations. It is therefore important to keep in mind that the managers of these social partnerships are not part of the day-to-day operations. One of the key implications lies within the procedure how managers select individuals for these partnerships. The results of this research confirm that interpersonal trust increase knowledge sharing in social partnerships. Therefore, knowledge sharing is only likely to occur when there is an atmosphere of trust and the knowledge provider is genuinely interested in helping another. Besides, the theoretical implications show that trust could be partly established before the partnership. This gives managers the opportunity to select individuals who already like/trust each other. If such possibility is not available, then it is at least as important for a managers to select individuals who do not dislike each other. When trust is already (partly) established, more knowledge will be shared. Another key implication lies within the communication and encouragement of managers towards individuals in social partnerships. The results show that perceived business diversity increase knowledge sharing in social partnerships. As knowledge providers assess perceived business diversity and knowledge sharing based on risk perceptions and individual benefits, it is important for them to know “What is in it for me?”. Therefore, managers can increase effective knowledge sharing by underscoring individual-, organizational- and shared benefits of the social partnership. When the benefits are significant enough and well known to the knowledge provider, it can overcome risk barriers and increase knowledge sharing. At last, managers interested in encouraging and sustaining knowledge sharing in social partnerships may develop substantial mechanisms that can motivate individuals to participate in knowledge sharing. It is thereby important to keep in mind that individuals engage in social interaction based on an expectation that it will lead in some way to social rewards such as approval, reputation, or respect. Thus, besides emphasizing multi-level benefits, managers can make social rewards coherent to the knowledge provider’s expectations in such a way that it potentially reinforces knowledge sharing.

28

5.6 Conclusion The aim of this research was to empirically examine the influence of interpersonal trust and perceived diversity on knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships. Knowledge sharing is beneficial for inter-organizational collaborations, therefore more insights on knowledge sharing between individuals could advance the understanding of the phenomenon and increase effectiveness in social partnerships. To achieve this aim the following research question was formulated;

“To what extent does interpersonal trust influence knowledge sharing in social partnerships, and to what extent does perceived business diversity moderate this relationship?”

In answering the research question, it can be concluded that both interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity have a positive significant effect on knowledge sharing in social partnerships. The results show no moderation effect of perceived business diversity on the relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. Figure 3 shows an updated conceptual model derived from the results.

Interpersonal Trust 0,471** R² = 0,306

Knowledge Sharing 1,354

Perceived Business 0,234*

Diversity * p < .05, ** p < .01

Figure 3: New conceptual model derived from the results

Although there were some significant results in this research there is yet more to understand. As the level of interpersonal trust of the knowledge provider increases, one is more willing to engage in social exchange and cooperative interaction, thus increasing knowledge sharing. However, theory indicates that key personnel in social partnerships genuinely like each other, and that often personal experience with a partner precedes a partnership. These implications indicate that interpersonal trust could potentially be (partly) established before a social partnership. Furthermore, as the level of perceived business diversity of the knowledge provider increases, one has a lower risk perception for knowledge spillovers and comparative advantage, thus increasing knowledge sharing. This argument was based on profit partnerships, while theory indicates that in

29

successful non-profit partnerships focus on reaching a common goal instead of financial gain. Despite that competitive advantage is less relevant for social partnerships, individuals still assess their risks before knowledge sharing. Thus, as an individual perceives a partner as more diverse, this overcomes certain barriers which would otherwise hamper knowledge sharing. The findings of this research can be generalized towards individuals participating in social partnerships. These social partnerships are characterized by two individuals involved in the collaboration without direct management, and by partnerships in which both partners have a significant role. This is important for managers, because it indicates that managers can influence the knowledge sharing effectiveness by carefully selecting the right individuals for a social partnerships. Or at least to make sure that the individuals collaborating in a social partnership do not dislike each other, as this hampers the establishment of trust and therefore the process of knowledge sharing. Moreover, knowledge providers assess whether or not to share knowledge based on risk perceptions and personal benefits. Thus, managers can increase effective knowledge sharing by underscoring individual-, organizational- and shared benefits of the social partnership. When the benefits are significant and well known to the knowledge provider, this can overcome risk barriers and increase knowledge sharing. To conclude, our global community is facing numerous challenges such as, poverty, unemployment, hunger, climate change, resource-depletion, and environmental degradation, as well as the potential impact of the latest technological revolution. Global welfare relies on social partnerships to succeed and overcome these challenges. As interpersonal trust and perceived business diversity increase knowledge sharing between individuals in social partnerships, they add to the assurance that partners can trust each other and that valid information can flow freely between them. Thus, understanding trust, business diversity and knowledge sharing in social partnerships has brought our society one step closer in helping to ‘make this world a better place’.

30

6. References

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(4), 271-283. Ahmed, H., Albers, B., Elhaddouti, R., Florack, T. & Hoppenbrouwers, P. (2008). Stakeholder collaboration: Research in influential factors of satisfaction among stakeholders. Science Shop Tilburg University. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167. Anand, V., Glick, W. H., & Manz, C. C. (2002). Thriving on the knowledge of outsiders: Tapping organizational social capital. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 87-101. Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychological filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 2322-2380. Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: Learning from the experience of others. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1), 1-8. Arthur, J. B., & Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159-1170. Babcock, P. (2004). Shedding light on knowledge management. HR magazine, 49(5), 46-51. Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 64-76. Becerra-Fernandez, I., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 23-55. Bhatt, G. D. (1998). Managing knowledge through people. Knowledge and Process Management, 5(3), 165-171. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS quarterly, 87-111. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of management review, 27(4), 505-522. Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1),

31

50-65 Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. The international journal of human resource management, 16(5), 720-735. Chang, H. H., & Chuang, S. S. (2011). Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Information & management, 48(1), 9-18. Chang, Y. B., & Gurbaxani, V. (2012). Information technology outsourcing, knowledge transfer, and firm productivity: an empirical analysis. MIS quarterly, 1043-1063. Chen, Y. H., Lin, T. P., & Yen, D. C. (2014). How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge sharing: The impact of trust. Information & Management, 51(5), 568-578. Cheng, J. H., Yeh, C. H., & Tu, C. W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 283-295. Cheung, S. Y., Gong, Y., Wang, M., Zhou, L., & Shi, J. (2016). When and how does functional diversity influence team innovation? The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of affect-based trust in a team. human relations, 69(7), 1507-1531. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888. Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & management, 45(7), 458-465. Cohen, D. (1998). Toward a knowledge context: Report on the first annual UC Berkeley forum on knowledge and the firm. California management review, 40(3), 22-39. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd. Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 544-560. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42(1), 151-173. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization studies, 22(2), 251-283. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press. De Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant (n.d). Beleidsplan 2016-2019 [Policy document]. Retrieved from https://www.bibliotheeknieuwestijl.nl/beleidsplan/ Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: 32

Current themes and future prospects. Journal of management studies, 45(4), 677-690. Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of product innovation management, 26(2), 123-138. Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 195-218. Foss, N. J. (1996). Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments. Organization science, 7(5), 470-476. Gilbert M, Krause H. 2002. Practice exchange in a best practice marketplace. In Knowledge Management Case Book: Siemens Best Practices Davenport TH, Probst GJB, (eds). Publicis Corporate Publishing: Erlangen, Germany; 89–105. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 109-122. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of management studies, 40(2), 321-347. Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. G. (2013). The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356-366. Henry, R. A. (1995). Improving group judgment accuracy: Information sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 190-197. Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 991-999. Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of knowledge management, 14(1), 128-140. Ipe, M. (2003). Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework. Human resource development review, 2(4), 337-359. Jackson, S. E., Hitt, M. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2003). Managing human resources for knowledge-based competition: New research directions. Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management, 399-428. Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing knowledge workers: the power of top management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(1), 134-151. Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. B. (2008). Temporary Inter-organizational Projects. In The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations. 33

Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships—inside the black box. International Journal of project management, 22(3), 175-182. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science, 3(3), 383-397. Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects tf conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of management journal, 50(4), 885-900. Li, L. (2005). The effects of trust and shared vision on inward knowledge transfer in subsidiaries’ intra- and inter-organizational relationships. International Business Review, 14(1), 77-95. Liao, S. H., Fei, W. C., & Liu, C. T. (2008). Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation, 28(4), 183-195. Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of manpower, 28(3/4), 315-332. Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 69(2), 133-147. Loebbecke, C., van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (2016). Managing inter-organizational knowledge sharing. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 25(1), 4-14. Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 87-101. Marabelli, M., & Newell, S. (2012). Knowledge risks in organizational networks: The practice perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 21(1), 18-30. Marm-Garcia, J. A., & Zarate-Martinez, E. (2007). A theoretical review of knowledge management and team working in the organizations. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 2(4), 278-288. Maurer, I. (2010). How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629-637. McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization science, 14(1), 91-103. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: a meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535. Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration, 32-62. 34

Mohammed-Fathi, N., Cyril Eze, U., & Guan Gan Goh, G. (2011). Key determinants of knowledge sharing in an electronics manufacturing firm in Malaysia. Library Review, 60(1), 53-67. Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. (2005). Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26(3), 415-441. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (2000). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. In Knowledge and social capital (pp. 119-157). Nonaka, I. (2000). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. In Knowledge, groupware and the internet (pp. 3-42). Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., & Umemoto, K. (1996). A theory of organizational knowledge creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 11(7-8), 833-845. Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software project teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12(3), 67. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step By Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS Program (6th ed.). London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education. Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision support systems, 39(4), 599-617. Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Thompson, F., & Zhang, J. (2006). Knowledge sharing in cross-boundary information system development in the public sector. Information Technology and Management, 7(4), 293-313. Pinjani, P., & Palvia, P. (2013). Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Information & Management, 50(4), 144-153. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539- 569. Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 7-27. Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of knowledge management, 9(3), 18-35. Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 61-76. Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of economic literature, 35

34(2), 701-728. Rutten, W., Blaas-Franken, J., & Martin, H. (2016). The impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 20(2), 199-214. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human factors, 50(3), 540-547. Sankowska, A. (2013). Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and firm's innovativeness. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 85-100. Sapsed, J., Bessant, J., Partington, D., Tranfield, D., & Young, M. (2002). Team working and knowledge management: a review. International journal of management reviews, 4(1), 71-85. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of management, 31(6), 849-873.Senge, P. (1997). Sharing knowledge: the leader's role is key to a learning culture. Executive excellence, 14, 17-17. Shaw, M. M. (2003). Successful collaboration between the nonprofit and public sectors. Nonprofit management and leadership, 14(1), 107-120. Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 45-62. Spender, J. C., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm. Strategic management journal, 5-9. Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal, 17(S2), 27-43. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723-740. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. United Nations (2017). Partnerships ‘the only way’ to tackle global challenges, says UN industrial development chief. [Press release]. Retrieved from https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/11/ 637432-partnerships-only-way-tackle-global-challenges-says-un-industrial-development Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., & Lyles, M. A. (2008). Inter-and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of management studies, 45(4), 830-853. Waddell, S. (2005). Societal learning and change. How Governments, Business and Civil Society are Creating Solutions to Complex Multi-Stakeholder Problems. Sheffield, Greenleaf. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human resource management review, 20(2), 115-131. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge 36

contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57. Wickramasinghe, V., & Widyaratne, R. (2012). Effects of interpersonal trust, team leader support, rewards, and knowledge sharing mechanisms on knowledge sharing in project teams. Vine, 42(2), 214-236. Wu, W. L., Lin, C. H., Hsu, B. F., & Yeh, R. S. (2009). Interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing: Moderating effects of individual altruism and a social interaction environment. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 37(1), 83-93 Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 15(2), 299-312. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization science, 9(2), 141- 159. Zárraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2003). Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: an empirical analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1227-1245. Zimmermann, A., & Ravishankar, M. N. (2014). Knowledge transfer in IT offshoring relationships: the roles of social capital, efficacy and outcome expectations. Information Systems Journal, 24(2), 167-202.

37

7. Appendices

7.1 Appendix A – Operationalization table

Concept Definition Indicators Calculatin scores Reference

"Knowledge sharing is the 1A I believe that we trust each other a lot in this project team. 1A Answers are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from willingness of individuals to share “strongly disagree” (1) – “strongly agree” (5) Knowledge with others the knowledge they 1B I think I can count on the other members in this project team. Gilbert & Krause, (2002); Sharing have acquired or created." 1B Answers are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Xue et al., (2011) “strongly disagree” (1) – “strongly agree” (5)

"The extent of a boundary-spanning 2A I often participate in knowledge sharing activities in this project team. 2A Answers are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from agent's trust in her counterpart in “strongly disagree” (1) – “strongly agree” (5) Interpersonal the partner organization." 2B I usually share my knowledge with the other members of this project Zaheer et al., (1998); Trust Langfred, (2007) team. 2B Answers are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) – “strongly agree” (5)

"The extent to which an individual 3A To what extent does this project belong to your organization’s core- 3A Answers are given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from assesses a project partner as diverse business? “Totally” (1) – “Not at all” (5) to it's own organization core- business." 3B Under which category fits your organizations? Perceived diversity was calculated per respondent using the o Education (1) average scores of all projects. Perceived o Government (2) Ahmed et al., (2008) Diversity o Cultural (3) 3B To check if the majority of the partners do not represent one o Social- & Welfare (4) or a few sectors/institutions, the second indicator is included. o Business (5) o Sponsor (6) o Other, namely (7) ______

4A What is your gender? 4A To balance the results, the respondents are checked on equal Gender o Male (1) distribution (Accepted when 54,5% and 45,5% or visa versa). Ohja (2005) o Female (2) 5A How many employees where working in your firm in 2017? 5A Firm size was redistributed based on a frequency table. An o ≤ 50 (1) equal distribution aligns when using the following categories: Muthusamy & White Firm Size o Between 50 and 250 (2) o ≤ 50 employees (1) o ≥ 250 (3) o > 50 (2) (2005)

6A How long have you been working together with BMB? 6A Duration of partnership was redistributed based on a o 6 months or less (1) frequency table. An equal distribution aligns when using the Duration of o 12 months or less (2) following categories: Hardy et al. (2003) partnership o 24 months or less (3) o ≤ 1 year (1) o 36 months or less (4) o > 1 year (2) o More than 36 months (5)

7.2 Appendix B – Data strategy

This appendix contains all documents substantiating the data strategy, containing in following order: “Extensive empirical setting, categorization of partners, questionnaire, and information letter scientific research.”

Extensive empirical setting

The empirical setting of this study consists of an ego centric network of social partnerships, centered on ‘Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant’ (from this point forward called as ‘BMB’), a foundation of Libraries in the Middle-Brabant-region. BMB is the largest public library of the province Noord-Brabant and with their 16 branches they serve 336,000 citizens of Midden-Brabant, including the municipalities of Tilburg, Goirle, Hilvarenbeek, Loon op Zand, Oisterwijk and Waalwijk. Their mission is to “Make the world of people bigger”, by making knowledge and stories more pleasant & accessible. BMB beliefs that they can improve the lives of their target audience by reinforcing their cognitive luggage and imagination. And therefore stimulating them to move forward by looking further. Last year, BMB had 70.757 members, 2.398.290 loans, 1.471.498 visitors and a collection of 573.737 items (De Bibliotheek Midden Brabant, n. d.). In 2015, the BMB adopted a new policy introducing the ‘Library New Style’. In a changing society, the role of libraries changes as well. Therefore, BMB adds new dimensions to their operations by strengthening social significance and focusing on connection and co-creation with their environment. This policy aims at increasing the societal relevance of BMB by: “helping people develop themselves by creating, sharing and making knowledge and stories accessible”. This is realized by combining their daily operations with additional activities, organized by BMB in collaboration with their numerous strategic partners, who are active in a variety of sectors, such as the educational-, social- and cultural sector. This setting is very interesting, as BMB changed its way of working and started the Library New Style. These changes were necessary due to the changing environment of BMB’s operations and the shifts in their user’s wishes. Less people visit libraries to lend books, with the consequence that libraries become less relevant or even have to shut down. It is also a topical setting, as all libraries need to find a new way of doing business to keep existing. The way BMB was able to change their business plan and make a comeback, is in my professional opinion both progressive and lasting. Besides being interesting, this setting is also suitable for answering my research question. As BMB initiates and/or participates in many inter-organizational collaborations with a great diversity of partners to organize events for their users and the community. The library’s network is therefore vast, knowledge intensive and diverse which makes it a perfect network to study the effects of trust, diversity and knowledge sharing in social partnerships. Initially, BMB contacted Tilburg University to help them with a research project. Thanks to Dr. R. Rutten our thesis-circle got the opportunity to participate in this research and at the same time, carry out our own researches for our master theses. At first Dr. R. Rutten was the contact person. However, this changed when we started developing the survey and we got in contact with Els Liebregts, the contact person between BMB and Tilburg University, and Herman Horst, the director of the Library. In order to elaborate on my level of analysis of my outcome variable, I have included a diagram that depicts the empirical context (see image below). This diagram represents an example of an initiative/project called “Scoor een boek”. BMB (or as formal called: ‘Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant’) is positioned in the upper-left corner. In this example, four partners participate. Often only one individual represent a partner, so only one single persons will be observed for each partner. Thus, each project team consists of multiple individuals/representatives of different organizations. Each individual represents my unit of observation AND my unit of analysis. In addition, in this study, a project team refers to the individuals directly involved in the organization of an event.

40

Categorization of partners

The projects BMB organized in alone or in collaboration with their partners were categorized prior to the distribution of the questionnaire. The categorization was a wish of BMB with the aim to divide the projects based on a set of criteria and separated by their intensity of collaboration. In this way only the projects were included in the research in which both the library and the partners played a significant role in the collaboration. The categorization lead to four categories as visualized in the image below.

Category 1: Producing collaboration This category applies when BMB takes the initiative for the collaboration and it has an influence on the program and the aim of the event.

Category 2: Connecting collaboration BMB takes the initiative for the collaboration but has barely a role in the execution of the event.

Category 3: Executive collaboration The initiative for the collaboration comes mainly from a partner but the execution of the event is done mainly by the Library.

Category 4: Supporting collaboration The initiative for the collaboration comes mainly from the partner and the Library has barely or not at all influence or participates in the execution of an event. The Library has mainly a facilitating role.

For this research, only the partners categorized in category 1 and 3 received a survey. However, there were two exceptions. The first exception was for the category 2, when a collaboration was relatively new with and/or had an innovative character, it was included in the sample. The second exception was for the category 3, when a collaboration had an invoice it was not included in the sample.

41

7.3 Appendix C – Questionnaire

Start of Block: Introductie

Q1 Beste deelnemer,

Bedankt voor het openen van deze vragenlijst. De Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant is een samenwerking gestart met Tilburg University om te onderzoeken of de evenementen die de Bibliotheek organiseert in samenwerking met haar partners effectief zijn en welke invloed het heeft op de gemeenschap.

Om dit te onderzoeken, vragen wij u om bijgaande vragenlijst in te vullen. Het duurt ongeveer 7/15 minuten. De verworven gegevens zullen op een anonieme manier verwerkt worden. De vragen over de projecten hebben betrekking op alle projecten waaraan u mee heeft gewerkt in het jaar 2017.

Indien u geïnteresseerd bent in de resultaten van het onderzoek, kunt u aan het einde van de vragenlijst uw e-mail doorgeven. Wij zullen na afloop van het onderzoek een artikel naar u sturen. Voor eventuele vragen, kunt u mailen naar Els Liebregts: [email protected]

- Deze vragenlijst is goedgekeurd door de Ethics Review Board van Tilburg University. - De data die met deze vragenlijst wordt verzameld zal 10 jaar worden opgeslagen, na afronding van de huidige studie van alle deelnemers. - U bent zich ervan bewust dat deze vragenlijst vrijwillig is en dat u hem ten alle tijden af kan breken, zonder het opgeven van een reden. - U heeft de aankondiging gelezen betreft het doel en de beschrijving van het onderzoek. - U heeft genoeg tijd gehad om vragen te stellen en deze zijn ook voldoende beantwoord.

Door te beginnen aan de vragenlijst, gaat u akkoord met alle bovenstaande informatie.

Alvast hartelijk bedankt voor uw deelname!

Studenten van Tilburg University (Master Organization Studies)

End of Block: Introductie

Start of Block: Vooraf

Q2 De naam van uw organisatie

______

42

Q103 Onder welke categorie valt uw organisatie?

o Onderwijsinstelling (1) o Overheidsinstelling (2) o Culturele instelling (3) o Sociale- en welzijnsinstelling (4) o Zakelijke instelling (5) o Sponsor (6) o Anders, namelijk (7) ______

Q3 Uw functie in uw organisatie

______

Q9 Hoeveel mensen werkten er ongeveer in uw organisatie in 2017?

o Minder dan 50 (1) o Tussen de 50 en 250 (2) o Meer dan 250 (3)

Q11 Hoe lang werkt u al samen met de Bibiliotheek Midden-Brabant?

o 6 maanden of minder (1) o 12 maanden of minder (2) o 24 maanden of minder (3) o 36 maanden of minder (4) o Meer dan 36 maanden (5)

End of Block: Vooraf

43

Start of Block: Algemene vragen

Q5 Hoe beoordeelt u in het algemeen de Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant als partner? Slecht (1) Matig (2) Voldoende (3) Goed (4) Uitstekend (5)

Toegankelijkheid (1) o o o o o Deskundigheid (2) o o o o o Snelheid van handelen (3) o o o o o Betrouwbaarheid (4) o o o o o

Daadkracht (5) o o o o o

Q6 Hoe belangrijk zijn onderstaande redenen voor uw organisatie om samen te werken met de Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant? Zeer Onbelangrijk Zeer onbelangrijk Neutraal (3) Belangrijk (4) (2) belangrijk (5) (1) Bereiken van nieuwe o o o o doelgroepen (1) o Behalen van kostenvoordelen o o o o (2) o Ontwikkelen van nieuwe kennis o o o o (3) o Externe druk om samen te o o o o werken (4) o

End of Block: Algemene vragen

Start of Block: Vragen over uw projecten - 1

44

Q14 Hierna volgen een aantal vragen over de projecten/activiteiten waar u aan mee heeft gewerkt in het jaar 2017. Indien u aan meerdere projecten/activiteiten heeft meegewerkt, graag alle projecten/activiteiten apart beoordelen. Er worden nieuwe antwoordpagina's geladen.

Q15 Naam van het project/activiteit

______

Q4 Wat is uw rol in het project/activiteit?

______

Q16 Doel van het project/activiteit

______

Q127 Hoe vaak heeft dit project/activiteit zich herhaald in 2017?

______

Q21 Hoeveel bezoekers heeft elke herhaling van het project/activiteit bereikt? (Graag per herhaling

45

aangeven)

▢ Herhaling 1 (1) ______▢ Herhaling 2 (2) ______▢ Herhaling 3 (3) ______▢ Herhaling 4 (4) ______▢ Herhaling 5 (5) ______▢ Herhaling 6 (6) ______

Q18 Wie nam het initiatief voor het project/activiteit?

o Uw organisatie (1) o Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant (2) o Anders, namelijk (3) ______

Q22 Hoeveel mensen in uw organisatie waren er bij het project/activiteit betrokken?

______

Q19 Wat is de geschatte totale bijdrage van de eigen organisatie aan het project/activiteit?

▢ Uren (1) ______▢ Kosten (in €) (2) ______▢ Overige, namelijk (3) ______

Q23 Hoeveel verschillende partnerorganisaties, met uw organisatie inbegrepen, waren er bij het

46

project/activiteit betrokken en wie zijn deze?

▢ Nummer partnerorganisaties (1) ______▢ Namen partnerorganisaties (2) ______

Q25 In hoeverre is het project/activiteit belangrijk voor uw organisatie?

o Heel erg onbelangrijk (1) o Onbelangrijk (2) o Matig (3) o Belangrijk (4) o Heel erg belangrijk (5)

Q26 In hoeverre behoort het project/activiteit tot uw core-business?

o Totaal niet (1) o Bijna niet (2) o Een beetje (3) o Best veel (4) o Heel erg (5)

Q139 Geef aan in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende stellingen. Als er wordt gesproken over een projectteam dan bedoelen we het team bestaande uit de hoofdcontactperso(o)n(en) van alle

47

organisaties die aan het project/activiteit hebben meegewerkt.

Zeer mee Mee oneens Mee eens Zeer mee Neutraal (3) oneens (1) (2) (4) eens (5) Ik geloof dat we elkaar vertrouwden in o o o o dit projectteam o (1) Ik kon rekenen op andere mensen binnen dit o o o o o projectteam (2) Ik doe vaak mee aan kennisuitwisseling o o o o in dit projectteam o (3) Ik deel mijn kennis met andere leden van o o o o dit projectteam o (4) Onze samenwerking met het o o o o projectteam was o succesvol (5) We zijn tevreden met de uitkomsten van o o o o deze o samenwerking (6)

48

Q24 Hoe beoordeelt u de voortgang van het project/activiteit?

o Slecht (1) o Matig (2) o Voldoende (3) o Goed (4) o Zeer goed (5)

Q27 Heeft u in 2017 aan meer projecten/activiteiten met de bibliotheek samengewerkt?

o Nee (1) o Ja (2)

End of Block: Vragen over uw projecten - 1

Start of Block: Vragen over uw projecten

After block 1 follow block 2-5, these are identical to block 1. An extra block is only showed if a respondent answers ‘Ja’ at the last question of the block. To save some paper, block 2-5 are not included in this document.

Q82 Hieronder ziet u een lijst met partners waar de Bibliotheek Midden-Brabant mee samenwerkt. Wilt u per partner aangeven of u zelf ook met deze partner samenwerkt of dat u graag met deze partner zou willen samenwerken

49

Mijn organisatie wil Mijn organisatie werkt graag samenwerken Niet van toepassing (3) al met deze partner (1) met deze partner (2)

Alzheimer Nederland (1) o o o

Books4life (2) o o o

Buurtsport (3) o o o

CAST (4) o o o

CobbenHagen Center (5) o o o

Contour de Twern (6) o o o Creative Coding Tilburg (7) o o o

Erfgoed Partners (8) o o o

Fontys (9) o o o

Tilburg University (10) o o o

NWE Vorst (11) o o o

Paradox (12) o o o

Samen Top (13) o o o

Stadsmuseum (14) o o o

Stichting Senia (15) o o o

Taalvrijwilligers (16) o o o

50

Theaters Tilburg (17) o o o

Tilt (18) o o o

Vluchtelingenwerk (19) o o o

ZZPermee (20) o o o

End of Block: Partners

Start of Block: Vragen Leadership

Q129 De volgende vragen zijn meer persoonlijk gericht en hebben betrekking op uw gedrag in de werkomgeving binnen uw eigen organisatie met uw collega's. Denk hierbij aan situaties waarbij u met anderen samenwerkt.

Q130 Beoordeel de volgende stellingen: Bijna nooit Nooit (1) Soms (3) Vaak (4) Altijd (5) (2) In welke mate behaalt u uw gewenste doelen door uw collega's te vertellen wat ze o o o o o moeten doen? (1) In welke mate behaalt u uw gewenste doelen door uw collega's vrij te laten om o o o o hun eigen beslissingen te o nemen? (2) In welke mate gebruikt u onderhandelingstechnieken om uw gewenste doelen te o o o o o behalen? (3) In welke mate overlegt u met collega's voordat uzelf een beslissing neemt om o o o o uw gewenste doelen te o behalen? (4)

End of Block: Vragen Leadership

Start of Block: Commentaar

51

Q141 Mocht u nog opmerkingen hebben of uw antwoorden willen nuanceren, dan kunt u dat hieronder aangeven.

______

End of Block: Commentaar

Start of Block: Email

Q81 In het geval u geïnteresseerd bent in de resultaten van het onderzoek, kunt u hier uw email adres opgeven.

______

End of Block: Email

52

Information letter scientific research

Title of theses: 1. “The correct size of an interorganizational collaboration and the moderating effect of similarities between leadership styles” 2. “The influence of knowledge sharing between partners on partners' collaboration satisfaction, does similarity in leadership styles matter?” 3. “Trust and effectiveness in interorganizational teams, does the number of team members matter?” 4. “Understanding inter-organizational collaboration satisfaction: A study of the Library of Midden Brabant” 5. “When interpersonal trust and diversity influence knowledge sharing behavior in inter- organizational project teams?”

Investigators: 1. Isabelle Galofaro ([email protected]), 2. Daniëlle Hendriks([email protected]), 3. Milou van der Hoeven ([email protected]), 4. Annika Wortelboer ([email protected]), 5. Zeb Bergsma ([email protected]).

Date: 01-04-2018

Aim & Procedure The aim of this study is to map the network of the Library and to find out what the impact is of the Library on her community. Underlying this aim, everybody has its own goal to find answers to their research question. The data will be collected by using questionnaires. The questionnaires will be sent by e-mail. A questionnaire will be sent to contact persons of the Library of Middle Brabant. Another questionnaire will be sent to the contact persons of the partner organizations of the Library of Middle Brabant. We received all the contact details from the Library of Middle Brabant.

Exclusion criteria You cannot participate in this study when you were not involved in any way in the collaboration with the Library of Midden Brabant.

Confidentiality of the research data All data collected in the current study remain confidential. Obtained data are coded, so that there is no link with personal identifiers, and data can be accessed only by the investigators mentioned in this letter. We will use the data for scientific publications. Results can never be traced back to an individual participant. We are obligated to store the raw data 10 years after completion of the study. By consenting to participate, you consent to the storage of your data. If you do not want that, you cannot participate.

53

Voluntary participation You yourself decide whether you want to participate in the current study or not. Participation is voluntary. When you decide to participate, you may always reconsider and quit. Also during the experiment.

Further information If you need more information on the study in order to decide whether or not to participate, you may contact one of the investigators. In case of complaints regarding the current study, you may contact the TSB Ethics Review Board at [email protected].

Informed consent - I have read the participant information letter. I have been given the opportunity to ask questions. Questions that I did have, have been sufficiently answered. I have had sufficient time to decide to participate. - I realize that participation is voluntary. I know that I can decide to quit participation at any time. I do not have to provide a reason for quitting. - I agree to participate in the following research study: “research Library Middle-Brabant”. - I agree to the use of my data for the purpose described in the information letter. - I agree that my data is stored for 10 years after completion of the study. - I want to participate in this research study.

Name participant: ………………………………………………………………..

Signature: Date : __ / __ / __

54

55

7.4 Appendix D – Analyzes

Scale reliability

Reliability analysis

Item-to-total Factor Variables Cronbach's α % Total variance correlation loading explained

Interpersonal trust 0,847 63,658 TRST1 0,759 0,862** TRST2 0,759 0,985**

Knowledge sharing 0,709 20,59 KSB1 0,587 0,761** KSB2 0,587 0,970**

Notes: α ≥ 0,7;**= p<0.001

Intercoder reliability Case Processing Summary

Cases Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent Indeling student * Indeling Els 30 100,0% 0 0,0% 30 100,0%

Indeling student * Indeling Els Crosstabulation

Indeling Els Count 1 2 3 Total Indeling student 1 21 1 0 22 2 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 7 7 Total 21 2 7 30

Symmetric Measures Asymptotic Approximate

Value Standard Errora Approximate Tb Significance Measure of Agreement Kappa ,922 ,075 5,946 ,000 N of Valid Cases 30 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

56

Project/activiteit Indeling student Indeling Els Opening culturele seizoen 1 1 Boektaxatie 1 1 Taalhuis 1 1 Bij de tijd, inspiratiepodium 1 1 Coderdojo 3 3 Dag van de democratie 2 2 Dementheek 1 1 Lezing belastingdienst 3 3 Rondleiding statushouders 3 3 Taalcafé vluchtelingen 1 1 Verkiezingsspecial 1 1 Vertelvoorstelling 1 1 Mannenemancipatie expertmeeting 1 1 Week van het water 3 3 Opening Dementheek + expo boekentafel 3 3 Tegenlicht MeetUp All in the Game 1 1 Gedichtendag 1 1 Online privacy Maar ik heb toch niks vergeten 1 1 Wereldse Ontmoeting 1 1 Boekverfilming Tiliander 3 3 Walk & Talk 1 2 Place to Bieb BalaDe 1 1 Alt Ctrl Hackman Hackthon 1 1 Jongeren Shake up - de verkiezingen 3 3 Science stories @ Festival Mundial 1 1 Herfstmeet-up Roze Maandag 1 1 Performance Workshop Junior Stadsdichter 1 1 ParaBIEBop ism Paradox 1 1 Opening Expo Beeldkracht + Expo Boekentafel 1 1 Lezing KLUUN i.v.k. Boekenweek 1 1

57

Histograms (Normal distribution + Bellcurve)

58

59

Additional analysis

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method 1 Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender . Enter (woman), More than 50 employeesb

2 Interpersonal_Trust, . Enter Core_Diversityb

3 Reversed_Moderationbc . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Knowledge_Sharing b. All requested variables entered. c. Reversed Moderation = Diversity X Trust

Model Summaryd Change Statistics Adjusted R Std. Error of the R Square Model R R Square Square Estimate Change F Change 1 ,138a ,019 -,037 ,73417 ,019 ,342 2 ,553b ,306 ,238 ,62937 ,287 10,560 3 ,563c ,317 ,235 ,63058 ,011 ,804

Model Summaryd Change Statistics Model df1 df2 Sig. F Change 1 3 53 ,795 2 2 51 ,000 3 1 50 ,374 a. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees b. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees, Interpersonal_Trust, Core_Diversity c. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees, Interpersonal_Trust, Core_Diversity, Reversed_Moderation d. Dependent Variable: Knowledge_Sharing

60

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression ,554 3 ,185 ,342 ,795b Residual 28,567 53 ,539

Total 29,121 56

2 Regression 8,919 5 1,784 4,504 ,002c Residual 20,201 51 ,396

Total 29,121 56

3 Regression 9,239 6 1,540 3,873 ,003d Residual 19,881 50 ,398

Total 29,121 56 a. Dependent Variable: Knowledge_Sharing b. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees c. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees, Interpersonal_Trust, Core_Diversity d. Predictors: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees, Interpersonal_Trust, Core_Diversity, Reversed_Moderation Coefficientsa Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t 1 (Constant) 3,693 ,198 18,678

Gender (woman) ,142 ,201 ,099 ,710 More than 50 employees -,195 ,230 -,120 -,848 Meer dan 1 jaar ,060 ,209 ,040 ,286 2 (Constant) ,593 ,696 ,852

Gender (woman) ,130 ,173 ,090 ,748 More than 50 employees -,072 ,200 -,044 -,357 Meer dan 1 jaar -,064 ,184 -,042 -,345 Core_Diversity ,195 ,101 ,234 1,933 Interpersonal_Trust ,571 ,143 ,471 4,004 3 (Constant) 4,125 3,999 1,031

Gender (woman) ,127 ,174 ,089 ,733 More than 50 employees -,093 ,202 -,057 -,461 Meer dan 1 jaar ,020 ,206 ,013 ,097 Core_Diversity -,732 1,038 -,879 -,705 Interpersonal_Trust -,259 ,937 -,214 -,277 Reversed_Moderation ,214 ,239 1,354 ,897 61

Coefficientsa Collinearity Statistics Model Sig. Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) ,000

Gender (woman) ,481 ,948 1,055 More than 50 employees ,400 ,922 1,085 Meer dan 1 jaar ,776 ,971 1,030 2 (Constant) ,398

Gender (woman) ,458 ,934 1,071 More than 50 employees ,722 ,892 1,121 Meer dan 1 jaar ,731 ,925 1,081 Core_Diversity ,034 ,925 1,081 Interpersonal_Trust ,000 ,983 1,017 3 (Constant) ,307

Gender (woman) ,467 ,934 1,071 More than 50 employees ,647 ,879 1,138 Meer dan 1 jaar ,923 ,737 1,358 Core_Diversity ,484 ,009 113,946 Interpersonal_Trust ,783 ,023 43,709 Reversed_Moderation ,374 ,006 166,918 a. Dependent Variable: Knowledge_Sharing Excluded Variablesa Collinearity Partial Statistics Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance 1 Core_Diversity ,273b 1,986 ,052 ,266 ,931 Interpersonal_Trust ,489b 4,064 ,000 ,491 ,989 Reversed_Moderation ,485b 3,920 ,000 ,478 ,951 2 Reversed_Moderation 1,354c ,897 ,374 ,126 ,006 Excluded Variablesa Collinearity Statistics Model VIF Minimum Tolerance 1 Core_Diversity 1,074 ,895 Interpersonal_Trust 1,011 ,917 Reversed_Moderation 1,051 ,896 2 Reversed_Moderation 166,918 ,006 a. Dependent Variable: Knowledge_Sharing b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Meer dan 1 jaar, Gender (woman), More than 50 employees, Interpersonal_Trust, Core_Diversity

62